-
2005
年真题
uestions 41 to 45 are based on the
following passage:
Most human beings
actual1y decide before they think. When any human
being
－
executive, specialized
expert, or person in the streetencounters a
complex issue and forms an opinio
n,
often within a matter of seconds, how thoroughly
has he or she explored the implications of the
v
arious courses of action? Answer: not
very thoroughly. Very few people, no matter how
inte1ligent o
r experienced, can take
inventory of the many branching possibilities,
possible outcomes, side effect
s, and
undesired consequences of a policy or a course of
action in a matter of seconds. Yet, those
wh
o pride themse1ves on being decisive
often try to do just that. And once their brains
lock onto an opi
nion, most of their
thinking thereafter consists of finding support
for it. A very serious side effect of
argumentative decision making can be a
lack of support for the chosen course of action on
the part o
f the
“losing”
faction. When one
faction wins the meeting and the others see
themselves as losing, th
e battle often
doesn’t
end when the meeting
ends. Anger, resentment, and jealousy may lead
them to
sabotage the decision later, or
to reopen the debate at later meetings.
There is a better. As philosopher
Aldous Huxley said,
“It
isn’t
who is right, but what
is right, that
counts.”
The structured-inquiry method offers a
better alternative to argumentative decision
making by deb
ate. With the help of the
Internet and wireless computer technology the gap
between experts and exe
cutives is now
being dramatically closed. By actually putting the
brakes on the thinking process, slo
wing
it down, and organizing the flow of logic,
it’s
possible to create a
level of clarity that sheer
arg
umentation can never match.
The structured-inquiry process
introduces a level of conceptual clarity by
organizing the contribut
ions of the
experts, then brings the experts and the decision
makers closer together. Although it
isn’t
possible or
necessary for a president or prime minister to
listen in on every intelligence analysis
mee
ting,
it’s
possible to organize the
experts’
information to give
the decision maker much greater insig
ht
as to its meaning. This process may somewhat
resemble a marketing focus group;
it’s
a simple,
re
markably clever way to bring decision
makers closer to the source of the expert
information and opi
nions on which they
must base their decisions.
4l
．
From the first
paragraph we can learn that .
A
．
executive,
specialized expert, are no more clever than person
in the street B
．
very few
people d
ec1de before they think
C
．
those who pride
themselves on being decisive often fail to do so
D
．
people tend to consider
car
efully before making decisions
42
．
Judging from
the context, what does the word
“them”
(line 4, paragraph 2)
refer to?
A
．
Decisi
on
makers.
B
．
The
“losing”
faction.
C
．
Anger,
resentment, and jealousy.
D
．
Other people
43
．
Aldous
Huxley’s
remark (Paragraph
3) implies that .
A
．
there is a subtle
difference betwee
n right and wrong
B
．
we cannot tell who is
right and what is wrong
C
．
what is right is more
impor
tant than who is right
D
．
what is right accounts for
the question who is right
44
．
According to
the author, the function of the structured-inquiry
method is . A
．
to make
deci
sion by debate
B
．
to apply the
Internet and wireless computer technology.
C
．
to brake on the thinking
process, sl
owing it down
D
．
to create a level of
conceptual clarity
45
．
The
structured-inquiry process can be useful for
. A
．
decision makers
B
．
intelligence
analysis meeting C
．
the
experts’
information
D
．
marketing focus groups
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the
following passage:
Sport is heading
for an indissoluble marriage with television and
the passive spectator will enjoy a
p
rivate paradise. All of this will be
in the future of sport. The spectator (the
television audience) will
be the
priority and professional clubs will have to
readjust their structures to adapt to the new
reality