Question

We like to think our intelligence is self-made; it happens inside our heads, the product of our inner thoughts alone. But the rise of Google, Wikipedia and other online tools has made many people question the impact of these technologies on our brains. Is typing in “Who has played James Bond in the movies?” the same as our knowledge about the names like Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig? Can we say we know the answer as long as we know how to rapidly get the information on Google?
Here the question is about how we define intelligence itself. The answer appears to be interesting, because the evidence from psychological studies suggests that much of our intelligence comes from how we coordinate ourselves with other people and our environment.
An influential theory among psychologists is that we're cognitive misers(认知吝啬者). This is the idea that we are unwilling to do mental work unless we have to. We try to avoid thinking things fully when a short cut is available. If you've ever voted for the presidential candidate(总统候选人) with the most honest smile, or chosen a restaurant based on how many people are already sitting in there, then you are a cognitive miser. The theory explains why we'd much rather type a zip code into Google Maps than memorize and recall the location of a place – it's so much easier to do so.
Research shows that people don't tend to rely on their memories for things they can easily access. Buildings can somehow disappear from pictures we're looking at, or the people we're talking to can be changed with someone else, and often we won't notice – a phenomenon called “change blindness”. This isn't an example of human stupidity – far from it, in fact – this is an example of mental efficiency. The mind relies on the world as a better record than memory.
Philosophers have suggested that thinking is really happening in the environment as much as it is happening in our brains. The philosopher Andy Clark called humans "natural born cyborgs(电子人)", those naturally capable of absorbing and combining new tools, ideas and abilities. In Clark's view, the route to a solution is not the issue – having the right tools really does mean you know the answers, just as much as already knowing the answer.
Rather than being forced to rely on our own resources for everything, we can share our knowledge. Technology keeps track of things for us so we don't have to, while large systems of knowledge serve the needs of society as a whole. I don't know how a computer works, or how to grow vegetables, but that knowledge is out there and I can get to benefit. The internet provides even more potential to share this knowledge. Wikipedia is one of the best examples – an increasingly large database of knowledge from which everyone can benefit.
So as well as having a physical environment – like the rooms or buildings we live or work in – we also have a mental environment, which means that when I ask you where your mind is, you shouldn’t point toward the centre of your forehead. As research shows, our minds are made up just as much by the people and tools around us as they are by the brain cells inside our skull.
小题1:Why did the writer raise the questions in Paragraph 1?

A．To find out who has played James Bond in the movies.

B．To introduce the topic to be discussed in the passage.

C．To show that he knows the answer to the questions.

D．To attract readers’ attention by mentioning James Bond.

小题2:What is the writer’s attitude towards the rise of technologies like Google and Wikipedia?

A．Supportive

B．Objective

C．Indifferent

D．Neutral

小题3: Which of the following might the philosopher Andy Clark agree with?

A．Intelligence is something that is made by one’s brain itself.

B．Intelligence is something that only happens inside one’s head.

C．Intelligence is the product of one’s inner thoughts alone.

D．Intelligence is a mixture of the environment, people and one’s brain cells.

小题4:It is true about the phenomenon called “change blindness” that human beings____.

A．are stupid not to notice the changes

B．are efficient in mental work

C．are blind to changes around them

D．rely on memory when dealing with things

小题5:According to the text, how do technologies like Google, Wikipedia affect us?

A．They make us much more intelligent.

B．They make us lazier and more stupid.

C．They have little to do with our intelligence.

D．They have a negative effect on our intelligence.

Answer 1

小题1:B
小题2:A
小题3:D
小题4:B
小题5:A

试题分析：本文叙述了对智力的理解，我们更倾向于认为我们的智力源于自我成就，它形成于大脑内，是内在独立思考的产物。心理学界中一个颇具影响的理论认为人是“认知守财奴”。 有时我们在谈话过程中不经意地切换谈话对象，常常未引起我们在意，这种现象叫“变化盲视”，这并非人类的愚昧，与此相反，这是心理效应的一个表现。研究表明我们的思想大部分都由身边的人及工具组成的，他们就像是我们头盖骨里的脑细胞。
小题1:推理判断题。根据Here the question is about how we define intelligence itself. 可知作者要引出他要讲的话题，故选B。
小题2:推理判断题。根据The internet provides even more potential to share this knowledge. Wikipedia is one of the best examples 可知作者对它们是支持的，故选A。
小题3:细节理解题。根据The philosopher Andy Clark called humans "natural born cyborgs(电子人)", those naturally capable of absorbing and combining new tools, ideas and abilities. 故选D。
小题4:细节理解题。根据This isn't an example of human stupidity – far from it, in fact – this is an example of mental efficiency. 故选B。
小题5:推理判断题。根据that knowledge is out there and I can get to benefit 和an increasingly large database of knowledge from which everyone can benefit.可知它们可以使我们变得更聪明，故选A。
点评：做推理题干扰选项的特点夸大事实：一是对于原文中的细节或论断的某方面程度进行了夸大处理。二是无中生有：捏造原文并不存在的信息，并以此作为依据进行推理。三是掺入常识：根据考生已有的常识是正确的，但却不是基于文章。四是推理过头：引申过度，使结论过于绝对化。知道了这些特点在容易排除干扰项进而做出正确的判断。