问答题

Section C What Makes Sound Beautiful (69) Beauty is certainly more than skin-deep. However you might define it, beauty extends far beyond the visual to that which pleases other senses and even the mind. The most important among these other routes for the observation of beauty is the sense of hearing. Music is routinely recognized as beautiful. So are other sounds, like the whispering of wind through pines or the gentle purring of a cat. Just as philosophers and scientists have struggled to define visual beauty, they have attempted to analyze the appeal of pleasant sounds as well. Ultimately, sonic (声音的) beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Research and intuition can, however, suggest reasons why one person considers a musical piece gorgeous while another considers it a bucketful of noise. The existence of noise is a clue in itself. A conventional definition of noise would include adjectives like unwanted, annoying, disorganized, or meaningless. Sounds that have no discernible (可识别的) pattern to them or that intrude on mental order are not generally considered beautiful. The relationship of sound to the situation is crucial. An assertive orchestral piece like Copland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" could be strikingly beautiful at a Fourth of July celebration yet decidedly annoying when it blares from someone else’s apartment while you are trying to concentrate on a difficult task. But it is the quest to discover the role of pattern that takes us beyond such obvious intuitive judgments about the beauty of sound. In the 1930s, a mathematician named George Birkhoff proposed formulas that would place a given work of art on a numerical aesthetic(审美的) scale. More beautiful art would score higher than less beautiful art. He proposed different specifies for analyzing painting, or geometric figures, or poetry, or music, but his central formula is M = O/C. The symbol M stands for beauty, O for organization, and C for complexity. (70) In other words, a work of music that is very well organized and not very complicated scores higher than a work with similarly good organization but a high degree of complexity. Organization is good, complexity is bad. This aspect of Birkhoff’s approach clearly oversimplifies the case. Organization and complexity do contribute to the perceived beauty of a musical piece, but not as mere opposites. They entwine and influence the piece in combination with each other and with other factors. To illustrate this, let’s consider one of those other factors, the musical experience and knowledge that a listener brings to a piece of music. Music critics are well-known for disliking works that become immensely popular and for praising material that the general public finds boring or even unpleasant. Why should this disparity be so common Or why should a 40-year-old who loved bouncy pop music during his teen years now find it hard to tolerate his own teenage children’s taste in music The answers probably involve a certain ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity of a piece and the way it is organized are matched perfectly with a listener’s knowledge and experience. The work presents enough of a challenge so that the listener can enjoy thinking about and deciphering (解读) its patterns, but it is not so impossibly complex that the listener remains confused. A work that falls far below this ideal level is too simple or too familiar to be interesting. A work that reaches far above the ideal levels is frustrating and dissatisfying. Translate the underlined sentences 70.

答案：换句话说，一首结构精美但并不十分复杂的音乐得的分比一首结构相同但是却过于复杂的音乐高。

你可能感兴趣的试题

判断题

Section B The Life of Jackie Chan One of the most popular film personalities in the world, Jackie Chan came from a poverty-stricken Hong Kong family—so poor, claims Chan, that he was almost sold in infancy to a wealthy British couple. As it turned out, Chan became his family’s sole support. Enrolled in the Chinese Opera Research Institute at the age of seven, he spent the next decade in rigorous training for a career in the Peking Opera, excelling in martial arts and acrobatics. Billed as Cheng Lung, Chan entered films in his mid-teens, appearing in 25 productions before his 20th birthday. Starting out as a stunt man, Chan was promoted to stardom as the potential successor to the late Bruce Lee. In his earliest starring films, he was cast as a stone-cold serious type, determined to avenge Lee’s death. Only when he began playing for laughs did Chan truly attain full celebrity status. Frequently referred to as the Buster Keaton of kung-fu, Chan’s outlook on life is a lot more optimistic than Keaton’s, but in his tireless devotion to the most elaborate of sight gags and the most awe-inspiring of stunts (many of which have nearly cost him his life), Chan is Keaton incarnate. From 1987’s The Young Master onward, Chart has usually been his own director and screenwriter. His best Hong Kong-produced films include the nonstop action-fests Project A (1983), Police Story (1985), Armor of God (1986), and the Golden Horse Award-wining Crime Story (1993)—not to mention the multiple sequels of each of the aforementioned titles. Despite his popularity in Europe and Asia, Chan was for many years unable to make a dent in the American market. He tried hard in such films as The big Brawl (1980) and the first two Cannonball Run flicks, but American filmgoers just weren’t buying. At long last, Chan mined U. S. box-office gold with 1996’s Rumble in the Bronx, a film so exhilarating that the audience never noticed those distinctly Canadian mountain ranges looming behind the "Bronx" skyline. Chan remained the most popular Asian actor with the greatest potential to cross over into the profitable English-Speaking markets, something he again demonstrated when he co-starred with Chris Tucker in the 1998 box-office hit Rush Hour. Chan had another success on his hands with Shanghai Noon, a comedy Western in which he starred as an Imperial Guard dispatched to the American West to rescue the kidnapped daughter (Lucy Liu) of the Chinese Emperor. Jackie Chan started as a comedy actor and then moved into serious roles.

答案：错误

判断题

Section B The Life of Jackie Chan One of the most popular film personalities in the world, Jackie Chan came from a poverty-stricken Hong Kong family—so poor, claims Chan, that he was almost sold in infancy to a wealthy British couple. As it turned out, Chan became his family’s sole support. Enrolled in the Chinese Opera Research Institute at the age of seven, he spent the next decade in rigorous training for a career in the Peking Opera, excelling in martial arts and acrobatics. Billed as Cheng Lung, Chan entered films in his mid-teens, appearing in 25 productions before his 20th birthday. Starting out as a stunt man, Chan was promoted to stardom as the potential successor to the late Bruce Lee. In his earliest starring films, he was cast as a stone-cold serious type, determined to avenge Lee’s death. Only when he began playing for laughs did Chan truly attain full celebrity status. Frequently referred to as the Buster Keaton of kung-fu, Chan’s outlook on life is a lot more optimistic than Keaton’s, but in his tireless devotion to the most elaborate of sight gags and the most awe-inspiring of stunts (many of which have nearly cost him his life), Chan is Keaton incarnate. From 1987’s The Young Master onward, Chart has usually been his own director and screenwriter. His best Hong Kong-produced films include the nonstop action-fests Project A (1983), Police Story (1985), Armor of God (1986), and the Golden Horse Award-wining Crime Story (1993)—not to mention the multiple sequels of each of the aforementioned titles. Despite his popularity in Europe and Asia, Chan was for many years unable to make a dent in the American market. He tried hard in such films as The big Brawl (1980) and the first two Cannonball Run flicks, but American filmgoers just weren’t buying. At long last, Chan mined U. S. box-office gold with 1996’s Rumble in the Bronx, a film so exhilarating that the audience never noticed those distinctly Canadian mountain ranges looming behind the "Bronx" skyline. Chan remained the most popular Asian actor with the greatest potential to cross over into the profitable English-Speaking markets, something he again demonstrated when he co-starred with Chris Tucker in the 1998 box-office hit Rush Hour. Chan had another success on his hands with Shanghai Noon, a comedy Western in which he starred as an Imperial Guard dispatched to the American West to rescue the kidnapped daughter (Lucy Liu) of the Chinese Emperor. Chan was very popular in the United States right away with his first movie.

答案：错误

判断题

Section B The Life of Jackie Chan One of the most popular film personalities in the world, Jackie Chan came from a poverty-stricken Hong Kong family—so poor, claims Chan, that he was almost sold in infancy to a wealthy British couple. As it turned out, Chan became his family’s sole support. Enrolled in the Chinese Opera Research Institute at the age of seven, he spent the next decade in rigorous training for a career in the Peking Opera, excelling in martial arts and acrobatics. Billed as Cheng Lung, Chan entered films in his mid-teens, appearing in 25 productions before his 20th birthday. Starting out as a stunt man, Chan was promoted to stardom as the potential successor to the late Bruce Lee. In his earliest starring films, he was cast as a stone-cold serious type, determined to avenge Lee’s death. Only when he began playing for laughs did Chan truly attain full celebrity status. Frequently referred to as the Buster Keaton of kung-fu, Chan’s outlook on life is a lot more optimistic than Keaton’s, but in his tireless devotion to the most elaborate of sight gags and the most awe-inspiring of stunts (many of which have nearly cost him his life), Chan is Keaton incarnate. From 1987’s The Young Master onward, Chart has usually been his own director and screenwriter. His best Hong Kong-produced films include the nonstop action-fests Project A (1983), Police Story (1985), Armor of God (1986), and the Golden Horse Award-wining Crime Story (1993)—not to mention the multiple sequels of each of the aforementioned titles. Despite his popularity in Europe and Asia, Chan was for many years unable to make a dent in the American market. He tried hard in such films as The big Brawl (1980) and the first two Cannonball Run flicks, but American filmgoers just weren’t buying. At long last, Chan mined U. S. box-office gold with 1996’s Rumble in the Bronx, a film so exhilarating that the audience never noticed those distinctly Canadian mountain ranges looming behind the "Bronx" skyline. Chan remained the most popular Asian actor with the greatest potential to cross over into the profitable English-Speaking markets, something he again demonstrated when he co-starred with Chris Tucker in the 1998 box-office hit Rush Hour. Chan had another success on his hands with Shanghai Noon, a comedy Western in which he starred as an Imperial Guard dispatched to the American West to rescue the kidnapped daughter (Lucy Liu) of the Chinese Emperor. The last three movies mentioned, Rumble in the Bronx, Rush Hour, and Shanghai Noon—were very successful.

答案：正确

问答题

Section D Apology Makes Right Whether used to repair old, strained relationships or to lay the groundwork for new, productive ones, the mighty "sorry" has proved effective. Apologies are powerful. They resolve conflicts without violence, repair disunity between nations, allow governments to acknowledge the suffering of their citizens, and restore balance to personal relationships. They are an effective way to restore trust and gain respect. They can be a sign of strength: proof that the apologizer has the self-confidence to admit a mistake. Apologies, like so many other communication strategies, begin at home. They are one of what some linguists call speech acts and are used to keep relationships on track. Each cultural group has its own customs with regard to conversational formalities, including conventionalized means of repairing disruptions. In the American context, there is enough evidence that women are more inclined to offer an expression of apology than men. One woman, for example, told me that her husband’s resistance to apologizing makes their disputes go on and on. Once, after he forgot to give her a particularly important telephone message, she couldn’t get over her anger, not because he had forgotten (she realized anyone can make a mistake) but because he didn’t apologize. "Had I done something like that," she said, "I would have fallen all over myself saying how sorry I was ... I felt as though he didn’t care. " When I asked her husband for his side of the story, he said apologizing would not have repaired the damage, "So what good does it do" he wondered. The good it does is cementing relationships. By saying he was sorry—and saying it as if he meant it—he would have conveyed that he felt bad about letting her down. Not saying anything sent the opposite message: it implied he didn’t care. Showing that you empathize provides the element of regret that is central to apologies—as does the promise to make amends and not repeat the offense. In the absence of these, why should the wife trust her husband not to do it again Apologies can be equally powerful in day-to-day situations at home and at work. One company manager told me that they were magic bullets. When he admitted to subordinates that he had made a mistake and then expressed remorse, they not only forgave him, but became even more loyal. Conversely, when I asked people what most frustrated them in their work lives, coworkers refusing to admit fault was a frequent answer. Summary: Apologies are powerful, because they are an effective way to (71) and gain respect." Like many other communication strategies, they begin at home. They are one of the (72) and are used to keep relationships on track. The essential advantage of apology is repairing the (73) . Showing that you are regretful means to compensate and not (74) Moreover, apologies can be equally powerful in (75) both at home and at work.

答案： restore trust

多项选择题

Section C What Makes Sound Beautiful (69) Beauty is certainly more than skin-deep. However you might define it, beauty extends far beyond the visual to that which pleases other senses and even the mind. The most important among these other routes for the observation of beauty is the sense of hearing. Music is routinely recognized as beautiful. So are other sounds, like the whispering of wind through pines or the gentle purring of a cat. Just as philosophers and scientists have struggled to define visual beauty, they have attempted to analyze the appeal of pleasant sounds as well. Ultimately, sonic (声音的) beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Research and intuition can, however, suggest reasons why one person considers a musical piece gorgeous while another considers it a bucketful of noise. The existence of noise is a clue in itself. A conventional definition of noise would include adjectives like unwanted, annoying, disorganized, or meaningless. Sounds that have no discernible (可识别的) pattern to them or that intrude on mental order are not generally considered beautiful. The relationship of sound to the situation is crucial. An assertive orchestral piece like Copland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" could be strikingly beautiful at a Fourth of July celebration yet decidedly annoying when it blares from someone else’s apartment while you are trying to concentrate on a difficult task. But it is the quest to discover the role of pattern that takes us beyond such obvious intuitive judgments about the beauty of sound. In the 1930s, a mathematician named George Birkhoff proposed formulas that would place a given work of art on a numerical aesthetic(审美的) scale. More beautiful art would score higher than less beautiful art. He proposed different specifies for analyzing painting, or geometric figures, or poetry, or music, but his central formula is M = O/C. The symbol M stands for beauty, O for organization, and C for complexity. (70) In other words, a work of music that is very well organized and not very complicated scores higher than a work with similarly good organization but a high degree of complexity. Organization is good, complexity is bad. This aspect of Birkhoff’s approach clearly oversimplifies the case. Organization and complexity do contribute to the perceived beauty of a musical piece, but not as mere opposites. They entwine and influence the piece in combination with each other and with other factors. To illustrate this, let’s consider one of those other factors, the musical experience and knowledge that a listener brings to a piece of music. Music critics are well-known for disliking works that become immensely popular and for praising material that the general public finds boring or even unpleasant. Why should this disparity be so common Or why should a 40-year-old who loved bouncy pop music during his teen years now find it hard to tolerate his own teenage children’s taste in music The answers probably involve a certain ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity of a piece and the way it is organized are matched perfectly with a listener’s knowledge and experience. The work presents enough of a challenge so that the listener can enjoy thinking about and deciphering (解读) its patterns, but it is not so impossibly complex that the listener remains confused. A work that falls far below this ideal level is too simple or too familiar to be interesting. A work that reaches far above the ideal levels is frustrating and dissatisfying.

What adjectives are used to define noise conventionally

单项选择题

Section A Are Computers Alive The topic of thought is one area of psychology, and many observers have considered this aspect in connection with robots and computers: some of the old worries about AI—artificial intelligence— were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid (if often unreliable) computation and little or no creative activity were soon called "electronic brains. " A reaction to this terminology quickly followed. To put them in their place, computers were called "high-speed idiots," an effort to protect human vanity. In such a climate, the possibility of computers actually being alive was rarely considered: it was bad enough that computers might be capable of thought. But not everyone realized the implications of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelligent life forms on Earth. If the early computers were even that intelligent, it was already a remarkable state of affairs. One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we were forced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general. It soon became clear that we were not sure what we meant by such terms as thought and thinking. We tend to assume that human beings think, some more than others, though we often call people thoughtless or unthinking. Dreams cause a problem, partly because they usually happen outside our control. They are obviously some type of mental experience, but are they a type of thinking And the question of nonhuman life forms adds further problems. Many of us would maintain that some of the higher animals—dogs, cats, apes, and so on—are capable of at least basic thought, but what about fish and insects It is certainly true that the higher mammals show complex brain activity when tested with the appropriate equipment. If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in the brain, then many animal species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in bio-logical creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts (人工制品). And what is true of thought is also true of many other mental processes. One of the immense benefits of AI research is that we are being forced to check carefully the working of the human mind. It is already clear that machines have superior mental abilities to many life forms. No fern or oak tree can play chess as well as even the simplest digital computer: nor can frogs weld (焊接) car bodies as well as robots. The mechanical manipulator is cleverer in some ways than the three-toed sloth (树懒). It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most ’animals. Only the higher animals can, it seems, compete with computers with regard to intellect—and even then with diminishing success. (Examples of this are in the games of chess. Some of the world’s best players are now computers. ) The first electronic computers were ______.

A．slow and reliable
B．large and fast
C．creative and accurate
D．unreliable and small

问答题

Section D Apology Makes Right Whether used to repair old, strained relationships or to lay the groundwork for new, productive ones, the mighty "sorry" has proved effective. Apologies are powerful. They resolve conflicts without violence, repair disunity between nations, allow governments to acknowledge the suffering of their citizens, and restore balance to personal relationships. They are an effective way to restore trust and gain respect. They can be a sign of strength: proof that the apologizer has the self-confidence to admit a mistake. Apologies, like so many other communication strategies, begin at home. They are one of what some linguists call speech acts and are used to keep relationships on track. Each cultural group has its own customs with regard to conversational formalities, including conventionalized means of repairing disruptions. In the American context, there is enough evidence that women are more inclined to offer an expression of apology than men. One woman, for example, told me that her husband’s resistance to apologizing makes their disputes go on and on. Once, after he forgot to give her a particularly important telephone message, she couldn’t get over her anger, not because he had forgotten (she realized anyone can make a mistake) but because he didn’t apologize. "Had I done something like that," she said, "I would have fallen all over myself saying how sorry I was ... I felt as though he didn’t care. " When I asked her husband for his side of the story, he said apologizing would not have repaired the damage, "So what good does it do" he wondered. The good it does is cementing relationships. By saying he was sorry—and saying it as if he meant it—he would have conveyed that he felt bad about letting her down. Not saying anything sent the opposite message: it implied he didn’t care. Showing that you empathize provides the element of regret that is central to apologies—as does the promise to make amends and not repeat the offense. In the absence of these, why should the wife trust her husband not to do it again Apologies can be equally powerful in day-to-day situations at home and at work. One company manager told me that they were magic bullets. When he admitted to subordinates that he had made a mistake and then expressed remorse, they not only forgave him, but became even more loyal. Conversely, when I asked people what most frustrated them in their work lives, coworkers refusing to admit fault was a frequent answer. Summary: Apologies are powerful, because they are an effective way to (71) and gain respect." Like many other communication strategies, they begin at home. They are one of the (72) and are used to keep relationships on track. The essential advantage of apology is repairing the (73) . Showing that you are regretful means to compensate and not (74) Moreover, apologies can be equally powerful in (75) both at home and at work.

答案： speech acts

问答题

Section B The Life of Jackie Chan One of the most popular film personalities in the world, Jackie Chan came from a poverty-stricken Hong Kong family—so poor, claims Chan, that he was almost sold in infancy to a wealthy British couple. As it turned out, Chan became his family’s sole support. Enrolled in the Chinese Opera Research Institute at the age of seven, he spent the next decade in rigorous training for a career in the Peking Opera, excelling in martial arts and acrobatics. Billed as Cheng Lung, Chan entered films in his mid-teens, appearing in 25 productions before his 20th birthday. Starting out as a stunt man, Chan was promoted to stardom as the potential successor to the late Bruce Lee. In his earliest starring films, he was cast as a stone-cold serious type, determined to avenge Lee’s death. Only when he began playing for laughs did Chan truly attain full celebrity status. Frequently referred to as the Buster Keaton of kung-fu, Chan’s outlook on life is a lot more optimistic than Keaton’s, but in his tireless devotion to the most elaborate of sight gags and the most awe-inspiring of stunts (many of which have nearly cost him his life), Chan is Keaton incarnate. From 1987’s The Young Master onward, Chart has usually been his own director and screenwriter. His best Hong Kong-produced films include the nonstop action-fests Project A (1983), Police Story (1985), Armor of God (1986), and the Golden Horse Award-wining Crime Story (1993)—not to mention the multiple sequels of each of the aforementioned titles. Despite his popularity in Europe and Asia, Chan was for many years unable to make a dent in the American market. He tried hard in such films as The big Brawl (1980) and the first two Cannonball Run flicks, but American filmgoers just weren’t buying. At long last, Chan mined U. S. box-office gold with 1996’s Rumble in the Bronx, a film so exhilarating that the audience never noticed those distinctly Canadian mountain ranges looming behind the "Bronx" skyline. Chan remained the most popular Asian actor with the greatest potential to cross over into the profitable English-Speaking markets, something he again demonstrated when he co-starred with Chris Tucker in the 1998 box-office hit Rush Hour. Chan had another success on his hands with Shanghai Noon, a comedy Western in which he starred as an Imperial Guard dispatched to the American West to rescue the kidnapped daughter (Lucy Liu) of the Chinese Emperor. What did Jackie Chan learn for a career in the Peking Opera

答案： Martial art and acrobatics.

问答题

Section C What Makes Sound Beautiful (69) Beauty is certainly more than skin-deep. However you might define it, beauty extends far beyond the visual to that which pleases other senses and even the mind. The most important among these other routes for the observation of beauty is the sense of hearing. Music is routinely recognized as beautiful. So are other sounds, like the whispering of wind through pines or the gentle purring of a cat. Just as philosophers and scientists have struggled to define visual beauty, they have attempted to analyze the appeal of pleasant sounds as well. Ultimately, sonic (声音的) beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Research and intuition can, however, suggest reasons why one person considers a musical piece gorgeous while another considers it a bucketful of noise. The existence of noise is a clue in itself. A conventional definition of noise would include adjectives like unwanted, annoying, disorganized, or meaningless. Sounds that have no discernible (可识别的) pattern to them or that intrude on mental order are not generally considered beautiful. The relationship of sound to the situation is crucial. An assertive orchestral piece like Copland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" could be strikingly beautiful at a Fourth of July celebration yet decidedly annoying when it blares from someone else’s apartment while you are trying to concentrate on a difficult task. But it is the quest to discover the role of pattern that takes us beyond such obvious intuitive judgments about the beauty of sound. In the 1930s, a mathematician named George Birkhoff proposed formulas that would place a given work of art on a numerical aesthetic(审美的) scale. More beautiful art would score higher than less beautiful art. He proposed different specifies for analyzing painting, or geometric figures, or poetry, or music, but his central formula is M = O/C. The symbol M stands for beauty, O for organization, and C for complexity. (70) In other words, a work of music that is very well organized and not very complicated scores higher than a work with similarly good organization but a high degree of complexity. Organization is good, complexity is bad. This aspect of Birkhoff’s approach clearly oversimplifies the case. Organization and complexity do contribute to the perceived beauty of a musical piece, but not as mere opposites. They entwine and influence the piece in combination with each other and with other factors. To illustrate this, let’s consider one of those other factors, the musical experience and knowledge that a listener brings to a piece of music. Music critics are well-known for disliking works that become immensely popular and for praising material that the general public finds boring or even unpleasant. Why should this disparity be so common Or why should a 40-year-old who loved bouncy pop music during his teen years now find it hard to tolerate his own teenage children’s taste in music The answers probably involve a certain ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity of a piece and the way it is organized are matched perfectly with a listener’s knowledge and experience. The work presents enough of a challenge so that the listener can enjoy thinking about and deciphering (解读) its patterns, but it is not so impossibly complex that the listener remains confused. A work that falls far below this ideal level is too simple or too familiar to be interesting. A work that reaches far above the ideal levels is frustrating and dissatisfying. According to the passage, what is the relationship between organization and complexity when contributing to the perceived beauty of a musical piece

答案： Organization and complexity entwine influence the piece in c...

单项选择题

Section A Are Computers Alive The topic of thought is one area of psychology, and many observers have considered this aspect in connection with robots and computers: some of the old worries about AI—artificial intelligence— were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid (if often unreliable) computation and little or no creative activity were soon called "electronic brains. " A reaction to this terminology quickly followed. To put them in their place, computers were called "high-speed idiots," an effort to protect human vanity. In such a climate, the possibility of computers actually being alive was rarely considered: it was bad enough that computers might be capable of thought. But not everyone realized the implications of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelligent life forms on Earth. If the early computers were even that intelligent, it was already a remarkable state of affairs. One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we were forced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general. It soon became clear that we were not sure what we meant by such terms as thought and thinking. We tend to assume that human beings think, some more than others, though we often call people thoughtless or unthinking. Dreams cause a problem, partly because they usually happen outside our control. They are obviously some type of mental experience, but are they a type of thinking And the question of nonhuman life forms adds further problems. Many of us would maintain that some of the higher animals—dogs, cats, apes, and so on—are capable of at least basic thought, but what about fish and insects It is certainly true that the higher mammals show complex brain activity when tested with the appropriate equipment. If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in the brain, then many animal species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in bio-logical creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts (人工制品). And what is true of thought is also true of many other mental processes. One of the immense benefits of AI research is that we are being forced to check carefully the working of the human mind. It is already clear that machines have superior mental abilities to many life forms. No fern or oak tree can play chess as well as even the simplest digital computer: nor can frogs weld (焊接) car bodies as well as robots. The mechanical manipulator is cleverer in some ways than the three-toed sloth (树懒). It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most ’animals. Only the higher animals can, it seems, compete with computers with regard to intellect—and even then with diminishing success. (Examples of this are in the games of chess. Some of the world’s best players are now computers. ) In the author’s view, mental activities are characteristic of______.

A．all plants and animals
B．some animals
C．human beings alone
D．computers

问答题

Section B The Life of Jackie Chan One of the most popular film personalities in the world, Jackie Chan came from a poverty-stricken Hong Kong family—so poor, claims Chan, that he was almost sold in infancy to a wealthy British couple. As it turned out, Chan became his family’s sole support. Enrolled in the Chinese Opera Research Institute at the age of seven, he spent the next decade in rigorous training for a career in the Peking Opera, excelling in martial arts and acrobatics. Billed as Cheng Lung, Chan entered films in his mid-teens, appearing in 25 productions before his 20th birthday. Starting out as a stunt man, Chan was promoted to stardom as the potential successor to the late Bruce Lee. In his earliest starring films, he was cast as a stone-cold serious type, determined to avenge Lee’s death. Only when he began playing for laughs did Chan truly attain full celebrity status. Frequently referred to as the Buster Keaton of kung-fu, Chan’s outlook on life is a lot more optimistic than Keaton’s, but in his tireless devotion to the most elaborate of sight gags and the most awe-inspiring of stunts (many of which have nearly cost him his life), Chan is Keaton incarnate. From 1987’s The Young Master onward, Chart has usually been his own director and screenwriter. His best Hong Kong-produced films include the nonstop action-fests Project A (1983), Police Story (1985), Armor of God (1986), and the Golden Horse Award-wining Crime Story (1993)—not to mention the multiple sequels of each of the aforementioned titles. Despite his popularity in Europe and Asia, Chan was for many years unable to make a dent in the American market. He tried hard in such films as The big Brawl (1980) and the first two Cannonball Run flicks, but American filmgoers just weren’t buying. At long last, Chan mined U. S. box-office gold with 1996’s Rumble in the Bronx, a film so exhilarating that the audience never noticed those distinctly Canadian mountain ranges looming behind the "Bronx" skyline. Chan remained the most popular Asian actor with the greatest potential to cross over into the profitable English-Speaking markets, something he again demonstrated when he co-starred with Chris Tucker in the 1998 box-office hit Rush Hour. Chan had another success on his hands with Shanghai Noon, a comedy Western in which he starred as an Imperial Guard dispatched to the American West to rescue the kidnapped daughter (Lucy Liu) of the Chinese Emperor. When did Jackie Chan get full celebrity status

答案： When he began playing for laughs.

问答题

Section D Apology Makes Right Whether used to repair old, strained relationships or to lay the groundwork for new, productive ones, the mighty "sorry" has proved effective. Apologies are powerful. They resolve conflicts without violence, repair disunity between nations, allow governments to acknowledge the suffering of their citizens, and restore balance to personal relationships. They are an effective way to restore trust and gain respect. They can be a sign of strength: proof that the apologizer has the self-confidence to admit a mistake. Apologies, like so many other communication strategies, begin at home. They are one of what some linguists call speech acts and are used to keep relationships on track. Each cultural group has its own customs with regard to conversational formalities, including conventionalized means of repairing disruptions. In the American context, there is enough evidence that women are more inclined to offer an expression of apology than men. One woman, for example, told me that her husband’s resistance to apologizing makes their disputes go on and on. Once, after he forgot to give her a particularly important telephone message, she couldn’t get over her anger, not because he had forgotten (she realized anyone can make a mistake) but because he didn’t apologize. "Had I done something like that," she said, "I would have fallen all over myself saying how sorry I was ... I felt as though he didn’t care. " When I asked her husband for his side of the story, he said apologizing would not have repaired the damage, "So what good does it do" he wondered. The good it does is cementing relationships. By saying he was sorry—and saying it as if he meant it—he would have conveyed that he felt bad about letting her down. Not saying anything sent the opposite message: it implied he didn’t care. Showing that you empathize provides the element of regret that is central to apologies—as does the promise to make amends and not repeat the offense. In the absence of these, why should the wife trust her husband not to do it again Apologies can be equally powerful in day-to-day situations at home and at work. One company manager told me that they were magic bullets. When he admitted to subordinates that he had made a mistake and then expressed remorse, they not only forgave him, but became even more loyal. Conversely, when I asked people what most frustrated them in their work lives, coworkers refusing to admit fault was a frequent answer. Summary: Apologies are powerful, because they are an effective way to (71) and gain respect." Like many other communication strategies, they begin at home. They are one of the (72) and are used to keep relationships on track. The essential advantage of apology is repairing the (73) . Showing that you are regretful means to compensate and not (74) Moreover, apologies can be equally powerful in (75) both at home and at work.

答案： relationships

单项选择题

Section A Are Computers Alive The topic of thought is one area of psychology, and many observers have considered this aspect in connection with robots and computers: some of the old worries about AI—artificial intelligence— were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid (if often unreliable) computation and little or no creative activity were soon called "electronic brains. " A reaction to this terminology quickly followed. To put them in their place, computers were called "high-speed idiots," an effort to protect human vanity. In such a climate, the possibility of computers actually being alive was rarely considered: it was bad enough that computers might be capable of thought. But not everyone realized the implications of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelligent life forms on Earth. If the early computers were even that intelligent, it was already a remarkable state of affairs. One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we were forced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general. It soon became clear that we were not sure what we meant by such terms as thought and thinking. We tend to assume that human beings think, some more than others, though we often call people thoughtless or unthinking. Dreams cause a problem, partly because they usually happen outside our control. They are obviously some type of mental experience, but are they a type of thinking And the question of nonhuman life forms adds further problems. Many of us would maintain that some of the higher animals—dogs, cats, apes, and so on—are capable of at least basic thought, but what about fish and insects It is certainly true that the higher mammals show complex brain activity when tested with the appropriate equipment. If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in the brain, then many animal species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in bio-logical creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts (人工制品). And what is true of thought is also true of many other mental processes. One of the immense benefits of AI research is that we are being forced to check carefully the working of the human mind. It is already clear that machines have superior mental abilities to many life forms. No fern or oak tree can play chess as well as even the simplest digital computer: nor can frogs weld (焊接) car bodies as well as robots. The mechanical manipulator is cleverer in some ways than the three-toed sloth (树懒). It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most ’animals. Only the higher animals can, it seems, compete with computers with regard to intellect—and even then with diminishing success. (Examples of this are in the games of chess. Some of the world’s best players are now computers. ) What does the author say about machines thinking

A．It is somewhat possible.
B．It is totally impossible.
C．It will not be realized too soon.
D．It may surpass human thinking someday.

问答题

Section C What Makes Sound Beautiful (69) Beauty is certainly more than skin-deep. However you might define it, beauty extends far beyond the visual to that which pleases other senses and even the mind. The most important among these other routes for the observation of beauty is the sense of hearing. Music is routinely recognized as beautiful. So are other sounds, like the whispering of wind through pines or the gentle purring of a cat. Just as philosophers and scientists have struggled to define visual beauty, they have attempted to analyze the appeal of pleasant sounds as well. Ultimately, sonic (声音的) beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Research and intuition can, however, suggest reasons why one person considers a musical piece gorgeous while another considers it a bucketful of noise. The existence of noise is a clue in itself. A conventional definition of noise would include adjectives like unwanted, annoying, disorganized, or meaningless. Sounds that have no discernible (可识别的) pattern to them or that intrude on mental order are not generally considered beautiful. The relationship of sound to the situation is crucial. An assertive orchestral piece like Copland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" could be strikingly beautiful at a Fourth of July celebration yet decidedly annoying when it blares from someone else’s apartment while you are trying to concentrate on a difficult task. But it is the quest to discover the role of pattern that takes us beyond such obvious intuitive judgments about the beauty of sound. In the 1930s, a mathematician named George Birkhoff proposed formulas that would place a given work of art on a numerical aesthetic(审美的) scale. More beautiful art would score higher than less beautiful art. He proposed different specifies for analyzing painting, or geometric figures, or poetry, or music, but his central formula is M = O/C. The symbol M stands for beauty, O for organization, and C for complexity. (70) In other words, a work of music that is very well organized and not very complicated scores higher than a work with similarly good organization but a high degree of complexity. Organization is good, complexity is bad. This aspect of Birkhoff’s approach clearly oversimplifies the case. Organization and complexity do contribute to the perceived beauty of a musical piece, but not as mere opposites. They entwine and influence the piece in combination with each other and with other factors. To illustrate this, let’s consider one of those other factors, the musical experience and knowledge that a listener brings to a piece of music. Music critics are well-known for disliking works that become immensely popular and for praising material that the general public finds boring or even unpleasant. Why should this disparity be so common Or why should a 40-year-old who loved bouncy pop music during his teen years now find it hard to tolerate his own teenage children’s taste in music The answers probably involve a certain ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity of a piece and the way it is organized are matched perfectly with a listener’s knowledge and experience. The work presents enough of a challenge so that the listener can enjoy thinking about and deciphering (解读) its patterns, but it is not so impossibly complex that the listener remains confused. A work that falls far below this ideal level is too simple or too familiar to be interesting. A work that reaches far above the ideal levels is frustrating and dissatisfying.

What level of complexity is ideal to a musical piece

答案： The ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity ...

问答题

Section D Apology Makes Right Whether used to repair old, strained relationships or to lay the groundwork for new, productive ones, the mighty "sorry" has proved effective. Apologies are powerful. They resolve conflicts without violence, repair disunity between nations, allow governments to acknowledge the suffering of their citizens, and restore balance to personal relationships. They are an effective way to restore trust and gain respect. They can be a sign of strength: proof that the apologizer has the self-confidence to admit a mistake. Apologies, like so many other communication strategies, begin at home. They are one of what some linguists call speech acts and are used to keep relationships on track. Each cultural group has its own customs with regard to conversational formalities, including conventionalized means of repairing disruptions. In the American context, there is enough evidence that women are more inclined to offer an expression of apology than men. One woman, for example, told me that her husband’s resistance to apologizing makes their disputes go on and on. Once, after he forgot to give her a particularly important telephone message, she couldn’t get over her anger, not because he had forgotten (she realized anyone can make a mistake) but because he didn’t apologize. "Had I done something like that," she said, "I would have fallen all over myself saying how sorry I was ... I felt as though he didn’t care. " When I asked her husband for his side of the story, he said apologizing would not have repaired the damage, "So what good does it do" he wondered. The good it does is cementing relationships. By saying he was sorry—and saying it as if he meant it—he would have conveyed that he felt bad about letting her down. Not saying anything sent the opposite message: it implied he didn’t care. Showing that you empathize provides the element of regret that is central to apologies—as does the promise to make amends and not repeat the offense. In the absence of these, why should the wife trust her husband not to do it again Apologies can be equally powerful in day-to-day situations at home and at work. One company manager told me that they were magic bullets. When he admitted to subordinates that he had made a mistake and then expressed remorse, they not only forgave him, but became even more loyal. Conversely, when I asked people what most frustrated them in their work lives, coworkers refusing to admit fault was a frequent answer. Summary: Apologies are powerful, because they are an effective way to (71) and gain respect." Like many other communication strategies, they begin at home. They are one of the (72) and are used to keep relationships on track. The essential advantage of apology is repairing the (73) . Showing that you are regretful means to compensate and not (74) Moreover, apologies can be equally powerful in (75) both at home and at work.

答案： repeat the offense

问答题

Section A Are Computers Alive The topic of thought is one area of psychology, and many observers have considered this aspect in connection with robots and computers: some of the old worries about AI—artificial intelligence— were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid (if often unreliable) computation and little or no creative activity were soon called "electronic brains. " A reaction to this terminology quickly followed. To put them in their place, computers were called "high-speed idiots," an effort to protect human vanity. In such a climate, the possibility of computers actually being alive was rarely considered: it was bad enough that computers might be capable of thought. But not everyone realized the implications of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelligent life forms on Earth. If the early computers were even that intelligent, it was already a remarkable state of affairs. One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we were forced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general. It soon became clear that we were not sure what we meant by such terms as thought and thinking. We tend to assume that human beings think, some more than others, though we often call people thoughtless or unthinking. Dreams cause a problem, partly because they usually happen outside our control. They are obviously some type of mental experience, but are they a type of thinking And the question of nonhuman life forms adds further problems. Many of us would maintain that some of the higher animals—dogs, cats, apes, and so on—are capable of at least basic thought, but what about fish and insects It is certainly true that the higher mammals show complex brain activity when tested with the appropriate equipment. If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in the brain, then many animal species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in bio-logical creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts (人工制品). And what is true of thought is also true of many other mental processes. One of the immense benefits of AI research is that we are being forced to check carefully the working of the human mind. It is already clear that machines have superior mental abilities to many life forms. No fern or oak tree can play chess as well as even the simplest digital computer: nor can frogs weld (焊接) car bodies as well as robots. The mechanical manipulator is cleverer in some ways than the three-toed sloth (树懒). It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most ’animals. Only the higher animals can, it seems, compete with computers with regard to intellect—and even then with diminishing success. (Examples of this are in the games of chess. Some of the world’s best players are now computers. ) The author feels that by calling these early computers "high-speed idiots," people were really implying that computers would never be capable of______.

答案： thought/thinking

问答题

Section C What Makes Sound Beautiful (69) Beauty is certainly more than skin-deep. However you might define it, beauty extends far beyond the visual to that which pleases other senses and even the mind. The most important among these other routes for the observation of beauty is the sense of hearing. Music is routinely recognized as beautiful. So are other sounds, like the whispering of wind through pines or the gentle purring of a cat. Just as philosophers and scientists have struggled to define visual beauty, they have attempted to analyze the appeal of pleasant sounds as well. Ultimately, sonic (声音的) beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Research and intuition can, however, suggest reasons why one person considers a musical piece gorgeous while another considers it a bucketful of noise. The existence of noise is a clue in itself. A conventional definition of noise would include adjectives like unwanted, annoying, disorganized, or meaningless. Sounds that have no discernible (可识别的) pattern to them or that intrude on mental order are not generally considered beautiful. The relationship of sound to the situation is crucial. An assertive orchestral piece like Copland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" could be strikingly beautiful at a Fourth of July celebration yet decidedly annoying when it blares from someone else’s apartment while you are trying to concentrate on a difficult task. But it is the quest to discover the role of pattern that takes us beyond such obvious intuitive judgments about the beauty of sound. In the 1930s, a mathematician named George Birkhoff proposed formulas that would place a given work of art on a numerical aesthetic(审美的) scale. More beautiful art would score higher than less beautiful art. He proposed different specifies for analyzing painting, or geometric figures, or poetry, or music, but his central formula is M = O/C. The symbol M stands for beauty, O for organization, and C for complexity. (70) In other words, a work of music that is very well organized and not very complicated scores higher than a work with similarly good organization but a high degree of complexity. Organization is good, complexity is bad. This aspect of Birkhoff’s approach clearly oversimplifies the case. Organization and complexity do contribute to the perceived beauty of a musical piece, but not as mere opposites. They entwine and influence the piece in combination with each other and with other factors. To illustrate this, let’s consider one of those other factors, the musical experience and knowledge that a listener brings to a piece of music. Music critics are well-known for disliking works that become immensely popular and for praising material that the general public finds boring or even unpleasant. Why should this disparity be so common Or why should a 40-year-old who loved bouncy pop music during his teen years now find it hard to tolerate his own teenage children’s taste in music The answers probably involve a certain ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity of a piece and the way it is organized are matched perfectly with a listener’s knowledge and experience. The work presents enough of a challenge so that the listener can enjoy thinking about and deciphering (解读) its patterns, but it is not so impossibly complex that the listener remains confused. A work that falls far below this ideal level is too simple or too familiar to be interesting. A work that reaches far above the ideal levels is frustrating and dissatisfying. Translate the underlined sentences 69.

答案：美肯定不仅仅局限于外表。不管你怎么定义美，美远远不止在视觉上，它带给其他的感官乃至心灵更多的享受。

问答题

Section A Are Computers Alive The topic of thought is one area of psychology, and many observers have considered this aspect in connection with robots and computers: some of the old worries about AI—artificial intelligence— were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid (if often unreliable) computation and little or no creative activity were soon called "electronic brains. " A reaction to this terminology quickly followed. To put them in their place, computers were called "high-speed idiots," an effort to protect human vanity. In such a climate, the possibility of computers actually being alive was rarely considered: it was bad enough that computers might be capable of thought. But not everyone realized the implications of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelligent life forms on Earth. If the early computers were even that intelligent, it was already a remarkable state of affairs. One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we were forced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general. It soon became clear that we were not sure what we meant by such terms as thought and thinking. We tend to assume that human beings think, some more than others, though we often call people thoughtless or unthinking. Dreams cause a problem, partly because they usually happen outside our control. They are obviously some type of mental experience, but are they a type of thinking And the question of nonhuman life forms adds further problems. Many of us would maintain that some of the higher animals—dogs, cats, apes, and so on—are capable of at least basic thought, but what about fish and insects It is certainly true that the higher mammals show complex brain activity when tested with the appropriate equipment. If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in the brain, then many animal species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in bio-logical creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts (人工制品). And what is true of thought is also true of many other mental processes. One of the immense benefits of AI research is that we are being forced to check carefully the working of the human mind. It is already clear that machines have superior mental abilities to many life forms. No fern or oak tree can play chess as well as even the simplest digital computer: nor can frogs weld (焊接) car bodies as well as robots. The mechanical manipulator is cleverer in some ways than the three-toed sloth (树懒). It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most ’animals. Only the higher animals can, it seems, compete with computers with regard to intellect—and even then with diminishing success. (Examples of this are in the games of chess. Some of the world’s best players are now computers. ) The author believes that such words as thought and thinking might come to be better understood because of research into ______ and computers.

答案： artificial intelligence/AI

问答题

Section D Apology Makes Right Whether used to repair old, strained relationships or to lay the groundwork for new, productive ones, the mighty "sorry" has proved effective. Apologies are powerful. They resolve conflicts without violence, repair disunity between nations, allow governments to acknowledge the suffering of their citizens, and restore balance to personal relationships. They are an effective way to restore trust and gain respect. They can be a sign of strength: proof that the apologizer has the self-confidence to admit a mistake. Apologies, like so many other communication strategies, begin at home. They are one of what some linguists call speech acts and are used to keep relationships on track. Each cultural group has its own customs with regard to conversational formalities, including conventionalized means of repairing disruptions. In the American context, there is enough evidence that women are more inclined to offer an expression of apology than men. One woman, for example, told me that her husband’s resistance to apologizing makes their disputes go on and on. Once, after he forgot to give her a particularly important telephone message, she couldn’t get over her anger, not because he had forgotten (she realized anyone can make a mistake) but because he didn’t apologize. "Had I done something like that," she said, "I would have fallen all over myself saying how sorry I was ... I felt as though he didn’t care. " When I asked her husband for his side of the story, he said apologizing would not have repaired the damage, "So what good does it do" he wondered. The good it does is cementing relationships. By saying he was sorry—and saying it as if he meant it—he would have conveyed that he felt bad about letting her down. Not saying anything sent the opposite message: it implied he didn’t care. Showing that you empathize provides the element of regret that is central to apologies—as does the promise to make amends and not repeat the offense. In the absence of these, why should the wife trust her husband not to do it again Apologies can be equally powerful in day-to-day situations at home and at work. One company manager told me that they were magic bullets. When he admitted to subordinates that he had made a mistake and then expressed remorse, they not only forgave him, but became even more loyal. Conversely, when I asked people what most frustrated them in their work lives, coworkers refusing to admit fault was a frequent answer. Summary: Apologies are powerful, because they are an effective way to (71) and gain respect." Like many other communication strategies, they begin at home. They are one of the (72) and are used to keep relationships on track. The essential advantage of apology is repairing the (73) . Showing that you are regretful means to compensate and not (74) Moreover, apologies can be equally powerful in (75) both at home and at work.

答案： day-to-day situations

问答题

Section C What Makes Sound Beautiful (69) Beauty is certainly more than skin-deep. However you might define it, beauty extends far beyond the visual to that which pleases other senses and even the mind. The most important among these other routes for the observation of beauty is the sense of hearing. Music is routinely recognized as beautiful. So are other sounds, like the whispering of wind through pines or the gentle purring of a cat. Just as philosophers and scientists have struggled to define visual beauty, they have attempted to analyze the appeal of pleasant sounds as well. Ultimately, sonic (声音的) beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Research and intuition can, however, suggest reasons why one person considers a musical piece gorgeous while another considers it a bucketful of noise. The existence of noise is a clue in itself. A conventional definition of noise would include adjectives like unwanted, annoying, disorganized, or meaningless. Sounds that have no discernible (可识别的) pattern to them or that intrude on mental order are not generally considered beautiful. The relationship of sound to the situation is crucial. An assertive orchestral piece like Copland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" could be strikingly beautiful at a Fourth of July celebration yet decidedly annoying when it blares from someone else’s apartment while you are trying to concentrate on a difficult task. But it is the quest to discover the role of pattern that takes us beyond such obvious intuitive judgments about the beauty of sound. In the 1930s, a mathematician named George Birkhoff proposed formulas that would place a given work of art on a numerical aesthetic(审美的) scale. More beautiful art would score higher than less beautiful art. He proposed different specifies for analyzing painting, or geometric figures, or poetry, or music, but his central formula is M = O/C. The symbol M stands for beauty, O for organization, and C for complexity. (70) In other words, a work of music that is very well organized and not very complicated scores higher than a work with similarly good organization but a high degree of complexity. Organization is good, complexity is bad. This aspect of Birkhoff’s approach clearly oversimplifies the case. Organization and complexity do contribute to the perceived beauty of a musical piece, but not as mere opposites. They entwine and influence the piece in combination with each other and with other factors. To illustrate this, let’s consider one of those other factors, the musical experience and knowledge that a listener brings to a piece of music. Music critics are well-known for disliking works that become immensely popular and for praising material that the general public finds boring or even unpleasant. Why should this disparity be so common Or why should a 40-year-old who loved bouncy pop music during his teen years now find it hard to tolerate his own teenage children’s taste in music The answers probably involve a certain ideal level of complexity, a point where the complexity of a piece and the way it is organized are matched perfectly with a listener’s knowledge and experience. The work presents enough of a challenge so that the listener can enjoy thinking about and deciphering (解读) its patterns, but it is not so impossibly complex that the listener remains confused. A work that falls far below this ideal level is too simple or too familiar to be interesting. A work that reaches far above the ideal levels is frustrating and dissatisfying. Translate the underlined sentences 70.

答案：换句话说，一首结构精美但并不十分复杂的音乐得的分比一首结构相同但是却过于复杂的音乐高。