╭──── 民國  101 年共同英文參考解答 ────╮
        │                                              │
        ╰────┬─────────────┬────╯
                  │ 01 - 10    BADAB  CDCDA  │
                  │ 11 - 20    DDCBA  CABBB  │
                  │ 21 - 30    CBADC  ABCCD  │
                  │ 31 - 40    DBBDD  BCDCA  │
                  ╰─────────────╯

※補充
  --

  21-30 有原文可以對照
  http://beingsakin.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/workplace-morale/
  --

Work Will Make You Happy (A Fairy Tale)

However powerful our technology and complex our corporations, the most
remarkable feature of the modern working world may in the end be the widely
held belief that our work should make us happy. Our choice of occupation is
held to define our identity to the extent that the most insistent question we
ask of new acquaintances is not where they come from or who their parents
were but what they do, the assumption being that the route to a meaningful
existence must invariably pass through the gate of remunerative employment.

It was not always this way. In the fourth century BC, Aristotle defined an
attitude, which was to last almost two millennia, in the phrase “All paid
jobs absorb and degrade the mind.” For the Greek philosopher, financial need
placed one on a par with slaves and animals. The labor of the hands, as much
as of the mercantile sides of the mind, would lead to psychological
deformation. Only a private income and a life of leisure could afford
citizens adequate opportunity to enjoy the higher pleasures of music and
philosophy.

Early Christianity appended to Aristotle’s notion the still darker doctrine
that the miseries of work are the appropriate means of expiating the sins of
Adam. It was not until the Renaissance that new notes began to be heard. In
the biographies of great artists, men like Leonardo da Vinci and
Michelangelo, we hear early references to the glories of practical activity.
While this reevaluation was at first limited to artistic work, and even then
only to its most exalted examples, it came in time to encompass almost all
occupations. By the middle of the eighteenth century, in a direct challenge
to the Aristotelian position, Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert
published their twenty-eight-volume Encyclopédie, filled with articles
celebrating the particular genius and joy involved in baking bread, planting
asparagus, operating a windmill, forging an anchor, printing a book, and
running a silver mine. Accompanying the text were illustrations of the tools
employed to complete such tasks, among them pulleys, tongs, and clamps,
instruments whose precise purpose readers might not always understand, but
which they could nonetheless recognize as furthering the pursuit of skillful
and therefore dignified ends.

Purported to be a sober compendium of knowledge, the Encyclopédie was in
truth a paean to the nobility of labor. Diderot said as much in his entry on
“Art,” disparaging people inclined to venerate only the “liberal” arts
(such as music and philosophy) while ignoring their “mechanical”
 equivalents (such as clockmaking and silk weaving): “The liberal arts have
sung their own praise long enough; they should now raise their voice in
praise of the mechanical arts. The liberal arts must free the mechanical arts
from the degradation in which these have so long been held by prejudice.”

The bourgeois thinkers of the eighteenth century thus turned Aristotle’s
formula on its head: satisfactions which the Greek philosopher had identified
with leisure were now transposed to the sphere of work, while tasks lacking
in any financial recompense were drained of all significance and relegated to
the haphazard attentions of dilettantes. It now seemed as impossible that one
could be happy and idle as it had once seemed unlikely that one could work
and be human.

Aspects of this evolution in attitudes toward work had intriguing
correlatives in ideas about love. In this sphere, too, the eighteenth-century
bourgeoisie yoked together what was pleasurable and what was necessary. They
argued that there was no inherent conflict between sexual passion and the
practical demands of raising children in a family unit, and that there could
hence be romance within a marriage—just as there could be enjoyment within
an economic enterprise. On behalf of both marriage and employment, the
propositions co-opted satisfactions hitherto pessimistically, or perhaps
realistically, confined by aristocrats to the subsidiary realms of the love
affair and the hobby.

-

The true range of obstacles in the way of unlocking our potential was
accurately acknowledged by the German sociologist Max Weber when, in his
lecture “Science as a Vocation” (c. 1918), he described Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe as an example of the sort of creative and healthy personality “who
appears only once in a thousand years.”

For the rest of history, for most of us, our bright promise will almost
always fall short of being actualized; it will never earn us bountiful sums
of money or beget exemplary objects or organizations. It will remain no more
than a hope carried over from childhood, or a dream entertained as we drive
along the motorway and feel our plans hovering above a wide horizon.

[There is an] unthinking cruelty discreetly coiled within the magnanimous
bourgeois assurance that everyone can discover happiness through work and
love. It isn’t that these two entities are invariably incapable of
delivering fulfillment, only that they almost never do so. And when an
exception is misrepresented as a rule, our individual misfortunes, instead of
seeming to us quasi-inevitable aspects of life, will weigh down on us like
particular curses. In denying the natural place reserved for longing and
incompleteness in the human lot, the bourgeois ideology denies us the
possibility of collective consolation for our fractious marriages and our
unexploited ambitions and condemns us instead to solitary feelings of shame
and persecution for having stubbornly failed to become who we are.

                        感謝 summroak 提供