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  49
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 did a recent research paper claim?
选项 A、The type of school students attend makes a difference to their future.
B、Genetic differences between students are far greater than supposed.
C、The advantages of selective schools are too obvious to ignore.
D、Students’academic performance is determined by their genes.
答案D
解析 由题干中的recent research paper定位到第二段第一句。事实细节题。文章第二段第一句指出，近期的一篇论文声称来自精英学校和普通学校的学生在考试成绩上的差异反映了他们基因的不同。第二句说这种论断引发了很多荒谬的主张，认为 “基因决定了学业的成功”。由此可知近期这项研究支持“基因决定智力”的观点。故答案为D)。文章只提到精英学校和普通学校学生的考试成绩有差异，并未指出不同学校对学生的未来会产生影响，故排除A)；文章主要说明遗传决定论科学认为基因差异导致智力差异，并未提到学生基因差异大小的问题，故排除B)；第二段第三句指出，当把学生的天资以及社会经济背景因素考虑在内时，精英学校的教育优势在很大程度上就消失了，这与C)正相反，故排除C)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ipJ7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)