2023年新高考I卷
D
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 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.
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
________.
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.
答案解析：
32. 第二段主要讲述了群体智慧效应背后的逻辑，即人们的错误不是总是相同的，一些人倾向于高估，而另一些人倾向于低估，当这些错误平均在一起时，它们会相互抵消，从而得出更准确的估计。因此选B。
33.第三段提到，当人群被进一步分成允许讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比相同数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。这表明即使估计不是完全独立的，平均准确性也可以提高。因此，答案是D。
34. 根据第四段"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."可知，后续研究关注的是小组讨论过程中成员们实际做了什么。因此选C。
35. 根据最后一段"Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous."可知，尽管Navajas的研究存在局限性，还有很多问题待解答，但作者认为这些研究对于群体讨论和决策制定的潜在影响是巨大的。这表明作者对Navajas的研究是持认可态度的。因此选D。
