In March 2012, at a jewelry show in Switzerland, watchmaker Hublot unveiled

游客2024-03-07  12

问题     In March 2012, at a jewelry show in Switzerland, watchmaker Hublot unveiled what news reports hailed as the world’s most expensive wrist watch—a timepiece (钟表计时器) encrusted with 1,282 diamonds, including six stones that weighed more than three carats (克拉) apiece. It took 17 workers 14 months to set all the stones in the one-of-a-kind timepiece. The price tag? Five million dollars. The company’s president, Jean-Claude Biver, told the reporter that it’d be hard to make a pricier watch than this one, given that "the surface of a watch is limited" and there just isn’t much room for more bling.
    Hublot’s over-the-top (奢侈的) watch is an elegant piece of wrist candy, to be sure, even if you wouldn’t dare to wear it on the street without an armed escort. But if you’re concerned about actually using a watch to tell time, this one probably isn’t that great of a choice, since there’s so much glitter on the face that the positions of the hour, minute and second hands are tough to discern. Also, there’s no digital display and no stopwatch mode, so it wouldn’t be very useful if you want to keep track of your pace when you go for a jog in the park. In comparison, a humble Timex Ironman T5E321, the sort of watch you can purchase on Amazon.com for as little as $47, can do all of that and far more. It has a back-lit (背光) display that you can read clearly even at night, and if you’re a traveler, you can set it to flip between two different time zones. In a pinch, it even can double as an alarm clock.
    But most importantly, the $5 million watch doesn’t necessarily keep time more accurately than a $47 watch—at least to any degree you could discern. In a study published in Horological Journal in 2008, a researcher from the National Institute of Standards and Technology used sophisticated scientific equipment to test the performance of four cheap watches, including a counterfeit Rolex purchased from a street vendor for $15. He found that all four were astonishingly precise, to within a few thousandths of a second per day.
    So for strictly utilitarian (使用的) purposes, the answer to the question we’ve posed is a simple "no". But "better" is subjective, and people pick watches for a lot of other reasons besides telling time. [br] What’s the author’s attitude toward expensive watches?

选项 A、Negative.
B、Indifferent.
C、Objective.
D、Prejudiced.

答案 C

解析 推断题。根据题干中的the author’s attitude toward expensive watches,可以把答案定位到原文最后一段。该段提到,严格地从实用角度来看,对于我们所提出的那个问题,我们的回答自然是“不是”。然而,“更好”这个词语带有强烈的主观色彩,除了报时之外,人们在挑选手表时还会考虑其他诸多因素。由此可知,作者对昂贵手表的态度是比较客观的,故选C。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3513455.html
最新回复(0)