2. 职称英语
  3. Humans are fascinated by the source of their failings and virtues. This preo

Humans are fascinated by the source of their failings and virtues. This preo

游客2023-08-07  16
问题     Humans are fascinated by the source of their failings and virtues. This preoccupation inevitably leads to an old debate: whether nature or nurture moulds us more. A revolution in genetics has poised this as a modern political question about the character of our society: if personalities are hard-wired into our genes, what can governments do to help us? It feels morally questionable, yet claims of genetic selection by intelligence are making headlines.
    This is down to "hereditarian" (遗传论的) science and a recent paper claimed "differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them". With such an assertion, the work was predictably greeted by a lot of absurd claims about "genetics determining academic success". What the research revealed was the rather less surprising result: the educational benefits of selective schools largely disappear once pupils’ inborn ability and socio-economic background were taken into account. It is a glimpse of the blindingly obvious—and there’s nothing to back strongly either a hereditary or environmental argument.
    Yet the paper does say children are "unintentionally genetically selected" by the school system. Central to hereditarian science is a tall claim: that identifiable variations in genetic sequences can predict an individual’s aptness to learn, reason and solve problems. This is problematic on many levels. A teacher could not seriously tell a parent their child has a low genetic tendency to study when external factors clearly exist. Unlike-minded academics say the inheritability of human traits is scientifically unsound. At best there is a weak statistical association and not a causal link between DNA and intelligence. Yet sophisticated statistics are used to create an intimidatory atmosphere of scientific certainty.
    While there’s an undoubted genetic basis to individual difference, it is wrong to think that socially defined groups can be genetically accounted for. The fixation on genes as destiny is surely false too. Medical predictability can rarely be based on DNA alone; the environment matters too. Something as complex as intellect is likely to be affected by many factors beyond genes. If hereditarians want to advance their cause it will require more balanced interpretation and not just acts of advocacy.
    Genetic selection is a way of exerting influence over others, "the ultimate collective control of human destinies," as writer H. G. Wells put it. Knowledge becomes power and power requires a sense of responsibility. In understanding cognitive ability, we must not elevate discrimination to a science; allowing people to climb the ladder of life only as far as their cells might suggest. This will need a more sceptical eye on the science. As technology progresses, we all have a duty to make sure that we shape a future that we would want to find ourselves in. [br] What does the author say about the relationship between DNA and intelligence?
选项 A、It is one of scientific certainty.
B、It is not one of cause and effect.
C、It is subject to interpretation of statistics.
D、It is not fully examined by gene scientists.
答案 B
解析 由题干中的relationship between DNA and intelligence定位到第三段倒数第二句。事实细节题。第三段倒数第二句指出，DNA和智力之间的关系充其量只是一种微弱的统计数据上的关联，绝不是因果关系。由此可知，答案为B)。第三段最后一句话指出，复杂的统计数据被用来创造一种科学确定性的氛围。这里作者客观指出目前大环境的一种情况，而并不是认为这项研究的结果是具有科学确定性的，故排除A)；第三段倒数第二句指出，两者间的关联最多也就是有统计数据上的微弱关联，而C)说两者关系取决于对统计数据的解释，与原文不符，故排除C)；一些基因科学家的观点就是DNA决定智力，D)与文章意思不符，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2904873.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)