2. 职称英语
  3. In March 2012, at a jewelry show in Switzerland, watchmaker Hublot unveiled

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

游客2023-08-04  35
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 does the study published in Horological Journal in 2008 prove?
选项 A、Cheap watches can also be very precise.
B、Cheap watches are all counterfeit.
C、Expensive watches last longer.
D、Expensive watches are more accurate.
答案 A
解析 推断题。根据题干中的the study published in Horological Journal in 2008可定位到原文第三段。该段首句提到，在计时方面，价值500万美元的手表并不一定会比价值47美元的手表更精准——至少从你能够识别的程度来看是这样的。随后采用了一篇于2008年发表在《钟表杂志》上的一项研究结果加以佐证。该研究结果表明，经过精密科学仪器测量，低价购买的四块手表计时精准得令人吃惊，其每天的误差甚至不超过几千分之一秒。由此可知，廉价的手表也是可以十分精准的，故选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/2897194.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)