What does the author suggest…——2023 高考英语第 31 题答案解析

【答案】28. B 29. A 30. C 31. A
【解析】
【导语】本文是一篇说明文。文章主要介绍了数字极简主义生活方式的优点，倡导简单的数字生活方式。
【28 题详解】
细节理解题。根据文章第一段“ The goal of this book is to make the case for digital minimalism, including a
detailed exploration of what it asks and why it works, and then to teach you how to adopt this philosophy if you
decide it’s right for you. (这本书的目标是为数字极简主义辩护，包括详细探索它的要求和为什么有效，然后
如果你认为它适合你，教你如何采用这种哲学)”可知，这本书的目的是倡导简单的数字生活方式。故选
B。
【29 题详解】
词句猜测题。根据画线词下文“ This process requires you to step away from optional online activities for thirty
days. At the end of the thirty days, you will then add back a small number of carefully chosen online activities that
you believe will provide massive benefits to the things you value. (这个过程要求你在 30 天内远离可选的在线活
动。在 30 天结束的时候，你再加上一些你认为会给你所看重的东西带来巨大好处的精心挑选的在线活
动)”可推知，画线词“ declutter”的意思是“清理”，对在线活动进行清理和挑选。故选 A。
【30 题详解】
推理判断题。通过文章第四段“ In the final chapter of part one, I’ll guide you through carrying out your own
digital declutter. In doing so, I’ll draw on an experiment I ran in 2018 in which over 1,600 people agreed to
perform a digital declutter. (在第一部分的最后一章中，我将指导您进行自己的数字清理。在这样做的过程
中，我将借鉴我在 2018 年进行的一项实验，在该实验中，1600 多人同意进行数字清理)”可推知，第一部
分的最后一章介绍了实验与数字清理的实际例子。故选 C。
【31 题详解】

推理判断题。通过文章最后一段“ You can view these practices as a toolbox meant to aid your efforts to build a
minimalist lifestyle that words for your particular circumstances. (你可以将这些实践视为一个工具箱，旨在帮
助你建立一种适合自己特定情况的极简主义生活方式)”可推知，作者建议读者根据需要与实际情况使用第
二部分中提及的实践。故选 A。
D
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.