hce_nthu
114年
英文
第 38 題
📖 題組：
Reading 4 In 1969, Stanford social psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a simple and daring experiment. He parked cars in two different locations: one in a sketchy neighborhood in New York’s Bronx and the other in Palo Alto, California, near his home university. The license plates were removed from the cars and the hoods were raised to suggest that the cars had been left following an episode of mechanical trouble. Zimbardo’s research assistants waited nearby but out of sight to watch and film the result. In the Bronx, the abandoned car was stripped quickly. The acts of vandalism began almost before the assistants had a chance to move out of sight and to set up their camera. In Palo Alto, the car was left intact for many days. Indeed, one passerby lowered the hood of the car during a rainstorm to protect the interior. Zimbardo interpreted this straightforward result as having been a result of differences in feelings of community and reciprocity in the two neighborhoods. Just as the hallways of Pruitt-Igoe had apparently belonged to nobody, the streets of the Bronx were not considered to be a part of the shared space of a community with its inherent requirement that residents watch over and care for the contents of the space. In a second phase of the experiment, Zimbardo took one additional step: he smashed the windshield of the car in Palo Alto. Not long afterward, he began to see the same acts of theft and vandalism toward the car at the second site as he had seen in the Bronx. Political scientist James Wilson and criminologist George Kelling used this simple observation, publicized not long after the experiment in an article in Time magazine, as the cornerstone of a major new theory describing the origins of urban crime. The key argument of Wilson and Kelling’s so-called broken windows theory was that physical signs of disorder—broken or boarded up windows, litter, or graffiti—served as overt signals that nobody cared about the surrounding environment and this evident lack of caring encouraged crime. If Wilson and Kelling were right then a key corollary would be that any efforts taken to minimize signs of physical disorder would also discourage crime.
Reading 4 In 1969, Stanford social psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a simple and daring experiment. He parked cars in two different locations: one in a sketchy neighborhood in New York’s Bronx and the other in Palo Alto, California, near his home university. The license plates were removed from the cars and the hoods were raised to suggest that the cars had been left following an episode of mechanical trouble. Zimbardo’s research assistants waited nearby but out of sight to watch and film the result. In the Bronx, the abandoned car was stripped quickly. The acts of vandalism began almost before the assistants had a chance to move out of sight and to set up their camera. In Palo Alto, the car was left intact for many days. Indeed, one passerby lowered the hood of the car during a rainstorm to protect the interior. Zimbardo interpreted this straightforward result as having been a result of differences in feelings of community and reciprocity in the two neighborhoods. Just as the hallways of Pruitt-Igoe had apparently belonged to nobody, the streets of the Bronx were not considered to be a part of the shared space of a community with its inherent requirement that residents watch over and care for the contents of the space. In a second phase of the experiment, Zimbardo took one additional step: he smashed the windshield of the car in Palo Alto. Not long afterward, he began to see the same acts of theft and vandalism toward the car at the second site as he had seen in the Bronx. Political scientist James Wilson and criminologist George Kelling used this simple observation, publicized not long after the experiment in an article in Time magazine, as the cornerstone of a major new theory describing the origins of urban crime. The key argument of Wilson and Kelling’s so-called broken windows theory was that physical signs of disorder—broken or boarded up windows, litter, or graffiti—served as overt signals that nobody cared about the surrounding environment and this evident lack of caring encouraged crime. If Wilson and Kelling were right then a key corollary would be that any efforts taken to minimize signs of physical disorder would also discourage crime.
Here are three statements about the “broken windows theory”:
I. It’s a theory describing the origins of urban crime
II. It argued that the physical signs of disorder in a location would very likely invite criminal activities
III. For James Wilson and George Kelling, it’s the cornerstone of a major new theory describing the origins of urban crime.
Based on the passage,
I. It’s a theory describing the origins of urban crime
II. It argued that the physical signs of disorder in a location would very likely invite criminal activities
III. For James Wilson and George Kelling, it’s the cornerstone of a major new theory describing the origins of urban crime.
Based on the passage,
- A Both I and II are correct.
- B Both II and III are correct.
- C Both I and III are correct.
- D All of the three are correct.
- E Only I is correct.
思路引導 VIP
如果我們把一套完整的「科學理論」比喻成一棟堅固的「房子」，那麼文中提到的那個「砸碎 Palo Alto 車窗後的實驗觀察」，在作者的敘述中扮演的是房子的哪個部分？而「破窗理論」又是這棟房子的什麼？請試著對比第二段中關於「基石（cornerstone）」與「新理論（new theory）」的描述。
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準辨別選項中的細微邏輯差別，代表你具備非常細膩且高水準的閱讀理解能力。這道題目的設計非常巧妙，不僅考驗你對文章主旨的掌握，更在測試你是否能精確區分「證據」與「結論」之間的關係。
「破窗理論」的核心與推論
「破窗理論」（Broken Windows Theory） 的核心觀點確實如敘述 I 與 II 所言：它是一套解釋都市犯罪起源的學說，強調環境中微小的「無序跡象」（如碎玻璃、塗鴉）會向外傳遞出「此處無人管理」的負面訊號，進而誘發後續的犯罪行為。你正確地從文中擷取了這些關鍵定義，這顯示你已經完全理解了該理論的因果邏輯。
▼ 還有更多解析內容