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】43. What is the main idea of the passage?
(A) To compare and contrast the military strengths of ancient Rome and Greece
(B) To argue that Roman civilization was superior to Greek civilization in all aspects
(C) To explore the unique cohesiveness of Roman civilization while acknowledging its debt to Greece
(D) To explain why modern historians prefer studying Rome over Greece


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 2時 ,已有 1 則答案
Celeste 小五下 (2024/08/17):

這段文字中提到羅馬繼承希臘影響的部分是:


"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."

這段文字表明,儘管羅馬和希臘在發展模式上有顯著差異,但羅馬在某些方面受到了希臘的影響,特別是在海權方面。羅馬繼承了希臘的一些經驗和教訓。
倒數第二段還寫到
Rome's debt to Greece was enormous. The Romans adopted Greek religion and moral philosophy.中文翻譯
羅馬對希臘的恩情是巨大的。羅馬人採用了希臘的宗教和道德哲學。

所以答案是C
文章的主要思想是:

(C) 探討羅馬文明的獨特凝聚力,同時承認希臘對於羅馬有恩情(這裡翻成"希臘對於羅馬有恩情:比較適當,debt to可以翻成欠債或者有欠某人恩情)

其他ABD選項錯的原因
(A)文章並沒有全面比較羅馬和希臘的軍事力量(compare military strength of ancient Rome and Greece )
只有比較羅馬是擅長陸軍,希臘擅長海軍,並且造船技術卓越,但沒有比較軍事力量大小

(B)文章也沒有聲稱羅馬文明在所有方面都優於希臘文明(To argue that Roman civilization was superior to Greek civilization in all aspects)

文章最後一段有寫到


▪︎然而,認為羅馬在希臘羅馬文明中只是次要角色的觀念是錯誤的。(Yet it would be wrong to suggest that Rome was somehow a junior partner in Greco-Roman civilization.)
▪︎因為古羅馬在法律、軍事組織、行政和工程方面是天才。(The Roman genius was projected into new spheres -especially into those of law, military organization, administration, and engineering)
所以B錯

(D)錯,現代歷史學家對羅馬文明的態度是多樣且複雜的。文章沒有表達為什麼現代歷史學家更喜歡研 究羅馬而不是希臘,因為文章說現代歷史學家對羅馬文 明有不同態度,和見解
(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. )文章中,這段文字可以看得出來
部分歷史學家崇拜羅馬的力量,認為羅馬的強大和權力令人欽佩,而對希臘的精妙之處不那麼感興趣。
然而,也有一部分人對羅馬持否定態度,認為羅馬只是希臘的模仿者和延續者,缺乏希臘文明的質量和原創性。這些人認為希臘有風格,而羅馬只有金錢。總的來說,現代歷史學家對羅馬文明的不同觀點和評價多元
0個讚
檢舉


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