2015年浙江大學考博英語真題

考博英語責任編輯：王覓 2019-03-20

摘要：希賽網(wǎng)英語考試頻道為大家分享“2015年浙江大學考博英語真題”，更多考博英語相關信息，請關注希賽網(wǎng)英語考試頻道。

“2015年浙江大學考博英語真題”小編正在努力更新中，請關注希賽網(wǎng)英語考試頻道，以下為考博英語預測題庫精選試題。

Architects are hopeless when it comes to deciding whether the public will view their designs as marvels or monstrosities, according to a study by Canadian psychologists. They say designers should go back to school to learn about ordinary people’s tastes. Many buildings that appeal to architects get the thumbs down from the public. Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria in British Columbia decided to find out whether architects understand public preferences and simply disagree with them, or fail to understand the lay person’s view.

With his colleague graham brown, he asked 25 experienced architects to look at photos of 42 large buildings in the US, Canada, Europe and Hong Kong. The architects predicted how the public would rate the buildings on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represented “terrible” and 10 “excellent”. a further 27 people who were not architects also scored the buildings out of 10. In addition, eight architects gave their own personal ratings of the buildings.

The three groups tended to agree among themselves on a building’s merits. And architects correctly predicted that lay people would on average rate buildings higher than they did themselves. but for individual buildings, the architects’ perceptions of what the lay people would think were often way off the mark. “Some architects are quite good at predicting lay preferences, but others are not onl y poor at it, they get it backwards.” says Gifford.

For instance, architects gave the Stockley Park building b-3 offices in London a moderate rating of 5.2. They thought the public would like it much better, predicting a rating of 6.3. But the public actually disliked the offices, and gave it 4.7. Gifford thinks that lay people respond to specific features of buildings, such as durability and originality, and hopes to pin down what they are.

“Architects in architecture school need to be taught how lay people think about buildings,”

Gifford concludes. He doesn’t think designers should pander to the lowest common denominator, but suggests they should aspire towards buildings that appeal to the public and architects alike, such as the bank of china building in Hong Kong.

Marco Goldschmidt of the Richard Rogers partnership, designers of the millennium dome in London, thinks the study is flawed. “The authors have assumed, wrongl y, that buildings can be meaningfully judged from photographs rather than actual visits,” he says. Goldschmidt thinks it would be more significant and interesting to look at the divergence of public taste between generations.

66. What does the first paragraph of this passage imply?

A. architects have a dark future in designing marvelous buildings.

B. architects don’t care about how ordinary people view their designs. C. it is very difficult for architects to please the general public.

D. architects don’t know much about the public tastes for buildings.

67. Through his study, Robert Gifford found that .

A. the three groups had similar responses to the photos of 42 large buildings

B. the architects generall y rated buildings lower than lay people

C. the architects predicted precisely the preferences of lay people

D. no architect could predict the public tastes towards buildings accurately

68. From the passage we can learn that the bank of china building in Hong Kong . A. panders to the lowest common denominator

B. gets a low rate from the architects

C. appeals to the public as well as the architects