懒笔记
2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 Part III Section C (1) Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident?
CET-4 · 来自 2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 · Part III Section C (1) · 阅读理解（四选一）

Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident?

2024年12月英语四级真题第3套文章逐层精读

本文节选自网站stuff.co.za于2020年12月2日发布的一篇题为 “Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident?” 的文章。

本页是 2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 Part III Section C (1) 文章的精读视角页——这篇说明文全文 349 词、5 段，CEFR 难度 C1（C1 级在英语四级文章中占 32%），作者立场为「消极批判」；英文原文之外，本篇已有的 11 项精读维度逐项展开，其中能迁移到其他英语四级真题文章的判断方法（篇章结构、修辞、言外之意、作者态度、体裁速判）随各维度一并讲透。

精读最佳实践

本页解析里的段号（P1）都可以点——点一下，原文在顶部翻开并定位到该段，解析引用的原文同步标亮；合上原文，你还停在刚才读到的位置。点 P1 试试。

PASSAGE · 文章原文

5 段英文原文

以下为2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 Part III Section C (1) 的阅读理解（四选一）原文，共 5 段。左侧 P1–P5 是段落编号——本页全部解析（结构、逐段、修辞、自检题）都以它为坐标回指原文，点击解析里的段号，原文即在顶部翻开并定位到该段、引用的原文同步标亮；合上原文仍停在当前阅读位置。原文保持卷面形态，不带翻译与标注。

Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident?

Research in human-vehicle interaction has shown even systems designed to automate driving are far from being error-proof. Recent evidence points to drivers' limited understanding of what these systems can and cannot do as a contributing factor to system misuse. A recent study tackles the issue of over-trusting drivers and the resulting system misuse from a legal viewpoint. It looks at what the manufacturers of self-driving cars should legally do to ensure that drivers understand how to use the vehicles appropriately.

One solution suggested in the study involves requiring buyers to sign end-user license agreements (EULAs), similar to the terms and conditions that require agreement when using new software products. But this is far from ideal. The agreement may not provide enough information to the driver, leading to confusion about the nature of the requests for agreement and their implications. Further, most end users don't read EULAs. A 2017 study shows 91 percent of people agree to them without reading. Among young people, 97 percent agree without reviewing the terms.

The issue is that, unlike using a smartphone app, operating a car has serious safety risks, whether the driver is human or software. And human drivers need to consent to take responsibility for the outcomes of the software and hardware.

"Warning fatigue" and distracted driving are also causes for concern. For example, a driver, annoyed after receiving continuous warnings, could decide to just ignore the message. Or, if the message is presented while the vehicle is in motion, it could represent a distraction. Given these limitations and concerns, even if this mode of obtaining consent is to move forward, it likely won't fully protect automakers from their legal liability should the system malfunction(发生故障) or an accident occur.

Driver training for self-driving vehicles can help ensure that drivers fully understand system capabilities and limitations. This needs to occur beyond the vehicle purchase. Recent evidence shows even relying on the information provided by the seller is not going to answer many questions. All of this considered, the road forward for self-driving cars is not going to be a smooth ride after all.

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

5 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 的这篇原文——每段给出英文段落主旨、段落标题与中文解读，并提炼一条「这段为什么这样读」的具体方法。

  1. P1

    Driver Misunderstanding and Legal Responsibility

    The paragraph introduces driver misunderstanding of self-driving systems and the legal duty of manufacturers to address it.

    本段承担 opening 的作用，它先证明自动驾驶的 proper use 并不理所当然，再提出法律责任这一分析框架。这样，后文对 EULAs、warning fatigue 和 driver training 的讨论，便都服务于“如何确保司机正确理解和使用系统”这一文章主旨。

    问题引入加研究焦点
  2. P2

    The Limits of EULAs

    Although EULAs are proposed to obtain driver consent, they are ineffective because drivers may not understand or read them.

    本段具体检验了前文所涉及的 legal duty 中一种可能做法，即让司机签署 EULAs。作者通过实际缺陷否定其充分性，从而推进全文论证：仅依靠形式上的 consent，无法保证司机真正理解自动驾驶系统。

    转折后否定签约方案
  3. P3

    Why Meaningful Consent Matters

    Because driving poses serious safety risks, drivers must meaningfully consent to responsibility for automated system outcomes.

    本段是对第二段的深层补充，它说明 EULAs 之所以不能被轻视，不只是因为人们懒得阅读，更因为 driving 的安全代价极高。该段为后文批评警告信息和提出 training 方案提供了责任与风险层面的依据。

    汽车不同于手机应用
  4. P4

    The Risks of Warning-Based Consent

    Warning-based consent can create fatigue and distraction, so it may not shield automakers from legal liability.

    本段进一步否定了依靠即时 warning 获取 consent 的可行性，并将技术沟通问题直接连接到 automakers 的法律风险。它使全文论证更严密：无论是书面 EULAs 还是行驶中的提示，单一的告知手段都不足以确保安全使用。

    警告过多反致忽视分心
  5. P5

    Training as a Necessary but Incomplete Solution

    Comprehensive and continuing driver training is necessary, but self-driving cars still face a difficult path forward.

    本段承担 conclusion 的功能，它在否定 EULAs 和 warning 提示等有限方法之后，提出更接近根本的 driver training。与此同时，作者保留谨慎判断，指出自动驾驶的 safe operation、信息沟通与法律责任问题仍使其未来发展不可能一帆风顺。

    培训必要但前路不平
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

5 道逐段细节自检题

针对2024年12月英语四级真题第3套这篇原文，每段配 1 道细节题（ 1 个正确项 + 5 个干扰项 ，由懒笔记精读引擎基于本段命制，非试卷原题）。 选项默认中性；点「显示答案与解析」展开正确项、解析与最快解法，现代浏览器会同步高亮正确选项。

  1. 第 1 段 定位词 recent study manufacturers

    What does the recent study mainly examine?

    • A It proves that automated driving systems are completely error-proof.
    • B It compares the performance of different self-driving car brands.
    • C It examines manufacturers' legal duty to ensure appropriate vehicle use.
    • D It encourages drivers to trust automated systems without reservation.
    • E It explains how software developers should write clearer code.
    • F It estimates the cost of producing fully autonomous vehicles.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    正确项把原文中 manufacturers、legally do、ensure 与 appropriately 合并为一个完整的 purpose 概括。它没有机械复制原句，而是把 should legally do 归纳为 legal duty，把 drivers understand how to use the vehicles appropriately 压缩为 ensure appropriate vehicle use。障碍在于题干问的是 study 的 focus，选项却以 duty 这一上位表达替换原文的动作结构；考生若只盯着 self-driving cars，容易选到只谈技术可靠性的选项。

    研究目的切片 时间极紧时，不必从头精读。直接用题干中的 recent study 回扫到 第1段，并把视线限定在该短语后的两个谓语结构：tackles 与 looks at。然后采用动词宾语切片法，只比较各选项是否保留了 legal、manufacturers、ensure 与 appropriate use 这组语义骨架；覆盖骨架最完整的正确项即可。此法比逐个翻译全部选项更快。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 EULAs far from ideal

    Why are EULAs considered far from ideal for self-driving car buyers?

    • A They are available only to professional software engineers.
    • B They require drivers to pay an additional fee before driving.
    • C They give drivers too much technical information to process.
    • D Many users accept them without reading or fully understanding them.
    • E They are rejected by nearly all young drivers.
    • F They prevent manufacturers from explaining vehicle functions.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    正确项概括了两项紧密相连的原文证据：agreement 可能造成 confusion，以及多数 users 不读 EULAs。它把 91 percent 与 97 percent 所支撑的事实压缩成 many users accept them without reading，同时用 fully understanding 呼应 information 和 implications。障碍在于原文先写信息不足、后写不阅读；考生要识别二者共同指向 informed consent 的失效，而不是只孤立记住一个百分比。

    转折后双证据 直接以 EULAs 锁到 第2段，不必逐句翻译。把 But this is far from ideal 之后的内容压成两个检查框：information 与 reading behavior。再看选项，凡是同时不违背这两个框且没有改变 agree 的方向者，便是正确项。百分比不需要精确背诵，只需确认它们都证明用户没有认真阅读。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 human drivers responsibility

    What responsibility should human drivers accept when operating self-driving vehicles?

    • A They should treat a car exactly like a smartphone app.
    • B They should transfer all legal responsibility to the software.
    • C They should ignore safety risks once automation is activated.
    • D They should obtain permission from app developers before driving.
    • E They should consent to responsibility for software and hardware outcomes.
    • F They should guarantee that no accident will ever occur.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：E

    正确项对应 human drivers need to consent to take responsibility for the outcomes of the software and hardware。它保留了 consent、responsibility 和 outcomes 三个不可缺少的语义节点，并将 take responsibility for 压缩为 consent to responsibility for。障碍在于题干问 responsibility，许多考生会被 serious safety risks 吸引；但风险是责任产生的背景，承担 outcomes 才是直接回答。

    责任宾语提取 在 第3段 中，用 human drivers 直接定位，再进行责任宾语提取：跳过 unlike 前后的类比铺垫，只读 need to consent to take responsibility for 后面的名词块。随后让正确项与该名词块做一一对应；凡是更换责任主体、把 responsibility 改成 guarantee，或只谈 risk 的选项立即排除。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 obtaining consent likely

    What is likely to happen if the current mode of obtaining consent continues?

    • A Automakers will be fully protected from all legal claims.
    • B Drivers will read every warning more carefully.
    • C Vehicle warnings will no longer distract drivers in motion.
    • D System malfunctions will become impossible to detect.
    • E All drivers will refuse to give consent before purchasing a vehicle.
    • F Automakers may still face legal liability after malfunctions or accidents.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：F

    正确项准确改写 likely won't fully protect automakers from their legal liability should the system malfunction or an accident occur。may still face 对应 won't fully protect，after malfunctions or accidents 对应 should malfunction or an accident occur。障碍在于原文使用双重结构：even if 表示让步，won't fully protect 表示保护不完全；考生容易误选成制造商完全免责，或误把 warning fatigue 本身当作最终后果。

    情态反向换算 先在 第4段 直接扫描 consent 与 likely，不读两个 example 的细节。随后执行情态反向换算：won't fully protect 某主体，等价于该主体 may still face 相应后果。只要正确项保留主体 automakers、后果 legal liability 及事故或故障条件，就可迅速判定；其余选项多在改写 examples 或使用绝对词。

  5. 第 5 段 定位词 training vehicle purchase

    What does the author suggest about training for self-driving vehicle drivers?

    • A It should continue beyond the point of vehicle purchase.
    • B It should be completed before customers buy a vehicle.
    • C It can be replaced entirely by information from sellers.
    • D It should focus only on reducing the price of vehicles.
    • E It guarantees that drivers will understand every system function.
    • F It is unnecessary because the road ahead will be smooth.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：A

    正确项直接对应 This needs to occur beyond the vehicle purchase。It 指代 driver training，should continue 是对 needs to occur 的自然改写，beyond the point of vehicle purchase 保留了原文最关键的时间边界。障碍在于前一句 can help 容易让考生选择培训能确保完全理解的绝对表述；但作者的重点是培训不能止于 purchase，且 seller information 仍无法回答 many questions。

    限定词优先 用 training 直达 第5段 后，实行限定词优先法：不先读 can help ensure，而先找 needs、beyond、not going to 这些决定边界的词。题干问建议，正确项必须匹配 needs to occur 的时间范围；含 before、entirely、guarantees 等词的选项可因方向或强度不符快速排除。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

5 个意群的说明文骨架

按说明文 的行文骨架切分意群，每个意群标注它覆盖的段落与对主旨的作用——逐段读完后回到这里俯瞰全篇，能看清作者为什么按这个顺序行文。

  1. P1

    问题提出与法律视角引入

    这个 opening section 指出了 automated driving systems 存在 error-prone 的现实问题，特别是 drivers 对 system capabilities 的 limited understanding 导致了 misuse，然后引入一项 recent study 从 legal perspective 来 tackle 这个 over-trusting 的 issue

    作为 expository article 的 problem statement，这个 opening 建立了整篇 discussion 的 foundation，明确指出需要解决的 core issue 就是 driver understanding 不足，为后续分析各种 solutions 和 challenges 搭建了 logical framework

    提出自动驾驶系统被误用的核心问题
  2. P2

    EULA方案的提出与局限性分析

    这个 section 介绍了第一种 proposed solution，就是要求 buyers 签署 end-user license agreements，但立即通过 empirical evidence 揭示这个 approach 的 fundamental flaws，包括 information inadequacy 和 users 普遍不读 terms 的 behavioral pattern，特别是 young people 中 97% 都是 agree without reading

    作为 expository analysis 的第一个 evaluation unit，这个 sense group 展示了 critical thinking process，通过 presenting 和 immediately critiquing 一个 seemingly reasonable solution，强化了文章的 central argument 即 ensuring driver understanding 的 complexity，为后续讨论 alternative approaches 铺垫了 logical necessity

    分析EULA同意方式的失效
  3. P3

    驾驶安全风险的本质差异

    这个 brief but crucial paragraph 通过 contrast 指出了 key distinction：operating a car 不同于 using smartphone apps，因为涉及 serious safety risks，这个 fundamental difference 要求 human drivers 必须 consent to responsibility，这为前面批评 EULA approach 提供了 deeper rationale

    这个 sense group 在 expository structure 中起到 pivotal role，它 bridges 前面的 solution critique 和后续的 additional concerns，通过 highlighting 汽车 operation 的 unique stakes，为整个 argument 提供了 ethical and practical foundation，强化了 why driver understanding matters 这个 central theme

    强调驾驶场景的特殊安全性
  4. P4

    EULA方案的附加风险与法律局限

    这个 section 进一步 elaborate EULA approach 的 practical problems，引入 warning fatigue 和 distracted driving 两个 additional concerns，说明 continuous warnings 可能被 ignore 或者 in-motion messages 会 cause distraction，最终 conclude 即使 implement 这个 consent mode 也无法完全 protect automakers 从 legal liability

    作为 comprehensive evaluation 的一部分，这个 sense group 通过 introducing operational hazards 和 legal implications，将 critique 从 theoretical level 推向 practical consequences，丰富了 why current consent mechanisms fail 的 analysis，为最终 propose alternative solution 增加了 urgency 和 necessity

    揭示EULA在实际场景中的风险
  5. P5

    驾驶培训方案与前景展望

    这个 concluding section 提出了 alternative solution 即 driver training，强调 training 需要 occur beyond vehicle purchase 而且不能仅 rely on seller information，最后用 all of this considered 这个 summative phrase 引出 overall conclusion，即 self-driving cars 的 road forward 不会是 smooth ride

    作为 expository article 的 closure，这个 sense group 完成了从 problem identification 到 solution proposal 的 full circle，通过 advocating comprehensive training 和 acknowledging ongoing challenges，既 provides constructive direction 又 maintains realistic tone，reinforcing 文章的 central message 即 ensuring proper use 的 complexity 和 importance

    提出培训解决方案并总结挑战
MAIN IDEA · 速判主旨

4 步定位这篇文章的主旨

不读完全篇也能锁定主旨——以下 4 步按2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 这篇原文的实际行文顺序给出，每步说明看哪里、看出什么，可直接迁移到其他英语四级文章。

  1. 首段定位核心问题 P1

    说明文的 first paragraph 通常会 introduce the core topic 或 present the problem,这篇文章开头就提出了 drivers' limited understanding 和 system misuse 这个核心 issue,为后续 discussion 奠定基础

  2. 追踪方案及其局限 P2 P3 P4

    说明文常常会 present solutions 然后 analyze their shortcomings。这篇文章在 第2段 提出 EULAs 这个 solution,但紧接着用 far from ideal、limitations 来 critique it,在 第4段 继续指出 warning fatigue 等 concerns。这种 solution-critique pattern 揭示文章主旨是 examining challenges 而非 promoting solutions

  3. 结尾立场与前瞻 P5

    结尾段的 driver training 和 not going to be a smooth ride 是 key indicators。前者提出 essential requirement,后者用 negative tone 强调 challenges ahead。这个 conclusion 不是 optimistic solution 而是 realistic assessment,确认了主旨是 emphasizing difficulties

  4. 整合问题-批判-强调 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

    将首段的 central issue(driver understanding problem)、中间段的 solution limitations(EULAs inadequate、legal liability concerns)和尾段的 essential requirement(comprehensive training needed)串联起来,形成完整 narrative:文章在 examining challenges 而非 celebrating progress,主旨是 thorough analysis of difficulties in ensuring proper use

主旨信号词 challenges P5 far from ideal P2 limitations P4 misuse P1 essential P5 concerns P4

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

这篇说明文探讨了确保驾驶员理解和正确使用自动驾驶汽车系统所面临的挑战。文章分析了当前同意方式(如最终用户许可协议)的局限性,讨论了法律责任问题,并强调全面的驾驶员培训对于自动驾驶汽车的安全运行至关重要。
This expository article examines the challenges of ensuring driver understanding and proper use of self-driving vehicle systems. It analyzes limitations of current consent methods like EULAs, discusses legal liability concerns, and emphasizes that comprehensive driver training is essential for safe autonomous vehicle operation.
WORD INFERENCE · 生词推断

4 个生词的上下文推断

不查词典，只用文中线索推出词义——每个词给出推断出的释义与 完整推理链。已收录进英语四级高频真题词集的单词可点击进入词条页。

  • malfunction 故障;失灵;运行不正常

    现在我们把三条 clues 串起来。首先，从 word structure 看，mal- 表示 bad，function 是功能，组合起来就是 '功能不良'。其次，context 中它和 accident 并列，都是 negative outcomes。最后，从 logical relationship 分析，它是导致 legal liability 的原因，在 automotive context 中指的是系统层面的问题。所有这些 evidence 指向同一个方向。

    构词+并列+因果三层分析法
  • automate 使自动化;自动操作;自动控制

    让我们整合这些 clues。从 morphology 看，auto-（自我）+ -ate（使动）= 使自动。从 syntactic context 看，systems 的 purpose 是 automate driving，这说明原本需要 human control 的 driving 现在由 system 处理。从 thematic context 看，whole article 围绕 self-driving technology 展开，核心就是 human-to-machine 的 control transfer。所有 evidence 共同指向：让机器自动完成原本需要人工的任务。

    技术前缀+目的分析+主题验证
  • consent 同意;准许;允诺

    综合这些 evidence。从 verb pattern 看，'consent to do' 表示在执行某动作前的 approval。从 cross-paragraph reference 看，it equals signing agreements，是 formal approval。从 legal framework 看，it's a prerequisite for legal responsibility，具有 binding force。这三个 layers 都指向：formal, voluntary agreement with legal implications。

    搭配+互指+话语功能三维定位
  • distract 分散注意力;使分心

    整合所有 clues。从 word formation 看，distract 是 verb root，distraction 是 action 的 result，distracted 是 resulting state。从 parallel structure 看，它和 warning fatigue 并列，都涉及 attention 问题，但 distract 强调 attention diversion。从 safety logic 看，在 driving context 中，这种 diversion 构成 hazard，因为 driver's attention 应该 stay focused。所以核心含义是：使注意力转移、偏离原本焦点。

    词族+对比+情境构建
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

5 处修辞手法与仿写

每处修辞给出它在本文的具体用法、同类信号词清单与一份可直接套用的 写作仿写建议——读完能认，也能写。

  • 列数字

    P2

    文章在 第2段 中通过 specific percentages 来揭示 EULA 的实际效果：91% of people 不读就同意，young people 中这个比例更是高达 97%。这些 precise numbers 不是随意的装饰，而是用 quantitative evidence 来支撑主旨中关于 current consent methods 存在 limitations 的核心论点。数字的 stark contrast（91% vs. 97%）还暗示了 younger demographics 可能面临更大的 risk，让读者对 EULA approach 的 inadequacy 产生更直观的认知。

    信号词 91 percent 97 percent 2017 study shows shows percent statistics data reveals findings indicate numbers demonstrate

    仿写： 当你需要 demonstrate 某个 problem 的 seriousness 时，问自己：能否找到 statistical evidence 来替代 general statements？比如与其说 'many users ignore warnings'，不如说 '78% of surveyed users reported dismissing safety alerts'。模版可以是：'Research shows [具体百分比/数量] of [群体] [行为/现象]，而 [对比群体] 中这一比例为 [对比数字]'。关键是让数字 serve your central argument，而不是 decorative elements。

  • 举例子

    P4

    第4段 用 'For example' 引出两个 specific scenarios：driver 因为 continuous warnings 而产生 annoyance 选择 ignore messages，或者 in-motion messages 造成 distraction。这两个 concrete instances 不是 random illustrations，而是精准服务于文章主旨中 concerns about system misuse 的论证。通过 tangible situations，作者让 abstract concepts like 'warning fatigue' 和 'distracted driving' 变得 vivid and relatable，帮助读者理解为什么 even consent mechanisms 也无法 fully protect automakers from liability。

    信号词 For example For instance such as consider take the case of to illustrate a case in point specifically in particular

    仿写： 思考你的 main point 时问：能否想出一个 typical scenario 来 embody 这个观点？举例时遵循 'signal + scenario + implication' 的结构。比如要说明 interface design 的重要性，可以写：'For instance, when a user encounters an error message filled with technical jargon, they may abandon the task entirely rather than seek help'。模版：'For example/instance, [具体场景描述], [可能导致的结果/问题]'。关键是让 example 成为 argument 的 bridge，而非 digression。

  • 作诠释

    P3

    第3段 中 'The issue is that, unlike using a smartphone app, operating a car has serious safety risks' 这句通过 clarification 来 unpack 为什么 car automation 不能 simply adopt software industry 的 consent practices。这个 interpretive statement 不是在 define 或 compare，而是在 explain the underlying reason behind 前文提到的 EULA approach 的 inadequacy。它 bridges 前面关于 EULAs 的讨论和后面关于 safety concerns 的论述，让读者理解 consent mechanisms 必须 account for high-stakes nature of driving，这直接支撑文章主旨中关于 ensuring proper use 的 challenges。

    信号词 The issue is that This means In other words What this implies The point is Essentially Put differently The significance lies in This suggests

    仿写： 当你需要 deepen understanding 而非 simply state facts 时，用诠释。问自己：这个 point 的 underlying significance 是什么？模版可以是：'The issue/point/key is that [解释性陈述]' 或 'This means/implies [阐释内容]'。比如说明 AI limitations，与其只说 'AI cannot understand context'，不如写：'The issue is that AI processes language statistically, which means it can miss nuances that humans grasp intuitively'。关键是 unpack implications 而不是 repeat surface information。

  • 引资料

    P1 P2 P5

    文章在 第1段 中用 'Recent evidence points to' 和 'A recent study tackles'，在 第2段 中引用 'A 2017 study shows'，在 第5段 中提到 'Recent evidence shows'。这些 authoritative sources 不是 ornamental citations，而是为文章主旨中关于 driver understanding limitations 和 consent method inadequacy 的论证提供 empirical foundation。通过 referencing research findings，作者把 arguments 建立在 scholarly evidence 之上，让关于 self-driving cars 的 challenges 的论述具备 credibility 和 academic rigor。

    信号词 Recent evidence A recent study A 2017 study shows research shows studies indicate according to findings suggest evidence points to data from experts argue scholars note

    仿写： 选择 citations 时问：这个 source 能否 directly support my specific claim？引用格式遵循 'attribution + finding' 结构。模版：'[时间/来源] + [study/research/evidence] + [动词 shows/indicates/reveals] + [具体发现]'。比如：'A 2023 survey conducted by X Institute reveals that 68% of developers struggle with legacy code maintenance'。避免 vague references like 'studies show'，要 provide temporal context（recent, 2017）或 source type（study, evidence）来增加 specificity。关键是让引用 serve as evidence，not just name-dropping。

  • 作比较

    P3

    第3段 中 'unlike using a smartphone app, operating a car has serious safety risks' 通过 explicit contrast 来 highlight 为什么 automotive consent mechanisms 不能 mirror software industry practices。这个 comparison 不是简单的 juxtaposition，而是通过 contrasting stakes（convenience vs. safety）来 explain 为什么 current approaches like EULAs 是 inadequate。这直接 supports 文章主旨中 limitations of current consent methods 的论点，通过 showing what makes cars different，作者 justifies 为什么需要 more robust solutions。

    信号词 unlike in contrast to whereas while compared to as opposed to different from rather than on the other hand conversely

    仿写： 使用比较时问：哪个 reference point 能最有效地 illuminate my subject？用 contrast markers 如 'unlike', 'whereas', 'in contrast to' 来建立 comparison framework。模版：'Unlike [对比对象], [主题对象] [关键差异]' 或 'While [X] does A, [Y] does B'。比如说明 serverless architecture：'Unlike traditional server setups that require constant maintenance, serverless functions scale automatically and charge only for actual usage'。关键是确保 comparison 不是 superficial pairing，而是 reveals meaningful distinctions 来 advance your argument。

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

5 处话里有话

作者没有明说、但靠信号词传递出来的态度与暗示——每处给出原文片段、信号词类型与解读。

  • 自动驾驶系统远未成熟可靠

    P1
    even systems designed to automate driving are far from being error-proof

    模糊限制语 far from hardly scarcely barely less than ideal not quite nowhere near

    作者通过 far from error-proof 这个 understatement 实际在 signal 一个 fundamental problem：current autonomous systems 存在 serious reliability issues。这个 implication 为全文的 legal and safety concerns 奠定了 foundational premise，justify 了后续讨论 driver understanding 和 liability protection 的 necessity。它对 main thesis 的 value 在于建立了 the urgency：既然系统本身 unreliable，那么 ensuring proper use through understanding 就变得 critically important

  • 用户协议方案存在根本缺陷

    P2
    One solution suggested in the study involves requiring buyers to sign end-user license agreements (EULAs)... But this is far from ideal.

    转折类 But this is far from ideal but however yet nevertheless nonetheless although

    通过 But this is far from ideal 加上后续的 evidence chain（confusion、low reading rates），作者 implicitly argues that EULAs 是一个 fundamentally flawed approach。这个 implication 服务于 main thesis，因为它 demonstrates that current legal mechanisms 无法 adequately address the understanding gap。对 article's purpose 而言，这个 critique 推动了 argumentation forward，为最后提出 driver training 这个 alternative solution 铺垫了 logical necessity

  • 手机应用类比凸显驾驶风险特殊性

    P3
    unlike using a smartphone app, operating a car has serious safety risks

    对比类 unlike in contrast to whereas while compared to as opposed to different from

    通过 unlike smartphone app 这个 contrast，作者 implicitly criticizes the EULA approach 背后的 flawed assumption：treating car consent like software consent。这个 implication 强调 autonomous vehicles 需要 qualitatively different consent mechanisms 因为 stakes 更高。对 main argument 的 contribution 是 establishing a categorical distinction，说明 borrowed solutions from software industry 无法 directly transfer，reinforcing 文章对 current approaches 的 skepticism 并支撑 the need for specialized solutions like training

  • 法律保护措施即使实施也不够

    P4
    even if this mode of obtaining consent is to move forward, it likely won't fully protect automakers from their legal liability

    让步类 even if even though although while despite in spite of granted that

    Even if 这个 concession 隐含了一个 devastating critique：就算 EULAs 被 implement 了，它们仍然 fundamentally inadequate for legal protection。这个 implication 对 article's logic 至关重要，因为它 closes the door on incremental fixes，forcing the conclusion that qualitatively different approaches（like training）are necessary。这为第五段的 solution proposal 创造了 logical inevitability，使 driver training 成为 the only viable path forward 而不只是 one option among many

  • 自动驾驶前景不容乐观

    P5
    the road forward for self-driving cars is not going to be a smooth ride after all

    委婉表达 not... after all not exactly not quite not entirely hardly scarcely less than

    Not smooth ride 这个 understatement 配合 after all（表示 contrary to optimistic expectations）传递了 a sobering conclusion：autonomous vehicle deployment 面临 substantial challenges。这个 implication 作为 article's closing，synthesizes all the problems discussed（unreliable systems, ineffective consent, legal exposure），reinforcing the main thesis that driver understanding through training 虽然 necessary，但整个 autonomous vehicle landscape 仍然 fraught with difficulties。它给读者留下一个 realistic assessment，preventing overconfidence in quick technological solutions

AUTHOR ATTITUDE · 作者态度

作者态度：消极批判

结论先行：本文作者态度为消极批判（ Cautiously skeptical and concerned）。下面是按步骤还原的判断过程与文中的态度信号词。

  1. 问题导向开篇 P1

    说明文的 opening strategy 能够 reveal 作者的 attitude framework，当作者选择用 negative evidence 比如 'far from error-proof' 和 'limited understanding' 来 introduce topic 时，就在 establishing 一个 skeptical tone，这为后文的 critical analysis 奠定了 foundation。

  2. 方案否定模式 P2

    说明文作者如果对某个 approach 持 positive view，通常会用 supporting evidence 来 elaborate its merits；但如果像这篇文章一样，先 present solution 再用 'But' 转折并列举 multiple limitations，就说明作者 fundamentally doubt 这个方案的 effectiveness，这种 rhetorical structure 直接 reflect 作者的 skeptical stance。

  3. 风险升级对比 P3

    说明文作者通过 comparison 来 contextualize problems 时，如果 emphasize 某个领域的 unique dangers 或 higher consequences，就是在 justify 为什么需要更 stringent standards 或更 cautious approach。这种 risk-amplification strategy 表明作者对 current safeguards 感到 insufficient，体现了 concerned 和 critical 的 dual attitude。

  4. 问题层叠累积 P4

    当说明文作者用 'also'、'further'、'given these limitations' 这类 additive connectors 来 layer multiple concerns 而非 balance pros and cons，就说明作者在 deliberately constructing 一个 overwhelmingly negative picture。特别是当 conclusion 是 'won't fully protect' 或 'likely won't' 这种 negative prediction 时，作者的 skeptical outlook 就非常 evident。

  5. 隐喻性总结 P5

    说明文的 conclusion 往往 crystallize 作者的 ultimate stance，如果 closing statement 用 figurative language 比如 'not a smooth ride' 来 summarize，而非 neutral restatement，就说明作者在 final assessment 中 inject 了 clear evaluative position。'After all' 这个 phrase 特别重要，它 indicates 作者认为前文 evidence 已经 sufficiently proven 某个 skeptical point。

文中的态度信号词

  • far from error-proof P1

    这个 phrase 用 'far from' 这个 distance metaphor 来 emphasize 现实与 ideal state 之间的 significant gap，在说明文中这种 negative assessment 直接 reveal 作者对 automation systems 的 reliability 持 doubtful view，它不是 neutral description 而是 evaluative judgment。

    同类词 far from ideal far from perfect far from sufficient hardly reliable barely adequate

  • limited understanding P1

    这个 collocation 通过 'limited' 这个 restriction term 来 characterize drivers' knowledge state，在说明文中作者选择 highlight knowledge gaps 而非 existing competencies，就是在 framing the problem 从 deficiency angle，这种 negative framing 透露了作者对 current situation 的 concerned attitude。

    同类词 insufficient knowledge inadequate comprehension poor awareness lack of grasp deficient perception

  • But this is far from ideal P2

    这个 contrastive structure 用 'But' 作为 adversative connector 来 explicitly negate 前文提出的 solution，'far from ideal' 再次用 distance metaphor 来强调 inadequacy。在说明文中这种 immediate rejection pattern 是作者 critical evaluation 的 explicit signal，它 interrupt 读者可能产生的 positive expectation 并 redirect 到 problems。

    同类词 However, this approach has flaws Yet this solution is problematic Nevertheless, this poses issues Still, this remains inadequate Even so, concerns persist

  • serious safety risks P3

    这个 noun phrase 用 'serious' 这个 intensifier 来 amplify 'safety risks' 的 severity，在说明文中作者选择 strong evaluative adjectives 而非 neutral description，就是在 emphasizing the magnitude of potential problems。这种 risk escalation language 体现作者对 inadequate safeguards 的 deep concern。

    同类词 grave dangers significant hazards severe threats critical vulnerabilities major concerns

  • causes for concern P4

    这个 fixed phrase 通过 'concern' 这个 emotion term 来 explicitly label 某些现象为 problematic，在说明文中作者直接 state 某些 factors 'cause concern' 就是 openly expressing worry，这比 neutral presentation 更能 reveal 作者的 negative appraisal 和 cautious stance。

    同类词 reasons to worry grounds for alarm sources of anxiety matters of unease points of apprehension

  • likely won't fully protect P4

    这个 modal construction 结合了 epistemic modality（'likely'）和 negative polarity（'won't'）以及 limitation（'fully'），在说明文中这种 layered negative prediction 表明作者对 proposed solutions 的 effectiveness 持 pessimistic forecast，'likely' 表示基于 evidence 的 judgment 而非 arbitrary skepticism。

    同类词 likely won't protect probably won't suffice may not adequately address might fail to resolve could fall short

  • not going to be a smooth ride P5

    这个 journey metaphor 用 'not smooth' 来 figuratively describe 未来的 difficulties，在说明文的 conclusion 中作者选择 metaphorical language 而非 literal summary，就是在 emotionally reinforcing 前文的 concerns。'Smooth ride' 本身 implies 缺乏 obstacles，negating it 就 predict continued problems。

    同类词 not a smooth ride a bumpy road ahead rough going forward a rocky path challenging journey

GENRE · 速判体裁

30 秒判定这是一篇说明文

体裁决定读法与出题套路。以下判断步骤与标志词全部以本文为例，可直接迁移到其他英语四级 真题文章。

如何快速判断这是一篇说明文？

  1. 首段定调客观介绍 P1

    第1段 直接 introduces 了 human-vehicle interaction research 和 self-driving cars 的 misuse issue，没有 express 作者的 stance 或 attitude，只是 presenting facts 和 background information。这种 objective introduction 是 expository writing 的典型 opening，不同于 argumentative essay 会在开头 state a clear position，也不同于 news report 会用 lead paragraph 强调 newsworthy event。

  2. 多维度分层说明 P2 P3 P4

    第2段 discusses EULAs 这个 solution 及其 limitations，第3段 explains safety risks 这个 underlying issue，第4段 addresses warning fatigue 和 legal liability concerns，每段都在 elaborate 不同的 dimension。这种 multi-faceted explanation structure 是 expository writing 的 hallmark。议论文会用 paragraphs 来 present arguments 和 counterarguments 支持 thesis，新闻报道会按 inverted pyramid 把 most important information 放前面。

  3. 全程保持客观中立 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

    整篇文章 presents challenges 和 concerns about self-driving cars（EULAs ineffective、safety risks、warning fatigue、legal liability），但 tone 始终是 analytical and informative 而非 persuasive。没有 direct calls to action 或 strong value judgments，只是 laying out facts 和 considerations。这种 detached presentation 区别于议论文的 persuasive tone（应该怎么做）和新闻报道的 urgent tone（刚发生了什么）。

  4. 总结承认复杂性 P5

    第5段 提出 driver training 作为 potential solution，但最后用 the road forward...is not going to be a smooth ride 来 acknowledge 问题的 complexity，这是 reflective summary 而非 strong conclusion。没有 urge readers to act 也没有 report latest developments，只是 synthesizing 前文的 multiple concerns into a final observation。这种 open-ended、contemplative ending 是 expository writing 的特征。

  5. 综合验证体裁特征 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

    这篇文章满足所有 expository markers：第1段 客观 introduces topic，第2段-4 从 legal、safety、human factors 等 angles systematically explain challenges，全文 maintains neutral analytical tone，第5段 以 open-ended reflection 收尾。没有 argumentative essay 的 thesis-driven structure 和 persuasive language，也没有 news report 的 event-centered narrative 和 timeliness focus。是典型的 informational expository text。

哪些词暴露了说明文体裁？

  • systems designed to automate driving P1 说明对象定义解释词 self-driving cars end-user license agreements (EULAs) terms and conditions software products human-vehicle interaction
  • what these systems can and cannot do P1 事物属性功能描述词 system capabilities and limitations how to use the vehicles appropriately the nature of the requests system malfunction operating a car
  • A recent study tackles the issue P1 说明顺序与例证词 A recent study tackles Recent evidence points to One solution suggested A 2017 study shows For example
  • similar to the terms and conditions P2 说明顺序与例证词 similar to For example unlike using a smartphone app such as like
  • The issue is that P3 说明顺序与例证词 The problem is The challenge lies in The concern is The key point is The fact is that
  • causes for concern P4 事物属性功能描述词 limitations and concerns serious safety risks implications outcomes legal liability
  • can help ensure that P5 事物属性功能描述词 needs to occur is not going to should legally do to ensure designed to automate can and cannot do
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

13 句真题句逐层精讲

下列真题句各有独立的句子解析页——中文翻译、结构树逐层拆解、成分与时态、考点讲解与真题高频词。点击句子进入完整解析。

FAQ · 常见问题

关于 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 的常见问题

2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 Part III Section C (1) 文章 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 的原文出自哪里？
2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 Part III Section C (1) 文章 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 节选自网站stuff.co.za于2020年12月2日发布的一篇题为 “Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident?” 的文章。
2024年12月英语四级真题第3套文章 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 的主旨是什么？
2024年12月英语四级真题第3套 Part III Section C (1) 文章 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 说明文探讨了确保驾驶员理解和正确使用自动驾驶汽车系统所面临的挑战。文章分析了当前同意方式(如最终用户许可协议)的局限性,讨论了法律责任问题,并强调全面的驾驶员培训对于自动驾驶汽车的安全运行至关重要。（英文表述：This expository article examines the challenges of ensuring driver understanding and proper use of self-driving vehicle systems. It analyzes limitations of current consent methods like EULAs, discusses legal liability concerns, and emphasizes that comprehensive driver training is essential for safe autonomous vehicle operation.）
Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident?（2024年12月英语四级真题第3套文章）是什么体裁？难度如何？
体裁为说明文，作者立场是消极批判（Cautiously skeptical and concerned）。CEFR 难度 C1，全文 349 词、5 段；在英语四级全部 511 篇真题文章中，C1 级共 163 篇（占 32%）。
2024年12月英语四级真题第3套文章 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 的篇章结构是怎样的？
全文 5 段按说明文骨架分为 5 个意群：第1段——问题提出与法律视角引入；第2段——EULA方案的提出与局限性分析；第3段——驾驶安全风险的本质差异；第4段——EULA方案的附加风险与法律局限；第5段——驾驶培训方案与前景展望。
Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 一文的作者态度是什么？
作者态度是消极批判（Cautiously skeptical and concerned）。判断路径：问题导向开篇 → 方案否定模式 → 风险升级对比 → 问题层叠累积 → 隐喻性总结；文中的态度信号词包括 far from error-proof（第1段）、limited understanding（第1段）、But this is far from ideal（第2段）、serious safety risks（第3段）、causes for concern（第4段）、likely won't fully protect（第4段）、not going to be a smooth ride（第5段）。
2024年12月英语四级真题第3套文章 Who’s to blame when a self-driving car has an accident? 中有哪些值得积累的生词？
按文中出现顺序共 4 个：malfunction（故障;失灵;运行不正常）、automate（使自动化;自动操作;自动控制）、consent（同意;准许;允诺）、distract（分散注意力;使分心），每个词的词义都可以由文中上下文线索推断得出。

本页数据最后更新：