2. 外语
  3. Humans are fascinated by the source of their failings and virtues. This preoccupation inevitably leads to an old debate: whether

Humans are fascinated by the source of their failings and virtues. This preoccupation inevitably leads to an old debate: whether

admin2021-08-12  58
问题     Humans are fascinated by the source of their failings and virtues. This preoccupation inevitably leads to an old debate: whether nature or nurture moulds us more. A revolution in genetics has poised this as a modern political question about the character of our society: if personalities are hard-wired into our genes, what can governments do to help us? It feels morally questionable, yet claims of genetic selection by intelligence are making headlines.
    This is down to "hereditarian" (遗传论的) science and a recent paper claimed "differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them". With such an assertion, the work was predictably greeted by a lot of absurd claims about "genetics determining academic success". What the research revealed was the rather less surprising result: the educational benefits of selective schools largely disappear once pupils’ inborn ability and socio-economic background were taken into account. It is a glimpse of the blindingly obvious—and there’s nothing to back strongly either a hereditary or environmental argument.
    Yet the paper does say children are "unintentionally genetically selected" by the school system. Central to hereditarian science is a tall claim: that identifiable variations in genetic sequences can predict an individual’s aptness to learn, reason and solve problems. This is problematic on many levels. A teacher could not seriously tell a parent their child has a low genetic tendency to study when external factors clearly exist. Unlike-minded academics say the inheritability of human traits is scientifically unsound. At best there is a weak statistical association and not a causal link between DNA and intelligence. Yet sophisticated statistics are used to create an intimidatory atmosphere of scientific certainty.
    While there’s an undoubted genetic basis to individual difference, it is wrong to think that socially defined groups can be genetically accounted for. The fixation on genes as destiny is surely false too. Medical predictability can rarely be based on DNA alone; the environment matters too. Something as complex as intellect is likely to be affected by many factors beyond genes. If hereditarians want to advance their cause it will require more balanced interpretation and not just acts of advocacy.
    Genetic selection is a way of exerting influence over others, "the ultimate collective control of human destinies," as writer H. G. Wells put it. Knowledge becomes power and power requires a sense of responsibility. In understanding cognitive ability, we must not elevate discrimination to a science; allowing people to climb the ladder of life only as far as their cells might suggest. This will need a more sceptical eye on the science. As technology progresses, we all have a duty to make sure that we shape a future that we would want to find ourselves in.
What does the author think of the recent research?
选项 A、Its result was questionable.
B、Its implication was positive.
C、Its influence was rather negligible.
D、Its conclusions were enlightening.
答案A
解析 由题干中的recent research及题文同序原则定位到第二段末及第三段前半部分。事实细节题。文章第二段最后一句话中，作者指出现在还没有强有力的证据可以支持遗传论或环境决定论。在第三段第二句中，作者介绍了遗传决定论的主张，之后在第三句中指出这种说法在很多层面上都存在问题。由此可知，作者对研究的结果是抱有怀疑态度的。故答案为A)。在第二段末尾以及第三段第三句，作者一直在强调遗传决定论提出的主张是有问题的，所以B)“它的影响是积极的”和D)“它的结论是有启发意义的”与作者观点相反，故排除；第一段最后一句指出，这项研究成了头条新闻，第二段第二句又提到，该工作引发了很多荒谬的主张，说明它是有一定影响力的，故排除C)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/YpJ7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)