GRE阅读真题机经及答案解析系列：Passage 94 || GRE干货

市面上流传的GRE阅读机经真题有三百多篇，同时又存在多种版本的答案和解析，有些疑难题目让考生不知道听谁的，还有些版本的解析像是用谷歌翻译把同题目和选项翻译了一下。厚朴GRE认为，GRE阅读的解析，可以讲得再清楚一点。 GRE不光有技巧，不光有快速解题法，GRE更加考察大家的逻辑硬实力，文字理解实打实的深度。良好的GRE备考应当在课堂上向老师学习快速解题法，取同取反逻辑的同时，课下扎扎实实的读懂每一句话。读懂，是一切技巧使用的前提。皮之不存，毛将焉附？有感于此，我们尝试用比较长的时间，原创一个解析，力求做到超详细，大白话，包你懂。之前为大家推送了Passage1-93的解析，今天继续为大家推出Passage 94（逻辑单题）解析，这篇阅读一共有1段，共1道题，厚朴GRE版超详细「包你懂」系列对此篇文章进行了清楚地解析。 Passage 94 In general, naive individuals appear more likely to learn from interaction with familiar rather than unfamiliar members of their species. Kaveliers and colleagues (2005) reported that naive laboratory-bred deer mice showed greater social learning of defensive responses to biting flies after observing responses of familiar members than after observing responses of unfamiliar members. Earlier, Valsecchi and colleagues (1996) reported striking differences in social learning of food preferences among Mongolian gerbils, depending on whether they were exposed to familiar or unfamiliar demonstrators. At the time, this was unexpected because Gaief and colleagues (1984) had previously reported no familiarity effect in Norway rats on social learning of food preferences. However, Gaief et al (1998) subsequently uncovered a significant familiarity effect that was evident when demonstrators are some hours before interacting with observers but absent when demonstrators are immediately before interacting.

文章解析

第一句： In general, naive individuals appear more likely to learn from interaction with familiar rather than unfamiliar members of their species. 白话版讲解： 总的来说，动物更有可能在和自己熟悉的同伴进行互动的过程中学习到技能。 第二句： Kaveliers and colleagues (2005) reported that naive laboratory-bred deer mice showed greater social learning of defensive responses to biting flies after observing responses of familiar members than after observing responses of unfamiliar members. 白话版讲解： Kaveliers和其同事在2005 年发现，对于在实验室里喂养的白足鼠来说，当它们观察了自己熟悉的同伴是如何应对苍蝇之后，能够更快地掌握应对方法（和它们在观察了不是那么熟悉的同伴是如何面对苍蝇之后相比）。 第三句： Earlier, Valsecchi and colleagues (1996) reported striking differences in social learning of food preferences among Mongolian gerbils, depending on whether they were exposed to familiar or unfamiliar demonstrators. 白话版讲解： 在那之前，Valsecchi 和其同事发现蒙古沙鼠之间在食物喜好方面存在巨大差异，这取决于它们是否熟悉自己的“导师”。 第四句： At the time, this was unexpected because Gaief and colleagues (1984) had previously reported no familiarity effect in Norway rats on social learning of food preferences. 白话版讲解： 当时这个实验结果是很令人意外的。因为在那之前，Gaief 和其同事在挪威鼠上面并没有发现“导师”的熟悉程度会对老鼠的学习能力产生影响。 第五句： However, Gaief et al (1998) subsequently uncovered a significant familiarity effect that was evident when demonstrators are some hours before interacting with observers but absent when demonstrators are immediately before interacting. 白话版讲解： 但是，Gaief 等人后续的研究表明，当“导师”和“学生”互动之前熟悉了一段时间，那么这个效应会非常明显，而如果“导师”和“学生”熟悉一小会儿之后立马互动，那么这个效应就会非常不明显。

题目解析

1.Which of the following can be inferred about the report by Gaief and colleagues (1984) as it is described in the passage? A. It introduced a concept that the report by Kaveliers and colleagues was intended to clarify. B. It highlighted an inaccuracy in the report by Valsecchi and colleagues. C. It led to an incorrect supposition on the part of some scientists. D. It played an important role in developing an understanding of social learning between members of different species. E. It suggested that the familiarity effect is stronger in some species than in others.

(查看答案)

▼

这道题问的是，关于 Gaief 和其同事在 1984 年的研究，以下哪个说法是正确的？这道题应该选 C。文章提到 Gaief 和其同事在 1984 年的研究结果和后来 Valsecchi 和其同事的研究结果是相反的。Gaief 和其同事在 1984 年针对挪威鼠的研究并没有发现“导师”的熟悉程度会对老鼠的学习能力产生影响，而后面 Valsecchi 和其同事的研究则发现熟悉程度对动物的学习能力是有影响的。前面的研究结果影响了当时科学家的看法，所以当后来新的研究结果出现的时候，人们才感到很意外（At the time, this was unexpected……）。 A. 这个研究结果向人们介绍了一个观点，后来 Kaveliers 和其同事的研究试图对这个观点进行进一步的阐述。 B. 这个研究结果强调了 Valsecchi 和其同事的研究结果中的错误。 C. 对有些科学家来说，这个研究结果具有误导性（误导了他们）。 D. 这个研究结果对于人们了解不同物种的成员之间是如何进行社会学习的起到了促进作用。 E. 这个研究结果表明熟悉程度效应在有些物种里面会更明显一些。