On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and come to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar md tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together.” Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error.Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.12. What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly about?
A. The methods of estimation.
B. The underlying logic of the effect.
C. The causes of people’s errors.
D. The design of Galton’s experiment.
13. Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if________
A. the crowds were relatively small
B. there were occasional underestimates
C. individuals did not communicate
D. estimates were not fully independent
14. What did the follow-up study focus on?
A. The size of the groups.
B. The dominant members
C. The discussion process.
D. The individual estimates.
15. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies?
A. Unclear.
B. Dismissive.
C. Doubtful.
D. Approving.
Xiao long bao(soup dumplings), those amazing constructions of delicate dumpling wrappers, encasing hot, 56_______(taste) soup and sweet, fresh meat, are far and away my favorite Chinese street food. The dumplings arrive steaming and dangerously hot. To eat one, you have to decide whether 57 ______(bite) a small hole in it first, releasing the stream and risking a spill (溢出), 58_____to put the whole dumpling in your mouth, letting the hot soup explode on your tongue.Shanghai may be the 59______(recognize)home of the soup dumplings but food historians will actually point you to the neighboring canal town of Nanxiang as Xiao long bao's birthplace. There you will find them prepared differently-more dumpling and less soup, and the wrappers are pressed 60______ hand rather than rolled.Nanxiang aside, the best Xiao long bao have a fine skin, allowing them 61_______ (lift) out of the steamer basket without allowing them tearing or spilling any of 62______(they) contents. The meat should be fresh with 63______ touch of sweetness and the soup hot, clear and delicious.No matter where I buy them, one steamer is 64_______(rare) enough, yet two seems greedy, so I am always left 65 _____(want) more next time.
tasty; to bite; or; recognized; by; to be lifted; their; a; rarely; wanting