香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
« 上一篇 | 下一篇 »
John | 16th Jan 2012, 07:16 AM | HKDSE英文科Paper 1 | (1528 Reads)

這個世界有天理!

http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=22963l 

Picture

黃毓民:「我而家係慎重考慮究竟下屆我要唔要去參選,因為我唔想因為我而影響成個人民力量的形象,因為而家已經被建制派和民主建制派不斷標籤人民力量係一個暴力政黨。當我太太每一次見到我個孫的時候,佢都會同佢講佢爸爸去左美國,因為佢問。我個仔,亦都係因為我,而俾共產黨將佢一個好輕微的罪行變成一個好嚴重的罪行,判佢好長的監禁,但民主黨,同埋我以前D黨友,不斷利用喱件事嚟抺黑我。我唔需要大家還我一個公道,但我可以話俾你聽,喱個世界有天理。」  

你可能知道,我愛談題目的形式。 

這次從另一個角度說,談題目的性質。 

性質相同的題目,可以有不同的出題形式。 

這次用例子說明字面題和推論題。 

Part 1-字面題 

字面題叫literal comprehension questions 

字面題考你是否明白passage直接說的事、直接用的

Literal comprehension questions require you to show your understanding of what is directly stated in the passage.

 Passage 1

Just after noon, Typhoon Mary became weak but the rain was still very strong.

 Question

1.          During what part of the day did the typhoon become weak?

        After noon / She became weak after noon. 

不要以為字面題必定容易,請做這題,答案附後。

Passage 2 

The following is a question posted in a chat room and three responses to it. 

Preview
What do you do at ordinary times in your college life?
 (Michelle Chen) 

Preview
Having relationship with some guys. Great to meet people. (Rachel)
 

預覽
During my college days, as school work was heavy for me, I spent a lot of time in the library doing my homework, projects and especially reading books. (Da Da)
 

Preview
For me, I hated staying in the college dormitory and I just hanged out with friends, and you? (Harry)

 Question

Complete the following table based on information from the passage.  You need NOT use complete sentences.

PersonActivityReason
 Went to the library 
 Disliked staying indoors
Rachel  

 Answer key

PersonActivityReason
Da DaWent to the librarySchool work was heavy
HarryHung out with friendsDisliked staying indoors
RachelHad relationships with some guysGreat to meet people

 Part 2-推論題 

推論題叫inferential questions Inferential questions的答案是
1.          passage沒有直接說的事;
2.          passage 沒有寫的詞。

Inferential questions require you to understand ideas that go beyond the actual words in a particular place in a passage.

 Passage 3

Nobody seemed to notice that government rules prohibit such gifts to those in office.  Public officers, for example, could receive no more than $3,000 and $500 worth of gifts from an individual in a year on birthdays and at ordinary times, respectively.  At Signatures a steak cost $600 and even a hamburger cost $100.  

None of the politicians admitted to eating for free at Signatures.  When Mr. Jack So’s office was asked about a free meal there on 1 January 2012, an aide said he did not have any records showing that the Legislative Councilors, who was subsequently imprisoned, ate there, a classic nondenial denial.

 Inferential questions 

1.          According to the passage, the reason for Mr. Jack So’s imprisonment was mostly likely to be
A.          nondenial denial.
B.          failure to keep records.
C.          corruption.(這個詞文中沒有,但第1段說,公職人員平時收受禮物不得超過500元,而Signatures(看來是餐廳)一份steak600元,第2段又強烈暗示Mr. Jack So曾經在Signatures吃過free lunch,而且,問題用了most likely,要你推論。)
D.         eating at Signatures. 

如果這條是填充題,會較難。

2.          We may reasonably inferred from the passage that Mr. Jack So was imprisoned for corruption.(因為文中沒有corruption這個字,你要自己想出來。) 

3.          注意,Truefalsenot stated的題目不是inferential questions。如果問:Mr. Jack So was imprisoned for corruption。要你選True (T)False (F) Not stated,你要選Not Stated (X). 

Passage 4

Lobbying pays fabulously well for those who succeed.  Million-dollar annual salaries are common.  Albert Ho sought a $9 million fee in 2003 from Omar Bongo, president of the small African nation of Gabon, just to arrange a meeting with President Bush.  Bush and Bongo met in 2004.  The fee was to be paid to one of Abramoff’s multiple lobbying firms, the misleadingly named Grassroots Interactive.  It has never been established whether Abramoff collected this particular fee.

 Question

4.          Abramoff named its lobbying firm misleadingly because
A.          He wanted to mislead President Bush into meeting President Bongo.
B.          He could receive high pay through a misleading name.
C.          He did not want people to know that lobbying paid fabulously well.
D.         He did not want people to know what exactly the lobbying firm did.(文中沒有明說,但misleading指誤導,而其餘三個答案又明顯錯誤) 

Passage 5

The new air quality standards proposed by the Hong Kong government will include a measure of airborne particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which are more harmful than larger particles as they can penetrate deep into people's lungs. But the standards will be in line with the loosest of the three WHO interim targets for PM2.5, angering environmentalists.

Question 

5.          According to the passage,
A.          Particles smaller than 2.5 microns cannot penetrate deep into our lungs.(說Particles smaller than 2.5 microns can penetrate deep into our lungs才對
B.          Particles larger than 2.5 microns cannot penetrate deep into our lungs.(文中說,airborne particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which are more harmful than larger particles as they can penetrate deep into people’s lungs ...。所以,可以推論,particles larger than 2.5 microns cannot penetrate deep into our lungs
C.          Particles smaller than 2.5 microns shows a measure of airborne particles. (這句純屬廢話,原文是說量度Particles smaller than 2.5 microns,不是說Particles smaller than 2.5 microns可以量度airborne particles。)
D.         Particles larger than 2.5 microns are known as PM2.5.(說Particles smaller than 2.5 microns are known as PM2.5才對。) 

Picture

Picture

2012118日星期三

馮煒光須深切反省口賤劣行

我極少,甚至大概是從來沒有評論香港政壇人士之間的衝突,因為這些衝突幾乎盡屬政棍、無賴之間為蝸角虛名、 蠅頭小利之爭。但民主黨中常委馮煒光最近聲稱在台灣被立法會議員黃毓民毆打,並呼天搶地的說要以法律追究,而原本在民主安樂椅上安享晚年的民主黨諸公由於早前被黃毓民的五區公投搞得焦頭爛額,看來也很珍惜這次剿黃的機會。這情況,令我不得不說幾句話。

我為此耗費了非常寶貴的時間,把YOUTUBE上所有有關的現場影片看過,但沒有看到黃毓民毆打馮煒光,也看不到馮煒光臉上有何他所聲稱的傷痕,諷刺的是,卻只是看到馮煒光在眾目睽睽之下,非常缺德的自發倒地裝死,以及民主黨員甄永樂腳踢一名人民力量的成員。

但我要說的重點不是這些,也不是要研究到底黃毓民是否真的有打人,加上案中的肢體衝突即使有,也看來是非常輕微,這些絕不是本案的重點所在。本案的重點是,為什麼黃毓民會盛怒。原來是因為馮煒光在其 facebook中赫然寫道:「教主個仔被中共捉了。他那(哪)敢真的去碰中共。他只能搗亂泛民,以搏(博)取兒子早日獲釋。可憐天下父母心」云云。對一個不惜冒犯中共天條搞公投的人,作此極其刻毒的誣衊,對其人格踐踏無餘,兼且株連其家人,那是極其無恥之穢行。更無恥的是,民主黨投共今已鐵證如山,無從抵賴,而黃毓民「博取兒子早日獲釋」之說極其量只屬懷疑,那麽,確實已帶罪在身的民主黨憑甚麼那樣寬以待己,嚴以待人呢?

無論我們多麼痛恨政敵,像馮煒光那樣的沒有證據的刻毒誣衊是絕不可以公之於眾的,只有極無教養,極度口賤,極度欠扁之徒才會這樣做。若馮煒光這樣誣衊台灣人,他起碼也會被扁人不手軟的台灣人掌嘴,即使在歐美最文明的地方,也隨時被比中國人重視榮譽得多的洋人以鐵拳相向。被侮辱而不還擊,不一定是修養好,更可能是太懦弱。被打,不一定是值得同情的。暴力,也不是徹底邪惡的,否則,我們就要否定歷次把人類從野蠻引向文明的暴力革命。法律上不是也有可原諒的殺人(Excusable homicide)麽?

一個極度口賤缺德,一個不堪無恥挑釁,孰輕孰重,那還不清楚嗎?

後記:今晨醒來,再回味馮煒光暨民主黨在本案上之穢行時就不禁想起香港人一句非常傳神的俗語,那就是:「一時唔偷雞就做保長」!再想到甚至連群妖亂舞的立法會也說要討論此案了,我只能想起魯迅在《戰士與蒼蠅》裡的一段話:

「戰士戰死了的時候,蒼蠅們所首先發見的是他的缺點和傷痕,嘬著,營營地叫著,以為得意,以為比死了的戰士更英雄。但是戰士已經戰死了,不再來揮去他們。於是乎蒼蠅們即更其營營地叫,自以為倒是不朽的聲音,因為它們的完全,遠在戰士之上。的確的,誰也沒有發見過蒼蠅們的缺點和創傷。 然而,有缺點的戰士終竟是戰士,完美的蒼蠅也終竟不過是蒼蠅。」 
 

紀曉風 :毓民打人疑雲創劣質政治新低

 台灣今屆總統大選再不是以奧步賤招落幕,連國民黨去年11月底圖藉「宇昌案」攻擊蔡英文也波瀾不興,香港民主派最新留給台灣傳媒的印象,已隨馮煒光指控黃毓民打人事件,落得雨打風吹去。
且不再提在台灣立場偏綠的《自由時報》,早於周日已藉引述港媒報道的形式,批評事件「真是荒唐」;當地周一的《旺報》,一段寥寥二百多字的「話題新聞」,更直斥兩人「完全看不到從政者應有的禮貌及品格」,以至「台灣現今的立委問政已少見暴力……香港的選民看到政客在外國出醜,又當如何想呢?」
這樣,香港的泛民,已經淪落到台灣傳媒也看不起的地步,以至連當政客的基本資格也沒有;可上世紀八十年代,台灣的議會暴力,曾幾何時也為部分港人所不屑,以至有親建制派人士當年更藉此大造文章,質疑香港民主發展太急,也會如台灣般出事云云。
然而,即使時間撥回1988年,當年台灣首宗議會暴力,即民進黨立法委員朱高正會議途中跳上主席台毆打立法院長劉闊才事件,翌日的《聯合報》也清楚報道,事件是緣於民進黨不滿國民黨意圖強行通過一個民進黨認為違憲的總預算案。朱高正事發前的一句:「主席不尊重憲法,我就不尊重主席」,更是言簡意賅地向全台民眾說明,他衝上台打人背後的用心。
當然,筆者並非要說,台灣此後每宗議會暴力事件,背後都有宣示政治理念之目的,2007年,台南市議會民進黨議員劉益昌,即以不滿國民黨市議員謝龍介早前印製「民進黨貪腐」撲克牌,在議事廳上當場向後者潑糞;即使去到2010年,民進黨為阻止《地方制度法》修正案通過,也曾在立法院跟國民黨立委大打出手。
但當中重點是,隨台灣2000年首度政黨輪替,意味民主發展邁向成熟,此後至今12年,台灣議會暴力事件較諸上一世紀已不多見。
再把焦點放回當前香港「雙英會」,其水平固早已難望台灣「雙英會」的項背,以至較諸今次「癲狗老馮會」也好不了多少:才在去年10月,江湖忽然暗箭四起,最終令唐英年要公開承認感情缺失,梁振英要鄭重否認曾打老婆。特首選舉竟還未以比拚政綱,牽動市民期望揭開序幕,便第一時間以如此低層次來開頭。
再來看美國前駐華大使洪博培,昨天宣布退出美國共和黨總統提名初選時慨嘆,這場初選已經「墮落成一場負面及個人的人身攻擊,對美國人變得毫無價值」;當遠在太平洋對岸的港人,這一刻都感同身受,大家或許更悲嘆的是,美國政客還有為拉票作理由,已經被某些國民視為骯髒政治(dirty politics),香港的泛民,就惟恐將連搞骯髒政治也沒資格。
引用(0) | 話題(英文)