《2025年实验班全程提优训练高中英语选择性必修第二册外研版》

阅读理解
【素养解读】本文探讨了“群体智慧”效应及其在小组讨论中的应用,这与英语学科中的批判性思维和协作沟通紧密相关。这一主题体现了批判性思维的重要性,即如何分析和评估信息以做出更好的决策。此外,它强调了协作沟通的价值,展示了小组成员如何通过分享不同观点和共同推理来达成更加精确的共识。这不仅促进了学生之间的交流和理解,也培养了他们的协作能力和集体解决问题的能力。在信息爆炸的时代,如何有效利用集体的智慧进行更好的决策和判断,这对学生未来在多变的社会和职业环境中能够有效沟通和合作至关重要。
(2023·新课标Ⅰ卷)On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.
This effect capitalises on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.
But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist(转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.
In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together”. Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.
1. [语言能力]What is Paragraph 2 of the text mainly about?
A. The methods of estimation.
B. The underlying logic of the effect.
C. The causes of people’s errors.
D. The design of Galton’s experiment.
(B)
2. [思维品质]Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if ______.
A. the crowds were relatively small
B. there were occasional underestimates
C. individuals did not communicate
D. estimates were not fully independent
(D)
3. [思维品质]What did the follow-up study focus on?
A. The size of the groups.
B. The dominant members.
C. The discussion process.
D. The individual estimates.
(C)
4. [学习能力]What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies?
A. Unclear.
B. Dismissive.
C. Doubtful.
D. Approving.
(D)

答案： 1.B 主旨大意题。根据第二段内容可知,本段阐述了人们所犯的错误不总是相同的,各不相同的误差平均在一起,相互抵消就会产生更准确的估算,讨论了独立估算的平均如何由于误差的消除而产生更准确的预测。因此本段主要解释了“群体智慧”效应这一现象的基本逻辑。故选B。
2.D 细节理解题。根据第二段倒数第二句和第三段最后两句可知,Navajas的研究表明,当人群被进一步划分为更小的讨论小组时,这些小组的平均估算值比相同数量的独立个体的平均估算值更准确,这说明即使在估算并不完全独立的情况下,估算的准确性仍可提高。故选D。
3.C 推理判断题。根据最后一段第一句可知,在后续研究中,研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中实际做了什么。文中提到小组成员主要通过“shared arguments and reasoned together”来减少误差,这表明后续研究的重点是小组内的讨论过程。故选C。
4.D 推理判断题。根据最后一段最后一句可知,作者认为虽然Navajas领导的研究有局限性,也存在许多问题,但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响巨大。因此可推知,作者对Navajas的研究表示一定的赞许和支持。故选D。