Question

When I was seven, my father gave me a Timex, my first watch. I loved it, wore it for years, and haven’t had another one since it stopped ticking a decade ago. Why? Because I don’t need one. I have a mobile phone and I’m always near someone with an iPod or something like that. All these devices (裝置) tell the time — which is why, if you look around, you’ll see lots of empty wrists (手腕); sales of watches to young adults have been going down since 2007. 

But while these wise people have realized that they don’t need them, others — including some distinguished ones of our time — are spending total fortunes on them. Brands such as Rolex, Patek Philippe and Breitling command shocking prices, up to £ 250.000 for a piece.

This is ridiculous. Expensive cars go faster than cheap cars. Expensive clothes hang better than cheap clothes. But these days, all watches tell the time as well as all other watches. Yes, you may say expensive watches will come with some extra functions — but who needs them? How often do you dive to 300 metres into the sea to test its function of waterproof, or need to find your direction in the area around the South Pole by using its compass? So why pay that much of five years’ school fees for watches that allow you to do these things?

If justice were done, the Swiss watch industry should have closed down when the Japanese discovered how to make accurate watches for a five-pound note. Instead, the Swiss re-invented the watch, with the aid of millions of pounds’ worth of advertising, as a message about the man —— usually a famous star, wearing it. Rolexes are for those who spend their weekends climbing icy mountains; a Patek Philippe is for one from a rich or noble family; a Breitling suggests you like to pilot planes across the world. 

Watches are classified as “investment items” (投資項目) now. A 1994 Philippe recently sold for nearly £ 350, 000, while 1960s Rolexes have gone from 15, 000 to 30, 000 plus in a year. But, to some wealthy people, a watch is more than an investment. It’s a valuable toy for self-satisfaction, a matter of fashion. Prices may keep going up — they’ve been rising for fifteen years. But when fashion moves on, the owner of that £ 350, 000 treasured object will suddenly find his pride and joy is no more a good investment than my childhood Times. 

1.The sales of watches to young people have fallen because ______. 

A．they have other devices to tell the time

B．they think watches are too expensive

C．they have little sense of time now

D．they prefer to wear an iPod on their wrists

2.It seems ridiculous to the writer that ______. 

A．some people often dive 300 metres deep into the sea

B．expensive clothes sell much better than cheap ones

C．cheap cars usually don’t run as fast as expensive ones

D．expensive watches with unnecessary functions still sell

3.What can be learnt about Swiss watch industry from the passage?

A．It targets rich people as its potential customers.

B．It seems hard for the industry to beat its competitors.

C．It wastes a huge amount of money in advertising.

D．It is easy for the industry to re-invent cheap watches.

4.Which would be the best title for the passage?

A．Timex Being better than Rolex

B．My Expensive Childhood Timex

C．Super-level Watches? Not for Me!

D．Watches — a Valuable Collection

 

Answer 1

【答案】

1.A

2.D

3.A

4.C

【解析】

1.細節理解題。在文中第一段就提到，身邊最來越多的年輕人不再使用手表，而是使用手機，iPod或是類似的產品來報時。選項B，D在文中沒有提及，選項C只提到單一的替代品，不完整。所以選A

2.細節理解題。選項A在文中第三段提到，但作者嘲笑的并不是有人潛入300米深的海底，屬于偷換概念，故不選；選項B，C作者只描述了社會現象并未加入自己的評論，故不選。所以選D

3.推理判斷題。選項A是反復在文中反應出的觀點；選項B在文中并未提到；選項C，答案曲解了作者的意思，作者并未覺得這個行為是一種巨大的浪費；選項D文中沒有提及到。綜上，選A

4.文章標題題。本文主旨在批判手表作為奢侈品在銷售的一種現象，選項A形式像是比較兩種表的優劣，選項B明顯示意這是篇描述物品或童年的記敘文，選項D與文章主旨矛盾，三選項皆與主旨不符。所以選C