原文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.
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
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.
4. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies?
A. Unclear. B. Dismissive. C. Doubtful. D. Approving. 译文1907年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯·加尔顿发表了一篇论文，阐述了所谓的“群体智慧”效应。他进行的估计实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估计的平均值可能相当准确。
这种效应利用了这样一个事实，即当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人往往会高估，有些人则会低估。当足够多的这些误差被平均在一起时，它们会相互抵消，从而产生更准确的估计。如果人们相似，往往会犯同样的错误，那么他们的错误不会相互抵消。从更专业的角度来说，群众的智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。如果由于任何原因，人们的错误变得相关或依赖，估计的准确性就会下降。
但Joaquin Navajas领导的一项新研究对这一经典现象进行了有趣的研究。这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步划分为允许进行讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比同等数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，从四个五人讨论组的估计中获得的平均值明显比从20个独立个体获得的平均值更准确。
在一项针对100名大学生的后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中的实际行为。他们是否倾向于选择那些对自己的估计最有信心的人？他们有没有追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人？这种情况有时会发生，但并不是主要的反应。最常见的情况是，这些小组报告说，他们“共同论证和推理”。不知何故，这些论证和推理导致了全球错误的减少。尽管Navajas领导的研究有局限性，仍存在许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。
1.案文第2段的主要内容是什么？
A.估计方法。B.效果的基本逻辑。
C.人们犯错的原因。D.高尔顿实验的设计。
2.Navajas的研究发现，即使________，平均准确度也会提高。
A.人群相对较少。B.偶尔会出现低估
C.个体没有交流D。D.估计并非完全独立
3.后续研究的重点是什么？
A.小组的规模。B.占主导地位的成员。
C.讨论过程。D.个人估计。
4.作者对纳瓦哈人的研究持什么态度？
A.不清楚 B.驳回 C.怀疑 D.批准。

1 段译 1907年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯·加尔顿发表了一篇论文，阐述了所谓的“群体智慧”效应。他进行的估计实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估计的平均值可能相当准确。

On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published v..出版 a paper which illustrated v..说明 what has come to be known as the “wisdom n..智慧 of crowds n..人群” effect n..效应.句译 1907年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯·加尔顿发表了一篇论文，阐述了所谓的“群体智慧”效应。 The experiment of estimation n..估计 he conducted v..实施 showed that in some cases, the average adj..平均的 of a large number of independent adj..独立的 estimates could be quite accurate adj..精确的. 句译 他进行的估计实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估计的平均值可能相当准确。

2 段译 这种效应利用了这样一个事实，即当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人往往会高估，有些人则会低估。当足够多的这些误差被平均在一起时，它们会相互抵消，从而产生更准确的估计。如果人们相似，往往会犯同样的错误，那么他们的错误不会相互抵消。从更专业的角度来说，群众的智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。如果由于任何原因，人们的错误变得相关或依赖，估计的准确性就会下降。

This effect capitalizes v..利用 on the fact that when people make errors n..错误, those errors aren’t always the same.句译 这种效应利用了这样一个事实，即当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。 Some people will tend v..倾向 to overestimate v..高估, and some to underestimate v..低估.句译 有些人往往会高估，有些人则会低估。 When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel v..取消 each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate.句译 当足够多的这些误差被平均在一起时，它们会相互抵消，从而产生更准确的估计。 If people are similar adj..相似的 and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out.句译 如果人们相似，往往会犯同样的错误，那么他们的错误不会相互抵消。 In more technical adj..技术的 terms n..术语, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent.句译 从更专业的角度来说，群众的智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。 If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated adj..相关的 or dependent, the accuracy n..精确 of the estimate will go down.句译 如果由于任何原因，人们的错误变得相关或依赖，估计的准确性就会下降。

3 段译 但Joaquin Navajas领导的一项新研究对这一经典现象进行了有趣的研究。这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步划分为允许进行讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比同等数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，从四个五人讨论组的估计中获得的平均值明显比从20个独立个体获得的平均值更准确。

But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist n..转折 on this classic phenomenon n..现象.句译 但Joaquin Navajas领导的一项新研究对这一经典现象进行了有趣的研究。 The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided v..分成 into smaller groups that were allowed v..允许 to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal adj..相同的 number of independent individuals n..个人.句译 这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步划分为允许进行讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比同等数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。 For instance n..例子, the average obtained v..获得 from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly adv..显著地 more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.句译 例如，从四个五人讨论组的估计中获得的平均值明显比从20个独立个体获得的平均值更准确。

4 段译 在一项针对100名大学生的后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中的实际行为。他们是否倾向于选择那些对自己的估计最有信心的人？他们有没有追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人？这种情况有时会发生，但并不是主要的反应。最常见的情况是，这些小组报告说，他们“共同论证和推理”。不知何故，这些论证和推理导致了全球错误的减少。尽管Navajas领导的研究有局限性，仍存在许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。

In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense n..感觉 of what the group members actually did in their discussion.句译 在一项针对100名大学生的后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中的实际行为。 Did they tend to go with those most confident adj..自信的 about their estimates?句译 他们是否倾向于选择那些对自己的估计最有信心的人？ Did they follow those least willing to change their minds?句译 他们有没有追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人？ This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant adj..占优势的 response n..回答.句译 这种情况有时会发生，但并不是主要的反应。 Most frequently adv..频繁地, the groups reported that they “shared arguments n..论据 and reasoned together.” 句译 最常见的情况是，这些小组报告说，他们“共同论证和推理”。Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global adj..全球的 reduction n..减少 in error.句译 不知何故，这些论证和推理导致了全球错误的减少。 Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations n..局限性 and many questions remain v..保持, the potential adj..潜在的 implications n..含意 for group discussion and decision-making are enormous adj..巨大的.句译 尽管Navajas领导的研究有局限性，仍存在许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。

1.What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly adv..主要地 about?翻译 案文第2段的主要内容是什么？

A. The methods of estimation. 翻译 估计方法。

B. The underlying adj..潜在的 logic n..逻辑 of the effect. 翻译 效果的基本逻辑。

C. The causes of people’s errors.翻译 人们犯错的原因。

D. The design of Galton’s experiment. 翻译 高尔顿实验的设计。

2.Navajas' study found that the average accuracy could increase even if ________.翻译 n..avajas的研究发现，即使________，平均准确度也会提高。

A. the crowds were relatively adv..向当地 small.翻译 人群相对较少。

B. there were occasional adj..偶尔的 underestimates.翻译 偶尔会出现低估

C. individuals did not communicate v..交流.翻译 个体没有交流

D. estimates were not fully adv..充分地 independent.翻译 估计并非完全独立

3.What did the follow-up study focus on?翻译 后续研究的重点是什么？

A. The size of the groups.翻译 小组的规模。

B. The dominant members.翻译 统计方法。

C. The discussion process.翻译 讨论过程。

D. The individual estimates.翻译 个人估计。

4.What is the author's attitude n..态度 toward Navajas' studies? 翻译 作者对纳瓦哈人的研究持什么态度？

A. Unclear.翻译 不清楚

B. Dismissive adj..轻蔑的.翻译 驳回

C. Doubtful.翻译 怀疑

D. Approving v..批准.翻译 批准。

答案 1.B 2.D 3.C 4.D   温馨提示：选项可点击，红色为错误选项，绿色为正确选项