[外语类试卷]大学英语六级模拟试卷514及答案与解析.doc
《[外语类试卷]大学英语六级模拟试卷514及答案与解析.doc》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《[外语类试卷]大学英语六级模拟试卷514及答案与解析.doc(46页珍藏版)》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。
1、大学英语六级模拟试卷 514及答案与解析 一、 Part I Writing (30 minutes) 1 For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay on the topic of Should Enterprises Hold an Annual Meeting? You should write at least 150 words according to the outline given below. 现在有不少单位热衷于组织年会 1对这种做法有人表示支持 2有人并不赞成 3我认为 Should
2、Enterprises Hold an Annual Meeting? _ 二、 Part II Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) (15 minutes) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer the questions attached to the passage. For questions 1-4, mark: Y (for YES) if the statement agrees
3、 with the information given in the passage; N (for NO) if the statement contradicts the information given in the passage; NG (for NOT GIVEN) if the information is not given in the passage. 1 Choice blindness: You dont know what you want We have all heard of experts who fail basic tests of sensory di
4、scrimination in their own field: wine snobs (自命不凡的人 ) who cant tell red from white wine (though in blackened cups), or art critics who see deep meaning in random lines drawn by a computer. We delight in such stories since anyone claiming to be an authority is fair game. But what if we shine the spot
5、light on choices we make about everyday things? Experts might be forgiven for being wrong about the limits of their skills as experts, but could we be forgiven for being wrong about the limits of our skills as experts on ourselves? We have been trying to answer this question using techniques from ma
6、gic performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. I
7、n some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices. Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates tha
8、t all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons“ for their “choice“. We called this effect “choice blindness“, echoing change blindness, the phenomenon i
9、dentified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full imp
10、lications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us. When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about selfknowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have
11、 with decisionmaking, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside“: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of subjectivity. As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we h
12、ave every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalisations (文过饰非 ) after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are? But with choice blindness we drive a large we
13、dge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (虚伪 ) (the story-telling we do
14、to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the s
15、peech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange. This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering (装病 ) might develop into true symptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obse
16、ssive-compulsive disorder (强迫症 ). Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labelling, and so on) we found this
17、interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it“), which we suspect lies behind the f
18、ormation of many everyday preferences. We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazin
19、g sleight of hand (巧妙的手段 )? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments. For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each partici
20、pants choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical“ jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over. Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them t
21、o taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when
22、 we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all switches. We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cellphones, and even ap
23、artments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness. Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our vol
24、unteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consi
- 1.请仔细阅读文档,确保文档完整性,对于不预览、不比对内容而直接下载带来的问题本站不予受理。
- 2.下载的文档,不会出现我们的网址水印。
- 3、该文档所得收入(下载+内容+预览)归上传者、原创作者;如果您是本文档原作者,请点此认领!既往收益都归您。
下载文档到电脑,查找使用更方便
2000 积分 0人已下载
下载 | 加入VIP,交流精品资源 |
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 外语类 试卷 大学 英语六级 模拟 514 答案 解析 DOC
