Text 2
Psychologists have known for a century that individuals vary in their cognitive ability. But are some groups, like some people, reliably smarter than others? In order to answer that question. we grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams of two to five members. Each team worked together to complete a series of short tasks, which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world. One task involved logical analysis, another brain- storming; others emphasized coordination, planning and moral reasoning.
Individual intelligence, as psychologists measure it, is defined by its generality: People with good vocabularies, for instance, also tend to have good math skills, even though we often think of those abilities as distinct. The results of our studies showed that this same kind of general intelli- gence also exists for teams. On average, the groups that did well on one task did well on the others, too. In other words, some teams were simply smarter than others.
We found the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics. First, their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group. Second, their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible. Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. This last ef- fect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindread- ing” than men.
In a new study, we replicated these earlier findings. We randomly assigned each of 68 teams to complete our collective intelligence test in one of two conditions. Half of the teams worked face to face. The other half worked online, with no ability to see any of their teammates. We wanted to see whether groups that worked online would still demonstrate collective intelligence, and whether so- cial ability would matter as much when people communicated purely by typing messages into a browser.
And they did. Online and off, some teams consistently worked smarter than others. More sur- prisingly, the most important ingredients for a smart team remained constant regardless of its mode of interaction: members who communicated a lot, participated equally and possessed good emo- tion-reading skills.
It can be inferred from the first paragraph that （ ）
总体分析
本文共有五段，主要围绕“为什么一些团队比其他团队聪明”展开论述。 第一段开篇点题， 并提到一项实验研究。 第二段讲述了第一段中实验研究的结果。 第三段阐述了优秀团队具有哪 些特点。 第四段讲述了一项新研究，再次验证了之前的研究结果。 最后一段总结全文。
试题详解
推断题。 根据题干关键词定位到第一段。此题可用排除法。 根据 But are some groups, like some people, reliably smarter than others?无法推断出 A 项“一些团队确实比其他团 队聪明”。 根据 we grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams ... Each team worked to- gether to complete a series of short tasks 可知 B 项“697 名志愿者需要一起完成一系列小 任务”与原文不符。 根据 which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world 可知 C 项“精选的小任务必须要有实际意 义” 符合原文。 根据 One task involved logical analysis, another brainstorming; others em- phasized ...可知 D 项“逻辑分析和头脑风暴在每个任务中都很重要”与原文不符。 因此 C 项为正确答案。
According to psychologists, individual intelligence （ ）
细节题。 根据题干关键词定位到第二段。 根据第一句 Individual intelligence, as psychologists measure it, is defined by its generality（心理学家们经过测试发现，个人智力 具有普遍性）可知，A 项“具有普遍性的特点”符合题意，为正确答案。 B 项“与数学技能 相关”属于过度推断，C 项“与团队无关”与 The results of our studies showed that this same kind of general intelligence also exists for teams.不符，D 项“是聪明团队的关键”在文中没 有依据。
According to the author, the characteristics of smarter teams include all the following EX- CEPT（ ）
细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第三段。 此题可用排除法。 根据 their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions 可排除 A 项 “团队成员在小组讨论中有比较均衡的贡献”。 根据 Second, their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible.可排除 C 项“团队成员有较强的解读复杂 面部表情的能力”。 根据 teams with more women outperformed teams with more men.可排除D项“比其他团队有更多的女性成员”。故B项“团队成员有较高的智商”原文没有提 到，符合题干，为正确答案。
In a new study, the other half of people work online because（ ）
细节题。 根据题干关键词定位到第四段。 根据 We wanted to see whether groups that worked online would still demonstrate collective intelligence, and whether social ability would matter as much when people communicated purely by typing messages into a browser. 可知 C 项“实验者想看看在那种情况下，集体智慧是否会出现”符合题意，为正确答案。A项“保证实验的准确性是必要的”，B项“网络协作正在变得越来越重要”，D 项“实验 者想证明社交能力在每一个团队都是重要的”，均与原文不符。
The best title for the passage may be
主旨题。 本文共有五段，涉及两个实验研究，通过实验，文章指出优秀团队之所以优秀的原因：充分交流，平等参与，读心能力强。 故 B 项“为什么一些团队比其他团队更聪 明”符合题意，为正确答案。 A 项“如何培养聪明团队”和 D 项“什么因素对团队有影响”均 不能概括文章大意。 C 项“聪明团队的特征”，没有涉及与其他团队的比较，所以排除。
全文详解
心理学家们一百年前已经知道，人们的认知能力各不相同。 但是团队是否也像人一样，聪 明程度有所不同？ 为了回答这个问题，我们召集了 697 名志愿者，分成二至五人的团队。 每个团 队协力完成一系列小任务，这些精选出来的任务代表了现实生活中组建团队通常想解决的各 种问题。 有些任务需要逻辑分析或头脑风暴，有些则强调协调、计划和道德说服。
心理学家们经过测试发现，个人智力具有普遍性：比如，词汇量丰富的人往往计算能力也 强，虽然我们通常认为这些能力没有关系。 我们的研究结果表明，团队也具有这种普遍智力。 平 均而言，那些在某项任务上做得好的团队其他任务也完成得比较好。 换句话说，有些团队就是 比其他团队聪明。
我们发现最聪明的团队具有以下三个特点。 第一，团队成员在小组讨论中的贡献比较均 衡，而不是让一两个人主导团队。 第二，聪明团队的成员在一项名为“通过眼神读心”的测试中得 分较高，这项测试测量的是仅通过眼神解读复杂情绪状态的能力。 最后一点，女人多的团队表现 得比男人多的团队好。 不过，最后这个特点的部分原因是女人总体来说比男人更善于“读心”。
在一项新研究中，我们再次验证了之前的研究结果。 我们随机安排 68 个团队在两种不同 条件下完成集体智慧测试。 其中一半面对面交流。 另一半通过网络交流，看不到其他队友。 我 们想看看通过网络协作的团队是否仍表现出集体智慧，当人们完全通过往浏览器上输入信息 进行交流时，社交能力是否还那么重要。
结果发现，依然如此。 不管是网络交流还是面对面交流，有些团队总是比其他团队聪明。 更 令人意外的是，不管采取哪种交流方式，聪明团队最重要的特点仍是这些：充分交流，平等参 与，读心能力强。