2. 考研
  3. [A]The sort of faulty thinking called motivated reasoning also blocks our search for truth but advances arguments. For instance,

[A]The sort of faulty thinking called motivated reasoning also blocks our search for truth but advances arguments. For instance,

admin2019-08-01  58
问题 [A]The sort of faulty thinking called motivated reasoning also blocks our search for truth but advances arguments. For instance, we tend to look harder for flaws in a study when we don’t agree with its conclusions and are more critical of evidence that undermines our point of view. So birthers dismiss evidence offered by Hawaiian officials that Obama’s birth certificate is real, and death-penalty foes are adept at finding flaws in studies that conclude capital punishment deters crime. While motivated reasoning may cloud our view of reality and keep us from objectively assessing evidence, Mercier says, by letting us to accept flaws(real or not)in that evidence it prepares us to mount a destroying strategy in arguments.
[B]Another form of flawed reasoning shows up in logic puzzles. Consider the syllogism "No C are B; all B are A; therefore some A are not C. " Is it true? Fewer than 10 percent of us figure out that it is. One reason is that to evaluate its validity requires constructing counterexamples(finding an A that is a C, for instance). But finding counterexamples can, in general, invent our confidence in our own arguments.
[C]Women are bad drivers, Saddam plotted 9-11, Obama was not born in America, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: to believe any of these requires stopping some of our critical-thinking faculties and succumbing instead to the kind of irrationality that drives the logically minded crazy. It helps, for instance, to use confirmation bias. It also helps not to test your beliefs against empirical data; not to subject beliefs to the plausibility test; and to be guided by emotion.
[D]Even the sunk-cost fallacy, which has tripped up everyone from supporters of a losing war to a losing stock, reflects reasoning that turns its back on logic but wins arguments because the emotions it appeals to are universal. If Mercier is right, the sunk-cost fallacy, confirmation bias, and the other forms of irrationality will be with us as long as humans like to argue. That is, forever.
[E]An idea sweeping through the ranks of philosophers and cognitive scientists suggests why this is so. The reason we succumb to confirmation bias, why we are blind to counterexamples, and why we fall short of Cartesian logic in so many other ways is that these oversights have a purpose: they help us " invent and evaluate arguments that are intended to persuade other people," says psychologist Hugo Mercier of the University of Pennsylvania. Failures of logic, he propose, are in fact effective arms to win arguments. That puts poor reasoning in a completely different light. Arguing, after all, is less about seeking truth than about overcoming opposing views. So while confirmation bias, for instance, may mislead us about what’s true and real, by letting examples that support our view monopolize our memory and perception, it maximizes the arms we use when trying to convince someone that, say, he really is "late all the time. "
[F]Forms of reasoning that are good for solving problems and winning arguments lose out, over the course of evolution. In fact, rationality refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever those goals may be. Sometimes, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation.
[G]The fact that humans are subject to all these failures of rational thought seems to make no sense. Reason is supposed to be the highest achievement of the human mind, and the route to knowledge and wise decisions. But as psychologists have been documenting since the 1960s, humans are really, really bad at reasoning. It’s not just that we follow our emotions so often, in contexts from voting to ethics. No, even when we intend to deploy the full force of our rational faculties, we often failed.
Order:

选项
答案C
解析 文章的首段应该是引出问题或提出某种现象，从而进行下一步分析。[C]首先用几个例子引出问题：这几个事情使我们屈从于非理性，符合文章的行文顺序，可以作为备选答案。[B]第一句指出：另一种逻辑的失误表现在逻辑游戏上，可见，上文已经提到了一种逻辑的失误，因此排除[B]；[D]的首句指出：即便是沉没成本谬论……表示让步，说明上文有内容，可排除[D]；[E]首句指出：在心理学家和认知科学家中间普遍流行的一种观点解释了其中的原因(why this isso)，可以看出上文必然提到了this指的是什么，因此可以排除[E]；[F]首句提到：说理的形式……，在下文并没有细举说理的形式，而是一直在定义理性(rationality)，因此必然有在上文提及，因此可排除[F]；[G]项首旬提到：人们总是受制于所有这些(these)理性思维失误，可见，上文必然提到了有哪些失误，因此可以排除[G]。分析所有选项后可以得知，[C]应该是本文的首段。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/CB2Z777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)