Section B: Information Matching
Directions: In this section, you are going to read a passage with ten statements attached to it. Each statement contains information given in one of the paragraphs. Identify the paragraph from which the information is derived. You may choose a paragraph more than once. Each paragraph is marked with a letter. Answer the questions by marking the corresponding letter on your Answer Sheet.
Science of setbacks: How failure can improve career prospects
[A] How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn't it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn't kill you makes you stronger”?
[B] One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.
[C] A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.
[D] Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect—inspired by the Bible's wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There's a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it's easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who've already been so recognized.
[E] This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn't kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there's sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn't kill them simply didn't matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
[F] In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition among scientists who didn't get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn't by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
[G] One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang's study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
[H] Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
[I] He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There's a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he's not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost; It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it's impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
[J] For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
[K] In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don't have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That's a different matter.
36. Being a close loser could greatly motivate one to persevere in their research.
37. Grant awarders tend to favor researchers already recognized in their respective fields.
38. Suffering early setbacks might help people improve their job performance.
39. Research by social scientists on the effects of career setbacks has produced contradictory findings.
40. It is not to the best interest of taxpayers to keep giving money to narrow winners.
41. Scientists who persisted in research without receiving a grant made greater achievements than those who got one with luck, as suggested in one study.
42. A research paper rejected by one journal may get accepted by another.
43. According to one recent study, narrow winners of research grants had better chances to be promoted to professors.
44. One researcher suggests it might be more fruitful to distribute grants on a relatively equal basis.
45. Minor setbacks in their early career may have a strong negative effect on the career of close losers.
Answers & Explanations
36. G。解析：题干中的 greatly motivate... persevere 对应 [G] 段的 selected determined, passionate scientists... give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants（给予人们心理上的鼓舞，或者说是俗话说的“屁股上踢一脚（以激励）”）。
37. D。解析：题干中的 tend to favor researchers already recognized 对应 [D] 段的 easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards... to those who've already been so recognized（对于当权者来说，将奖项和资金颁发给那些已经获得认可的人更容易、风险更小）。
38. K。解析：题干中的 improve their job performance 对应 [K] 段末尾的 They might even make us better at our jobs（它们甚至可能让我们在工作中表现得更好）。
39. B。解析：题干中的 contradictory findings 对应 [B] 段的 Studies in this area have found conflicting results（该领域的研究发现了相互冲突/矛盾的结果）。
40. I。解析：题干中的 not to the best interest of taxpayers 对应 [I] 段的 taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better（如果惜败者表现得同样好甚至更好，纳税人的钱就没有获得最大化的收益）。
41. F。解析：题干中的 persisted in research without receiving a grant made greater achievements 对应 [F] 段的 among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners（在那些留下来继续研究的人中，惜败者的表现甚至比险胜者更好）。
42. J。解析：题干中的 rejected by one journal may get accepted by another 对应 [J] 段的 journal... rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted（期刊...拒绝了它。他把未经编辑的版本投给了一家更受尊敬的期刊，并被接受了）。
43. C。解析：题干中的 had better chances to be promoted to professors 对应 [C] 段的 narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship（险胜者获得教授职位的可能性高出 50%）。
44. I。解析：题干中的 distribute grants on a relatively equal basis 对应 [I] 段的 suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient（建议更平等地分配资金可能会更有成效、更有效率）。
45. E。解析：题干中的 Minor setbacks... strong negative effect 对应 [E] 段的 Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect... What didn't kill them made them weaker（早期的职业小挫折似乎产生了不成比例的影响...那些没有杀死他们的东西让他们变得更弱）。
全文翻译
[A] 早期职业挫折如何影响我们的长期成功？失败可以帮助我们学习并克服恐惧。但灾难仍然会伤害我们。它们可以毁掉我们，让我们倒退。如果"杀不死你的让你更强大"这句话有真正的、科学记录的真相，难道不很好吗？
[B] 社会科学家探究职业挫折影响的一种方法是观察资质非常相似的科学家。这些科学家由于大多是任意性的原因，要么差一点错过获得研究资助，要么勉强成功。在社会科学中，这被称为在主观评价的领域里研究"差一点失败"和"微弱成功"。这使研究人员只能衡量被选中与否的影响。这一领域的研究发现了相互矛盾的结果。在生物医学科学的竞争游戏中，对那些以微弱差距失去或赢得资助的科学家进行的研究表明，微弱的赢家会在后续成为更大的赢家。换句话说，富者愈富。
[C] 例如，2018年发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》上的一项研究追踪了荷兰的研究人员。研究人员得出结论，那些刚刚够格获得资助的人在接下来八年内获得的资金是那些差一点错过的人的两倍。而且微弱赢家获得教授职位的可能性高出50%。
[D] 美国的其他研究也发现了类似的效果——美国国立卫生研究院的早期职业奖学金使微弱赢家远远领先于差一点失败的落选者。这种现象通常被称为马太效应——源自圣经的智慧：凡有的，还要加给他。阿尔伯特-拉斯洛·巴拉巴西的《公式：成功的普遍法则》一书中对这一现象有一个很好的解释。根据巴拉巴西的说法，那些掌权者选择将奖项和资金交给那些已经被如此认可的人，这样做更容易且风险更小。
[E] 这对落选者来说是坏消息。小小的早期职业挫折似乎会在后续产生不成比例的影响。杀不死他们的让他们更弱了。但使用同样方法的其他研究表明，差一点失败有时并没有惩罚。差一点没进入顶尖高中或大学的学生，在以后的生活中表现得和那些勉强被录取的学生一样好。在这种情况下，杀不死他们的其实无关紧要。那么，是否有证据表明挫折实际上可能改善我们的职业前景？现在有了。
[F] 在《自然通讯》发表的一项研究中，西北大学社会学家王大顺追踪了1100多名在1990年至2005年间处于获得和错过资助边界的科学家。他跟踪了接下来十年中的各种表现指标。这些指标包括他们撰写了多少篇论文以及这些论文的影响力（通过后续引用次数衡量）。正如预期的那样，未能获得资助的科学家的退出率要高得多。但在那些坚持下来的人中，差一点失败的落选者表现得甚至比微弱赢家更好。为了确保这不是偶然，王使用不同的表现指标进行了额外测试。他查看了人们在有影响力研究中担任第一作者的次数等。
[G] 差一点失败的落选者可能超越微弱赢家的一个直接原因是两组人能力相当。在王的研究中，他从落选者组中选择了最坚定、最有激情的科学家，并从赢家组中剔除了他认为最弱的成员。然而，坚持下来的落选者仍然位居榜首。他认为，差一点失败可能给人们带来心理上的提振，或者俗话说的"一记鞭策"。
[H] 乌得勒支大学社会学家阿诺特·范德莱特是那篇显示富者愈富的2018年论文的主要作者。他说这一新发现显然是合理的，值得关注。他自己的研究表明，虽然微弱赢家在近期确实获得了更多的资金，但差一点失败的落选者的实际表现也同样好。
[I] 他说，应该关注王论文的人是分配政府资助资金的资助机构。毕竟，如果差一点失败的落选者表现同样好甚至更好，通过继续把财富堆给微弱赢家，纳税人并没有获得最大的投资回报。他说，在选择谁获得资助的过程中投入了大量的时间和精力，而最新研究表明，科学机构在分配资金方面并不是很擅长。"也许我们应该少花些钱去弄清楚谁比谁更好，"他建议道，暗示某种更平等的资金分配可能更有成效、更高效。范德莱特说，他并不相信失败会给人们带来心理提振；这可能仍然是一种选择效应。尽管王试图通过剔除最弱的赢家来考虑这一点，但无法知道哪些赢家如果发现自己处于失败一方会退出。
[J] 就他个人而言，王表示，在他的个人经历中，失败确实点燃了激励之火。他回忆起最近向一家期刊提交的一篇论文，该期刊先是接受，然后要求大幅编辑，接着又改变方向拒绝了它。他将未经编辑的版本提交给了一家更有声望的期刊，并获得了接受。
[K] 在体育和生活的许多领域，我们把失败看作我们本可以做得更好的证据。我们将这些失望视为一种如果我们更仔细准备、不同训练、更好策略或更专注就能避免的命运。在这些情况下，失败向我们展示通往成功的道路是有道理的。这些论文涉及的是一种人们几乎无法控制的失败——被拒绝。由他人决定谁赢谁输。但至少，研究开始表明，早期挫折不必是致命的。它们甚至可能让我们在工作中变得更好。然而，获得赢家那样的报酬？那就是另一回事了。
核心搭配与高分句型
【核心搭配与高频短语】
- screw up：搞砸，弄糟（They can screw us up and set us back.）
- barely make it：勉强成功 / 险胜（just barely made it）
- down the line：在未来，今后（become even bigger winners down the line）
- miss out：错过机会，落选（missing out between 1990 and 2005）
- refer to as：被称为...（often referred to as the Matthew effect）
- come out on top：脱颖而出，最终获胜（the persevering losers still came out on top）
- bang for one's buck：所花的前带来的价值/收益（maximum bang for their buck）
- figure out：弄清楚，弄明白（trying to figure out who is better）
- at the very least：至少（But at the very least, the research is starting to show...）
- reverse course：改变路线，改变主意（reversed course and rejected it）
【亮点句型解析】
- What 引导的名词性从句 (经典谚语改写)：
"What didn't kill them made them weaker."
（那些没有杀死他们的东西让他们变得更弱了。）巧妙改写了尼采的名言“What doesn't kill you makes you stronger”（杀不死你的会让你更强大），用在四级作文中论述“挫折的负面影响”时会非常惊艳。 - 虚拟语气 (If + had done, would have done)：
"...it's impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side."
（...不可能知道如果赢家发现自己站在输家那一边，他们中谁会放弃。）`had they found` 是 `if they had found` 的倒装省略形式。这种对过去的非真实假设结构严密，彰显极高的语法驾驭能力。