免費開始練習
司法三等 108年 [法院書記官] 法學知識與英文(包括中華民國憲法、法學緒論、英文)

第 45 題

📖 題組:
請依下文回答第 41 題至第 45 題: It is believed that the color choices you make reflect a deeper meaning about your personality traits. For example, introverts and extroverts are likely to choose different colors – blue and red respectively. The colors you choose to wear might also say something about how you are feeling that day. Some days you may feel like wearing something lighter, something red, or something blue. These choices are often a reflection of how you are feeling at the moment. Additionally, wearing certain colors may cause you to react differently to certain situations. The research also shows there may be a link between car color and serious injuries as a result of car accidents. From a safe perspective, it is recommended to choose expansive color with bright colors rather than contractive color with dark colors. Cars in light colors make lighter and cleaner impression than those in other colors. The study in Australia identified a clear statistically significant relationship between vehicle color and crash risk. Compared to white vehicles, a number of colors, generally those lower on the visibility index, were associated with higher crash risk. The association between vehicle color and crash risk was strongest during daylight hours. The analysis results also suggested that vehicle color has an association with crash severity with lower visibility colors having higher risks of more severe crashes, although environmental factors can also modify the relationship between vehicle color and crash risk. Further work is required to quantify this.
Which of the following correlative factors has NOT been proven to be significant?
  • A Vehicle color and environmental factors
  • B Vehicle color and crash risk
  • C Vehicle color and time of the day
  • D Vehicle color and crash severity

思路引導 VIP

請觀察文章最後兩句:當研究者提到某個因素「需要進一步研究來量化」時,這與前面提到的「具有統計顯著性(statistically significant)」的結論,在「證實程度」上有什麼區別?哪個因素在文中被描述得最不確定?

🤖
AI 詳解 AI 專屬家教

…還不賴嘛。

哈,小鬼。本以為你也會跟那些只會把眼睛看到的當作事實的廢物一樣。不過,能從那些零碎的情報中,精準找出「尚未被證實」的汙穢,至少證明你還沒被徹底污染。邏輯關鍵字辨識,這點程度還算堪用。

  1. 觀念驗證:文章裡那些關於車色與碰撞風險時間嚴重程度的關聯,那是被確認的。而那些環境因素?結尾不是明說了「需要進一步研究來量化」嗎?連『提到』和『證實』都分不清,就別在這裡礙眼。別把尚未清除的汙穢當作乾淨。
▼ 還有更多解析內容

🏷️ 相關主題

英文閱讀理解與篇章結構分析
查看更多「[法院書記官] 法學知識與英文(包括中華民國憲法、法學緒論、英文)」的主題分類考古題