GEPT 高級全真模擬試題 Mock 3

第一部分：聽力測驗（Listening Comprehension）

Part 1：短篇問答（10 題）

Question 1

The “trolley problem” has been a staple of moral philosophy for decades, but some argue that its reliance on extreme, artificially constrained scenarios makes it a poor guide for real-world ethical reasoning. Do you think thought experiments like this genuinely advance moral understanding, or are they just intellectual puzzles?

(A) They advance understanding precisely because they strip away incidental complexity. By isolating a moral variable — say, the distinction between action and inaction — they force us to articulate principles we might otherwise apply inconsistently. The artificiality is a feature, not a bug. (B) The trolley problem is just a game philosophers play — it has zero relevance to actual moral decisions. (C) We should replace all thought experiments with statistical analysis of real moral decisions.

Question 2

How should we think about the ethical status of animals used in scientific research, given that many of the resulting medical advances save human lives — but at the cost of considerable animal suffering?

(A) Animal lives are worth nothing compared to human lives — the research should continue without restriction. (B) A defensible position requires grappling with the moral weight of animal suffering without equating it simplistically to human suffering. The “three R’s” framework — Replacement, Reduction, Refinement — represents a practical consensus: avoid animal use where possible, minimize it where unavoidable, and continually improve welfare standards. But we should be honest that this framework accepts a trade-off many find uncomfortable. (C) All animal research should be banned immediately regardless of the human cost.

Question 3

The “paradox of tolerance,” articulated by Karl Popper, holds that unlimited tolerance leads to its own destruction — that a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance. Does this principle hold up when we try to apply it to specific cases, like regulating hate speech?

(A) Popper’s paradox is logically flawed and should be dismissed. (B) The principle is sound in the abstract but devilishly difficult to operationalize. The key question is who decides what counts as “intolerance” — and whether the cure (censorship powers) risks being worse than the disease. Democratic societies have arrived at different balances: the U.S. First Amendment tradition is highly speech-protective; the German and Canadian models are more willing to restrict speech deemed harmful to social cohesion. Neither model is obviously correct. (C) We should ban all speech that anyone finds offensive — that’s the only way to maintain tolerance.

Question 4

Given what we now know about the neuroplasticity of the brain — its ability to reorganize itself throughout life — how should this reshape our approach to education, particularly for adults who believe they’re “too old to learn”?

(A) Neuroplasticity has been exaggerated — adult brains are fundamentally fixed. (B) The “critical period” model has been significantly revised. While certain capacities (like native-like accent acquisition) do show age-related constraints, the evidence strongly supports that complex new skills — languages, musical instruments, mathematical reasoning — can be acquired well into late adulthood. The limiting factor is more often confidence and opportunity than neurobiology. Educational policy should reflect this by expanding lifelong learning pathways. (C) Adults should focus only on what they already know — learning new things after 30 is futile.

Question 5

Some economists argue that GDP is a fundamentally flawed measure of societal well-being because it counts “bads” (like the economic activity generated by a natural disaster clean-up) as positives and ignores non-market goods (like unpaid care work). Should we replace GDP as the primary measure of national progress?

(A) GDP has served us well for decades — there’s no need for change. (B) Replacement is probably too strong — but supplementation is overdue. Measures like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and the Human Development Index (HDI) already exist and partially address GDP’s blind spots. The challenge is less technical than political: GDP growth is a simple narrative that politicians and media understand. A dashboard approach — tracking multiple indicators rather than a single number — is likely more robust than trying to create one perfect metric. (C) Any alternative to GDP would be even more flawed, so we shouldn’t try.

Question 6

The precautionary principle in environmental law suggests that when an action poses a risk of serious harm, the burden of proof should fall on those proposing the action rather than those opposing it. But critics say this principle paralyzes innovation. How do we draw the line?

(A) The principle should be applied to every new technology without exception. (B) The principle makes most sense when applied to risks that are both plausible and catastrophic — where the worst-case scenario is genuinely unacceptable. For a new chemical that might cause cancer, a precautionary approach may be warranted. For a new social media feature that might reduce attention spans, it’s less clear the principle should block deployment. The proportionality of the response to the severity and certainty of the risk is the key calibration mechanism. (C) We should abandon the precautionary principle entirely — innovation always requires risk.

Question 7

I’m trying to understand the epistemic argument for democracy — the idea that democratic processes are better at arriving at truth or good decisions, not just fairer. Is there actually empirical support for this?

(A) Democracy has no epistemic advantages — it’s purely about fairness. (B) There’s qualified support from several lines of research. The “Condorcet Jury Theorem” demonstrates mathematically that if each voter has a better-than-random chance of being right, large groups outperform small groups of experts. Diversity of perspectives — what Scott Page calls the “diversity trumps ability” theorem — can produce better problem-solving than homogeneous groups of high-ability individuals. These models have real but bounded applicability: they work best for problems with objectively verifiable answers, and they depend on conditions (voter independence, genuine cognitive diversity) that real democracies approximate imperfectly. (C) The evidence shows that dictatorships consistently make better decisions.

Question 8

To what extent do you think the “right to be forgotten” — the legal right to have certain personal information removed from internet search results — should be recognized globally? The EU recognizes it; the U.S. largely doesn’t.

(A) The right to be forgotten is an absolute human right that should override all other considerations. (B) The tension is between privacy and dignity on one side, and freedom of information and expression on the other — both legitimate values. A nuanced approach would recognize the right in cases where the information is no longer relevant, serves no public interest, and causes demonstrable harm to the individual — particularly for non-public figures and for information from one’s distant past. But it should not become a tool for powerful people to whitewash legitimate public scrutiny. (C) There should be no right to be forgotten — once information is public, it should stay public forever.

Question 9

With the acceleration of automation in knowledge work — legal document review, radiology screening, financial auditing — what skills should universities be prioritizing that are likely to remain distinctively human?

(A) Technical coding skills — everything else will be automated anyway. (B) The evidence points toward a complementarity rather than substitution model. Skills in formulating good questions, critically evaluating AI outputs, synthesizing across domains, and exercising ethical judgment in ambiguous situations are becoming more — not less — valuable. The “humanities” skills that were sometimes dismissed as impractical — close reading, contextual reasoning, persuasive communication — turn out to be precisely the skills that are hardest to automate. A curriculum that integrates technical literacy with humanistic rigor is more forward-looking than one that goes all-in on either. (C) Universities should just teach students how to use AI tools effectively.

Question 10

How do you evaluate the claim that the decline of local journalism — over 2,000 American newspapers have closed since 2004 — represents not just an economic problem but a democratic crisis?

(A) The decline of newspapers is just market forces at work — people prefer getting news from social media. (B) The evidence linking local journalism to democratic health is substantial. Studies have found that after a local newspaper closes, municipal borrowing costs rise (because less scrutiny of government finances increases perceived risk), voter turnout in local elections declines, and political polarization increases as voters shift to nationalized news sources. Local journalism performs a monitoring function that no other institution reliably replicates. Whether this constitutes a “crisis” depends on whether we believe informed local self-governance is essential to democracy — but if we do, the economic collapse of the local news business model is genuinely alarming. (C) Democracy functioned fine before newspapers and will function fine without them.

Part 2：長篇對話（10 題）

Conversation 1 (Questions 11-13):

Two museum curators discuss an exhibition proposal.

W: The proposed exhibition on medieval Islamic science is intellectually compelling, but I’m worried about the visitor experience. The subject matter — astronomical instruments, medical manuscripts, mathematical treatises — doesn’t naturally lend itself to the kind of immersive, interactive experience that drives attendance numbers.

M: I think that’s a failure of imagination, not a limitation of the material. The astrolabe — a medieval Islamic invention — is essentially an analog computer. The medical texts from 10th-century Baghdad describe surgical procedures that anticipate modern practice by centuries. These aren’t dusty relics; they’re evidence of one of the most dynamic periods of scientific inquiry in human history.

W: I don’t disagree about the substance, but our last two exhibitions that centered on manuscripts and texts drew crowds that were literally a third the size of the interactive installations. The board is going to raise the attendance question.

M: Then let’s reimagine the presentation. Instead of displaying manuscripts in vitrines with caption cards, we commission working replicas of the instruments — astrolabes, celestial globes, water clocks — that visitors can touch and operate. We build an interactive digital map showing the movement of scientific knowledge from Baghdad to Cordoba to Palermo to Paris. We create a live demonstration space where modern artisans show how medieval paper, ink, and bookbinding were made. The substance remains rigorous; the mode of delivery changes.

W: That’s a stronger concept. If we can cost it out and show the board a concrete engagement strategy — projected attendance, educational programming, media hooks — I’d be willing to champion it.

What is the woman’s main concern about the exhibition? (A) The historical accuracy of the content is questionable. (B) The subject matter doesn’t easily support the interactive, immersive experiences that draw large audiences. (C) The exhibition would be too expensive to insure against damage. (D) There aren’t enough artifacts available to fill the exhibition space.

What does the man propose to address the concern? (A) Reduce the exhibition’s academic rigor to make it more accessible. (B) Commission working replicas, build interactive digital maps, and create live demonstration spaces. (C) Focus the exhibition exclusively on the most visually spectacular artifacts. (D) Abandon the exhibition concept entirely and choose a more popular topic.

What does the woman say she needs before she can champion the exhibition? (A) A guarantee from the board that attendance targets will be waived. (B) A concrete engagement strategy with projected attendance, educational programming, and media hooks. (C) External funding from a corporate sponsor to cover all exhibition costs. (D) A published academic paper validating the exhibition’s historical claims.

Conversation 2 (Questions 14-16):

A startup founder and a venture capitalist discuss a funding round.

M: Your pitch deck is strong, but the valuation you’re asking for — $40 mi ll i o n p re - m o n ey f or a S er i es A — i s a gg ress i v e f or a co m p an y w i t h$ 2.3 million in annual recurring revenue. Walk me through your thinking.

W: The standard SaaS multiples would put us around $25 t o$ 30 million, I grant you. But those multiples are backward-looking — they price the company based on what it IS, not what it’s becoming. We’ve grown revenue 18% month over month for the last six consecutive months. If that trajectory holds — and our pipeline suggests it’s accelerating — we’ll exit this year at over $8 mi ll i o n A RR . T h e$ 40 million valuation is roughly a 5x forward multiple on that projection.

M: Forward multiples on projected revenue are a tough sell in the current funding environment. The correction of 2023-2024 burned a lot of VCs who priced rounds on hockey-stick projections that never materialized. If I take this to our investment committee at $40 million, their first question will be: what’s your Plan B if growth slows to, say, 8% month-over-month?

W: At 8% monthly growth — which would be our worst month in over a year — we’d still exit at around $5.5 mi ll i o n A RR . W e^{'} d b ec a s h - f l o wp os i t i v e b y Q 3 o f n e x t ye a r, w i t h e n o ug h r u n w a y t ore a c h p ro f i t abi l i t y w i t h o u t an o t h err ai se . T ha t d o w n s i d e p ro t ec t i o ni s b u i lt in t oo u r m o d e l . B u t I t ak eyo u r p o in t ab o u t co mmi tt ee d y nami cs . Wha t i f w es t r u c t u re i t a s a p r i ce d ro u n d a t$ 30 million post-money with a ratchet provision — if we hit certain revenue milestones by Q4, the effective valuation adjusts upward?

M: The ratchet is an elegant compromise. It aligns incentives: if the growth you believe in materializes, you’re not diluted by a low early valuation; if it doesn’t, we’re protected. Let me socialize that structure internally.

What is the venture capitalist’s concern about the startup’s valuation request? (A) The company’s technology is not sufficiently differentiated from competitors. (B) The $40 mi ll i o n p re - m o n ey v a l u a t i o ni s a gg ress i v e g i v e n$ 2.3 million in annual recurring revenue. (C) The founding team lacks the experience to execute the business plan. (D) The target market is too small to justify venture-scale returns.

What justification does the founder offer for her valuation? (A) The company has received competing offers from other venture firms. (B) The company’s patents are worth at least $15 million on their own. (C) The company’s consistent 18% month-over-month growth trajectory supports a forward multiple on projected revenue. (D) The founder has a personal track record of successful exits.

What compromise do they arrive at? (A) The founder reduces the valuation to $20 mi ll i o n w i t hn oo t h erc han g es . (B) A p r i ce d ro u n d a t$ 30 million post-money with a ratchet provision tied to revenue milestones. (C) The venture capitalist agrees to the original $40 million valuation without conditions. (D) The founder withdraws the funding request and decides to bootstrap instead.

Conversation 3 (Questions 17-20):

A climate scientist and a policy advisor discuss communication strategy.

M: Dr. Okonkwo, I read your latest paper on Arctic permafrost thaw and the methane release feedback loop. The findings are alarming — but I have to be honest, the way you’re presenting them publicly might be counterproductive. Every time a climate scientist says “it’s worse than we thought,” the segment of the public that’s already skeptical just tunes out, and the segment that’s already alarmed gets more anxious in ways that don’t translate into action.

W: I understand the communication concern, but I’m not going to soften the science to make it more palatable. The data are what they are. The permafrost contains roughly 1,500 billion tons of carbon — about twice what’s currently in the atmosphere. The acceleration of thaw we’re documenting isn’t a scare story; it’s empirical observation.

M: I’m not asking you to soften the science. I’m asking you to pair the diagnosis with a clearer articulation of what actions follow from it. When you present a finding like “we’re approaching a tipping point,” and then stop, the audience fills in the blank with either “so it’s hopeless” or “so they’re exaggerating.” Neither is productive.

W: What would you want me to add?

M: Two things. First, explicitly state that the feedback loop strengthens the case for rapid emissions reduction — it means the window for preventing dangerous thresholds IS narrowing, but it hasn’t closed. Second, connect it to tangible policy debates: the permafrost findings are directly relevant to the carbon budget calculations that inform national emissions pledges under the Paris Agreement. When the science is framed as “here’s why the policy conversation should change in this specific way,” it empowers rather than paralyzes.

What is the policy advisor’s concern about how the scientist communicates her findings? (A) The scientific methodology is flawed and needs revision before public release. (B) Presenting alarming findings without actionable follow-up may lead to public disengagement or anxiety rather than action. (C) The scientist should focus on publishing in academic journals rather than speaking publicly. (D) The findings contradict established climate models and will confuse the public.

What does the scientist refuse to do? (A) Publish her findings in peer-reviewed journals. (B) Soften the science to make it more palatable to the public. (C) Participate in any public communication about her research. (D) Collaborate with policy advisors on any aspect of her work.

What two communication strategies does the advisor recommend? (A) The scientist should stop publishing alarming findings altogether and only share positive results. (B) The scientist should focus exclusively on technical audiences and avoid all public communication. (C) State that the window for prevention is narrowing but not closed, and connect findings to tangible policy debates. (D) The scientist should use more emotional language and avoid all technical terminology.

According to the advisor, what happens when scientists present alarming findings without actionable follow-up? (A) The public immediately demands stronger climate policies from their governments. (B) Audiences fill in the blank with either “it’s hopeless” or “they’re exaggerating” — neither is productive. (C) Other scientists become more motivated to replicate the research. (D) Policy makers typically act more quickly to address the issue.

Part 3：長篇獨白（10 題）

Monologue 1 (Questions 21-23):

Opening remarks at a conference on behavioral public policy.

“Ten years ago, the idea that governments should employ behavioral insights — ‘nudges’ — to improve policy outcomes was considered either excitingly innovative or creepily paternalistic, depending on your vantage point. Today, ‘nudge units’ have been established in governments from Singapore to Stockholm to Sydney, and the conversation has matured considerably.

The early enthusiasm was for what you might call ‘low-hanging fruit’ — changing the default option on retirement savings plans from opt-in to opt-out, for instance, which dramatically increased participation rates at essentially zero cost. These wins were real. But we have to be candid about the limits of the approach as we’ve encountered them over the past decade.

First, nudges work best for discrete, one-time decisions — enrollment, registration, compliance with a specific form. They are far less effective at changing complex, habitual behaviors like diet, exercise, and energy consumption, where structural factors — food deserts, walkable neighborhoods, energy pricing — swamp individual choice architecture.

Second, there is a genuine democratic concern when governments get better at influencing citizen behavior through non-transparent means. The very effectiveness of a nudge depends partly on its invisibility — if you know you’re being nudged, some of the effect dissipates. This creates an uncomfortable tension with democratic values of transparency and autonomy.

The field’s maturation means embracing these limitations honestly. Behavioral insights are a useful tool in the policy toolkit, not a replacement for regulation, taxation, and investment in public goods. The most promising frontier is integrating behavioral design with structural reform — using nudges to help people navigate systems that have been made fairer and more accessible through traditional policy levers.”

What limitation of “nudges” does the speaker identify? (A) They are too expensive for most governments to implement at scale. (B) They work well for discrete decisions but are less effective at changing complex, habitual behaviors where structural factors dominate. (C) They have been completely discredited by follow-up research and should be abandoned. (D) They only work in Western countries and have failed everywhere else.

What democratic concern does the speaker raise about nudges? (A) Nudges are always more expensive than traditional regulation. (B) The effectiveness of nudges partly depends on their invisibility, which creates tension with democratic values of transparency and autonomy. (C) Nudges require governments to collect excessive amounts of personal data. (D) Nudges are inherently illegal under most democratic constitutions.

What does the speaker identify as the most promising frontier for behavioral public policy? (A) Abandoning behavioral insights entirely in favor of traditional economic incentives. (B) Integrating behavioral design with structural reform — using nudges within systems made fairer through traditional policy levers. (C) Developing more powerful nudges that are completely invisible to citizens. (D) Focusing exclusively on corporate applications of behavioral insights rather than government ones.

Monologue 2 (Questions 24-26):

From a radio essay on the philosophy of history.

“Historians have long debated what drives historical change. The nineteenth century gave us the ‘Great Man’ theory — history as the biography of exceptional individuals bending events to their will. The twentieth century, under the influence of Marxism and the Annales School, swung hard in the opposite direction: history as the product of vast, impersonal forces — economic structures, demographic shifts, climatic patterns — within which individual actors were little more than foam on the surface of deep currents.

The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in the messy middle — but not as a simple compromise between the two positions. The more interesting question is how these levels interact. What conditions allow an individual to become historically consequential? Lenin without the specific conditions of Russia in 1917 — a discredited regime, a catastrophic war, a radicalized urban working class — would have remained a marginal exile. But without Lenin, those conditions might have produced a very different outcome — a liberal provisional government consolidating power, perhaps, rather than a Bolshevik one.

The philosopher of history Isaiah Berlin captured this reciprocity well when he described historical explanation as a matter of ‘degrees of freedom.’ Large forces constrain the range of possible outcomes, but within those constraints, particular decisions by particular people at particular moments open some paths and close others. The historian’s craft is to trace both the constraints and the moments of genuine choice — to show how the river’s course is shaped by the valley’s contours AND by the actions of those navigating its currents.”

What does the speaker identify as the “Great Man” theory of history? (A) History is determined primarily by technological innovation. (B) History is shaped by exceptional individuals bending events to their will. (C) History is the product of divine intervention in human affairs. (D) History follows predictable cycles of rise and decline.

What role does the speaker attribute to Lenin in historical explanation? (A) Lenin was irrelevant — the Bolshevik Revolution would have happened identically without him. (B) Lenin matters as a case study in how individual agency interacts with structural conditions to produce specific outcomes. (C) Lenin proves that individuals are always more important than social forces. (D) Lenin demonstrates that political ideology is irrelevant to historical change.

What does the speaker mean by “degrees of freedom” in historical explanation? (A) The degree to which historians are free to interpret evidence as they wish. (B) Large forces constrain possible outcomes, but within those constraints, particular decisions open some paths and close others. (C) The extent to which historical actors were legally permitted to make independent decisions. (D) The number of different historical interpretations that can be supported by the same evidence.

Monologue 3 (Questions 27-30):

Closing remarks at a symposium on artificial intelligence and the humanities.

“I want to close this symposium by suggesting that the humanities and the sciences are converging around a question that neither can answer alone. That question is: what does it mean to understand something?

For centuries, the humanities claimed ‘understanding’ as their domain — understanding a poem, a historical period, a philosophical argument — while the sciences claimed ‘explanation.’ Understanding was hermeneutic, interpretive, concerned with meaning; explanation was causal, mechanistic, concerned with laws. The two modes of knowing coexisted in an uneasy truce.

The rise of machine learning has disrupted this détente. When a neural network trained on millions of radiology images can detect tumors with accuracy surpassing human radiologists, does it ‘understand’ what a tumor is? Most of us would say no — it has learned statistical correlations, not the pathophysiology of cancer. But as these systems become more sophisticated — as they begin to generate explanatory hypotheses, not just pattern matches — the boundary between correlation and comprehension starts to blur.

This is where the humanities become urgently relevant. Literary scholars, historians, and philosophers have spent centuries thinking about what constitutes interpretation versus mere pattern recognition, about the relationship between parts and wholes, about the role of context in establishing meaning. These are suddenly not just academic questions — they are engineering questions. As we build systems that increasingly approximate some of the functions we associate with understanding, we need the humanities to help us clarify what we mean by the term — and what we might be surrendering when we delegate it to machines.”

According to the speaker, how did the humanities and sciences traditionally divide the concept of “understanding”? (A) Both disciplines claimed to understand things in exactly the same way. (B) Humanities claimed hermeneutic, interpretive understanding; sciences claimed causal, mechanistic explanation. (C) Sciences claimed understanding; humanities rejected the concept entirely. (D) Neither discipline cared about the concept of understanding — it was a philosophical rather than practical concern.

What challenge does machine learning pose to the traditional distinction? (A) It proves that the humanities are no longer relevant to modern society. (B) As AI systems begin to generate explanatory hypotheses, the boundary between statistical correlation and genuine comprehension blurs. (C) It demonstrates that scientists never actually understood anything — only machines can truly understand. (D) It shows that hermeneutics and causal explanation are fundamentally the same thing.

What contribution does the speaker argue the humanities can make to AI development? (A) Writing better user manuals for AI products. (B) Helping clarify what we mean by “understanding” and what we might surrender when delegating it to machines. (C) Developing more efficient algorithms for training neural networks. (D) Providing historical examples of failed technological predictions.

The word “détente” in the passage is closest in meaning to: (A) conflict (B) tension (C) easing of tensions (D) alliance

第二部分：閱讀測驗（Reading Comprehension）

Part 1：高階字彙（15 題）

The documentary’s narrative was ________ constructed, weaving together archival footage, expert interviews, and personal testimony into a seamless and compelling whole. (A) haphazardly (B) artfully (C) negligently (D) crudely

The CEO’s memoir was a ________ exercise in image rehabilitation — every anecdote seemed engineered to cast its subject in the most favorable possible light. (A) transparent (B) selfless (C) candid (D) genuine

The novelist’s characters are notable for their moral ________ — they resist easy classification as heroes or villains, exhibiting a mixture of virtue and failing that feels recognizably human. (A) clarity (B) simplicity (C) ambiguity (D) purity

The policy was criticized as ________ — it addressed a symptom of the problem while leaving its underlying causes untouched. (A) comprehensive (B) cosmetic (C) radical (D) structural

The defendant’s testimony was ________ by the prosecution, which introduced documentary evidence that directly contradicted several of his claims. (A) corroborated (B) impeached (C) reinforced (D) validated

The philosopher’s prose is notoriously ________ — a single sentence can run for half a page, with clauses nestled within clauses in a syntax that demands and rewards slow reading. (A) terse (B) pithy (C) labyrinthine (D) laconic

In the aftermath of the scandal, the organization undertook a ________ review of its governance practices, examining everything from board composition to whistleblower protections. (A) cursory (B) superficial (C) sweeping (D) nominal

The agreement was ________ — both sides made concessions, and neither walked away entirely satisfied, which is often the hallmark of a genuinely fair negotiation. (A) one-sided (B) lopsided (C) equitable (D) unilateral

The professor’s lecture on quantum entanglement was ________ to most of the audience, who lacked the mathematical background to follow the derivations. (A) accessible (B) intelligible (C) impenetrable (D) transparent

She has a ________ ability to identify the weak point in any argument — within minutes of hearing a proposal, she can pinpoint exactly where the reasoning falters. (A) pedestrian (B) mediocre (C) uncanny (D) negligible

The two studies reached ________ conclusions — one found a strong positive correlation between the variables, while the other found no relationship at all. (A) convergent (B) complementary (C) divergent (D) harmonious

The general’s strategy was ________ — bold and unconventional, it caught the enemy completely by surprise, but it also carried a significant risk of catastrophic failure. (A) timid (B) audacious (C) conventional (D) predictable

The researcher’s findings were ________ by her peers for their methodological rigor and sophisticated statistical analysis. (A) derided (B) lauded (C) dismissed (D) ignored

The trade agreement contained several ________ clauses whose full implications only became apparent during the implementation phase, when disputes arose over their interpretation. (A) explicit (B) unequivocal (C) ambiguous (D) straightforward

The poet achieves an extraordinary ________ of tone — the poem can be read simultaneously as a tender love lyric and a bitter political satire. (A) monotony (B) simplicity (C) duality (D) uniformity

Part 2：克漏字（10 題）

Passage 1 (Questions 46-50):

The “glass cliff” phenomenon — first identified by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam in 2005 — describes a troubling pattern in organizational leadership: women are ___46___ appointed to leadership positions during periods of crisis or decline, when the risk of failure is highest. The metaphor extends the better-known “glass ceiling” concept: women break through the invisible barrier, only to find themselves on a precipice.

The mechanism appears to be a combination of ___47___ associations (which stereotype women as better at handling interpersonal crises and “cleaning up messes”) and the fact that during stable, prosperous periods, leadership positions are more coveted and competed for — and men are more likely to win them. When an organization is in trouble, the position becomes less attractive, opening a path for women who would otherwise face ___48___ resistance.

The professional cost can be severe. Leaders appointed during crises face higher scrutiny and are more likely to be blamed for outcomes that were largely ___49___ before they took the role. Failed glass-cliff tenures can then serve as “evidence” that the woman wasn’t up to the job, reinforcing the very stereotypes that created the glass cliff in the first place — a particularly insidious feedback loop. Addressing it requires not just individual awareness but ___50___ change: transparent succession planning, crisis leadership pipelines that include diverse candidates, and governance structures that evaluate leaders fairly against the context they inherit.

(A) rarely (B) randomly (C) disproportionately (D) never

(A) implicit (B) explicit (C) overt (D) conscious

(A) minimal (B) token (C) nominal (D) entrenched

(A) preventable (B) predetermined (C) reversible (D) manageable

(A) superficial (B) incremental (C) structural (D) cosmetic

Passage 2 (Questions 51-55):

The concept of “affective polarization” — the tendency for partisans to view their opponents not just as wrong on policy issues but as personally dislikable, dishonest, or even a threat to the nation — has become a central concern in the study of democratic health. Unlike ideological polarization, which measures divergence in policy ___51__, affective polarization measures emotional distance: how warmly or coldly citizens feel toward members of the opposing party.

The distinction matters because the remedies for each are different. Ideological polarization might be addressed through deliberation, compromise, and exposure to diverse viewpoints. Affective polarization, by contrast, appears to be driven more by social identity dynamics than by substantive disagreement. Experimental studies have shown that when partisans are ___52__ exaggerated perceptions of the other side’s extremity and hostility (a phenomenon known as “false polarization”), their affective hostility ___53__. In other words, we dislike each other partly because we imagine each other’s views to be more extreme than they actually are.

This suggests that interventions that correct misperceptions — showing partisans accurate data about what the other side actually believes — can ___54__ affective hostility, at least in the short term. However, such corrections treat a symptom rather than the underlying disease: an information ecosystem in which the most extreme voices are algorithmically amplified, ___55__ the very misperceptions that fuel affective polarization.

(A) preferences (B) identities (C) aesthetics (D) histories

(A) shielded from (B) exposed to (C) corrected for (D) unaware of

(A) intensified (B) subsided (C) persisted (D) fluctuated

(A) exacerbate (B) inflame (C) mitigate (D) perpetuate

(A) correcting (B) dispelling (C) amplifying (D) neutralizing

Part 3：閱讀理解（15 題）

Passage A (Questions 56-58):

The year is 1847, and a young physician named Ignaz Semmelweis has noticed something disturbing at the Vienna General Hospital. The First Obstetrical Clinic, staffed by medical students, has a maternal mortality rate from “childbed fever” of roughly 10%. The Second Clinic, staffed by midwives, has a rate of roughly 3%. The difference is well-known — so well-known that women beg on their knees not to be admitted to the First Clinic.

Semmelweis’s breakthrough insight comes after a colleague dies from a scalpel wound sustained during an autopsy. The colleague’s symptoms mirror those of the women dying from childbed fever. Semmelweis hypothesizes that “cadaverous particles” — transmitted on the hands of medical students who move directly from autopsy rooms to delivery wards — are the vector of disease. He institutes a hand-washing protocol using chlorinated lime. The mortality rate in the First Clinic plummets to below 2%.

What happens next is a cautionary tale about how scientific communities receive disruptive findings. Semmelweis’s theory — that invisible particles on doctors’ hands were killing patients — preceded germ theory by two decades and lacked a theoretical framework that his peers could accept. The medical establishment rejected his findings. Semmelweis, increasingly bitter and erratic, was eventually committed to a mental asylum, where he died in 1865 at the age of 47. His hand-washing protocol was not widely adopted until Joseph Lister’s work on antisepsis, informed by Pasteur’s germ theory, provided the theoretical underpinning that Semmelweis had lacked.

What observation led Semmelweis to his discovery? (A) The midwives’ clinic had a mortality rate of 10%, while the medical students’ clinic had 3%. (B) The clinic staffed by medical students had a much higher maternal mortality rate (10%) than the one staffed by midwives (3%). (C) Patients at both clinics had identical mortality rates, suggesting a common external cause. (D) The hospital administration had been falsifying mortality statistics for years.

Why, according to the passage, did the medical establishment reject Semmelweis’s findings? (A) The data clearly showed that his hand-washing protocol had no effect on mortality rates. (B) His theory preceded germ theory by two decades and lacked an accepted theoretical framework. (C) Other hospitals had already adopted hand-washing protocols with better results. (D) Semmelweis refused to publish his findings in any medical journals.

What broader lesson does the passage suggest about scientific progress? (A) Empirical evidence alone is always sufficient to change medical practice. (B) Even strong empirical findings may be rejected if they lack a theoretical framework that the scientific community is prepared to accept. (C) Medical discoveries are always welcomed promptly if they improve patient outcomes. (D) The medical establishment of the 19th century was unusually open to innovation compared to other fields.

Passage B (Questions 59-62):

Subtitled “The Follies and Fantasies of a Useless Class,” David Graeber’s 2018 book “Bullshit Jobs” advanced a provocative thesis: that a significant proportion of modern employment — Graeber estimated 30 to 40% — consists of jobs that even the people doing them consider pointless. The book, based on an earlier essay that went viral, drew on hundreds of personal testimonies from workers who described their roles as contributing nothing of genuine value: corporate lawyers facilitating mergers that destroyed value, middle managers whose primary function was to make other middle managers feel important, compliance officers enforcing rules that everyone agreed were nonsensical.

Graeber’s argument was not primarily economic but moral and psychological. He contended that the prevalence of meaningless work constitutes a “profound psychological violence” — that the human need to feel that one’s labor contributes something of value is fundamental, and that the systematic denial of this need in the modern workplace generates misery, resentment, and the very social pathologies that conventional economics attributes to unemployment or material deprivation.

Critics raised several objections. Some challenged Graeber’s methodology, arguing that self-reported perceptions of job pointlessness are subjective and may not reflect objective social value. Economists pointed out that if employers are willing to pay for these roles, they must, by revealed preference, consider them valuable. Others noted that many of the jobs Graeber described as “bullshit” — administrative compliance roles, for instance — exist because of regulatory requirements that, however cumbersome, reflect democratically enacted public protections. The debate, unresolved, continues to resonate in an era increasingly anxious about what automation may mean for the future of work — and, perhaps more profoundly, for the future of meaning.

What percentage of jobs did Graeber estimate to be “bullshit jobs”? (A) 10-20% (B) 20-30% (C) 30-40% (D) 50-60%

According to the passage, what was Graeber’s primary argument about meaningless work? (A) It reduces GDP growth by allocating labor inefficiently. (B) It constitutes “profound psychological violence” because humans fundamentally need to feel their work contributes value. (C) It is a necessary cost of economic development and should be accepted as normal. (D) It only affects a tiny fraction of the workforce and is therefore not a serious social concern.

What economic counterargument did critics raise? (A) Most workers are satisfied with their jobs according to large-scale surveys. (B) If employers pay for these roles, they must, by revealed preference, consider them valuable. (C) Graeber’s sample of testimonies was too large to be methodologically valid. (D) The concept of “social value” can be precisely measured and Graeber’s calculations were wrong.

What alternative explanation for some “bullshit jobs” does the passage mention? (A) They are created by artificial intelligence running amok in corporate systems. (B) Many of these roles exist because of regulatory requirements reflecting democratically enacted public protections. (C) They are the result of corporate sabotage by disgruntled employees. (D) They represent an evolutionary holdover from pre-industrial work patterns.

Passage C (Questions 63-67):

“Cosmopolitanism” — the idea that our moral and political obligations extend beyond national borders to encompass all of humanity — has ancient philosophical roots. The Stoics of ancient Greece and Rome articulated a version of it; so did Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant, who envisioned a “cosmopolitan right” of universal hospitality. But the concept has acquired new urgency in an era of climate change, mass migration, global pandemics, and interconnected financial systems that render the distinction between “domestic” and “international” increasingly porous.

The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his 2006 book “Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers,” offered a vision of the concept that is both ambitious and modest. Ambitious, because it insists that we have genuine obligations to people we will never meet, whose languages we do not speak, whose customs we may find alien. Modest, because it does not demand that we abandon our particular identities, loyalties, and local attachments. Appiah’s cosmopolitanism is one of “contamination” rather than purity — a embrace of cultural mixing, conversation across difference, and the recognition that there is no single “right” way to live.

Critics of cosmopolitanism often advance two concerns. The first is that it is psychologically unrealistic — that human beings are wired for parochial loyalty, and that moral sentiments attenuate with distance. The second is that it can function as a kind of moral imperialism, with Western liberals appointing themselves the arbiters of universal values. Appiah’s response to both is nuanced: he concedes the psychological challenge but argues that moral progress has historically consisted of expanding the circle of concern — from family to tribe to nation to, however imperfectly, humanity. And against the imperialism charge, he emphasizes that genuine cosmopolitan conversation requires actual engagement with others on terms of mutual respect, not the imposition of one culture’s values under the guise of universalism.

According to the passage, what makes cosmopolitanism newly urgent? (A) The decline of organized religion and the search for alternative moral frameworks. (B) Global challenges like climate change, mass migration, and pandemics that transcend national borders. (C) The establishment of the United Nations and other international institutions. (D) Advances in neuroscience that show universal human cognitive capacities.

What does the passage mean by describing Appiah’s cosmopolitanism as characterized by “contamination”? (A) It is morally impure and should be rejected on ethical grounds. (B) It embraces cultural mixing, conversation across difference, and rejects the idea of a single “right” way to live. (C) It is heavily influenced by medical metaphors of disease and health. (D) It represents a contamination of philosophy by political ideology.

What is the first criticism of cosmopolitanism mentioned? (A) It is logically incoherent and philosophically untenable. (B) It is psychologically unrealistic — people seem wired for parochial loyalty, and moral sentiments weaken with distance. (C) It has been empirically disproven by studies in international relations. (D) It is too popular and risks becoming a meaningless platitude.

How does Appiah respond to the charge of moral imperialism? (A) He concedes that cosmopolitanism is indeed a form of Western imperialism. (B) He emphasizes that genuine cosmopolitanism requires actual engagement with others on terms of mutual respect, not value imposition. (C) He argues that some cultures genuinely have superior values and should be emulated. (D) He dismisses the charge as irrelevant to philosophical discussion.

What does the passage suggest about the idea of “expanding the circle of concern”? (A) It is a modern invention with no historical precedent. (B) It describes the trajectory of moral progress — from family to tribe to nation to humanity. (C) It is a psychological impossibility that no society has ever achieved. (D) It refers specifically to the expansion of the European Union.

Passage D (Questions 68-70):

In 1903, the African American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois published “The Souls of Black Folk,” a book that would become one of the foundational texts of American intellectual history. In it, Du Bois introduced the concept of “double consciousness” — a term that has resonated far beyond its original context.

“Double consciousness,” Du Bois wrote, is “this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.” To be Black in America, Du Bois argued, is to inhabit a divided self: to be both American and Black, to possess “two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body.” The experience is not one of simple conflict but of a more complex, exhausting, and productive duality — the constant negotiation between how one sees oneself and how one is seen by a society that defines one’s identity in advance.

Du Bois’s insight was radical for its time in several ways. It located the psychological damage of racism not primarily in overt acts of discrimination but in the everyday experience of being constituted as a “problem” — of inhabiting a subjectivity that society has already defined as Other. And it refused to resolve the duality through simple assimilationism or separatism. Du Bois’s ideal was not to become “simply American” (which, in the context of 1903, meant assimilating to whiteness) nor to retreat into a separate Black identity apart from America — but to hold the contradiction productively, to “merge his double self into a better and truer self.”

What is “double consciousness” as defined by Du Bois? (A) The psychological condition of having multiple personality disorder. (B) The experience of always seeing oneself through the eyes of a society that views one with contempt — inhabiting a divided self. (C) The ability to be fluent in two different cultural traditions simultaneously. (D) A form of political awareness that allows one to see through propaganda.

Where does Du Bois locate the psychological damage of racism? (A) Primarily in overt acts of discrimination and physical violence. (B) In the everyday experience of being constituted as a “problem” by a society that defines one as Other. (C) Exclusively in the legal framework of segregation rather than in individual attitudes. (D) Primarily in economic inequality rather than in psychological dynamics.

What was Du Bois’s proposed resolution to the duality of double consciousness? (A) Complete assimilation into mainstream American identity. (B) Separation from American society to build an independent Black identity. (C) Neither assimilation nor separation, but holding the contradiction productively to “merge his double self into a better and truer self.” (D) Rejecting both American and Black identities in favor of a universal human identity.

🔐 此內容需要解鎖碼才能查看。輸入解鎖碼 →

## 答案與解析 Answer Key

Listening Answer Key

Reading Answer Key

分數級距

聽力正確	閱讀正確	評估
27-30	36-40	通過高級穩了
24-26	32-35	邊緣，再加強
20-23	28-31	離通過還有一段
Below 20	Below 28	建議先鞏固中高級

本回重點單字 (15 Key Vocabulary Words)

英文	中文	出現位置
neuroplasticity	神經可塑性	Part 1 Q4
epistemic	知識論的	Part 1 Q7
whitewash	粉飾/漂白	Part 1 Q8
astrolabe	星盤（古代天文儀器）	Part 2 Conv 1
permafrost	永凍層	Part 2 Conv 3
hermeneutic	詮釋學的	Part 3 Mon 3
impassioned	激昂的	—
labyrinthine	迷宮般的/錯綜複雜的	Part 1 Vocab Q36
uncanny	不可思議的/驚人的	Part 1 Vocab Q40
audacious	大膽的	Part 1 Vocab Q42
parochial	狹隘的/地方性的	Part 3 Pass C
attenuate	減弱/衰減	Part 3 Pass C
assimilationism	同化主義	Part 3 Pass D
polarity	極化/兩極	Part 2 Pass 2
insidious	陰險的/潛伏的	Part 2 Pass 1

解鎖內容

GEPT-高級-Mock-3

GEPT 高級全真模擬試題 Mock 3

第一部分：聽力測驗（Listening Comprehension）

Part 1：短篇問答（10 題）

Part 2：長篇對話（10 題）

Part 3：長篇獨白（10 題）

第二部分：閱讀測驗（Reading Comprehension）

Part 1：高階字彙（15 題）

Part 2：克漏字（10 題）

Part 3：閱讀理解（15 題）

Listening Answer Key

Reading Answer Key

分數級距

本回重點單字 (15 Key Vocabulary Words)

關係圖譜

目錄

GEPT-高級-Mock-3

GEPT 高級 全真模擬試題 Mock 3

第一部分：聽力測驗（Listening Comprehension）

Part 1：短篇問答（10 題）

Part 2：長篇對話（10 題）

Part 3：長篇獨白（10 題）

第二部分：閱讀測驗（Reading Comprehension）

Part 1：高階字彙（15 題）

Part 2：克漏字（10 題）

Part 3：閱讀理解（15 題）

Listening Answer Key

Reading Answer Key

分數級距

本回重點單字 (15 Key Vocabulary Words)

威威學習信

關係圖譜

目錄

GEPT 高級全真模擬試題 Mock 3