2. 考研
  3. [A]The sort of faulty thinking called motivated reasoning also blocks our search for truth but advances arguments. For instance,

[A]The sort of faulty thinking called motivated reasoning also blocks our search for truth but advances arguments. For instance,

admin2019-08-01  100
问题 [A]The sort of faulty thinking called motivated reasoning also blocks our search for truth but advances arguments. For instance, we tend to look harder for flaws in a study when we don’t agree with its conclusions and are more critical of evidence that undermines our point of view. So birthers dismiss evidence offered by Hawaiian officials that Obama’s birth certificate is real, and death-penalty foes are adept at finding flaws in studies that conclude capital punishment deters crime. While motivated reasoning may cloud our view of reality and keep us from objectively assessing evidence, Mercier says, by letting us to accept flaws(real or not)in that evidence it prepares us to mount a destroying strategy in arguments.
[B]Another form of flawed reasoning shows up in logic puzzles. Consider the syllogism "No C are B; all B are A; therefore some A are not C. " Is it true? Fewer than 10 percent of us figure out that it is. One reason is that to evaluate its validity requires constructing counterexamples(finding an A that is a C, for instance). But finding counterexamples can, in general, invent our confidence in our own arguments.
[C]Women are bad drivers, Saddam plotted 9-11, Obama was not born in America, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: to believe any of these requires stopping some of our critical-thinking faculties and succumbing instead to the kind of irrationality that drives the logically minded crazy. It helps, for instance, to use confirmation bias. It also helps not to test your beliefs against empirical data; not to subject beliefs to the plausibility test; and to be guided by emotion.
[D]Even the sunk-cost fallacy, which has tripped up everyone from supporters of a losing war to a losing stock, reflects reasoning that turns its back on logic but wins arguments because the emotions it appeals to are universal. If Mercier is right, the sunk-cost fallacy, confirmation bias, and the other forms of irrationality will be with us as long as humans like to argue. That is, forever.
[E]An idea sweeping through the ranks of philosophers and cognitive scientists suggests why this is so. The reason we succumb to confirmation bias, why we are blind to counterexamples, and why we fall short of Cartesian logic in so many other ways is that these oversights have a purpose: they help us " invent and evaluate arguments that are intended to persuade other people," says psychologist Hugo Mercier of the University of Pennsylvania. Failures of logic, he propose, are in fact effective arms to win arguments. That puts poor reasoning in a completely different light. Arguing, after all, is less about seeking truth than about overcoming opposing views. So while confirmation bias, for instance, may mislead us about what’s true and real, by letting examples that support our view monopolize our memory and perception, it maximizes the arms we use when trying to convince someone that, say, he really is "late all the time. "
[F]Forms of reasoning that are good for solving problems and winning arguments lose out, over the course of evolution. In fact, rationality refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever those goals may be. Sometimes, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation.
[G]The fact that humans are subject to all these failures of rational thought seems to make no sense. Reason is supposed to be the highest achievement of the human mind, and the route to knowledge and wise decisions. But as psychologists have been documenting since the 1960s, humans are really, really bad at reasoning. It’s not just that we follow our emotions so often, in contexts from voting to ethics. No, even when we intend to deploy the full force of our rational faculties, we often failed.
Order:

选项
答案G
解析 文章首段，即[C]项提出现象：要相信任何上述事情都需要暂停我们的某些理性的思考，转而向非理性低头，这让我们理性的大脑疯狂，可知下文必然会就理性与非理性进行探讨，而[C]项最后一句中的It helps中的it指代的是非理性，因此可以判断下文应该主要讨论非理性。[G]项首句中的failures of rational thought指的就是非理性，并且[G]项进一步提出了问题：humans are bad at reasoning，因此可以作为备选答案。[B]项首句提到Another form of flawed reason-ing，而[C]项并没有说明一种flawed reasoning的形式，因此可以排除；[D]项提到了非理性思考有利于争辩，也和[C]项不相符，可以排除；[E]项首句提到：在心理学家和认知科学家中间普遍流行的一种观点解释了其中的原因，这似乎也和上文能衔接上，但是[E]项第二句指出其原因是我们作为人类缺乏逻辑的原因，与[C]的意思不衔接；[F]项首句提到了Forms of reasoning，后面却一直在定义理性(rationality)，这也和[C]项无法合理连接，可排除。因此可知答案为[G]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/RB2Z777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)