People have wondered for a long time how their personalities and behaviors are formed. It's not easy to explain why one person is intelligent and another is not, or why one is cooperative and another is competitive.
Social scientists are, of course, extremely interested in these types of question. They want to explain why we possess certain characteristics and exhibits certain behaviors. There are no clear answers yet, but two distinct schools of thought on the matter have developed. As one might expect the two approaches are very different from one another, and there is a great deal of debate between proponents of each theory. The controversy is often conveniently referred to as "nature/nurture".
Those who support the "nature" side of the conflict believe that our personalities and behavior patterns are largely determined by biological and genetic factors. That our environment has little to do with our abilities, characteristics, and behavior is central to this theory. Taken to an extreme, this theory maintains that our behavior is predetermined to such a great degree that we are almost completely governed by our instincts.
Proponents of the "nurture" theory, or as they are often called, behaviorists, claim that our environment is more important than our biologically based instincts in determining how we will act. Behaviorists see humans as being whose behavior is almost completely shaped by their surroundings. Their view of the human being is quite mechanistic; they maintain that, like a machine, humans respond to environmental stimuli as the basis of their behavior.
The social and political implications of these two theories are profound. In the United States, for example, blacks often score below whites on standardized intelligent tests. This leads some "nature" proponents to conclude that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Behaviorists, in contrast, say that the differences in scores are due to the fact that blacks are often deprived of many of the educational and other environmental advantages that whites enjoy, as a result, they do not develop the same responses that whites do.
Neither of these theories can yet fully explain human behavior. In fact, it is quite likely that the key to our behavior lies somewhere between these two extremes. That the controversy will continue for a long time is certain.
Questions:
11. The author is mainly concerned about solving the problem
[A] why one's behaviors differ from others'
[B] what makes different stages of intelligence
[C] how social scientists form different theories
[D] what causes the "nature/nurture" controversy
12. The word "proponents" can best be replaced by
[A] approaches [B] advocates [C] principles [D] characters
13. Which of the following statements may be supported by the "nature" school?
[A] We are born with certain personalities and behaviors.
[B] Environment has nothing to do with our personalities.
[C] Abilities and characteristics are revealed by behaviors.
[D] Only extreme behaviors are determined by instinct.
14. What can we learn about the behaviorists?
[A] They believe human beings are mechanical.
[B] They compare our behaviors to the machines.
[C] They suggest that we react to the environment as the machines do.
[D] They uphold that the mechanistic theory can be applied on us as well.
15. The "nature" theorists believe that the blacks' low scores
[A] are the result of the educational disadvantages
[B] are a manifestation of the blacks' poor intelligence
[C] have nothing to do with their true intelligence
[D] have nothing to do with factors other than heredity
- 主旨定位与逻辑推导
文章开篇即提出核心疑问：“how their personalities and behaviors are formed”（人格与行为如何形成），后续围绕 “先天论（nature）” 与 “后天论（nurture）” 的争议展开，本质是探讨 “个体行为与人格差异的成因”，选项 A 精准契合全文核心议题。
- 干扰项排除
- B “什么造就不同智力阶段” 仅为文章局部细节（标准化测试分数差异），非核心问题；
- C “社会科学家如何形成不同理论” 未涉及，文章重点是 “理论内容与争议”，而非 “理论形成过程”；
- D“什么引发先天 / 后天争议” 是文章呈现的现象，而非作者试图解决的核心问题。
- 学术扩展：考博英语主旨题需把握 “开篇设问 + 分论点论证” 的结构，优先选择涵盖 “核心研究对象（人格与行为）+ 核心疑问（差异成因）” 的选项。
- 词汇辨析与语境适配
“proponents” 意为 “支持者、拥护者”，结合上下文 “between proponents of each theory”（两种理论的支持者之间），“advocates”（倡导者、拥护者）语义完全一致，符合语境。
- 干扰项排除
- A “approaches”（方法、途径）与 “支持者” 语义无关；
- C “principles”（原则）无法指代 “人”；
- D “characters”（人物、性格）语义偏差，未体现 “支持某理论” 的核心属性。
- 学术扩展：考博英语常考查学术议论文中的 “观点持有者” 类词汇，需积累 “proponents=advocates=supporters” 的同义替换。
- 细节定位与语义验证
原文明确指出 “nature” 学派的核心观点：“our personalities and behavior patterns are largely determined by biological and genetic factors”（人格与行为模式主要由生物和遗传因素决定），即 “与生俱来”，选项 A 是对该观点的精准概括。
- 干扰项排除
- B “环境与人格无关” 表述绝对，原文是 “has little to do with”（几乎无关），非 “完全无关”；
- C “能力与性格通过行为体现” 原文未提及，无中生有；
- D “仅极端行为由本能决定” 与原文 “our behavior is predetermined... almost completely governed by our instincts”（行为在很大程度上由本能决定）矛盾。
- 学术扩展：细节题需警惕 “绝对化表述”，如 B 选项中的 “nothing to do with”，原文多为 “largely”“little” 等委婉表述，需精准匹配语义强度。
- 细节定位与逻辑推导
原文提及行为主义者（后天论支持者）的观点：“like a machine, humans respond to environmental stimuli as the basis of their behavior”（人类像机器一样，以对环境刺激的反应作为行为基础），选项 C 是对该观点的准确解读。
- 干扰项排除
- A “认为人类是机械的” 语义偏差，行为主义者是 “将人类行为与机器反应类比”，而非 “认为人类本身是机械的”；
- B “将我们的行为与机器对比” 表述模糊，核心是 “反应模式类比”，而非 “行为本身对比”；
- D “主张机械论可应用于人类” 过度引申，原文仅为类比说明，未提及 “机械论应用”。
- 学术扩展：阅读理解中 “类比修辞” 是高频考点，需准确把握 “类比对象 + 类比核心（反应模式）”，避免字面理解类比表述。
- 推理题定位与语义推导
“nature” 学派认为人格与行为由遗传决定，结合原文 “blacks often score below whites... conclude that blacks are genetically inferior”（黑人分数低是因为基因 inferior），可推断他们认为 “分数差异仅与遗传相关，与其他因素无关”，选项 D 正确。
- 干扰项排除
- A “是教育劣势的结果” 是后天论的观点，与先天论矛盾；
- B “是黑人智力低下的体现” 语义偏差，先天论认为 “基因差异导致分数低”，而非 “智力本身低下”；
- C “与真实智力无关” 与先天论观点矛盾，他们认为分数差异反映基因决定的智力差异。
- 学术扩展：推理题需基于学派核心观点推导具体案例的结论，确保 “案例结论” 与 “核心观点” 一致，避免混淆不同学派的立场。
- 主旨题关注开篇设问与核心争议，避免被局部细节误导；
- 细节题采用 “关键词定位法”，精准捕捉原文核心观点，验证选项与原文的语义一致性，警惕绝对化表述；
- 学术议论文需区分 “不同学派立场”，推理题需基于学派核心观点推导具体案例结论。
- 油气行业相关真题需积累专业术语（如储量评估、模拟器、PVT 数据），确保术语翻译规范；
- 英译汉时拆分英文长句，优化中文语序，补充隐含语义；汉译英时使用被动语态与学术句式，保持技术文本的严谨性；
- 强化逻辑衔接，使用 “然而”“因为”“例如” 等连接词，确保译文流畅连贯。
- 明确立场后，从 “文化、社会、个人” 等多维度论证，每个论点搭配具体例子，避免空泛论述；
- 合理使用让步段，承认对立观点的合理性，再反驳其局限性，增强论证的客观性；
- 结尾升华主题，结合 “全球化”“文明多样性” 等宏观背景，体现学术视野与思辨深度。
通过系统利用真题资料和科学的备考方法，考生可高效提升考博英语综合能力，助力顺利上岸西安石油大学博士研究生。
您现在的位置： 