研究所、轉學考(插大)、學士後-英文題庫下載題庫

上一題
IV. Reading Comprehension
Questions 41-50: Choose the BEST answer to each question below according to what is stated and implied in the following passages.
       There is a quality of cohesiveness about the Roman world that applied neither to Greece nor perhaps to any other civilization, ancient or modern. Like the stones of a Roman wall, which were held together both by the regularity of the design and by that peculiarly powerful Roman cement, so the various parts of the Roman realm were bonded into a massive, monolithic entity by physical, organizational, and psychological controls. The physical bonds included the network of military garrisons, which were stationed in every province, and the network of stone-built roads that linked the provinces with Rome. The organizational bonds were based on the common principles of law and administration and on the universal army of officials who enforced common standards of conduct. The psychological controls were built on fear and punishment—on the absolute certainty that anyone or anything that threatened the authority of Rome would be utterly destroyed.
       The source of Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have been the pattern of Rome’s early development. Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scattered cities, Rome grew from one single organism. While the Greek world had expanded along the Mediterranean sea lanes, the Roman world was assembled by territorial conquest. Of course, the contrast is not quite so stark: in Alexander the Great, the Greeks had found the greatest territorial conqueror of all time, and the Romans, once they moved outside Italy, did not fail to learn the lessons of sea power. Yet the essential difference is undeniable. The key to the Greek world lay in its high-powered ships; the key to Roman power lay in its marching legions. The Greeks were wedded to the sea; the Romans, to the land. The Greek was a sailor at heart; the Roman, a landsman.
       Certainly, in trying to explain the Roman phenomenon, one would have to place great emphasis on this almost animal instinct for the territorial imperative. Roman priorities lay in the organization, exploitation, and defense of their territory. In all probability, it was the fertile plain of Latium, where the Latins who founded Rome originated, that created the habits and skills of landed settlement, landed property, landed economy, landed administration, and a land-based society. From this arose the Roman genius for military organization and orderly government. In turn, a deep attachment to the land and to the stability of rural life fostered the Roman virtues: gravitas, a sense of responsibility; pietas, a sense of devotion to family and country; and justitia, a sense of the natural order.
       Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoroughly disgusted. As always, there are the power worshippers, especially among historians, who are predisposed to admire whatever is strong and who feel more attracted to the might of Rome than to the subtlety of Greece. At the same time, there is a solid body of opinion that dislikes Rome. For many, Rome is, at best, the imitator and the continuator of Greece on a larger scale. Greek civilization had quality; Rome, mere quantity. Greece was original; Rome, derivative. Greece had style; Rome had money. Greece was the inventor; Rome, the research and development division. Such indeed was the opinion of some of the more intellectual Romans. “Had the Greeks held novelty in such disdain as we,” asked Horace in his Epistles, “what work of ancient date would now exist?” 
       Rome’s debt to Greece was enormous. The Romans adopted Greek religion and moral philosophy. In literature, Greek writers were consciously used as models by their Latin successors. It was absolutely accepted that an educated Roman should be fluent in Greek. In speculative philosophy and the sciences, the Romans made virtually no advance on early achievements. 
       Yet it would be wrong to suggest that Rome was somehow a junior partner in Greco-Roman civilization. The Roman genius was projected into new spheres—especially into those of law, military organization, administration, and engineering. Moreover, the tensions that arose within the Roman state produced literary and artistic sensibilities of the highest order. It was no accident that many leading Roman soldiers and statesmen were writers of high caliber.

【題組】41. How did Rome’s early development differ from that of Greece?
(A) Rome grew from a single organism, while Greece grew from scattered cities.
(B) Rome expanded by sea, while Greece expanded by land.
(C) Rome was influenced by many cultures, while Greece was isolated.
(D) Rome had a democratic system, while Greece was ruled by monarchs.


答案:登入後觀看
難度: 計算中

10
 【站僕】摩檸Morning:有沒有達人來解釋一下?
倒數 1天 ,已有 1 則答案
Celeste 小五下 (2024/08/17):

正確答案是 (A) Rome grew from a single organism, while Greece grew from scattered cities.

答案在第二段
"Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scattered cities, Rome grew from one single organism."
中文 翻譯
羅馬從一個單一的實體發展而來,而希臘則是由分散的城市發展而來。
解析
羅馬的早期發展特點是單一城市羅馬,最終擴展到支配周圍地區。相比之下,希臘的早期發展則是由許多獨立的城邦(如雅典、斯巴達和科林斯)組成,每個城邦都有自己的政府和文化。這些城邦通常是分散的,並且各自擁有獨特的身份。



(B) Rome expanded by sea, while Greece expanded by land.羅馬通過海洋擴展,而希臘通過陸地擴展。錯,文章中第二段第六行

"While the Greek world had expanded along the Mediterranean sea lanes, the Roman world was assembled by territorial conquest."中文翻譯
當希臘世界沿著地中海航線擴展時,羅馬世界則是通過領土征服組建起來的。
文章後面還有寫到
"The key to the Greek world lay in its high-powered ships; the key to Roman power lay in its marching legions. The Greeks were wedded to the sea; the Romans, to the land. The Greek was a sailor at heart; the Roman, a landsman"
希臘世界的關鍵在於其強大的船隻;羅馬力量的 關鍵在於其行進中的軍團。希臘人與海洋密不可 分;羅馬人則與陸地密不可分。希臘人內心是一 個水手;羅馬人則是一個生活在陸地上的人。

這段話強調了希臘和羅馬在軍事力量上的不同, 希臘人依賴於海軍,而羅馬人則依賴於陸軍。

希臘世界主要是通過海洋擴展的,而羅馬則是通過陸地擴展的。希臘的城邦,如雅典和斯巴達,依賴於海上貿易和航海技術來擴展其影響力。而羅馬則是通過陸地上的軍事征服和建設道路網絡來擴展其領土。

(C) Rome was influenced by many cultures, while Greece was isolated.
文章中說羅馬被希臘文化影響,沒有明確指出"多種"文化影響,而希臘也沒有被孤立,文章只有強調了羅馬和希臘在發展模式上的差異,但文章有說有羅馬有統一性和凝聚力,因為是帝國,以及希臘的分散性,由很多城邦組成和海洋擴展。所以選項不適合



(D) Rome had a democratic system, while Greece was ruled by monarchs.羅馬有民主制度,而希臘由君主統治。

錯,文章沒有說羅馬有民主制度
從以下幾段文字中推斷出來:

1.希臘(特別是雅典)有民主制度後來希臘城邦被亞歷山大大帝征服實施君主制度才對:
   - 文章中第二段第九行"Of course, the contrast is not quite so stark: in Alexander the Great, the Greeks had found the greatest territorial conqueror of all time文章沒有寫得很清楚,
  只有提到希臘有亞歷山大大帝,只能用歷史常識判斷希臘雅典有民主制度,但因為羅馬是實施共和制度不是民主所以這選項一定錯(考歷史常識)
雅典:雅典是古代最著名的民主國家之一。 雅典的民主制度允許公民參與政治決策,並 選舉官員。

·斯巴達:斯巴達是一個軍事化的城邦,實行 寡頭政治,由少數貴族統治。

·馬其頓:亞歷山大大帝的馬其頓王國是一個 君主制國家,由國王統治。
2. 羅馬在早期由君主統治,後來成為共和國,並最終成為帝國:
   - "The source of Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have been the pattern of Rome's early development. Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scattered cities, Rome grew from one single organism."
   - 這段文字提到羅馬的早期發展模式,暗示了羅馬從一個單一實體(可能是君主統治)發展到後來的共和國和帝國。



所以應該是:
- 希臘(特別是雅典)有民主制度。後來所有城邦被亞歷山大征服變成君主制
- 羅馬在早期由君主統治,後來成為共和國,並最終成為帝國。








0個讚
檢舉


IV. Reading ComprehensionQuestions 41-50..-阿摩線上測驗