gmat机经,2017年6月gmat阅读机经(至6.28)(十四).

以下澳际留学为正在准备GMAT考试的同学们整理了gmat机经，2011年GMAT机经，以下2011年6月gmat阅读机经，共59篇，2011年6月3日至2011年6月28日。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利！

1.3.7 语速在广告中影响

V1 by jscz66

第一篇说语速对人听广告的影响

第一段说语速和停顿对人理解广告有影响，然后说了两个专家吧，一个ML认为语速快时人会更专注于广告的内容，理解的也就更多，另一个人MO说有停顿会给人更多的时间来理解接收到的信息，并且语速太快会给人一种暗示就是讲的东西很难理解（因为怕讲不完，所以快）。

第二段说实验表明人们对正常语速的广告接受到的信息更多，但是停顿对人的理解没有影响，但是快的语速的确会给人一种很难理解的暗示，简介导致人们失去兴趣

记得有一个题说文章对两个专家的观点是同意还是不同意，选了反对第一个人说的，同意第二个人的第二个观点

V2 by morningzc

广告语速和间隙停顿

最后一段一句高亮，问研究下来，语速停顿has no fect,这句主要支持什么？

有两个迷魂选项A停顿的越多，对process的处理就增强（高亮前一句）2）D语速停顿不是因为lack of什么（写的是高亮的后面再后面的相关句子）

文章主要说了什么B反对ML的意见，支持Ｍoor的第一个意见D反对ML的意见，支持moor的第二个意见

V3 by 朵朵0912 730

语速影响广告效果那篇

JJ里很全，题目有

文章结论（具体怎么问的忘了）：not confirm M1 and M2’s first (就是opportunity那个) hypothesis but confirm M2’s second（motivation那个） hypothesis遇到了JJ中的

怎么样才最适合观众？

楼主选两个normal

V4 by camelo777 760

广告语速的问题，有原文不多说了，不长也不难。阅读主旨题目答案确定，选反对第一个人，支持第二个的第一个观点，是C选项。

考古

P1广告先说两个牛人，都是M打头的。M1说广告语速快好，停顿少越能使受众集中精力去听。M2说不然，语速太快和停顿越少，人们懒得去听，提出有两种可能。1.缺乏理解的时间。2.太快使人缺乏理解的motivation

P2做了个实验，否定了M1的观点，证实了M2的观点。即语速过快使人缺乏去听广告的motivation，否定了第一个可能，即人们不听广告是没时间去理解。例证是：实验表明停顿增加虽然给受众更多时间去理解语速快的广告，但不会使人们更好的理解广告。于是否定了人们缺乏时间理解广告这个原因

第一题：主旨题

第二题是高亮第二段里的一句话，问它是支持了下列哪个观点，请在前后句找

第三题是作者支持哪个观点？显然是M2的观点

直接问题：1.第二段高亮的“增加停顿时间have no fect”的作用是什么，答案具体不记得了，貌似是高亮后一句话的同意改写

以下哪一项是第二个M的观点？support题目。A:语速过快会增加观众的理解难度

还有一题，问你一下怎么样才最适合观众：

快语速and长停顿

Normal语速and 短停顿

Normal语速and Normal停顿

Normal语速and长停顿

Slow语速and ***停顿

原文：

Virtually every broadcast ad uses the voice of an announcer but, due to lack of guidance from the marketing literature, managers must rely on gut feel when choosing a voice. Drawing on research from psycholinguistics we identify three important voice characteristics, syllable speed, interphrase pausation, and pitch, and link these characteristics to key advertising response variables. By considering these three variables simultaneously, we test competing explanations previously offered to explain the process by which speech rate affects consumer response to advertising.

Conceptual Framework

Consumer research on the fects of voice characteristics on listener response has been limited, focusing primarily on the fects of speech compression in advertising. These studies have produced mixed findings, suggesting that compression produces significant increases in processing, recall, and attitude in some instances (LaBarbera & MacLachlan, 1979; MacLachlan & Siegel, 1980), but decreases in others (e.g., Schlinger, Alwitt, McCarthy, & Green, 1983; Vnn, Rogers, & Penrod, 1987). Alternative competing hypotheses have been advanced to account for these fects.

MacLachlan and his colleagues (LaBarbera & MacLachlan, 1979; MacLachlan & Siegel, 1980) contend that people prer speech that is somewhat faster than normal speed, and that this prompts them to elaborate more on the advertising message. While they provide data that are consistent with this conclusion, attempts at replication have not provided support (Stephens, 1982; Lautman & Dean, 1983; Schlinger et al., 1983; Moore, Hausknecht, & Thamodaran, 1986).

Moore et al. (1986) offer an alternative thesis, suggesting that time compression interferes with the listener’s opportunity and motivation to elaborate on the ad. They argue that accelerating speech not only curtails processing time, it also serves as a cue that processing will be difficult. Drawing on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) they argue that when speech rate is faster than normal, consumers will tend to process the substance of the ad less and focus instead on peripheral cues such as the likeability of the announcer’s voice. Empirical findings provide support for this prediction. Unfortunately, their methodology does not enable them to determine whether this is the result of reduced opportunity to process, reduced motivation to process, or both.

One means of addressing this question is to determine whether the fects of compression are driven primarily by syllable speed or interphrase pausation. Research has found that accelerated speech is perceived as more difficult to understand, and that for the same degree of time compression, accelerating syllable speed has a much larger fect on perceptions of speech rate than shortening interphrase pauses (Grosjean & Lane, 1976; Miller and Grosjean 1981). Thus, if the fects of compression are driven by reduced motivation to process, ad response should be more sensitive to changes in syllable speed. If they are driven simply by decreased opportunity to process, then reducing processing time by accelerating syllable speed should have the same impact as an equivalent reduction resulting from shortening interphrase pauses.

It is well established that, for male speakers, low-pitch voices are perceived as more pleasant, attractive, and persuasive (e.g. Zuckerman & Miyake, 1993). Thus, if high speech rates are prerred and lead to greater processing, pitch should have less of an fect on the favorableness of responses toward the ad when speech is accelerated. On the other hand, if higher speech rate reduces opportunity and/or motivation to process, we would expect pitch to have a greater fect on ad response variables when speech rate is high. Furthermore, if the mechanism is lack of opportunity, then for an equal change in syllable speed and interphrase pausation, pitch should interact equally with both variables. However, if the mechanism is attentional (i.e., motivation to process), then, for an equal change in syllable speed and interphrase pausation, the pitch - syllable speed interaction should be significant while the pitch - interphrase pausation interaction should be either non-significant or small.

Method

We constructed an ad based on an actual 30-second radio spot, then digitally altered the speech characteristics of the source recording using computer software. We then examined consumer response to our ad in a laboratory experiment using a 2-2-2 between subjects factorial design, with voice pitch (low, high), syllable speed (normal, high), and interphrase pausation (normal, short) as the independent factors.

Findings

An ANOVA with the number of positive cognitive responses toward the ad as the dependent variable revealed a significant interaction between syllable speed and pitch, F (1, 151)=4.10, p<.05, w2=0.02. Subjects in the high syllable speed/low pitch condition had more positive cognitive responses toward the ad (M=0.69) than those in the high syllable speed/high pitch condition (M=0.29), t (158)=2.59, p<.05, while pitch made no difference in the normal syllable speed condition, t (158)=0.28, p>.10.

We also conducted an ANOVA with ad attitude as the dependent variable, and found a statistically significant interaction between syllable speed and pitch, F (1, 151)=5.54, p<.05, w2=0.03. Subjects in the high syllable speed/low pitch condition liked the ad more (M=6.19) than subjects in the high syllable speed/high pitch condition (M=5.19), t (158)=2.93, p<.01. There was no fect of pitch in the normal syllable speed condition, t (158)=0.41, p>.10.

To test whether the relationship between the independent variables and ad attitude was mediated by positive thoughts about the ad, we conducted an ANCOVA with ad attitude as the dependent variable and positive ad-directed cognitive response score as a covariate. Results indicated that ad-directed positive cognitive responses mediated the impact of the independent variables on ad attitude.

Finally, we conducted an ANOVA with brand attitude as the dependent variable, and found a significant interaction between syllable speed and pitch, F (1, 151)=4.91, p<.05, w2=0.02. Subjects in the high syllable speed/low pitch condition liked the advertised brand more (M=6.24) than subjects in the high syllable speed/high pitch condition (M=5.56), t (158)=2.23, p<.05. There was no difference as a function of pitch in the normal syllable speed condition, t (158)=0.91, p>.10. We also found that ad attitude mediated the fects of the independent variables on brand attitude

Conclusions

Consistent with previous research by Moore et al. (1986), we show that the fect of increasing speech rate in broadcast advertising is to disrupt, rather than enhance, consumer processing of the ad. More importantly, we extend their work by distinguishing between two alternative explanations for the observed disruption. First, we find that interphrase pausation has no fect on ad processing or attitude change. Since this variable has a substantial impact on the time available to process, it seems unlikely that lack of opportunity to process is responsible for the reduced processing associated with faster speech. Syllable speed, on the other hand, does influence consumer response, with faster articulation serving to disrupt message processing. Further, in the high syllable speed condition, subjects exposed to an ad with a low pitch voice, which is perceived as more attractive and credible, exhibited more favorable ad-directed cognitive responses and more positive ad and brand attitudes. Given that both manipulations reduced the ad’s running time by exactly the same amount, these results support a motivational explanation for the fects of compressed speech, at least within the normal range of human speech.

1.3.8 妇女的选举权

V1 by yangzhenghoney 740

很短， 也很容易理解。 就是说以前的学者认为那些反对妇女拥有选举权的女性是属于典型的维多利亚时期的传统女性，但事实并非如此， 她们实际也会看一些激进的书， 而且她们反对的理由是认为妇女参与政治会导致其所参与的社会活动不再公正公平， 反正就是这个意思， 题目很简单的！！！

V2 by wynyy2000 680

妇女权利，说什么虽然竞选的人数多了，但是其它妇女地位没有提升，因为妇女在political campaign 中都是low prestiage的职务，或者是没有悬念的campaign中担任职务

V4 by dreamwst 740

JJ蛮完整了，主要是证明妇女选举权的反对者反对是有原因的，我记得的原因主要是选举权会破坏妇女的中立地位，使得对政治影响力下降。有主旨题。算简单

澳际留学为大家整理2011年gmat机经，以上2011年6月gmat机经，gmat阅读机经59篇，2011年6月3日至2011年6月28日。澳际留学祝大家考试顺利！

以下澳际留学为正在准备GMAT考试的同学们整理了gmat机经，2011年GMAT机经，以下2011年6月gmat阅读机经，共59篇，2011年6月3日至2011年6月28日。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利！

1.3.7 语速在广告中影响

V1 by jscz66

第一篇说语速对人听广告的影响

第一段说语速和停顿对人理解广告有影响，然后说了两个专家吧，一个ML认为语速快时人会更专注于广告的内容，理解的也就更多，另一个人MO说有停顿会给人更多的时间来理解接收到的信息，并且语速太快会给人一种暗示就是讲的东西很难理解（因为怕讲不完，所以快）。

第二段说实验表明人们对正常语速的广告接受到的信息更多，但是停顿对人的理解没有影响，但是快的语速的确会给人一种很难理解的暗示，简介导致人们失去兴趣

记得有一个题说文章对两个专家的观点是同意还是不同意，选了反对第一个人说的，同意第二个人的第二个观点

V2 by morningzc

广告语速和间隙停顿

最后一段一句高亮，问研究下来，语速停顿has no fect,这句主要支持什么？

有两个迷魂选项A停顿的越多，对process的处理就增强（高亮前一句）2）D语速停顿不是因为lack of什么（写的是高亮的后面再后面的相关句子）

文章主要说了什么B反对ML的意见，支持Ｍoor的第一个意见D反对ML的意见，支持moor的第二个意见

V3 by 朵朵0912 730

语速影响广告效果那篇

JJ里很全，题目有

文章结论（具体怎么问的忘了）：not confirm M1 and M2’s first (就是opportunity那个) hypothesis but confirm M2’s second（motivation那个） hypothesis遇到了JJ中的

怎么样才最适合观众？

楼主选两个normal

V4 by camelo777 760

广告语速的问题，有原文不多说了，不长也不难。阅读主旨题目答案确定，选反对第一个人，支持第二个的第一个观点，是C选项。 上123456下

共6页