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.

[A] A few years ago I found myself teaching a university class on evil. It was for third-year criminology students to help them contextualize theory and research within controversial current topics. It was huge success. The debates were heated and interesting. I could see people's views change within the course of a single lecture. Over the past 13 years, as a student, lecturer and researcher, I've enjoyed discussing the science of evil with anyone willing to listen. What I like most is destroying the cliche of good and evil, and replacing them with scientific insight. We need a more informed way of discussing behavior that at first we cannot, or should not, begin to understand.

[B] Without understanding, we risk dehumanizing others, writing off human beings simply because we don't comprehend them. We must try to understand what we have labeled evil. We tend to think evil is something that other people are. We think of ourselves as “good people”, and even when we do morally wrong things, we understand the context of our decisions. With others, however, it is far easier to write them off. If their actions deviate substantially from what we consider acceptable, we may label them evil. We need to be careful with this. Calling someone evil is often similar to saying they cannot change, and perhaps aren't even a human at all. However, when you actually go monster-hunting, and you look deeply at the people behind shocking behavior, you may be surprised.

[C] As a child I used to love the Scooby-Doo cartoons. Arriving in their “Mystery Machine”, the gang would have to find a monster who was terrorizing a neighborhood. They would run around looking for clues and at the end unmask the bad guy. It was always a normal person in a costume. There were no monsters. Like the Scooby crew, we may find ourselves hunting for an easy fix, one word for people who do bad things. But if we take a good look, the word 'evil' is insufficient—there are no simple explanations for why humans do bad things: instead there are many, and they are all marvelously different.

[D] Evil is typically referred to when there is deviance from social norms: formal deviance is the violation of laws, like theft, murder, and attacks, while informal deviance involves violations of social norms, like lying. Evil behavior is typically thought to embrace one or both forms. However, deviance can also describe a behavior that simply differs from the norm.

[E] Perhaps this is where we can find the good side of our bad side. Deviating from the norm can make us villains, but it can also make us heroes. A child deviates from social pressures when they stand up for another child being bullied in school. A soldier deviates when they choose not to follow orders to kill an innocent civilian. An employee in a big tech company deviates when they expose its wrongdoings.

[F] Creativity is also a deviation. Here, too, things are complex. Thinking creatively has given us modern medicine, technology and modern political structures, but it has also given us poison and nuclear weapons. Great benefit and great harm can come from the same human tendency.

[G] In a research paper, Evil Genius, published in 2014, the behavioral scientists Francesca Gino and Scott Wiltermuth wanted to examine whether people who behave unethically in one task are more creative than others on a subsequent task, even after controlling for differences in baseline creative skills. The unethical behavior they chose was dishonesty.

[H] Over five experiments researchers gave participants tasks in which they could cheat. In one study, they were given matrixes and had to find two numbers that added up to 10. Participants were asked to self-report how well they did at the end of the study: 59% cheated by saying that they solved more matrixes than they actually had.

[I] After each task, the researchers measured participants' performance on the Remote Associates Test. This shows participants three words at a time that appear to be unrelated, and the person has to think of a fourth word that is associated with all of them. For example, you might get “Fox, Man, Peep”, or “Dust, Cereal, Fish”. In order to find the linking words (“Hole” for the first, “Bowl” for the second) you need to be creative. The more you get right, the more creative you are thought to be because you have come up with uncommon associations.

[J] For every one of the five studies, they found the same thing: participants who cheated in the first task did better on the creativity task. Why? Like other forms of unethical behavior, lying means breaking rules. It involves being deviant, going against the social principle that people should tell the truth. Similarly, being creative involves “thinking outside the box”, deviating from expectations. They involve similar thought patterns, so stimulating one stimulates the other. Can we learn from this? Perhaps. To be more creative, we could try lying in a controlled environment. Find online logic games and cheat at them, play Scrabble with a dictionary, or write a story about something that is untrue? Such tasks can get our brains thinking flexibly, beyond our normal comfort zone. This is not a call to become a compulsive liar, but a controlled liar.

[K] In addition to benefits for creativity, deviance can be a good thing in other ways. Even Philip Zimbardo, the author of the Stanford prison experiment, who showed how easily we can be led to behave badly, believes that the future of deviance research may lie more in understanding extreme pro-social behavior, such as heroism. Like evil, we often view heroism as only a possibility for outliers—for people who are abnormal. But Zimbardo asks: “What if the capability to act heroically is also fundamentally ordinary and available to all of us?” Some say we should never meet our heroes, lest they disappoint us when we find out how normal they are. But this should be liberating, not disappointing. We are all capable of behaving like outliers. It's time for us to understand deviance, and realize its potential for good as well as for harm.

36. A behavior that does not conform to social norms may be described as being deviant.

37. Various experiments found that participants who cheated in the initial task performed better in the creativity test.

38. People may be simply considered evil if their behaviors are morally unacceptable to us.

39. The research published by two scientists was intended to examine the relationship between dishonesty and creativity.

40. The author's lectures sparked lively discussions in his class.

41. The researchers tested the participants' creativity by asking them to play a word game.

42. It is time we realized that deviance may be capable of doing both good and harm to individuals and society.

43. The reasons for people's evil behaviors can be explained in more ways than one.

44. The math task in one experiment was designed to test participants' tendency to cheat.

45. Some creative ideas have turned out to do harm to human society.

Answers & Explanations

36. D。解析：题干中的 behavior that does not conform to social norms（不符合社会规范的行为）对应 [D] 段的 deviance from social norms（对社会规范的偏离）以及 differs from the norm（与常态不同）。

37. J。解析：题干中的 participants who cheated in the initial task performed better in the creativity test（在初始任务中作弊的参与者在创造力测试中表现更好）完美对应 [J] 段的首句 participants who cheated in the first task did better on the creativity task。

38. B。解析：题干中的 considered evil if their behaviors are morally unacceptable to us（如果他们的行为在道德上对我们来说是不可接受的，人们可能会被简单地认为是邪恶的）对应 [B] 段的 If their actions deviate substantially from what we consider acceptable, we may label them evil（如果他们的行为大幅偏离了我们认为可接受的范围，我们可能会给他们贴上邪恶的标签）。

39. G。解析：题干中的 examine the relationship between dishonesty and creativity（旨在研究不诚实和创造力之间的关系）对应 [G] 段的 examine whether people who behave unethically in one task are more creative... The unethical behavior they chose was dishonesty（研究在一项任务中表现不道德的人是否更具创造力...他们选择的不道德行为是不诚实）。

40. A。解析：题干中的 sparked lively discussions（引发了热烈的/生动的讨论）对应 [A] 段的 The debates were heated and interesting（辩论激烈且有趣）。

41. I。解析：题干中的 play a word game（玩文字游戏）对应 [I] 段的 Remote Associates Test. This shows participants three words at a time... think of a fourth word（远程联想测试。一次向参与者展示三个单词...想出第四个词）。

42. K。解析：题干中的 deviance may be capable of doing both good and harm（偏离常态可能既能行善也能造成伤害）对应 [K] 段末句的 realize its potential for good as well as for harm（意识到其行善和作恶的潜力）。

43. C。解析：题干中的 explained in more ways than one（邪恶行为的原因有不止一种解释方式）对应 [C] 段的 there are no simple explanations for why humans do bad things: instead there are many（人类为什么做坏事没有简单的解释：相反，有许多解释）。

44. H。解析：题干中的 math task（数学任务）对应 [H] 段的 find two numbers that added up to 10（找到两个相加等于10的数字），而 test participants' tendency to cheat（测试参与者的作弊倾向）对应段落中的 tasks in which they could cheat... 59% cheated by saying that...（给参与者可以作弊的任务... 59%的人通过说...作弊了）。

45. F。解析：题干中的 do harm to human society（对人类社会造成伤害）对应 [F] 段的 Thinking creatively has given us... poison and nuclear weapons. Great benefit and great harm can come from the same human tendency（创造性思维给了我们...毒药和核武器。同一种人类倾向可以带来巨大的好处和巨大的伤害）。

核心搭配与高分句型

【核心搭配与高频短语】

• write off：认为...无用，把...作废，勾销（writing off human beings simply because...）
• deviate from：偏离，背离（deviate substantially from what we consider acceptable）
• stand up for：支持，维护，捍卫（stand up for another child being bullied）
• control for：在实验中控制...因素，排除...的干扰（controlling for differences in baseline creative skills）
• think outside the box：跳出固有框架思考，打破常规思考（being creative involves "thinking outside the box"）
• comfort zone：舒适区（beyond our normal comfort zone）
• as well as：既...又...，以及（potential for good as well as for harm）

【亮点句型解析】

• Without + 动名词复合结构 (伴随状语/条件状语)：
  "Without understanding, we risk dehumanizing others, writing off human beings simply because we don't comprehend them."
  （如果不去理解，我们就有使他人失去人性的风险，仅仅因为我们不理解他们就将他们否定。）`Without doing sth.` 结构简洁有力，常用于引出某种不良后果的前提，随后的 `writing off...` 作进一步的解释说明。这是四级写作中论述问题危害的高分句型。
• What if 引导的虚拟/假设反问句：
  "What if the capability to act heroically is also fundamentally ordinary and available to all of us?"
  （如果英雄行为的能力在根本上也是普通的，并且我们所有人都能拥有呢？）`What if` (要是...会怎么样？) 极具思辨色彩和冲击力，非常适合用于议论文中推翻常识、提出新颖观点的过渡段落。