资源简介

(共16张PPT)
2023年6月全国高考新课标I卷
阅读理解D篇试题分析
①On 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.
② 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.
③But 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.
④In 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.
⑤Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.
阅读理解 D 篇
高考的选材注重启发考生独立思考与判断,运用科学的思维方式发现问题、分析问题并解决问题的意识和能力，着眼于考查学生在逻辑性、批判性和创新性等方面的思维品质。
本篇以“群体智慧效应”为话题,展示人们对该效应的不同角度的理解,而在试题的设计上,强调对重点信息的纵深性理解,注重考查语篇能力,鼓励同学们以系统和辩证的视角进行篇章解读,挖掘篇章的深层含义，读懂言外之意,领会文章的主旨要义。
阅读理解 D 篇
文章出处: 原文链接https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/03/12/592868569/no-man-is-an-island-the-wisdom-of-deliberating-crowds
原文标题是"No Man Is An Island:The Wisdom Of Deliberating Crowds"《任何人都不是一座孤岛:集体商议的智慧》
语篇类型: 科普说明文
主题语境: 人与社会-社会服务与人际沟通--“群体智慧”效应
文章大意:本文介绍了“群体智慧”效应--把既定的人群分成若干个更小的群体，并让他们进行小组讨论，这些小组讨论后的估计的平均值比同样数量的独立个体估计的平均值更准确。
年份 语篇 体裁 难度 话题 考点分布
2023 阅读A 应用文 易 人与社会：自行车租赁和雇佣导游等细节 细节理解题6推理判断题7词义猜测题1主旨大意题1
阅读B 记叙文 易 人与社会：净化污水的生态机器 阅读C 说明文 中 人与社会：数字极简主义生活方式的优点 阅读D 说明文 难 人与社会：“群体智慧”效应
阅读语篇新变化
阅读语篇新变化
1、从素材难度上
2023新高考全国I卷D篇是一篇科普说明文，素材来源于外媒原版读物，已经类似于大学专业的学术论文，素材相比去年而言，难度有所提升。
2、语篇及选项中低频词汇、派生词汇明显增多
试卷的语篇及选项中词汇量明显增加，且出现了一些平时运用频度较低的书面词汇和短语，加大了语篇阅读的难度。如文本中average，implication，correlated，capitalize on，cancel out以及35题选项中出现了考生可能无法根据构词法推断词义的派生词dismissive （鄙视的）的理解。
3. 从考查方向上, 立足基础，更加注重高阶思维的考查
阅读D篇的主题“群体智慧”（wisdom of crowds），涉及到了组织行为学，心理学和社会学的概念，提及到了实验模型，以及群体实验中，人们犯错被高估、低估以及错误足够多回归均值的规律。还分析了实验结果与样本容量以及群体特点之间的关系。译文理解起来都有难度。 文体风格思辨性强，长难句多，语言更加书面化，考查整体阅读与深度阅读的能力，需要从头到尾理解文章，而不单单从字面搜寻信息。
The “Wisdom of Crowds” Effect
Introduction
The underlying logic of the effect
The new finding
The follow-up
study
Evaluation
Francis Galton published the “Wisdom of effect ”.
When people’s estimates are independent, the accuracy will be high. On the contrary, the accuracy will go down.
The averages from groups are more accurate
100 university students learn about what the group members really do
Navajas’s studies are imperfect but influential
真题解析D篇阅读文本结构
D
①1907年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯高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以相当准确。
②这种效应利用了一个事实，即当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人倾向于过高估计，而有些人则倾向于低估。当这些错误被平均在一起时，它们相互抵消，从而得到更准确的估计值。如果人们相似并且倾向于犯相同的错误，那么他们的错误就不会相互抵消。从更技术性的角度来说，群体智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。如果出于任何原因，人们的错误变得相关或相互依赖，估计的准确性将降低。
③但是，由 Joaquin Navajas领导的一项新研究对这一经典现象进行了有趣的变化。研究的关键发现是，当群体进一步分为可以进行讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比相同数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，从五个讨论小组的估计中获得的平均值比从20个独立个体的估计中获得的平均值更准确。
④ 在一项涉及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实际做了什么。他们是否倾向于听从那些对自己的估计最有信心的人 他们是否追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人 有时会发生这种情况，但这并不是主要的反应。最常见的情况是，小组报告说他们“分享论点并共同推理”。不知何故，这些论点和推理导致了整体误差的减少。
⑤尽管Navajas领导的研究存在限制，许多问题仍然有待解答，但对于群体讨论和决策具有巨大的潜在影响。
②This 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.
32. 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.
第一段提出“群体智慧”效应，第二段主要解释了这种效应的产生是由于误差的抵消从而使得估计的平均值更准确， 所以本段主要解释了“群体智慧”效应的根本逻辑。故选B项。这一段出现的词汇较难，不好理解。
段落主旨大意题。
估计方法
这一效应的根本逻辑
人们犯错的原因
Galton实验的设计
真题解析—D篇阅读
② 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.
③But 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.
33. 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
推理判断题。
.(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。)
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。
这说明即使在并非完全独立的情况下，平均值准确率的提高也是可以实现的。故选D项目
干扰项分析：本题容易错选A。 题干中的even if表示“尽管”，引导让步状语从句，是解题的关键。很多考生看到第三段But后面的when crowds were further divided into samaller groups 而误认为是人群数量变少了，因此很容易错选A项，但第二段中强调“群体智慧”效应要求人们的估计是独立的， 且根据第三段中的the average from ...than those from an equal number of independent individuals可知， 新研究是把人群分成更小的群体，并非人群总数变少。所以A项不正确。
高考在命题形式上注重灵活性和创新性。 本题题干并非以往的疑问式题干，而是在复合句中挖空的陈述式题干，这是自2020年的新高考依赖在高考卷中首次出现。
真题解析—D篇阅读
④In 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.
34. 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.
细节理解题
可知，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，由此可知， 后续研究的重点是小组内的讨论过程。故选C项
真题解析—D篇阅读
⑤Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain， the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.
真题解析—D篇阅读
35. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies
A. Unclear. 不清楚的 B. Dismissive. 鄙视的
C. Doubtful. 怀疑的 D. Approving.赞成的
观点态度题
这段话中，派生词implication 比较难。选项中出现了考生可能无法根据构词法推断词义的派生词dismissive （鄙视的）。但此题B选项不影响做题。根据原文即可推断出作者的观点态度。
Although表让步，说明真正重要的信息位于后半句中，这也是解答第35题的关键。虽然纳瓦哈斯领导的研究具有局限性，还有许多问题， 但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。由此可推出，作者对于纳瓦哈斯的研究是赞成的。 故选D
真题解析—D篇阅读
长难句分析：
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].
这项研究的关键是， 当人群被进一步分成更小的群体并允许他们进行讨论时，这些群体给出的平均值比同样数量的独立个体给出的平均值更准确。
这句话比较难，一句话包含三个从句，内容抽象，难以理解。
主语
系动词that引导表语从句
表语从句的主句
that引导定语从句，修饰groups
when 引导的时间状语从句
真题解析—D篇阅读
难点词汇：
熟词生义:reason v 推断，推论；average v 平均为
派生词：correlated adj 有相互关系的； accuracy n 准确性
implication n 可能的影响
合成词：overestimate v 高估； underestimate v 低估
经典搭配：capitalize on 充分利用； cancel out 抵消
备考建议
1、加强词汇的积累
对基础薄弱的同学来说，最重要最根本还是学好新课标的基础词汇，并关注新课标词汇的派生词的运用。每年阅读中都会出现一些高难度的词汇，2023新高考全国I卷更是如此，因此扩大词汇量是重点。
2、扩大阅读量和知识面
近年的阅读很多学生反映很难，原因在于素材的话题涉及到经济学，还有心理学、哲学专业里的概念等。所以，学生有必要扩充知识面，了解一些通俗入门的哲学、心理学、经济学等，增加这些专业性的知识储备对于我们理解高考中出现的各种抽象概念会有很大帮助。
备考建议
3、要注重英语思维能力的培养
老师和学生应该在解决学生词汇、语法等基础语言能力的基础上，提升学生的思维能力，比如可以让学生归纳段落大意、画文章结构的思维导图、把阅读题改成7选5再操练等等多角度选择阅读素材，精读泛读相结合。总之，单词量不够的学生务必先过单词关，语法不过关的先学会分析长难句。之后就是思维、文化的问题，多读原著看外刊、做思维练习。
4、注重阅读解题思路的培养
万变不离其宗，即使是2023新高考全国I卷D篇阅读，在试题的设置上也没有脱离高考命题规则，有的学生会发现，虽然文章看不懂，但是题目能做对。这就是对试题的解题技巧有较高的要求。多做优秀试题，深入分析。多注重细节理解的定位和总结归纳能力的培养。
Thank you!

展开更多......

收起↑