阅读理解 Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms: if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren't exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we're doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases—or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in "thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:
dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn't changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.

单选题 The time needed in making decisions may______.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】推断题。题干问的是“做决定所需要的时间可以______”。文章第一段提到“如果我们花时间想一想我们可能是如何反应的，就能够减轻甚至消除我们快速本能反应带来的负面影响”，也就是说我们做决定所花的时间决定了我们判断的准确性。第二段提到评估其他因素时，为了得到准确的结果，我们需要更多的时间。D项“可预先决定我们判断的准确性”符合原文意思，accuracy为原文accurately的同义复现。A项“依形势紧急性而定”、B项“证明我们大脑反应的复杂性”、C项“取决于评估的重要性”，这三项原文均未提及。

单选题 Our reaction to a fast-food logo shows that snap decisions______.

单选题 To reverse the negative influences of snap decisions, we should______.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词定位到第四段。第四段通过两个例子说明我们应该怎样克服负面影响．第一个例子表示“如果我们知道，在看到一张笑脸的时候我们容易对消费产品或房屋选择做出过度反应(这就是优秀的销售代表和房地产代理商一直保持微笑的原因之一)，我们可以在购买之前等一等”，可知C项“行动之前先思考”正确。A项“相信我们的第一印象”、B项“按照人们通常所做的去做”、D项“征求专家意见”，这三项原文均未提及。

单选题 John Gottman says that reliable snap reactions are based on .

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】细节题。根据关键词定位到第五段。第一句“这些快速反应只有建立在大量信息长期研究的基础上，我们才能可靠而又快速地汲取‘薄片’信息”，据此可选出正确答案。题干中的base on与D项中的adequate information均是原文ground与long-term study的同义复现。后面的例子“当Gottman确实想评估一对夫妇以后是否会在一起时，他会邀请他们去他的岛上寓所以便更长期的评价：是两天，而不是两秒”也验证了此选项是正确的。A项“关键的评估”原文没有提及，B项“‘切薄片’的研究”与原文意思相反，C项“明智的解释”原文没有提及。

单选题 The author's attitude toward reversing the high-speed trend is______.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】态度题。由关键词定位到最后一段。最后两句说“虽然技术可以改变我们的反应方式，但它并没有改变我们的本性。我们仍然有想象力超越诱惑并扭转这种快速反应的趋向”。由此可以看出作者的态度是非常确定的，因此B项“不确定的”首先排除。“We still have the imaginative capacity…”表明作者对于我们的能力是有信心的，因此C项“乐观的”正确。A项“容忍的”和D项“怀疑的”原文均没有体现。