A) objective

B) optimistic

C) sensitive

D) gloomy





篇章剖析


本文就肥胖在人与人之间的传播这一问题展开了论述。第一段提出了话题，并说明了一项相关研究的背景和方法；第二段展示了研究结果，并结合实例进行说明；第三段讨论了家庭关系和朋友关系对于肥胖的不同影响及其原因；第四段指出了该研究的实用性以及研究者对肥胖传染效应的展望。





词汇注释


obesity /əʊˈbɪsɪti/ n. 肥胖，肥大

contagious /kənˈteɪdʒəs/ adj. 传染性的，会感染的

densely /ˈdensli/ adv. 密切地

take-out /ˈteɪkˌaut/ adj. 供应外卖食物的

spouse /spauz/ n. 配偶（指夫或妻）

norm /nɔːm/ n. 标准，规范





难句突破


Researchers from Harvard and the University of California，San Diego，reviewed a database of 12,067 densely interconnected people—that is，a group that included many families and friends—who had all participated in a major American heart study between 1971 and 2003.

主体句式：Researchers reviewed a database of 12,067 people.

结构分析：这个长句看似结构复杂，主要是因为其中有较多的修饰成分。两个破折号之间的句子是people的同位语，主要是对被调查者的身份进行补充说明，其中that is是同位语结构的标志；who引导的定语从句也是修饰people。

句子译文：来自哈佛大学和加州大学圣地亚哥分校的研究者查阅了1971年到2003年期间参与美国一项重要心脏研究的12,067位受访者的数据库，这些受访者之间大多都有亲密的关系，包括许多家庭成员和朋友。





题目分析


1．B 细节题。文章第二段指出地理上的远近对于肥胖问题没有什么影响，而A、C、D选项都可以在该段落中找到对应信息。

2．D 推理题。文章第一段中指出关于肥胖传染性的研究主要是基于另一个关于心脏病研究的数据，因而答案为D。A选项的错误原因在于并不是参与研究的所有成员都是互相联系着的，但他们都是以家庭成员或者朋友的身份参加研究的。B选项的错误原因在于肥胖传染性的研究并不是一个长期研究，而该研究的数据来源于另一个长期研究。C选项的错误原因在于研究者和所有的参与者都是定期见面。

3．D 细节题。文章第三段比较了家人和朋友对于肥胖现象的影响，可以看出研究人员研究这两组人的目的在于比较两组人对于肥胖的相互影响是否会有不同的效果。

4．D 推理题。文章最后一段指出，该研究发现的肥胖传染现象也可能促使相反效果的产生，即一个人减肥会影响他的亲人朋友，从而使得减肥现象也得以传播，使胖人们的体重向更健康的趋势发展。

5．A 情感态度题。虽然文章最后指出研究者对其研究结果持非常乐观的态度，但综观全文，作者的描述一直很客观，没有加入个人见解，因此答案为A。





参考译文



7月26日出版的《新英格兰医学杂志》刊登的一项新研究认为，肥胖的人不仅仅在越来越多，更可怕的是，肥胖会像感冒一样，在人与人之间传播。来自哈佛大学和加州大学圣地亚哥分校的研究者查阅了1971年到2003年期间参与美国一项重要心脏研究的12,067位受访者的数据库，这些受访者之间大多都有亲密的关系，包括许多家庭成员和朋友，他们每两至四年间就与心脏研究者见一次面。正是由于这些信息，使得《新英格兰医学杂志》刊登的这项研究的作者们对社会关系对肥胖的影响进行了深入研究。

根据研究人员的分析，如果受访者的朋友肥胖的话，那些受访者自己变胖的可能性会比常人高出57%。如果两人互为挚友，那么这一几率将会高出常人171%。作者之一加州大学圣地亚哥分校的政治科学家詹姆斯·福勒认为并非只是有相似生活习惯的人才会成为朋友。此后詹姆斯·福勒与研究的合著者——哈佛医学院的尼古拉斯·克里斯塔克斯共同对此种可能性进行了研究，结果令他们十分惊讶。一方面，研究表明朋友之间的地理位置差距似乎根本不是问题：相距车程为5小时但经常不见面的朋友在对肥胖的相互影响上和每周都一起吃外卖或打篮球的朋友一样。福勒称友谊引起增重的最好证据就是，人们更加倾向于和心目中的朋友们做一样的事情——但反过来这种关系并不成立。如果你把一个人当作朋友，他变肥胖了的话，那你的肥胖概率会高出常人50%。要是他不把你当朋友，那么即使你胖了，对他的体重也没太大影响。

现在的显著问题是为什么会有此情况？夫妻共处一室，共同进餐和生活，研究者发现当一方变胖时，另一方变胖的几率仅仅高了37%。兄弟姐妹的基因差不多，但他们之间的影响却也小得多，每人变胖的几率只有40%。福勒认为这与社会标准有很大关系，我们看人的时候总是在考虑什么是合适的社会行为。如果你的朋友是肥胖者，这就意味着你认为肥胖是可以接受的。福勒说：“我们选择配偶不会只看他/她的体型、他/她的食量和运动量。”我们也没有必要把自己同兄弟姐妹比较。他还说：“我们不能选择家庭，但我们可以选择朋友。”

福勒和克里斯塔克斯认为这种“传染效应”对于减肥的影响应和增肥一样。福勒说：“我希望这个研究能使人们在考虑健康状况时把家人和朋友的因素也考虑进去。”他说，毕竟，如果你最亲密的人与你一起减肥的时候，这个计划会更加成功。同时，如果你成功减肥，那么你的健康也会帮助其他人达到理想的体重。这种效果不仅对于你的朋友有效，并且对你朋友的朋友，甚至他们（朋友的朋友）的朋友都会有影响。





Unit 57


Past performance is not an indicator of future returns．That，at least，is the advice given to investors．But can the likelihood of a person committing a crime be predicted by looking at his record? The answer，according to a team of clinical forensic psychologists，is that it cannot．Not only is risk prediction unreliable but，when applied to individuals rather than groups，the margins of error are so high as to render any result meaningless.

Making assumptions about individuals from group data is generally only reasonably safe when the variation within the group is small．Despite this，risk assessments are routinely used to help decide who should be locked up，who should undergo therapy and who should go free．Risk prediction is also set to be used to assess the threat posed by people ranging from terrorist suspects to potential delinquents.

Stephen Hart，of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia，Canada，and colleagues decided to determine how accurate the tests of risk assessment are when applied to individuals rather than groups．Typically the tests work by assigning a score to people depending on factors such as their age，the history of their relationships，their criminal past and the type of victims they have chosen．If someone's score places him in a group in which a known proportion has gone on to commit a crime on release from detention，then the risk that person will prove a recidivist is thought to be similar to the risk for the group as a whole.

The paper published by Dr Hart and his colleagues in last month's issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry focused on two popular tests that follow this logic．The first was a 12-item test designed to assess risk for general violence over periods of seven to ten years．The second was a ten-item test designed to assess risk for violence and sexual violence over periods of five to 15 years．The researchers have also assessed other tests used for predicting sexual offences and domestic violence.

They found that variations between members of the groups were very large．In one of the tests，for example，the standard estimate of the chances of members of the group sexually reoffending was put at 36% within 15 years．They calculated that the actual range was between 30% and 43% of the group，with a 95% confidence level．But calculating the average probability for a group is much easier than calculating the same probability for any individual．Thus，using standard methods to move from group inferences to individual ones，they calculated that the chance of any one person reoffending was in the range of 3% to 91%，similarly with a 95% confidence level．Clearly，the seemingly precise initial figure is misleading．

The principle is not peculiar to psychology．It has been recognised by statisticians for decades．They call it the ecological fallacy（although this term captures broader subtleties，too）．Medicine has also been confounded by statistically based procedures．Indeed，the technique is only really useful when the successes and failures are aggregated．A life-insurance company，for instance，could wrongly predict the life span of every person it insured but still get the correct result for the group.


注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题Text 4。



1．What do the clinical forensic psychologists think of risk prediction?

A) Risk prediction fails in the stock market but succeeds in predicting crime probability.

B) Risk prediction is always effective when being applied to groups.

C) Risk prediction is not dependable when it comes to individual behavior.

D) Risk prediction of groups lacks reliability because of high margin error.

2．We can learn from the text that tests of risk assessment are _______.

A) longitudinal

B) very tricky

C) convincing enough

D) unreasonable

3．What premise did Dr Hart follow when conducting his research?

A) Two groups should be designed for the tests，with one test group and the other for comparison.

B) Both risk assessment and risk prediction should be considered in the tests.

C) People selected for the tests should vary greatly from each other so as to guarantee the representativeness of the sample.

D) Given small variation within a group，risk prediction for individuals can be based on group data.

4．According to Dr Hart，using standard methods to predict individuals _______.

A) is as easy as using them for groups

B) yields ineffective statistics

C) can help attain precise results

D) might be influenced by confidence level

5．Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Ecological fallacy is originally a psychological phenomenon，which is later adopted in the field of statistics.

B) Statisticians have been dealing with ecological fallacy for a long time and have almost succeeded in figuring out a solution.

C) The statistics from a life insurance company on the longevity of a group of people should be reliable.

D) Risk prediction proves to be of zero practical value according to Dr Hart's study.





篇章剖析


本文主要就风险预测的话题展开论述。第一段首先提出了风险预测站不住脚；第二段指出，只有当一组数据内部差异程度相对较小时，对个人的判断才可能更可靠；第三、四段主要介绍了哈特博士针对以上问题进行的实验；第五段介绍了实验结果，说明了针对个人进行的风险预测有很大的误导性；第六段则进一步对风险预测的负面作用加以延伸，并以一个开放性的建议结束全文。





词汇注释


margin /ˈmɑːdʒɪn/ n. 差数：页边的空白

assessment /əˈsesmənt/ n. 评估，估价

routinely /ruːˈtiːnli/ adv. 例行地；常规地

therapy /ˈθerəpi/ n. 治疗

delinquent /dɪˈlɪŋkwənt/ n. 失职者，违法者

proportion /prəˈpɔːʃən/ n. 比例，均衡

detention /dɪˈtenʃən/ n．拘留，禁闭

psychiatry /saɪˈkaɪətri/ n. 精神病学，精神病治疗法

domestic /dəˈmestɪk/ adj. 家庭的，国内的

confidence level 置信度

probability /ˌprɒbəˈbɪlɪti/ n. 概率

inference /ˈɪnfərəns/ n. 推论

initial /ɪˈnɪʃəl/ adj. 最初的，初始的

fallacy /ˈfæləsi/ n. 谬误，谬论

confound /kənˈfaʊnd/ vt. 使混淆，挫败

aggregate /ˈæɡrɪɡeɪt/ v. 聚集，合计

insure /ɪnˈʃʊə/ vt. 给…保险





难句突破


If someone's score places him in a group in which a known proportion has gone on to commit a crime on release from detention，then the risk that person will prove a recidivist is thought to be similar to the risk for the group as a whole.

主体句式：If someone's score places him in a group..．then the risk is thought to be similar to...

结构分析：这个句子分为逗号前后的两个部分，其中的每一个部分包含一个定语从句。前半个句子中，in which引导的定语从句修饰group；而后半句中，that person will prove a recidivist 作为同位语从句修饰risk。

句子译文：如果一个人的分数属于出狱后犯罪率很高的一组，那么此人是惯犯的几率就大体上和这组的整体几率相同。





题目分析


1．C 细节题。根据文章第一、二段的内容，风险预测对于个人的预测错误率极大，几乎完全不可靠。选项B错误的原因在于文章里面没有直接说明风险预测是否对于群组人有效。

2．A 推理题。文章第四段中举了两个测试的具体情况，这两个测试分别进行了7到10年和5到15年，因此都是长达多年的跟踪性试验。A选项longitudinal的意思为“长度的；纵长的”，可以引申为长时间的。

3．D 细节题。文章第四段第一句话指出哈特博士的实验“follow this logic”，“this logic”指的正是第三段最后一句话，即“如果一个人的分数属于出狱后犯罪率很高的一组，那么此人是惯犯的几率就大体上和这组的整体几率相同”，也就是说，如果组内差异较小的话，关于组的风险预测可以推及到组内的个人。

4．B 细节题。根据文章第五段，如果将群体的标准方法用于个体，最终得到的结果是具有误导性的。D选项提到的confidence level“置信度”是一个统计上的参数，与本题并无关联。

5．C 细节题。C选项的信息来自文章的最后一句话，A life-insurance company，for instance，could wrongly predict the life span of every person it insured but still get the correct result for the group，即“例如，一个人寿保险公司也许不能准确预测每个投保人的寿命长度，但它可以对群体做出准确预测。”





参考译文



过去的付出并不代表未来的收获，这至少可以给投资者一些启示。但一个人的犯罪动机能通过他过去的记录来预测吗？一个临床法医心理学家小组的回答是否定的。风险预测不仅站不住脚，而且即使是只用于个体而不是群体，其误差之大也会导致结果失去意义。

只有当一组数据内部差异程度相对较小时，据此做出的对个体的判断通常才会比较可靠。尽管如此，人们还是例行公事地用风险评估来辅助决定谁应该坐牢、谁应该接受治疗以及谁可获得自由。风险预测同样用于评估从嫌疑恐怖分子到潜在罪犯的各种威胁。

加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省西蒙弗雷泽大学的斯蒂芬·哈特和他的同事决意要找出用于个体而非群体的风险评估测试的准确性到底有多大。这些测试先根据个人年龄、社交经历、犯罪史以及所选择的受害者类型等因素给人们打出一个分数。如果一个人的分数属于出狱后犯罪率很高的一组，那么此人是惯犯的几率就大体上和这组的整体几率相同。

哈特博士和他的同事在上月的《英国精神病学杂志》上发表了一篇论文，主要介绍了按照这一逻辑进行的两个有名实验。第一个实验包括12项内容的测试，用来评估7至10年间的一般暴力风险；第二个实验包括10项相关内容的测试，用来评估5至15年间的暴力和性暴力风险。研究人员也评估了用来预测性侵犯和家庭暴力的其他一些测试。

他们发现每组成员间的差别很大。比如在其中一项测试中，被测小组成员15年内再次进行性侵犯的概率估计是36%。在95%的置信度下，他们计算出的实际范围是在30%与43%之间。但计算群体的平均概率要比计算个体的概率容易得多。因此，如果将群体的标准方法用于个体，同样在95%的置信度下，他们计算出一个人是惯犯的几率在3%与91%之间。很明显，看似准确的原始数据有很大的误导性。

这个原理不仅专用于心理学，也已被统计学家认可了数十年之久。他们称其为生态学谬论（尽管这个术语还有更广泛和精细的意义）。医学也被基于统计学的程序搞得一团糟。实际上，这个技术只有在成功和失败都综合起来的时候才真正有用。例如，一个人寿保险公司也许不能准确预测每个投保人的寿命长度，但它可以对群体做出准确预测。





Unit 58


Sloth may be seen as a sin，but some of history's most accomplished men were fond of lounging around．Leonardo da Vinci enjoyed napping．So did Albert Einstein and Winston Churchill．Richard Buckminster Fuller advocated taking 30-minute naps every six hours．He is reported to have abandoned the practice only because“his schedule conflicted with that of his business associates，who insisted on sleeping like other men.”

No one has yet proved a correlation between napping and artistic brilliance or professional success，but an intriguing study published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine claims to find a link between daytime siestas and good health．A team of researchers led by Androniki Naska of the University of Athens Medical School and Dimitrios Trichopoulos of Harvard's School of Public Health followed over 23,000 Greek patients with no history of coronary disease，cancer or stroke，for an average of six years．Their conclusion: napping just might save your life.

The study found that the group of adults who took siestas（defined as 30-minute naps）at least three times a week had a third fewer deaths from heart disease than an equivalent group who did not sleep at all during the day. The benefit was greater for men than for women．（Whether women benefited at all was hard to estimate as there were too few deaths among them during the course of the study.）It was also greater for working men than for those who had retired．However，a number of previous studies done in the Mediterranean and in parts of Central America（where siestas remain common）have come up with conflicting results，but Dr Naska and Dr Trichopoulos argue that those studies have often been flawed．The subjects in some，for example，had survived heart attacks and may therefore have benefited more from napping than healthy individuals do.

Given that all of the subjects of this new study were Greek，could the much-celebrated Mediterranean diet deserve credit，rather than the siestas? The firm answer from Dr Trichopoulos is“No”．And he is in a good position to say so，for it was he who did the pioneering research that put olive oil and a plant-based diet on the scientific map in the first place．Unlike some other siesta studies，his was controlled for diet，smoking，exercise and other relevant variables．The earlier findings about the benefits of the Mediterranean diet are confirmed，he says，and napping seems to help on top of that.

Before buying a sofa for the office，however，it might be wise to consider the possibility of selection bias．Dr Trichopoulos concedes that“Type A” personalities，whose hard-working lives may make them prone to heart attacks，are also much less likely to take naps during the day．That bias might be skewing the study's results．Even so，he advises，“Take a nap if you can.”


注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题Text 1。



1．What do scientists expect to achieve in the study of daytime siestas?

A) They want to prove that siestas help people become smarter.

B) They want to prove that siestas can make people happier.

C) They want to prove that siestas may prolong people's life.

D) They want to prove that siestas help cure some diseases.

2．Which of the following is TRUE about taking nap regularly?

A) One's possibility of dying from heart diseases is smaller.

B) One is surely to enjoy a long life with the habit of taking siestas.