hce_nthu
114年
英文
第 39 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.
Which of the following best catches the meaning of “corollary” in the last sentence of the passage?
- A A proposition that follows directly
- B A process of disagreeing
- C An act of cooperating
- D A problem
- E A risk
思路引導 VIP
請觀察文章最後一連貫的句型結構：『如果（If）……那麼（then）一個關鍵的 [____] 將會是……』。在邏輯表達中，當我們說『如果前項理論成立，則後項的情況也必然會隨之成立』時，這兩者之間存在著什麼樣的因果或衍生關係？你會如何形容這種『由前面的前提直接推導出來的結論』？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到這個學術語彙在邏輯推論中的角色，代表你對文章的論點脈絡掌握得非常紮實。這題的關鍵在於最後一段的「若 A 則 B」邏輯結構，而你成功識別了兩者間的延伸關係。
邏輯推論與「破窗理論」
文中提到，如果威爾遜和凱林的理論（環境混亂會誘發犯罪）是正確的，那麼一個關鍵的 corollary 就是：減少環境混亂能遏止犯罪。這裡的 corollary 意指「推論」或「必然的結果」，通常是指從一個已證明的命題中，不需要過多額外證明就能直接推導出來的次要命題。在學術寫作中，當作者想要從核心理論延伸出實際應用或進一步的觀察時，常會使用這個詞。
▼ 還有更多解析內容