GEPT 高級全真模擬試題 Mock 2

第一部分：聽力測驗（Listening Comprehension）

Part 1：短篇問答（10 題）

Question 1

The notion of “moral luck” — that factors beyond our control shape our moral standing — seems to undermine the very concept of moral responsibility. If our character is formed by circumstances we didn’t choose, in what sense can we truly be praised or blamed for who we are?

(A) Moral luck is an interesting philosophical puzzle, but it has no practical relevance to how we live our lives or judge others. (B) While the challenge is real, most ethical systems accommodate it by distinguishing between attributability (what your actions reveal about your character) and accountability (what society is justified in doing in response). The tension isn’t fully resolvable, but it’s navigable. (C) We should simply abandon the concept of moral responsibility altogether.

Question 2

In light of the recent revelations about the extent of data harvesting by mobile applications, some privacy advocates are calling for a complete overhaul of the “notice and consent” framework. Is that framework fundamentally broken?

(A) The framework is fine — people just need to read the terms of service more carefully. (B) It’s broken in practice if not in principle. When consent is obtained through incomprehensible legalese that nobody reads, and the choice is binary — agree or don’t use the service — it’s not meaningful consent. The question is what should replace it. (C) Privacy is an outdated concern in the digital age — we should accept that everything is public now.

Question 3

Professor, do you think the Democratic Peace Theory — that democracies rarely fight wars against each other — still holds up, given the recent conflicts involving what some would call “illiberal democracies” or “hybrid regimes”?

(A) The theory was always flawed and should be discarded. (B) The theory’s defenders would argue that the cases you’re citing involve states that don’t meet the full criteria of liberal democracy — competitive elections alone may not suffice. The causal mechanism is thought to be institutional constraints, shared norms, and economic interdependence, not merely the presence of elections. (C) All modern wars are between democracies, which disproves the theory.

Question 4

If you were advising a philanthropic foundation with $500 million to spend on improving global health outcomes over the next decade, would you invest in developing new treatments or in strengthening basic healthcare delivery systems?

(A) New treatments are more glamorous and will attract more media attention. (B) The evidence strongly favors strengthening delivery systems. We already have cost-effective interventions for the leading causes of preventable death — diarrheal disease, maternal mortality, malaria — that fail to reach populations not because we lack treatments but because the systems to deliver them are broken. That said, a portion should be reserved for targeted R&D where the delivery bottleneck is less severe. (C) Split the money equally between both approaches — that’s the safest political choice.

Question 5

What’s your view on the argument that the study of literature has become excessively politicized, with aesthetic value being sidelined in favor of ideological critique?

(A) Literature should only be judged by its beauty — politics has no place in literary study. (B) The relationship between aesthetic and political dimensions of literature is more dialectical than oppositional. The most enduring works of literature are almost always both aesthetically powerful AND engaged with the moral and political questions of their time. The concern isn’t that politics enters literary study — it always has — but whether ideological frameworks are applied so rigidly that they deafen us to what a text is actually doing. (C) Ideological critique is the only legitimate approach to literature now.

Question 6

We’re designing a carbon tax proposal that needs to get through a politically divided legislature. What design features would maximize both effectiveness and political viability?

(A) A simple flat tax with no exemptions — it’s the purest economic instrument. (B) Revenue recycling is critical — using the tax revenue to reduce other, more regressive taxes (like payroll taxes) or to issue a per-capita dividend. This transforms the political narrative from “government imposing costs” to “government returning money to citizens.” Pair this with border carbon adjustments to address competitiveness concerns and you have a package that’s both economically sound and politically defensible. (C) Exempt all politically powerful industries to ensure smooth passage.

Question 7

I’ve been asked to serve on the ethics committee reviewing a controversial study that uses CRISPR gene editing on viable human embryos. The science is groundbreaking, but the ethical terrain is almost entirely uncharted. How should I approach this?

(A) Any form of gene editing on human embryos should be banned permanently. (B) Distinguish between therapeutic and enhancement applications. Most ethical frameworks find a meaningful difference between correcting a mutation that causes a fatal childhood disease and selecting for traits like height or intelligence. Then consider procedural safeguards: independent oversight, transparency, restrictions on heritable modifications, and international coordination to prevent regulatory arbitrage. (C) Let the scientists decide — they understand the technology best.

Question 8

The “extended mind” thesis in philosophy of mind claims that cognitive processes can extend beyond the brain to include external tools and environments — a notebook can literally be part of your memory system. Does this hold up to scrutiny?

(A) It’s a clever metaphor but should not be taken literally — only brain processes are truly cognitive. (B) The thesis forces us to clarify what makes a process “cognitive” rather than merely “useful.” If we accept that cognition is fundamentally about information processing, and if external tools play functionally identical roles to internal neural processes, the boundary between mind and world becomes harder to draw. The skepticism is healthy, but the burden shifts to the skeptic to explain what principled distinction excludes the external. (C) Everything in the universe is part of your mind — the thesis doesn’t go far enough.

Question 9

Given that algorithmic content curation on social media has been shown to amplify outrage and misinformation — because these drive engagement — should platforms be legally required to optimize for something other than maximizing time-on-platform?

(A) Platforms should be free to optimize for whatever they want — it’s a free market. (B) The externality argument is compelling. When a platform’s profit-maximization algorithm produces societal harms — polarization, public health misinformation, democratic erosion — that the platform doesn’t pay for, there’s a textbook case for regulation. A “duty of care” framework, similar to what’s being debated in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, is one model: platforms must assess and mitigate foreseeable harms from their algorithmic systems. (C) The government should just build its own social media platform.

Question 10

How do you think the rise of AI-generated art and music challenges our understanding of creativity itself? If a machine can produce a symphony indistinguishable from a human-composed one, is “creativity” a concept that refers to the process, the product, or something else entirely?

(A) AI-generated art is not real art and should be ignored by serious critics. (B) It depends on whether you take an output-oriented or process-oriented view of creativity. If creativity is about producing novel and valuable outputs, and an AI does that, then the concept applies regardless of the producer. If creativity necessarily involves intentionality, emotional expression, and the lived experience that informs human art-making, then we need to distinguish between “creative products” and “creative acts.” The AI challenges us to clarify what we’ve meant all along. (C) Human creativity is over — AI has made it obsolete.

Part 2：長篇對話（10 題）

Conversation 1 (Questions 11-13):

Two policy advisors discuss a forthcoming trade negotiation.

W: The draft negotiating mandate for the Indo-Pacific trade talks is almost finalized, but there’s a major sticking point. The digital trade chapter — specifically, the provisions on cross-border data flows and data localization. Our tech sector is pushing hard for unrestricted data flows, but the civil society groups and privacy regulators are equally adamant that we can’t sign away our ability to protect citizens’ data.

M: This is the central tension in every modern trade agreement. The economic logic for free data flows is sound — it underpins everything from cloud computing to AI development to small business access to global markets — but the “digital sovereignty” concerns are legitimate too. The EU’s GDPR model shows you can have strong privacy protections without outright data localization.

W: The EU model is our baseline proposal, but the negotiating partners are pushing back. They see GDPR-style adequacy decisions as a form of regulatory imperialism — “our privacy standards are the right ones, and you must meet them to play.” They want language that recognizes different cultural and legal approaches to privacy while still facilitating data flows.

M: What about a modular approach? Core commitments on data flow facilitation, with a flexible mechanism for countries to assert legitimate public policy exceptions — privacy, cybersecurity, financial stability — subject to a necessity and proportionality test. It’s less clean than a single standard, but it might be the only framework that can command consensus.

What is the main tension discussed in the conversation? (A) Whether to include agriculture in the trade agreement. (B) The conflict between free cross-border data flows and the protection of citizens’ data privacy. (C) How to address currency manipulation in trade negotiations. (D) Whether developing countries should receive special trade preferences.

What objection do negotiating partners have to the EU model? (A) It is too weak on privacy protection. (B) It is seen as a form of regulatory imperialism imposing one set of privacy standards. (C) It is technically impossible to implement across different legal systems. (D) It would require them to adopt the Euro currency.

What compromise solution does the man propose? (A) Remove the digital trade chapter entirely. (B) A modular approach with core commitments and flexible public policy exceptions. (C) Adopt the EU model but allow countries to opt out of privacy protections. (D) Restrict the agreement to only trade in physical goods.

Conversation 2 (Questions 14-16):

A hospital administrator and a department head discuss resource allocation.

M: Dr. Watanabe, I’ve reviewed your department’s request for a third MRI machine. The capital expenditure committee is going to have questions. Your current two machines operate at about 72% capacity based on the utilization data from last quarter.

W: That utilization figure is misleading, James. It’s an average that masks extreme peak-time congestion. Between 9 AM and 2 PM on weekdays, both machines run at over 95%, and the average wait time for a non-emergency scan is 17 business days. That’s clinically unacceptable. A patient with suspected multiple sclerosis should not be waiting nearly three weeks for a confirmatory scan.

M: I don’t disagree about the clinical concern, but the committee will want to know if we’ve exhausted operational solutions before committing $2.8 million. Have we explored extended operating hours? Evening and weekend scanning shifts?

W: We piloted evening shifts for six months. Utilization during those hours barely reached 30% because referring physicians — and patients — strongly resist off-hours appointments. The behavioral barrier is real. We also explored outsourcing to private imaging centers, but the quality control issues and data integration problems made it more trouble than it was worth.

M: That’s compelling — the failed pilot and the outsourcing issues address the obvious alternatives. But you’ll need to present the clinical-outcomes case quantitatively, not just anecdotally. If you can show that the 17-day wait is associated with measurable adverse outcomes — delayed treatment initiation, disease progression markers — the committee can justify the expenditure on a cost-per-QALY basis.

Why does Dr. Watanabe argue that the current MRI utilization figure is misleading? (A) The machines are older and produce lower-quality images. (B) The average masks peak-time congestion, during which both machines run at over 95%. (C) A significant portion of scans are unnecessary and should be eliminated. (D) The data collection methodology was flawed.

What operational solution was attempted and why did it fail? (A) Purchasing a portable MRI unit — it was too expensive to maintain. (B) Evening shift scanning — utilization was low because physicians and patients resisted off-hours appointments. (C) Sharing MRI capacity with a neighboring hospital — scheduling conflicts made it unworkable. (D) Reducing scan times through new protocols — image quality suffered.

What does James suggest Dr. Watanabe do to strengthen her case? (A) Threaten to resign if the machine is not approved. (B) Present quantitative clinical-outcomes data linking the wait time to adverse patient outcomes. (C) Ask patients to petition the hospital board directly. (D) Propose leasing the machine instead of purchasing it.

Conversation 3 (Questions 17-20):

A senior editor and a junior journalist discuss an investigative piece.

W: Raj, I’ve read your draft on the housing authority’s procurement irregularities. The facts are there, but the story doesn’t land. It reads like an audit report, not journalism. Where’s the human dimension?

M: I was trying to avoid sensationalism. The procurement violations speak for themselves — inflated contracts, no-bid awards to politically connected firms, the paper trail is damning on its own terms.

W: But they don’t speak for themselves — that’s the whole point of journalism. The reader needs to understand why this matters, not just that it happened. You name three contracts, but you don’t show me a single resident living with mold and leaking ceilings because the money that should have gone to maintenance was siphoned off through inflated contracts.

M: I tried to reach residents at the affected buildings. Most were reluctant to go on the record — they’re afraid of retaliation from the housing authority. One woman agreed to talk but backed out the morning of the interview.

W: That’s the job — finding the person who WILL talk, who’s angry enough or brave enough to be named. But there’s another dimension you’re missing entirely. The procurement violations aren’t just about wasted money. They’re about the erosion of institutional trust. Every no-bid contract awarded to a crony is a contract NOT awarded to a competent firm that could have done the work better and cheaper. Find me one of those firms — a contractor who lost out fairly and is willing to talk.

M: That’s a good angle. I know of a small minority-owned firm that was repeatedly underbid by the politically connected contractors despite having superior qualifications. I’ll reach out to them today.

What is the editor’s main criticism of the draft? (A) The facts are inaccurate and need verification. (B) It reads like an audit report rather than journalism — it lacks the human dimension. (C) The story is too short and needs more technical detail. (D) The legal risk of publishing is too high without additional corroboration.

Why were most residents reluctant to talk to the journalist? (A) They didn’t understand what the investigation was about. (B) They feared retaliation from the housing authority. (C) They were legally prohibited from commenting on pending contracts. (D) They felt the story was not important enough to risk involvement.

What additional dimension does the editor suggest Raj investigate? (A) The criminal history of the politically connected contractors. (B) The impact on qualified firms that lost contracts due to the corrupt procurement process. (C) The exact financial structure of the inflated contracts. (D) The political donations made by the contractors to local officials.

What does Raj commit to doing? (A) Abandoning the story and moving to a different investigation. (B) Contacting a minority-owned firm that was disadvantaged by the procurement irregularities. (C) Filing a freedom-of-information request for additional documents. (D) Publishing the story as-is despite the editor’s concerns.

Part 3：長篇獨白（10 題）

Monologue 1 (Questions 21-23):

Excerpt from a keynote address at a technology ethics conference.

“The term ‘artificial intelligence’ is, in a sense, a misnomer — and a dangerous one at that. When we call these systems ‘intelligent,’ we implicitly grant them a form of agency and understanding that they do not possess. A large language model doesn’t ‘know’ anything in the way you know your mother’s face or the smell of rain. It generates statistically probable sequences of tokens based on patterns extracted from its training data. The output can be astonishing, even beautiful, but intelligence it is not — not in any rich sense of that word.

This matters because language shapes policy. When lawmakers and regulators hear ‘artificial intelligence,’ they imagine something akin to human intelligence — autonomous, intentional, perhaps even conscious. This leads to misguided regulation that focuses on the wrong things: the hypothetical existential risk of superintelligent AI, rather than the very real, very present problems of bias in automated hiring, opacity in credit-scoring algorithms, and the concentration of computational power in a handful of corporations.

What we need is a demystification of these technologies. We should speak not of ‘artificial intelligence’ but of ‘automated pattern recognition’ or ‘statistical optimization systems.’ Less glamorous, yes — but far more accurate, and far more likely to produce sensible governance. The real threat isn’t that these systems will become too smart. It’s that we’ll become too trusting of systems that aren’t smart at all.”

What is the speaker’s main argument about the term “artificial intelligence”? (A) It is too technical and should be simplified for public understanding. (B) It is a misnomer that misleadingly grants agency and understanding to systems that lack them. (C) It doesn’t go far enough in capturing the true capabilities of modern AI. (D) It should be replaced with a more optimistic term to encourage adoption.

What consequence of the term does the speaker identify for policy-making? (A) It leads to overly permissive regulation that allows AI to develop unchecked. (B) It causes regulators to focus on hypothetical existential risks rather than present-day problems like bias and opacity. (C) It makes it impossible for non-technical legislators to understand the technology. (D) It encourages too much government investment in AI research.

What alternative terminology does the speaker propose? (A) “Cognitive computing systems” (B) “Automated pattern recognition” or “statistical optimization systems” (C) “Neural network technologies” (D) “Machine learning platforms”

Monologue 2 (Questions 24-26):

Excerpt from a podcast on economic history.

“The Dutch East India Company, founded in 1602, is often called the world’s first multinational corporation and the first company to issue stock. But what’s less commonly discussed is that it was also the first institution to systematically separate ownership from management on a large scale — creating what economists now call the ‘principal-agent problem’ centuries before the term was coined.

Here was a company with thousands of shareholders — widows, orphans, merchants, nobles — scattered across the Dutch Republic, whose capital was being deployed by ship captains and colonial administrators half a world away, with communication lag times measured in months. The opportunities for self-dealing were immense, and the mechanisms for oversight were primitive. The company’s solution was an early form of performance-based compensation: captains and governors received a percentage of the profits from their voyages and territories, aligning their incentives — imperfectly — with those of the shareholders.

This arrangement had profound consequences. It drove extraordinary commercial success — the company’s market capitalization at its peak would be worth roughly $8 trillion in today’s dollars. But it also incentivized brutal colonial exploitation, because the agents on the ground were rewarded for maximizing short-term extraction, with little accountability for the human cost. The VOC is a reminder that incentive design is never morally neutral. The question is always: incentives to do what, at whose expense?”

What innovation of the Dutch East India Company does the speaker highlight? (A) The invention of double-entry bookkeeping. (B) The systematic separation of ownership from management, creating the principal-agent problem. (C) The first use of insurance contracts for maritime trade. (D) The development of the first international currency.

How did the company attempt to solve the oversight problem with distant agents? (A) By sending inspectors on every voyage to monitor captains’ behavior. (B) Through performance-based compensation — agents received a percentage of profits. (C) By requiring captains to post a substantial personal bond before each voyage. (D) By rotating captains between routes to prevent them from developing corrupt local relationships.

What broader lesson does the speaker draw from the VOC’s history? (A) Shareholder-owned companies are inherently more ethical than state-run enterprises. (B) Incentive design is never morally neutral — the question is always what behaviors are being incentivized and at whose expense. (C) The principal-agent problem is unsolvable, so we should accept corporate inefficiency. (D) Historical cases have no relevance to modern corporate governance.

Monologue 3 (Questions 27-30):

Excerpt from a public lecture on linguistics.

“The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis — the idea that the language we speak shapes the way we think — has had a turbulent intellectual history. In its strong form, known as linguistic determinism, it claims that language determines thought: that speakers of different languages literally inhabit different cognitive worlds. This version has been largely discredited. The evidence simply doesn’t support the idea that language imposes hard constraints on what we can think.

But the weaker version — linguistic relativity — has proven more resilient and more interesting. It suggests that language influences thought, nudging our habitual patterns of attention and categorization without imprisoning us within them. And the empirical evidence for this weaker version is genuinely compelling.

Consider color perception. Different languages divide the color spectrum differently. Russian has two distinct basic color terms for what English calls ‘blue’ — goluboy for lighter blue and siniy for darker blue. Experimental studies show that Russian speakers are measurably faster at distinguishing between shades that cross the goluboy/siniy boundary than shades that fall within the same category. English speakers show no such effect. The language isn’t preventing anyone from seeing colors — but it’s shaping the speed and precision with which they process those distinctions.

Or consider spatial reasoning. Some indigenous languages, like the Australian language Guugu Yimithirr, use absolute spatial coordinates — north, south, east, west — rather than relative terms like left and right. Speakers of such languages must maintain constant, precise orientation to the cardinal directions. The linguistic requirement seems to cultivate a form of spatial awareness that speakers of relative-direction languages rarely develop. The language doesn’t determine what they can think — but it certainly influences what they habitually do think.”

What distinction does the lecturer draw between the two forms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? (A) Linguistic determinism (strong form, largely discredited) vs. linguistic relativity (weaker form, empirically supported). (B) Phonological determinism vs. syntactic relativity. (C) Historical linguistics vs. contemporary linguistics. (D) Cognitive linguistics vs. behavioral linguistics.

What experimental finding about Russian speakers is cited to support linguistic relativity? (A) They have more words for sadness than English speakers do. (B) They are faster at distinguishing shades that cross the goluboy/siniy boundary in Russian. (C) They are worse at learning other languages because Russian grammar is so complex. (D) They remember visual scenes differently from speakers of other languages.

What is distinctive about the spatial language of Guugu Yimithirr? (A) It has no words for spatial relationships at all. (B) It uses absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) rather than relative terms like “left” and “right.” (C) It uses vertical metaphors for time, unlike all other known languages. (D) It has more than fifty words for different types of spatial relationships.

What is the lecturer’s overall conclusion about linguistic relativity? (A) Language has no effect whatsoever on thought — the entire hypothesis has been debunked. (B) Language influences habitual patterns of attention and categorization without imposing hard constraints on thought. (C) Language completely determines thought, and the evidence has been misinterpreted by skeptics. (D) The question is unanswerable with current scientific methods.

第二部分：閱讀測驗（Reading Comprehension）

Part 1：高階字彙（15 題）

The documentary’s ________ portrayal of the whistleblower as a troubled loner rather than a principled dissident drew sharp criticism from advocacy groups. (A) flattering (B) reductive (C) comprehensive (D) laudatory

The archaeologist’s interpretation of the newly discovered tablets was ________ — it rested on a chain of plausible but unverifiable assumptions. (A) conclusive (B) speculative (C) rigorous (D) empirical

The company cultivated a ________ culture in which dissent was tacitly discouraged, even as management publicly celebrated “innovation and speaking up.” (A) meritocratic (B) sycophantic (C) egalitarian (D) transparent

The peace agreement was hailed as ________ by diplomats, but skepticism persisted among analysts who had seen similar accords collapse within years. (A) catastrophic (B) insignificant (C) momentous (D) provisional

The study’s authors acknowledged that their findings were ________ and called for larger-scale replication studies before clinical guidelines should be revised. (A) definitive (B) tentative (C) conclusive (D) indisputable

The politician’s apology was widely criticized as ________ — it expressed regret for “any offense caused” without taking ownership of the offending action. (A) heartfelt (B) unequivocal (C) perfunctory (D) genuine

The historian argued that the empire’s decline was not the result of a single catastrophic event but rather a gradual ________ of institutional legitimacy over several generations. (A) consolidation (B) erosion (C) restoration (D) augmentation

Her argument was dismissed as ________ by critics who saw it as an attempt to rationalize an ethically indefensible position. (A) sophistry (B) wisdom (C) insight (D) clarity

The drug was found to have ________ effects: while it reduced the primary symptom, it also introduced a range of troubling metabolic side effects. (A) benign (B) negligible (C) negligible (D) paradoxical

The two leaders maintained a ________ relationship — cordial in public, marked by mutual suspicion in private. (A) transparent (B) adversarial (C) cordial (D) ambivalent

The researcher’s interpretation of the data was ________ by several peers who pointed to alternative explanations that she had not adequately considered. (A) endorsed (B) challenged (C) corroborated (D) celebrated

The novelist’s prose is often described as ________ — rich with sensory detail and emotional texture, but demanding sustained attention from the reader. (A) sparse (B) minimalist (C) dense (D) simplistic

The international tribunal was established to ________ those responsible for war crimes during the conflict, though its jurisdiction was contested from the start. (A) exonerate (B) prosecute (C) absolve (D) pardon

The report concluded that the company’s culture of relentless cost-cutting had created a ________ work environment in which safety concerns were routinely ignored. (A) nurturing (B) toxic (C) collaborative (D) supportive

The philosopher posited that human consciousness is ________ — fundamentally inexplicable in purely physical terms, no matter how advanced our neuroscience becomes. (A) reducible (B) tractable (C) ineffable (D) explicable

Part 2：克漏字（10 題）

Passage 1 (Questions 46-50):

The paradox of meritocracy is that believing you live in a meritocratic society can actually make you less __46__ to structural inequality. When people internalize the belief that success is entirely the product of individual effort and talent, they tend to __47__ the role of luck, inheritance, and social networks in shaping outcomes — and, more troublingly, they become more inclined to blame the disadvantaged for their own circumstances.

This psychological dynamic was demonstrated in a series of experiments by the sociologist Michael Sandel and the psychologist Daniel Markovits. Participants who were primed with meritocratic narratives subsequently showed reduced support for redistributive policies, even when presented with evidence of growing inequality. The mechanism appears to be a form of __48__ bias: those who have succeeded in a system they believe to be fair attribute their success entirely to their own merits, and by __49__, infer that those who have not succeeded must lack those merits.

This doesn’t mean meritocracy is a bad ideal — the principle that positions should go to the most qualified rather than the most connected is valuable. But it does suggest that meritocracy as a cultural belief system can __50__ against the very equality of opportunity it purports to champion.

(A) sensitive (B) resistant (C) immune (D) receptive

(A) exaggerate (B) emphasize (C) acknowledge (D) underestimate

(A) self-effacing (B) self-serving (C) self-deprecating (D) self-destructive

(A) extension (B) implication (C) contrast (D) coincidence

(A) safeguard (B) insulate (C) militate (D) advocate

Passage 2 (Questions 51-55):

The distinction between “complicated” and “complex” is more than a semantic nuance — it has profound implications for how we approach problems in fields ranging from public health to software engineering to organizational management. A complicated system, like a jet engine, may have thousands of parts, but its behavior is, in principle, __51__ and predictable: if you understand each component and how they interact, you can model the system’s behavior with high confidence. A complex system, by contrast — like a rainforest ecosystem or a human immune system — exhibits __52__ properties: the behavior of the whole cannot be fully predicted from the behavior of the parts, because the interactions are nonlinear and the system adapts and evolves in response to its environment.

The practical consequence is that complicated problems can be solved through expertise and analysis — __53__ the system into its components and optimizing each one. Complex problems require a different approach: iterative experimentation, adaptability, and __54__ for unintended consequences. When we mistake complex problems for complicated ones, we design solutions that are elegant in theory but catastrophic in practice — as when centralized economic planning treats an economy as a machine to be optimized, __55__ the emergent, adaptive nature of markets and human behavior.

(A) opaque (B) tractable (C) volatile (D) erratic

(A) linear (B) static (C) emergent (D) transparent

(A) integrating (B) decomposing (C) synthesizing (D) consolidating

(A) disregard (B) contempt (C) humility (D) indifference

(A) harnessing (B) leveraging (C) ignoring (D) celebrating

Part 3：閱讀理解（15 題）

Passage A (Questions 56-58):

In her 2006 book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” Michael Pollan posed a deceptively simple question: “What should we have for dinner?” The question is distinctively modern. For most of human history, the answer was determined by geography, season, and availability. Today, in affluent societies, we confront a paralyzing abundance: supermarkets containing tens of thousands of products, each bearing claims about health, sustainability, and ethics that are difficult to verify and often contradictory.

Pollan traces this dilemma to what he calls our “national eating disorder” — a condition produced by the collision of evolutionary biology (we’re wired to crave sugar, fat, and salt, which were scarce in our ancestral environment) with industrial food production (which can supply those cravings in unlimited quantities at minimal cost). The result is a population that is simultaneously overfed and undernourished, consuming calories in quantities our bodies weren’t designed to process while missing the micronutrients that traditional diets provided.

His proposed solution is elegantly simple, distilled into seven words that became one of the most quoted aphorisms of the food movement: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” By “food,” Pollan means things your great-grandmother would recognize as food — not “edible foodlike substances” engineered by food scientists to maximize shelf life and “craveability.” The advice is deliberately non-technical, a rebuke to the nutritionism that has made us anxious about individual nutrients while blind to the quality of whole foods.

What does Pollan identify as the source of the modern “omnivore’s dilemma”? (A) The loss of traditional cooking knowledge across generations. (B) The collision of evolutionary cravings (sugar, fat, salt) with industrial food production that supplies them limitlessly. (C) The high cost of organic and locally produced food. (D) Confusing and often contradictory government dietary guidelines.

What does Pollan mean by “edible foodlike substances”? (A) Foods that have been genetically modified for higher yield. (B) Engineered products designed for shelf life and craveability rather than nourishment. (C) Traditional foods that have fallen out of favor with modern consumers. (D) Dietary supplements intended to replace whole foods in the diet.

What does the phrase “nutritionism” in the passage refer to? (A) The scientific study of how nutrients affect human health. (B) An approach that focuses obsessively on individual nutrients while losing sight of whole foods. (C) A government program to educate the public about healthy eating. (D) The belief that all foods are fundamentally the same at the molecular level.

Passage B (Questions 59-62):

The 1972 report “The Limits to Growth,” commissioned by the Club of Rome and produced by a team of MIT researchers, became one of the most influential — and most fiercely contested — documents in the history of environmental thought. Using a computer model called World3, the researchers simulated the interactions of five global subsystems: population, industrialization, food production, resource depletion, and pollution. Their core finding was stark: if current trends in population growth, resource consumption, and pollution generation continued, the planet would reach its ecological limits within roughly a century, resulting in a precipitous decline in population and industrial output.

The report was immediately attacked from multiple directions. Free-market economists derided it as Malthusian alarmism that underestimated the power of technological innovation and price mechanisms to alleviate resource scarcity. Environmentalists, while sympathetic to its conclusions, criticized its methodology as overly aggregated and unable to capture regional variations and political dynamics. The collapse it forecast for the early 21st century did not occur on schedule, leading many to dismiss it as discredited.

But recent retrospective analyses have been more charitable — and more sobering. A 2014 study by Graham Turner of the University of Melbourne found that the World3 model’s “business as usual” scenario has tracked remarkably well against actual historical data for population, industrial output, resource use, and pollution over the intervening four decades. We may not have hit the predicted collapse by 2020, Turner noted, but we are following the trajectory that the model projected would lead there. The report, it turns out, may have been less wrong than its critics claimed — merely premature.

What was the central finding of “The Limits to Growth”? (A) Technological innovation would solve all environmental problems by the year 2000. (B) Continuing trends in population, resource use, and pollution would lead to ecological limits being reached within about a century. (C) Environmental problems were primarily a concern for developing nations, not industrialized ones. (D) Population growth was actually beneficial because it drove technological progress.

What was one major criticism leveled against the report? (A) It overestimated the capacity of computer models to simulate complex systems. (B) It was Malthusian alarmism that underestimated the power of technology and price mechanisms. (C) It focused too much on regional variations rather than global trends. (D) It was funded by industries that stood to benefit from environmental regulation.

What did Graham Turner’s 2014 study find? (A) The World3 model was completely wrong and should be abandoned. (B) The “business as usual” scenario has tracked remarkably well against actual historical data. (C) The predicted collapse occurred exactly as forecast in the original report. (D) The report’s methodology was fundamentally flawed and its data were unreliable.

What does the author mean by saying the report may have been “less wrong than its critics claimed — merely premature”? (A) The report’s predictions were completely accurate, and critics were dishonest. (B) While the timing of the predicted collapse was off, the trajectory the model described appears to be broadly correct. (C) The report was correct about everything except the specific year of collapse. (D) Critics of the report have since admitted that they were wrong.

Passage C (Questions 63-67):

The concept of “stakeholder capitalism” — the idea that corporations should serve not only shareholders but also employees, customers, communities, and the environment — has surged from the margins to the mainstream of business discourse in recent years. In 2019, the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group representing the CEOs of America’s largest corporations, issued a widely publicized statement redefining the purpose of a corporation to include a commitment to all stakeholders, a sharp departure from its long-standing endorsement of shareholder primacy.

The statement was met with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Proponents saw it as a long-overdue recognition that the single-minded pursuit of shareholder value has produced a range of social harms — wage stagnation, environmental degradation, short-term thinking that sacrifices long-term investment for quarterly earnings. Skeptics, however, noted that the statement was non-binding and unaccompanied by any concrete commitments or accountability mechanisms. It was, they suggested, a public relations exercise designed to preempt more stringent regulation.

The deeper challenge for stakeholder capitalism is structural. Corporate law in most jurisdictions does not clearly permit directors to subordinate shareholder interests to those of other stakeholders — the fiduciary duty runs to shareholders. Moreover, the metrics and mechanisms of stakeholder governance remain in their infancy. How does a board meaningfully weigh the interests of employees against those of shareholders when they conflict — which, in the real world, they often do? Without legally enforceable standards and transparent measurement, “stakeholder capitalism” risks becoming a rhetorical fig leaf for business as usual.

What was significant about the Business Roundtable’s 2019 statement? (A) It announced the dissolution of the Business Roundtable as an organization. (B) It redefined corporate purpose to include a commitment to all stakeholders, departing from shareholder primacy. (C) It called for the immediate breakup of all monopolies in the technology sector. (D) It endorsed specific legislation to mandate stakeholder governance.

What is the primary reason skeptics doubted the sincerity of the Business Roundtable statement? (A) The CEOs who signed it were known to be personally unethical. (B) The statement was non-binding and lacked concrete commitments or accountability mechanisms. (C) The statement contradicted existing U.S. laws and was therefore unenforceable. (D) The statement was written in overly complex language that obscured its meaning.

What structural obstacle to stakeholder capitalism does the passage identify? (A) Most consumers prefer companies that maximize short-term profits. (B) Corporate law’s fiduciary duty runs to shareholders, making it legally ambiguous for directors to prioritize other stakeholders. (C) Employees generally do not want a voice in corporate governance. (D) Environmental regulations are too weak to support stakeholder governance.

According to the passage, what does stakeholder capitalism risk becoming without enforceable standards? (A) A revolutionary restructuring of the global economy. (B) A rhetorical fig leaf for business as usual. (C) A legally mandated framework for all corporations. (D) A system that benefits employees at the expense of all other stakeholders.

The phrase “shareholder primacy” in the passage refers to the doctrine that: (A) Shareholders should have the primary right to manage the company’s daily operations. (B) A corporation’s primary purpose is to maximize value for its shareholders. (C) Shareholders should receive the largest share of any corporate tax benefits. (D) Only shareholders are allowed to serve on the board of directors.

Passage D (Questions 68-70):

“The banality of evil” — a phrase Hannah Arendt coined in her 1963 book “Eichmann in Jerusalem” — has become so widely cited that it risks losing its specific meaning. Arendt’s controversial thesis, developed during her coverage of Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, was not that Eichmann’s actions were banal, but that Eichmann himself was. The man who had organized the logistics of the Holocaust was not a monster in the sense of being uniquely sadistic or ideologically fanatical. He was, in Arendt’s account, terrifyingly ordinary: a middling bureaucrat whose defining trait was not hatred but “thoughtlessness” — an inability to think from the standpoint of another person.

This claim provoked fierce controversy. Critics accused Arendt of minimizing Eichmann’s evil by attributing it to something as seemingly mild as “thoughtlessness.” But Arendt’s point was more radical and more disturbing than that. She was arguing that the greatest evils of the modern era are not committed by monsters, but by ordinary people who have surrendered their capacity for independent moral judgment to the momentum of a system — people who do terrible things not because they passionately want to, but because they have stopped asking themselves whether what they are doing is wrong.

The concept remains urgently relevant. In an age of automated systems, algorithmic decision-making, and vast bureaucracies that diffuse responsibility across departments and roles, the question “Who decided this?” often has no clear answer. Arendt’s insight was that the absence of a clear, malevolent decision-maker doesn’t mean the absence of evil — it means we need a more sophisticated understanding of how evil is produced and distributed across complex systems.

According to the passage, what was Arendt’s controversial claim about Eichmann? (A) He was a uniquely sadistic and monstrous individual. (B) He was terrifyingly ordinary — a middling bureaucrat whose defining trait was “thoughtlessness.” (C) He was innocent of all charges and should not have been tried. (D) He was a brilliant strategist who outsmarted the prosecution at his trial.

What did Arendt mean by “thoughtlessness” in this context? (A) A lack of formal education or intellectual ability. (B) An inability to think from the standpoint of another person — a surrender of independent moral judgment. (C) A tendency to forget important details and make logistical errors. (D) A philosophical commitment to nihilism and moral relativism.

How does the passage connect Arendt’s concept to contemporary concerns? (A) It suggests that modern technology has eliminated the possibility of evil. (B) It argues that automated systems and diffuse bureaucracies make it harder to identify who is responsible for harmful decisions. (C) It claims that Arendt’s theory has been proven wrong by subsequent historical research. (D) It suggests that the concept only applies to totalitarian regimes and has no relevance to modern democracies.

🔐 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
dialectical	辯證的	Part 1 Q5
regulatory arbitrage	監管套利	Part 1 Q7
sovereignty	主權	Part 2 Conv 1
modulable	模組化的	Part 2 Conv 1
reductive	簡化/貶低的	Part 1 Vocab Q31
sycophantic	諂媚奉承的	Part 1 Vocab Q33
perfunctory	敷衍的	Part 1 Vocab Q36
sophistry	詭辯	Part 1 Vocab Q38
ambivalent	矛盾的/曖昧的	Part 1 Vocab Q40
emergent	湧現的	Part 2 Pass 2
aphorism	格言/警句	Part 3 Pass A
Malthusian	馬爾薩斯的	Part 3 Pass B
banality	平庸/平凡	Part 3 Pass D
malevolent	惡意的	Part 3 Pass D
fiduciary	信託的/受託的	Part 3 Pass C

解鎖內容

GEPT-高級-Mock-2

GEPT 高級全真模擬試題 Mock 2

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-2

GEPT 高級 全真模擬試題 Mock 2

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 2