2023高考英语全国1卷D篇阅读理解深度解析

2023高考英语全国1卷D篇阅读理解深度解析

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 capitalizes 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 averagedtogether, 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

1

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.

32. 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.

33. Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if ________.

2

A. the crowds were relatively small B. there were occasional underestimates C. individuals did not communicate D. estimates were not fully independent 34. 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.

35. What is the author's attitude toward Navajas’ studies? A. Unclear. B. Dismissive. C. Doubtful. D. Approving. 参考答案：BDCD 文章主旨：

本文是一篇说明文。主要介绍了由华金·纳瓦加斯领导的对“群体智慧”效应的一项新的研究。研究发现当人群被进一步分成更小的群体并允许进行讨论时，这些群体估算的平均值比同样数量的独立个体的估算平均值更准确。

参考译文：

1907年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯·高尔顿(Francis Galton)发表了一篇论文，阐述了后来被称为“群体智慧”效应。他进行的估计实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估计的平均值可能相当准确。

这种效应利用了这样一个事实:当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人倾向于高估，有些人倾向于低估。当足够多的这

3

些误差被平均在一起时，它们就会相互抵消，从而得到更准确的估计。如果人们是相似的，并且倾向于犯同样的错误，那么他们的错误就不会相互抵消。用更专业的术语来说，群体智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。如果由于某种原因，人们的错误变得相关或依赖，估计的准确性就会下降。

但是，由华金·纳瓦加斯领导的一项新研究为这一经典现象提供了一个有趣的转折。这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步分成更小的群体并允许进行讨论时，这些群体的平均值比同样数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，从4个5人的讨论小组中得到的平均值比从20个独立个体中得到的平均值要准确得多。

在对100名大学生的后续研究中，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。他们是否倾向于相信那些对自己的估计最有信心的人?他们追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人了吗?这种情况有时会发生，但不是主要的反应。最常见的是，这些小组报告说他们“分享论点，一起推理”。不知何故，这些论证和推理导致了错误的全面减少。虽然纳瓦哈人领导的研究有局限性，还有许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。

答案详解：

32.B主旨大意题。根据第二段This effect capitalizes 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.这种效应利用了这样一个事实:当人们犯错误时，

4

这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人倾向于高估，有些人倾向于低估。当足够多的这些误差被平均在一起时，它们就会相互抵消，从而得到更准确的估计。这就是群体智慧效应的基本逻辑。B. The underlying logic of the effect. B.效应的基本逻辑。因此应选B。其它选项含义A. The methods of estimation. 估计方法。C. The causes of people’s errors. 人们犯错的原因。D. The design of Galton’s experiment.高尔顿实验的设计

33.D事实细节题。根据题干中Navajas，可以把关键信息定为在第三段，根据第三段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.这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步分成更小的群体并允许进行讨论时，这些群体的平均值比同样数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。 由此可知，即使人们的估算是经过小组讨论的，不是独立的，但平均值更准确，平均的估算准确度也会提高。D. estimates were not fully independent估算不是完全独立的，因此应选D。其它选项的含义：A. the crowds were relatively small 人群相对较少B. there were occasional underestimates偶尔会有低估C. individuals did not communicate 个体之间没有交流

34.C事实细节题。根据题干中the follow-up study 可以把根据信息定为在最后一段，根据最后一段中的In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a

5

better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion.在对100名大学生的后续研究中，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。由此可知，在后续的研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员讨论的过程。C. The discussion process.讨论过程。因此应选C。其它选项的含义A. The size of the groups.群体的规模 B. The dominant members.主要成员。D. The individual estimates.个人估计。

35.D观点态度题。根据最后一段中的Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential

implications

for

group

discussion

and

decision-making are enormous.虽然纳瓦哈人领导的研究有局限性，还有许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。可知，作者对Navajas的研究是支持的。D. Approving.赞成的，支持的，因此应选D。其它选项的含义：A. Unclear.不清楚的B. Dismissive.不屑一顾的。C. Doubtful.怀疑的。

长难句分析：

1. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.

句意：他进行的估算实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估算的平均值可能相当准确。

句式分析：本句主要结构为：The experiment of estimation showed that...，其中 he conducted为定语从句，先行词为The experiment of estimation，that引导宾语从句。

6

2. 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.

句意为：这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步分成更小的群体并允许进行讨论时，这些群体的平均值比同样数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。

句式分析：本句主要结构为主系表结构：the key finding of the study was that..，that引导的表语从句为主从复合句，主句为the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals.在when引导的条件状语从句中又包含一个that引导的定语从句，先行词为smaller groups，that在定语从句中作主语。

重难点词汇积累： statistician n统计学家； illustrate v说明，阐明；

average n平均数；average v计算平均值； independent adj独立的； dependent adj 依赖的； estimate n/v估计，估算； estimation n 估计，估算 overestimate v过高估计； underestimate v低估；

7

accurate adj 准确的； accuracy n 准确性； classic adj经典的； phenomenon n 现象； individual n 个人，个体； significantly adv 显著地；

dominant adj首要的，占支配地位的； response n 反应； frequently adv经常地； reason v思考，推理； argument n论点，论据； global adj 整体的，全面的； reduction n 减少； potential adj潜在的； enormous adj巨大的； limitation n 局限； implication n可能的影响； underlying adj潜在的，根本的； logic n 逻辑

occasional adj 偶尔的； process n过程，进程； dismissive adj 不屑一顾的； doubtful adj 怀疑的； approving adj 赞成的，支持的

8

重难点短语积累：

be known as作为...而出名，被称为；

conduct /do/carry out /perform an experiment做实验； in some cases在某些情况下；

capitalize on充分利用；（近义短语make full/good use of 充分利用make the best/most of 充分利用take advantage of 利用，占便宜）；

make errors/mistakes犯错；

tend to do sth倾向于做某事，往往做某事； cancel out抵消，取消； result in导致，引起；

in technical terms用专业术语来说； for whatever reasons无论什么原因； go down下降； be divided into被分成； for instance/example例如；

in a follow-up study在一项后续研究中 get a better sense of对...有更好地了解/感觉； be willing to do sth乐意做某事； change one's mind改变主意；

focus on/concentrate on专注于，集中于

9