Question

Learning to drive is important to the independence of teenagers, but it is also a great responsibility．Although having a law that keeps 16-year-old drivers from having more than one teenager in the car with them at first seems unfair, there are convincing reasons for this requirement．
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that teens are four times more likely than older drivers to be involved in an automobile accident．It also reports that 16-and 17-year-old drivers are twice as likely to have an accident if they have two teenage friends in the car and four times as likely to have one if they have three or more teenage friends in the car with them．Fatal （ 致命的） crashes of 16-year-old drivers involve the highest percentage of speeding, driver error, and number of passengers．This information is enough to cause any reasonable person to wonder about the wisdom of allowing new teen drivers to take a carload of friends anywhere, even if the law permits it．
A study at the National Institutes of Health indicates that the part of the human brain that controls judgment and evaluates the consequences of our actions might not be fully formed until the age of 25．Until this study, researchers had placed the age at 18．If this is true, it could explain the reckless （鲁莽的） behavior of many teens, behavior that often extends into their twenties．It also could be a strong reason for being cautious about the driving circumstances of young people．
This is not the only study that indicates such caution is necessary．One study at Temple University in Philadelphia examines the results of peer（同龄人） pressure in risky driving situations．The study, which uses a driving game, has an individual guide a car through a course, both alone and in the presence of friends．Three different age groups participated in the study: 13-16, 18-22, and 24 and older．Members of the oldest group showed caution whether driving alone or with friends present, but the two younger groups took more chances when they were with their friends．Furthermore, because these drivers were accustomed to the noise and distraction of many passengers, they were unable to see their own mistakes．Once again, this is a good indication that a law restricting the number of teenagers in the car with a young driver is a good idea．
小题1:What does the author mainly tell us in Paragraph 2?

A．Many deaths have occurred because of inexperience and overconfidence．

B．It' s reasonable to severely limit the passenger number of teen drivers．

C．New teen drivers have to ask permission before driving with friends．

D．There are many causes behind the teens' driving accidents．

小题2:From the two studies, the author probably suggests that ______．

A．different age groups have different peer pressure

B．teenagers often give wrong judgments above passengers' noise

C．underdeveloped brain makes teens ignore their mistakes

D．driving circumstances are bound up with（与…密切相关） the risk of accidents

小题3:We can infer that the law restriction can probably ______．

A．protect teens on the highway

B．raise teens' sense of responsibility

C．reduce the number of fatal crashes

D．force teens to drive with caution

小题4:With which statement would the author most likely disagree?

A．Some teenagers have risky behavior while driving．

B．Certain laws treat teenagers and adults differently．

C．We still need more studies on teen driving．

D．Driving is important to a teenager' s sense of independence．

Answer 1

小题1:B
小题2:D
小题3:A
小题4:C

试题分析：本文围绕法律限制车内青少年的人数这一论点展开论证，通过对两个研究的分析原因，论证了法律的可行性，科学性。该法律的最终结果就是为了保护高速路上的青少年。
小题1:从第一段最后一句there are convincing reasons for this requirement说明紧接第二段将论证法律规定16岁的年轻司机车内不能载超过一个青少年的原因，这样做是合理的。故选B
小题2:从第二段第一个研究中的结论It also could be a strong reason for being cautious about the driving circumstances of young people可知驾驶环境与事故的风险有密切联系。
小题3:BCD答案均为法律限制车内青少年的人数的直接目的，不是推断出来的，而A答案则是该法律的最终结果：保护高速路上的青少年，文章中并没提及，但可推断出来，故选A
小题4:文章作者通过两个研究均表明这条法律的可行性，科学性，故不会赞同做进一步的研究。所以C答案符合。
点评：本文围绕法律限制车内青少年的人数这一论点展开论证，通过对两个研究的分析原因，论证了法律的可行性，科学性。该法律的最终结果就是为了保护高速路上的青少年。本文层次很鲜明，按议论文的写法，提出论点，分析举例论证。集中考查推理题，对于考生在上下文中理解字里行间的能力要求较高。