《2025年小题狂做高中英语选择性必修第四册译林版》

[江苏无锡青山高级中学期中]We’ve all been there：those times you need to argue your point of view to someone who you know disagrees with you. You immediately go to your keyboard and start to type out that 280-character tweet，the Facebook reply，or a paragraphs-long email. Surely the reason，logic，and strong power of your written words will convince whoever it is who disagrees with you to see your point of view. But new research suggests a different idea.
That research was conducted by Juliana Schroeder，assistant professor of University of California，Berkeley，and her colleagues. In Schroeder’s study of almost 300 people，participants were asked to watch，listen，and read arguments about subjects they agreed or disagreed with. They were asked to judge the character of the communicator and the quality of the argument. Schroeder’s team found that the participants who watched or listened to the communicator were less dismissive( 抵触的) of their claims than when they read that communicator’s same argument.
The idea for her study came from a newspaper article about a politician. One of them read a speech that was printed in a newspaper from a politician with whom he strongly disagreed. The next week，he heard the exact same speech playing on a radio station. He was shocked by how different his reaction was towards the politician when he read the speech compared to when he heard it. When he read the statement，the politician seemed idiotic，but when he heard it spoken，the politician actually sounded reasonable.
So in the workplace，speaking to someone in person often involves nothing more than walking a few doors down to their office. And that’s exactly what you should do if you need to convince that boss or colleague of why your blueprint for the company or project is the right one.
Only as a last way should you try to communicate with someone who you disagree with over social media. Twitter’s limited text allowance and social media users’ short attention make arguing your point an uphill battle.
(D) 1. What’s the result of the research?
A. Written words are more logical and reasonable.
B. People prefer to communicate with keyboard.
C. When reading an argument，the participants were less dismissive than hearing it.
D. Oral，not written，communication works better.
(C) 2. Why is the politician mentioned in Paragraph 3?
A. To introduce the topic for discussion.
B. To summarize the previous paragraphs.
C. To explain why Schroeder conducted the research.
D. To introduce the politician’s speech.
(C) 3. What does the underlined word “idiotic” in Paragraph 3 mean?
A. Wise.
B. Practical.
C. Silly.
D. Special.
(B) 4. What can we infer from the last two paragraphs?
A. To persuade your boss，you need to walk to his office and leave a message.
B. It’s difficult to fully explain your points due to social media’s limitation.
C. Arguing over social media is more convenient than speaking in person.
D. Communicating with others over social media is encouraged.

答案： 【语篇导读】本文是一篇说明文。一项研究表明，与意见不同的人交流时，口头交流比书面交流的效果更好。
1 D 推理判断题
【关键句】Schroeder’s team found that the participants who watched or listened to the communicator were less dismissive of their claims than when they read that communicator’s same argument.
释义:Schroeder的研究团队发现，观看或聆听交流者的参与者对他们的主张的抵触程度低于他们阅读交流者
的相同观点时的抵触程度。
【解析】根据关键句可知，相对于观看或聆听交流者发表的观点的参与者，阅读文字的参与者更容易对交流者有抵触情绪。由此可推知，口头沟通比书面沟通的效果更好。故选D项。
2 C 细节理解题
【关键句】The idea for her study came from a newspaper article about a politician.
释义:她的研究想法来自报纸上一篇关于一位政治家的文章。
【解析】根据关键句可知，文章第三段提到政治家是为了解释Schroeder进行这项研究的原因。故选C项。
3 C 词义猜测题
【关键句】When he read the statement, the politician seemed idiotic, but when he heard it spoken, the politician actually sounded reasonable.
释义:当他读到这份声明时，他觉得这位政客似乎很愚蠢，但当他听到这份声明时，他觉得这位政客实际上听起来很有道理。
【解析】根据关键句可知，but前后的语义构成转折，画线词idiotic与后面的reasonable意思应相反。reasonable意为“合理的，有道理的”，由此推知idiotic意为“愚笨的，愚蠢的”。故选C项。
4 B 推理判断题
【关键句】Twitter’s limited text allowance and social media users’ short attention make arguing your point an uphill battle.
释义:推特的字数限制和社交媒体用户短暂的注意力，使得论证你的观点成为一场艰难的战斗。
【解析】根据关键句可知，社交媒体的局限性会使你很难完全解释清楚自己的观点。故选B项。