高考真题2023年新课标全国I卷阅读D-群体智慧效应
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.
1.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.
解析：选B。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计，讨论了独立估计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.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
解析：选D。D 细节理解题。根据第二段倒数第二句“In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. ”和第三段第二句的“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. ”可知，人们在没有独立的情况下，分成更小群体，平均值是更准确的，说明即使在估计数字并非完全独立的情况下，准确率提高也是可以做到的。故选D。
3.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.
解析：选C。C 推理判断题。根据第四段的“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? ”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。结合两个问题，因此可知后续研究的重点是小组内的讨论过程。故选C。
4.What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies?
A Unclear.
B Dismissive.
C Doubtful.
D Approving.
解析：选D。D 推理判断题。根据最后一段最后一句“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，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。因此推断作者对于Navajas的研究表示一定的赞许和支持。故选D。