gre考试阅读真题解析(B)

　　Although the hormone adrenaline is known to regulate memory storage, it does not pass from the blood into brain cells. We are faced with an apparent paradox: how can a hormone that does not act directly on the brain have such a large effect on brain function?

　　Recently, we tested the possibility that one of the hormones actions outside the brain might be responsible. Since one consequence of adrenaline release in an animal is an increase in blood glucose levels, we examined the effects of glucose on memory in rats. We found that glucose injected immediately after training enhances memory tested the next day. Additional evidence was provided by negative findings: drugs called adrenergic antagonists, which block peripheral adrenaline receptors, disrupted adrenalines ability to regulate memory but did not affect memory enhancements produced by glucose that was not stimulated by adrenaline. These results are as they should be if adrenaline affects memory modulation by increasing blood glucose levels.

　　17. The primary purpose of the passage is to

　　 reconcile two opposing theories

　　 compare two different explanations for a phenomenon

　　 describe experimental research that appears to support an unpopular theory

　　 present evidence that may help to resolve an apparent contradiction

　　 describe a hypothesis that has cause a controversy

　　18. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely describe the additional evidence provided by experiments with adrenergic antagonists as

　　 revolutionary

　　 disappointing

　　 incomplete

　　 unexpected

　　 corroborative

　　19. The passage provides information about which of the following topics?

　　 The mechanism by which glucose affects memory storage

　　 The evidence that prompted scientist to test the effects of adrenaline on memory regulation

　　 The reason that the effects of glucose on memory were tested

　　 The ways that memory storage modifies the structure of the brain

　　 The kinds of training used to test memory enhancement in rats

　　20. The author refers to the results of the experiment using adrenergic antagonists as negative findings most likely because the adrenergic antagonists

　　 failed to disrupt adrenalines effect on memory

　　 did not affect glucoses ability to enhance memory

　　 did not block adrenalines ability to increase blood glucose levels

　　 only partially affected adrenalines ability to enhance memory

　　 disrupted both adrenalines and glucoses effect on memory

　　The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Until recently, child psychologists supported pioneer developmentalist Jean. Piaget in his hypothesis that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative consequences caused. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism and imminent justice out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Keasey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage.

　　Keaseys research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmful acts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences? Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, self-defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressors action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to Bonnie wrecks Anns pretend house depending on whether Bonnie did it so somebody wont fall over it or because Bonnie wanted to make Ann feel bad. Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified; the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments.

　　Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make subtle distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six-year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable, harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however, Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they had become morally autonomous.

　　21. Which of the following best describes the passage as a whole?

　　 An outline for future research

　　 An expanded definition of commonly misunderstood terms

　　 An analysis of a dispute between two theorists

　　 A discussion of research findings in an ongoing inquiry

　　 A confirmation of an established authoritys theory

　　22. According to the passage, Darley found that after seven months of kindergarten six year olds acquired which of the following abilities?

　　 Differentiating between foreseeable and unforeseeable harm

　　 Identifying with the perpetrator of a harmful action

　　 Justifying harmful actions that result from provocation

　　 Evaluating the magnitude of negative consequences resulting from the breaking of rules

　　 Recognizing the difference between moral absolutism and moral autonomy

　　23. According to the passage, Piaget and Keasey would not have agreed on which of the following points?

　　 The kinds of excuses children give for harmful acts they commit

　　 The age at which children begin to discriminate between intentional and unintentional harm

　　 The intentions children have in perpetrating harm

　　 The circumstances under which children punish harmful acts

　　 The justifications children recognize for mitigating punishment for harmful acts

　　24. It can be inferred that the term public duty in the context of the passage means which of the following?

　　 The necessity to apprehend perpetrators.

　　 The responsibility to punish transgressors

　　 An obligation to prevent harm to another

　　 The assignment of punishment for harmful action

　　 A justification for punishing transgressions

　　25. According to the passage, Keaseys findings support which of the following conclusions about six-year-old children?

　　 They have the ability to make autonomous moral judgments.

　　 They regard moral absolutism as a threat to their moral autonomy.

　　 They do not understand the concept of public duty.

　　 They accept moral judgment made by their peers more easily than do older children.

　　 They make arbitrary moral judgments.

　　26. It can be inferred from the passage that Piaget would be likely to agree with which of the following statements about the punishment that children under seven assign to wrongdoing?

　　 The severity of the assigned punishment is determined by the perceived magnitude of negative consequences more than by any other factor.

　　 The punishment is to be administered immediately following the transgression.

　　 The children assign punishment less arbitrarily than they do when they reach the age of moral autonomy.

　　 The punishment for acts of unintentional harm is less severe than it is for acts involving accidental harm.

　　 The more developmentally immature a child, the more severe the punishment that the child will assign.

　　27. According to the passage, the research of Nesdale and Rule suggests which of the following about five-year-old children?

　　 Their reactions to intentional and accidental harm determine the severity of the punishments they assign.

　　 They, as perpetrators of harmful acts, disregard the feelings of the children they harm.

　　 They take into account the motivations of actions when judging the behavior of other children.

　　 They view public duty as a justification for accidental, but not intentional, harm.

　　 They justify any action that protects them from harm.

答案：17-27：DECBDABCAAC