Many animals have some level of social intelligence, allowing them to coexist and cooperate with other members of their species. Wolves, for example—the probable ancestors of dogs—live in packs that hunt together and have a complex hierarchy. But dogs have evolved an extraordinarily rich social intelligence as they've adapted to life with us. All the things we love about our dogs—the joy they seem to take in our presence, the many ways they integrate themselves into our lives—spring from those social skills. Hare Brian, assistant professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University, and others are trying to figure out how the intimate coexistence of humans and dogs has shaped the animal's remarkable abilities. Hare suspects that the evolutionary pressures that turned suspicious wolves into outgoing dogs were similar to the ones that turned combative apes into cooperative humans. "Humans are unique. But how did that uniqueness evolve?" asks Hare. "That's where dogs are important." The first rule for scientists studying dogs is, don't trust your hunches . Just because a dog looks as if it can count or understand words doesn't mean it can. "We say to owners, look, you may have intuitions about your dog that are valuable," says Marc Hauser, a cognitive psychologist at Harvard University. "But they might be wrong." Alexandra Horowitz, a cognitive scientist at Barnard College, and other scientists are now running experiments to determine what a behavior, like a kiss, really means. In some cases, their research suggests that our pets are manipulating us rather than welling up with human-like feeling. "They could be the ultimate charlatans ," says Hauser. We've all seen guilty dogs slinking away with lowered tails, for example. Horowitz wondered if they behave this way because they truly recognize they' ve done something wrong, so she devised an experiment. First she observed how dogs behaved when they did something they weren't supposed to do and were scolded by their owners. Then she tricked the owners into believing the dogs had misbehaved when they hadn't. When the humans scolded the dogs, the dogs were just as likely to look guilty, even though they were innocent of any misbehavior. What's at play here, she concluded, is not some inner sense of right and wrong but a learned ability to act submissive when an owner gets angry. "It's a white-flag response," Horowitz says. While this kind of manipulation may be unsettling to us, it reveals how carefully dogs pay attention to humans and learn from what they observe. That same attentiveness also gives dogs—or at least certain dogs—a skill with words that seems eerily human.
单选题 The author mentions wolves to show that______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节分析题。根据题干关键词wolves定位答案位置在第一段。该段第一句直接点明该段主旨;许多动物都有一定程度的社会智力,使它们可以和自己种族的其他成员共存和合作。然后第二句例证:狼过着群居生活,狼群一起捕食并有着复杂的等级层次。因此,B选项“动物有社会智力”为正确答案。
单选题 Why does Brian want to know how suspicious wolves became friendly dogs?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节推断题。作者在第二段提到从猿向人的进化过程可能类似于从狼向狗的进化过程,那么猿究竟由于哪些进化压力而实现了向人的进化呢?Hare说:That’s where dogs are important。根据上下文,这一句话的意思应该是:研究狗之所以重要就在于此。可见,Hare等研究狗最终是为了揭示人的进化过程。因此,A选项为正确答案。
单选题 The word "hunches" (Para. 3) probably refers to______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:此题为词义理解题。此类题定要联系上下文语境来进行分析。该单词所在句子的意思是:科学家研究狗的首要法则是,不要相信你的……。后句指出原因:(just because)仅仅因为一只狗看起来可以数数或者可以理解你的话,这并不意味着它真的能。再根据文中提到的认知心理学家Marc Hauser说的:“我们对狗的主人说,瞧,你可能对你的狗有可贵的直觉感应。但是他们可能是搞错了。”因此判断C项“直觉上的理解”应为正确答案。
单选题 Hauser calls dogs "the ultimate charlatans" (Para. 4) because______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节分析题。第四段末句出现了题干关键词the ultimate charlatans。该句话的意思是,Hauser说“它们(狗)可能是超级的江湖骗子”。得出这样结果的原因是第四段的前两句:Alexandra Horowitz和其他一些科学家们的研究表明,我们的宠物在操控着我们,而不是具有了人类的情感(也就是说它们的一些行为不是我们理解的那个样子)。接下来第五段举例更加详细地解释了Hauser这么说的原因。因此,C选项“我们对它们的直觉认识被它们所误导”为本题的正确答案。
单选题 When scolded, dogs______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节分析题。第五段提到,当主人责骂它时,狗会夹着尾巴溜走(slink away with lowered tails),这时主人会错误地以为它产生了内疚感。但实际上不是这样。Horowitz的解释是:狗只是认识到主人生气的腔调才变得顺从的(submissive),而不是因为对做错的事情表示内疚而表现出一副顺从的样子。用一个比喻来说;这只是打出白旗表示投降,而不是心理上感到内疚。因此,D选项为正确答案。