2. 考研
  3. The relentless march of technology into everyday life has always given rise to debate about whether it is a good or a bad thing.

The relentless march of technology into everyday life has always given rise to debate about whether it is a good or a bad thing.

admin2014-09-05  50
问题     The relentless march of technology into everyday life has always given rise to debate about whether it is a good or a bad thing. Some believe that the Internet and computer software are making humans more stupid or shallow. But others argue that computer programs in the form of video games can make people smarter or improve specific skills, such as spatial awareness.
    Shawn Green and Alexandre Pouget, from the University of Rochester, in New York state, set out to find an answer. Their study, reported in Current Biology, involved a number of experiments. In one,the participants had to watch 12 dots moving randomly on a screen and quickly assess their aggregate direction of movement. Another test asked participants to work out the direction of specific sounds embedded within stereo white noise. In both tests the video-gamers did better. However, the scientists were aware that gamers could have been born with improved abilities to perform such tasks,which were possibly what attracted them to gaming in the first place. Consequently, a third test was necessary to see if these abilities could have been learnt.
    The non-gaming volunteers were put through 50 hours of video-game training. For some this involved playing fast-action shoot-’em-up games such as " Call of Duty 2 " and " Unreal Tournament" , but others were given a slow-moving life-strategy game, "The Sims 2". The researchers found that those trained with action games raised their performance to the level of the experienced gamers. Moreover, they were more efficient in their use of visual or auditory evidence than those playing with the Sims.
    The researchers conclude that fast action video-games players develop an enhanced sensitivity to what is going on around them and that this may help with activities such as multitasking, driving, reading small print, navigation and keeping track of friends or children in a crowd. The precise neural mechanism for this effect, however, is still unknown.
    What is known is that people make decisions based on probabilities that are constantly being calculated and refined in their heads—something called "probabilistic inference". The brain collects small pieces of information, eventually gathering enough to make an accurate decision. When driving a car, for example, many probabilities will be collated to make decisions such as whether or not to brake. The more efficient someone is at collecting visual and auditory information, the faster he can reach the threshold needed to make a decision.
    Shawn Green, Alexandre Pouget suggest that reaction times in the population will probably improve with the rise of fast-action video-games. There are a lot of players: last year a report estimated that 67% of American households contained at least one video-gamer. And if video-gamers are really better equipped to make quick decisions, they might also turn out to be better drivers and end up in fewer accidents. However, the notion that gamers acquire some minor physical skills may not pacify concerned parents. What,after all,of the skills they are not acquiring when shooting virtual cops instead of reading or talking?
The conclusion drawn by researchers is that______.
选项 A、the skills of playing video games can be perfected by practice
B、playing video games make people smarter
C、those who play action video games are more efficient in collecting sensory information around them
D、video-gamers’ performance in fulfilling specific tasks is better than non-gamers
答案C
解析 这里研究人员的结论毫无疑问指的是第三次实验的结论。文章第四段明确提到，实验的结论是玩快速动作游戏能够提升人们对周围环境的感知能力，而这种感知能力的增强有可能会提升他们某方面的技能，因此[C]是正确的。这里的sensory information是对visual andauditory information的概括。[A]本身的说法并没有错误，“玩游戏的技巧可以通过练习提高”，但是这并不是研究人员最终得到的结论，属无关信息。[B]错误。全文必须要明确的一点是，虽然玩快速动作游戏能够提升人们某些动作感知方面的技能，但是并不意味着使人变得更聪明。本文的实验并不足以反驳第一段提出的“计算机程序使人变笨”的论调。[B]属过度引申。[D]迷惑性很强，注意第三次实验中特别区分了快速动作游戏和慢速战略性游戏的区别，只有前者才能使人们的感知能力明显增强。[D]偷梁换柱，把“快速动作游戏玩家”换成“游戏玩家”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/rJK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)