2015年全国英语等级考试(PETS5)模拟练习（3）
|
为了帮助广大考生系统的复习2015年11月公共英语五级考试课程，全面的了解公共英语考试教材的相关重点，小编特编辑汇总了公共英语考试辅导资料，希望对您参加本次考试有所帮助! Part CAnswer questions 1-10 by referring to the comments on 3 different cars in the following magazine article.Note: Answer each question by choosing A, B or C and mark it on ANSWER SHEET 1. Some choices may be required more than once.A=Audi A3 B=Honda Civic C=Rover 216 Which car... has a driver seat that can be adjusted to suit most people? 1. ____offers a poor view even when the mirrors are used? 2. ____gives the most space for tall passengers in the back? 3. ____has a convenient way to extend the space for suitcases? 4. ____is most likely to suffer damage to the petrol supply in the case of frontal collision? 5. ____offers the most easily tuned radio? 6. ____would remain silent in the event of theft? 7. ____allows easy access to the back seats? 8. ____has the best engine design in terms of saving money? 9. ____has its handbook criticised? 10. ____ Audi A3Most of our drivers said the A3 was their clear favourite in this group. They described it as refined and comfortable with good handling characteristics and light, precise steering.All the seats were comfortable and the front ones were easy to adjust. Most drivers liked the driving position, helped by a good range of steering wheel and seat height adjustments. The main instruments were clear and dashboard controls were well positioned.Mirror coverage was very good but our drivers complained that the view out of the rear was badly hindered by the high rear window line and thick pillars.Getting into the back seats was easy, thanks to a clever seat mechanism, which moves the seat up and forward as well as tilting the backrest. Rear legroom was reasonable but the rear seat was only barely wide enough for three adults.Luggage space was average for this class of car but you have to remove the rear head restraints to fold the rear seat. There were plenty of useful interior stowage spaces.All A3s come with an alarm and immobiliser as standard. Our ’thief’ got in through the doors in 20 seconds, But the radio was a non-standard fit, which is likely to deter thieves.The hinges of the rear seats could release in an accident, allowing luggage to crash through into the passenger compartment. Also, the driver’s knees could be damaged by stiff structures under the dash.Some parts of the fuel system and electrics would be vulnerable to damage in a frontal collision. Honda CivicHonda says its special VTEC engine has a winning combination of economy and performance, but our drivers found it a bit of a curate’s egg. It was the most economical of the cars on test, but drivers found it sluggish at low revs, and its acceleration in fifth gear was slow, so overtaking normally meant having to shift down to fourth gear.The driving position was acceptable, but our panel criticised the restricted rear visibility ? the rear window was quite small. Drivers found the back rest supportive but it was not possible to make fine adjustments to the angle. The ride comfort was acceptable, but it wasn’t as good as the Audi’s or Rover’s.The driver’s seat didn’t slide forward when it was tilted, making rear access awkward from this side. In the back, headroom and legroom was excellent but testers didn’t find the seats particularly comfortable.The luggage space was small for this class of car, especially with the rear seats in place. However, folding the rear seat to increase luggage space was easy.Other points identified by our panel included well-placed minor controls, good mirror coverage, but fiddly radio controls.All Civics come with an immobiliser but no alarm. You may want to consider paying extra for an alarm, as our ’thief’ broke into through the doors in 13 seconds, and into the engine bay in just five seconds.There were stiff structures under the dash which could damage the driver’s knees in an accident, though there was no problem on the passenger’s side. The handbook (like the Audi’s) provided advice on using child restraints. Rover 216The 1.6-litre engine had good power delivery at both high and low revs but some drivers complained that it was noisy at high revs. The brakes didn’t have very good progression, but drivers like their positive feel.Ride comfort and the handling were praised. But drivers found it difficult to achieve a comfortable driving position. The driver’s seat was not height-adjustable, and there was only limited space to rest your clutch foot. Some testers also found the seat backrest uncomfortable. Visibility was marred by the small mirrors. The rear view was also restricted by thick pillars and the small rear window.Getting into the back was tricky because the front seats did not slide forward when tilted. Once in the back, legroom and headroom were poor, and testers complained that their rear seat base was unsupportive.Luggage space was smaller than average for this class of car ? this was compounded by a high boot sill and difficulties in folding the rear seat. But there were large pockets in the doors and rear side panels.The main radio controls were more convenient; they were mounted on the steering wheel so drivers didn’t have to take their hands off the wheel to use them.Our Rover 200s came with an alarm, though this isn’t standard on all versions. Our ’thief’ broke in through the doors in 15 seconds.Some of the electrics would be vulnerable in a frontal impact. The rear seat hinges could release in an accident, allowing luggage to crash through into the passenger compartment. Also, information in the handbook on using child restraints was inadequate. 相关资料 |
