大学英语六级考试拓展阅读练习(19)

　　Psychologists have known for a long time that economists are wrong. Most economists at least, those of the classical persuasion believe that any financial gain, however small, is worth having. But psychologists know this is not true. They know because of the ultimatum game, the outcome of which is often the rejection of free money. In this game, one player divides a pot of money between himself and another. The other then chooses whether to accept the offer. If he rejects it, neither player benefits. And despite the instincts of classical economics, a stingy offer is, indeed, usually rejected. The question is, why? One explanation of the rejectionist strategy is that human psychology is adapted for repeated interactions rather than one-off trades. In this case, taking a tough, if self-sacrificial, line at the beginning pays dividends in future rounds of the game. Rejecting a stingy offer in a one-off game is thus just a single move in a larger strategy. And indeed, when one-off ultimatum games are played by trained economists, who know all this, they do tend to accept stingy offers more often than other people would. But even they have their limits. To throw some light on why those limits exist, Terence Burnham of Harvard University recently gathered a group of students of microeconomics and asked them to play the ultimatum game. All of the students he recruited were men. Dr Burnhams research budget ran to a bunch of $40 games. When there are many rounds in the ultimatum game, players learn to split the money more or less equally. But Dr Burnham was interested in a game of only one round. In this game, which the players knew in advance was final and could thus not affect future outcomes, proposers could choose only between offering the other player $25 or $5. Responders could accept or reject the offer as usual. Those results recorded, Dr Burnham took saliva samples from all the students and compared the testosterone levels assessed from those samples with decisions made in the one-round game As he describes in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, the responders who rejected a low final offer had an average testosterone level more than 50% higher than the average of those who accepted. Five of the seven men with the highest testosterone levels in the study rejected a $5 ultimate offer but only one of the 19 others made the same decision. What Dr Burnhams result supports is a much deeper rejection of the tenets of classical economics than one based on a slight mis-evolution of negotiating skills. It backs the idea that what people really strive for is relative rather than absolute prosperity. They would rather accept less themselves than see a rival get ahead. That is likely to be particularly true in individuals with high testosterone levels, since that hormone is correlated with social dominance in many species. Economists often refer to this sort of behaviour as irrational. In fact, it is not. It is simply, as it were, differently rational. The things that money can buy are merely means to an end social status that brings desirable reproductive opportunities. If another route brings that status more directly, money is irrelevant. 1.According to the passage, psychologists are different from economist in that _____ they think any financial gain is worthless if it could not guarantee the ultimatum game. they understands how economist are wrong by proving trivial financial gain could be ignored. they believe that it is necessary to reject some trivial gains to get bigger ones. they have known for a long time that from the perspective of psychology, financial gains are not worth pursuing 2.In the second paragraph, the sentence In this case, taking a tough, if self-sacrificial, line at the beginning pays dividends in future rounds of the game. means that _____ taking an uncompromising attitude at the beginning will lose more in the future rounds of the game. people who are not so calculating at the beginning will get good returns in the end. people who are selfless will get more in the end. taking a tough line at the beginning will pay more cost in the future game. 3.The result of Dr Burnham s study in the one-round game players shows that _____ men with high testosterone levels are usually more motivated to reject by the low offer. the fact testosterone is closely connected with social dominance proves people could hardly seeing a rival go ahead. men with high testosterone are more likely to reject the tenets of classical economics. men with high testosterone pay more attention to the relative gains. 4.The point Dr Burham has concluded from his study is that _____ money is irrelevant when people seek for reproductive opportunities. people prefer non-financial ways to fulfill their purpose of gain social status. what people really strive for is relative rather than absolute prosperity. the definition of rationality is different between the fields of economics and psychology. 5.Which one of the following statements is TRUE of the behavior of rejecting a low offer mentioned in the passage? This kind of behaviour is irrational as a matter of fact. This kind of behavior pays more attention to the social status rather than money. This kind of behavior could bring desirable reproductive opportunities. This kind of behavior is ration from a long view.

　　篇章剖析： 这篇文章介绍了心理学家对于经济原则的看法。第一段讲述心理学家认为经济学家的观点是错误的;第二、三、四段、第五段讲述Burnham博士所作的研究;第六段讲述Burnham博士得出的结论;第七段是对这一结论的概括。 词汇注释： stingy adj. 小气的 saliva n. 唾液，口水 难句突破： In this case, taking a tough, if self-sacrificial, line at the beginning pays dividends in future rounds of the game. Taking a tough line pays dividends 这是一个简单句，主语由现在分词结构构成。 在这个事情上，如果自我牺牲，从一开始就采取强硬姿态会在未来几轮游戏中获得额外的资金。 In this game, which the players knew in advance was final and could thus not affect future outcomes, proposers could choose only between offering the other player $25 or $5. In this game, proposers could choose 这是一个复合句，which引导的定语从句用来修饰game。 在这个游戏中，玩家事先就知道这一轮是最后的结局，因此不会有影响未来的结果，分钱者只能选择给其他玩家25美元(也就是说多于全部金额的一半)或者是5美元。 题目分析： 1.According to the passage, psychologists are different from economist in that _____ 1. 根据这篇文章，心理学家和经济学家的不同之处在于_____ they think any financial gain is worthless if it could not guarantee the ultimatum game. 他们认为任何经济利润如果不能保证最后获胜就是没有用的。 they understand how economists are wrong by proving trivial financial gain could be ignored. 通过证明小的经济利润可以被忽略，他们认为经济学家们是错误的。 they believe that it is necessary to reject some trivial gains to get bigger ones. 他们相信有必要拒绝一些小的利润来获取大的利润。 they have known for a long time that from the perspective of psychology, financial gains are not worth pursuing. 他们知道长久以来，从心理学的角度来看，经济利润是不值得去追求的。 C ☆☆☆☆ 推理题。根据第一段，心理学家和经济学家的分歧在于心理学家看到的是最终的结果，而经济学家注重的是切实的利润，心理学家认为并不是所有的小利益都要去追求，可以舍小取大。因此，选项C是正确的。A选项显然是错误的，B选项prove这个词不准确，而D选项的错误在于不是 financial gains are not worth pursuing ，不值得追求的是 little financial gains 。 2.In the second paragraph, the sentence In this case, taking a tough, if self-sacrificial, line at the beginning pays dividends in future rounds of the game. means that _____ 2. 在第二段， 在这个事情上，如果自我牺牲的话，从一开始就采取粗略的估算会在未来几轮游戏中支付额外的资金 ，这句话的意思是_____ taking an uncompromising attitude at the beginning will lose more in the future rounds of the game. 从一开始就采取强硬的态度会在未来几轮的游戏中失去得更多。 people who are not so calculating at the beginning will get good returns in the end. 那些从一开始就不是很计较的人最后可以获得好的收益。 people who are selfless will get more in the end. 无私的人最终会得到更多。 taking a tough line at the beginning will pay more cost in the future game. 从一开始就粗略估算会在未来的游戏中付出更大的代价。 B ☆☆☆ 推理题。根据上下文可以推断出这句话的意思，下文提到如果拒绝小气的出价会是更大策略中的一步;那么可以推断这句话的意思就是从一开始不要贪得所有的大小利益，而是要有长远的眼光，这样才能取得更大的收益。选项中D最为符合。 3.The result of Dr Burnham s study in the one-round game players shows that _____ 3.Burnham博士对于一轮游戏研究的结果表明了_____ men with high testosterone levels are usually more motivated by the low offer. 睾丸激素高的人更加有拒绝低报酬的动机。 the fact testosterone is closely connected with social dominance proves people could hardly seeing a rival go ahead. 睾丸激素和社会优势有着密切的联系，这一事实证明了人们不能容忍看到对手领先。 men with high testosterone are more likely to reject the tenets of classical economics. 有较高睾丸激素的人更趋向于拒绝传统经济法则。 men with high testosterone pay more attention to the relative gains. 有较高睾丸激素的人更注重相关联的利润。 D ☆☆ 推理题。根据Burnham博士的研究结果是拒绝低价出价的回应者的睾丸激素水平要比那些接受的人高出50%，那么可以说明这些人更注重相关联的利润而不是眼前的利益。答案为D选项。 4.The point Dr Burham has concluded from his study is that _____ 4.Burham博士从他的研究中得出来的论点是_____ money is irrelevant when people seek for reproductive opportunities. 当人们寻求再生机会时，金钱就是无关紧要的了。 people prefer non-financial ways to fulfill their purpose of gaining social status. 人们更倾向于用非金钱的方式来实现他们取得社会地位的目标。 what people really strive for is relative rather than absolute prosperity. 人们真正追求的是相对财富，而不是绝对财富。 the definition of rationality is different between the fields of economics and psychology. 经济学和心理学对于理性的定义是不一样的。 C ☆☆☆ 细节题。第五段中提到了Burnham博士最终的支持的结论是更深的对传统经济原则的拒绝，是人们真正追求的是相对的财富而不是绝对的财富。因此，选项中C最为符合。选项A和B具有一定的误导性，文章最后一句话指出 If another route brings that status more directly, money is irrelevant ，即 如果另外一条路可以更为直接地导致这种情形，金钱就是不相关的 ，而两个选项都是误读。D选项也对应于文章的最后一段， Economists often refer to this sort of behaviour as irrational. In fact, it is not. It is simply, as it were, differently rational ，确实两种理性是不同的，但是文章没有明确指出其定义在两个学科中是完全不同的。 5.Which one of the following statements is TRUE of the behavior of rejecting a low offer mentioned in the passage? 5.关于文章中提到的拒绝低出价的行为，下列哪个陈述是正确的? This kind of behaviour is irrational as a matter of fact. 这种行为实际上是不理智的。 This kind of behavior pays more attention to the social status rather than money. 这种行为更注重社会地位而不是金钱。 This kind of behavior could bring desirable reproductive opportunities. 这种行为可以带来期望的再产出机会。 This kind of behavior is ration from a long view. 这种行为从长远来看是理智的。

　　D ☆☆☆ 推理题。最后一段提到，这种行为经济学家认为是不理智的，而实际上是一种理智的行为，心理学家从更高更深的层面来看，金钱只是达到目的的一种手段而且，而为了达到一定的目的拒绝眼前小的利益是理智的行为。因此，选项中D是正确的。 参考译文： 长期以来心理学家认为经济学家是错误的。大多数经济学家、至少那些有着传统信念的人认为任何经济利润、不管其有多小都值得拥有。但是心理学家认为这不是真的，他们知道这一点是因为终极游戏的结果总是人们拒绝免费的金钱。 在这场游戏中，一个玩家将一盆钱分给自己和另外一个人。另外这个人接着选择是否接受，如果他拒绝接受，那么两个玩家就都不能受益。虽然传统经济学认为人在本能上会接受这笔钱，小气的出价(另一个人得到少于总数1/4的钱)实际上经常被拒绝。问题就是，为什么会这样? 对于拒绝者策略的一个解释为人类的心理更习惯重复的交互作用，而不是一次性的交易。在这个事情上，如果自我牺牲，从一开始就采取强硬姿态会在未来几轮游戏中获得额外的资金。因此在一次性的游戏中拒绝小气的出价是一个更大计划中的一步。实际上，当有经验的经济学家玩一次性的终极游戏时，他们确实比一般人更倾向于接受小气的出价。但是他们也有一定的局限。为了弄清楚为什么存在这些局限，哈佛大学的Terence Burnham近来组织了一群微观经济学的学生，让他们玩这种终极游戏。他选择的所有学生都是男性。 Burnham博士的研究资金被投入到一系列40美元的游戏中。在这种终极游戏中有许多回合，玩家学习更加平等地分配金钱。但是Burnham博士只对那些只玩一轮的游戏感兴趣。在这个游戏中，玩家事先就知道这一轮是最后的结局，因此不会有影响未来的结果，分钱者只能选择给其他玩家25美元(也就是说多于全部金额的一半)或者是5美元。回应者一般可以接受或拒绝该出价。这些结果都记录在案，Burnham博士从学生那里搜集了唾液的样本，并将这些样本中的睾丸激素和一轮游戏中的决策进行对比。 他在《皇家社会学报》中描述道，拒绝低价出价的回应者的睾丸激素水平要比那些接受的人高出50%。睾丸激素最高的七个人中有五个拒绝了5美元的最后出价，而其他的19个里人只有1个做出了相同的决定。 Burnham博士最终的结论不是关于谈判技巧的轻微错误发展，而是更深层的对传统经济原则的拒绝。事实支持这个观点，人们真正追求的是相对财富而非绝对财富。他们宁可自己拿得更少，而不愿看到对手多拿。那些有高睾丸激素水平的人更是这样，因为该激素和许多物种的社会优势有关。 经济学家经常认为这种行动是不理智的。实际上这是理智的，只是不同的理智而已。金钱可以买到的只是达到某个目的的方法而已，如社会地位，达到目的便给人们带来他们想要的不断再生的机会。如果有另外一条路可以更为直接地达到目的，金钱就是不相关的。