① Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior; evidence either way is weak, relying on contrived laboratory tests or sometimes unreliable self-reports. But a new study published in Cognition found that, in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects.
② The researchers investigated one class session’s impact on eating meat. They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitzgebel, a philosopher at the University of California, Riverside: students’ attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good because it reduces environmental harm and animal suffering. Half of the students in four large philosophy classes read an article on the ethics of factory-farmed meat, optionally watched an 11-minute video on the topic and joined a 50-minute discussion. The other half focused on charitable giving instead. Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester—nearly 14,000 receipts for almost 500 students.
③ Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors, including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books. But among student subjects who discussed meat ethics, meal purchases containing meat decreased from 52 to 45 percent—and this effect held steady for the study’s duration of several weeks. Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent.
④ “That’s actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention,” Schwitzgebel says. Psychologist Nina Strohminger at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable. And if real, she notes, it might be reversible by another nudge: “Easy come, easy go.”
⑤ Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence—classmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common. Second, the video may have had an emotional impact. Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role. Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants’ eating habits and students’ video exposure. Meanwhile, Schwitzgebel—who had predicted no effect—will be eating his words.
1.1. Scientists generally believe that the effects of ethics classes are ________
A hard to determine.
B narrowly interpreted.
C difficult to ignore.
D poorly summarized.
解析：选A。
A细节理解题。根据题干关键词Scientists、the effects、ethics classes定位至文首句。该句指出,科学家们拿不准道德课是否真能改变人们的行为，因为证据不足，即依赖的仅仅是人为的测试或是不可靠的自陈报告。换言之，科学家们普遍认为道德课(对人们的行为)的影响难以确定，故[A]正确。故选A。
2.2. Which of the following is a reason for the researchers to study meat eating?
A It is common among students.
B It is a behavior easy to measure.
C It is important to students’ health.
D It is a hot topic in ethics classes.
解析：选B。
B细节理解题。由题干中a reason for the researchers to study meat eating定位至第二段②句。该句介绍了研究人员选择研究吃肉行为的三个原因：1.学生对吃肉的态度多变且易变；2.吃肉行为易于衡量；3.道德文献基本一致认为少吃肉有益。[B]符合原因二，故正确。故选B。
3.3. Eric Schwitzgebel’s previous findings suggest that ethics professors ________
A are seldom critical of their students.
B are less sociable than other professors.
C are not sensitive to political issues.
D are not necessarily ethically better.
解析：选D。
D推理判断题。根据 Eric Schwitzgebel’s previous findings、ethics professors 定位至第三段①句。该句首先指出施维茨格贝尔对此次研究的预测：肉食伦理课不会影响学生的吃肉行为；进而说明他做出这种预测的原因：此前(即在开展本次研究之前)的研究发现伦理学教授在投票率、献血以及归还图书馆藏书等诸多行为上跟其他学科的教授并无差异。可见，两者之间的逻辑是“研究道德伦理并不会改变行为，所以由此推测此次研究的结果为‘零相关’”，换言之，施维茨格贝尔之前发现伦理学教授并没有因其在道德伦理方面的高素养而在投票率、献血、归还图书馆藏书等诸多行为上表现得比其他学科的教授更好，也即伦理学教授的道德水平未必更高，故[D]正确。故选D。
4.4. Nina Strohminger thinks that the effect of the intervention is ________
A permanent.
B predictable.
C uncertain.
D unrepeatable.
解析：选C。
C观点态度题。由Nina Strohminger定位至第四段②③句。两句共同指出尼娜对这种干预的影响的看法：希望是真实的，但不能排除未知的混杂因素的影响；而且即便是真实的，也很容易受外界微小因素的影响，来得快去得也快。可见，她认为这种影响是不确定的，故[C]正确，同时可排除[A]。故选C。
5.5. Eric Schwitzgebel suspects that the students’ change in behavior ________
A can bring psychological benefits.
B can be analyzed statistically.
C is a result of multiple factors.
D is a sign of self-development.
解析：选C。
C推理判断题。由Eric Schwitzgebel suspects定位至末段。前三句指出施维茨格贝尔对学生行为改变(即购买肉餐比率下降)的原因分析，依据重要程度，它们分别是：社交影响(讨论中引导者的作用)、视频的情绪感染、理性的讨论。由此可见，他认为学生行为改变是多方面因素共同作用的结果，故[C]正确。故选C。
