外語考試培訓網(wǎng)

電話：010-51299614　　51294614

北京雅思獨家公開8月13日雅思考試真題

來源：北京雅思學校發(fā)布時間：2009-08-18

北京雅思學校校長、被媒體譽為雅思教父的劉洪波老師于7月發(fā)布新書《雅思閱讀真經(jīng)4》。該書中收錄了8月13日中國雅思考試閱讀第一篇：選擇與幸福。

該書中記錄這篇文章首次在中國大陸考區(qū)出現(xiàn)是2008年8月16日。當時北京雅思考生回憶為：

隨著生活變得富裕，人們有了更多的選擇，然而他們并沒有因此而變得更加快樂。有人做了個實驗，把實驗對象分成兩組，一組是每次都嘗試做best choice 的Maxmiser，另一組是只要good enough 就可以了，也就是Satisfier。M 每次做決定以前，都要花很多時間在比較和選擇上，但是S 只要看到自己喜歡的東西就買了。實驗證明貌似是M 比S不快樂。選擇越多意味著機會成本越大，而人們對于失去感到的痛苦遠遠大于因為得到而感到的快樂，這就是為什么人們反而更加不快樂的原因。文章后面提到一個 theatre ticket 實驗。就是說買全票的人跟買折扣票的人相比，不去看戲的比率更小，原因在于the more people invest, the more they will feel regret if they don't use it.文章的最后作者提議說M 怎樣變得快樂起來呢？那就是在某些不重要的情況下，適當縮小選擇的范圍，比如買衣服只要走兩家店就好了。

根據(jù)考生回憶研究，劉洪波老師指出該文出自Scientific America April, 2004，文章名為The Tyranny of Choice，全文共12000字。雅思命題者將其縮減為900字。同樣，劉洪波老師將其縮減為900字，并命題。征得劉洪波老師同意，將《雅思閱讀真經(jīng)4》中該篇文章公開，請廣大考生重點復習。

另具劉洪波老師透露，北京雅思學校7月暑期班課堂教材閱讀為《雅思閱讀真經(jīng)4》，老師已經(jīng)在課堂上重點講授該篇文章，北雅學員應該8月13日考試獲得佳績！

Choice and happiness

A Americans today choose among more options in more parts of life than has ever been possible before. To an extent, the opportunity to choose enhances our lives. It is only logical to think that if some choice is good, more is better; people who care about having infinite options will benefit from them, and those who do not can always just ignore the 273 versions of cereal they have never tried. Yet recent research strongly suggests that, psychologically, this assumption is wrong. Although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less.

B Recent research offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between "maximizers" (those who always aim to make the best possible choice) and "satisficers" (those who aim for "good enough," whether or not better selections might be out there).

C In particular, we composed a set of statements—the Maximization Scale—to diagnose people's propensity to maximize. Then we had several thousand people rate themselves from 1 to 7 (from "completely disagree" to "completely agree") on such statements as "I never settle for second best." We also evaluated their sense, of satisfaction with their decisions. We did not define a sharp cutoff to separate maximizers from satisficers, but in general, we think of individuals whose average scores are higher than 4 (the scale's midpoint) as maximizers and those whose scores are lower than the midpoint as satisficers. People who score highest on the test—the greatest maximizers—engage in more product comparisons than the lowest scorers, both before and after they make purchasing decisions, and they take longer to decide what to buy. When satisficers find an item that meets their standards, they stop looking. But maximizers exert enormous effort reading labels, checking out consumer magazines and trying new products. They also spend more time comparing their purchasing decisions with those of others.

D We found that the greatest maximizers are the least happy with the fruits of their efforts. When they compare themselves with others, they get little pleasure from finding out that they did better and substantial dissatisfaction from finding out that they did worse. They are more prone to experiencing regret after a purchase, and if their acquisition disappoints them, their sense of well-being takes longer to recover. They also tend to brood or ruminate more than satisficers do.

E Does it follow that maximizers are less happy in general than satisficers? We tested this by having people fill out a variety of questionnaires known to be reliable indicators of well-being. As might be expected, individuals with high maximization scores experienced less satisfaction with life and were less happy, less optimistic and more depressed than people with low maximization scores. Indeed, those with extreme maximization ratings had depression scores that placed them in the borderline clinical range.

F Several factors explain why more choice is not always better than less, especially for maximizers. High among these are "opportunity costs." The quality of any given option cannot be assessed in isolation from its alternatives. One of the "costs" of making a selection is losing the opportunities that a different option would have afforded. Thus an opportunity cost of vacationing on the beach in Cape Cod might be missing the fabulous restaurants in the Napa Valley. If we assume that opportunity costs reduce the overall desirability of the most preferred choice, then the more alternatives there are, the deeper our sense of loss will be and the less satisfaction we will derive from our ultimate decision.

G The problem of opportunity costs will be worse for a maximizer than for a satisficer. The latter's "good enough" philosophy can survive thoughts about opportunity costs. In addition, the "good enough" standard leads to much less searching and inspection of alternatives than the maximizer's "best" standard. With fewer choices under consideration, a person will have fewer opportunity costs to subtract.

H Just as people feel sorrow about the opportunities they have forgone, they may also suffer regret about the option they settle on. My colleagues and I devised a scale to measure proneness to feeling regret, and we found that people with high sensitivity to regret are less happy, less satisfied with life, less optimistic and more depressed than those with low sensitivity. Not surprisingly, we also found that people with high regret sensitivity tend to be maximizers. Indeed, we think that worry over future regret is a major reason that individuals become maximizers. The only way to be sure you will not regret a decision is by making the best possible one. Unfortunately, the more options you have and the more opportunity costs you incur, the more likely you are to experience regret.

I In a classic demonstration of the power of sunk costs, people were offered season subscriptions to a local theater company. Some were offered the tickets at full price and others at a discount. Then the researchers simply kept track of how often the ticket purchasers actually attended the plays over the course of the season. Full-price payers were more likely to show up at performances than discount payers. The reason for this, the investigators argued, was that the full-price payers would experience more regret if they did not use the tickets because not using the more costly tickets would constitute a bigger loss.

J LESSONS

Choose when to choose.

We can decide to restrict our options when the decision is not crucial. For example, make a rule to visit no more than two stores when shopping for clothing.

Learn to accept "good enough."

Settle for a choice that meets your core requirements rather than searching for the elusive "best." Then stop thinking about it.

Don't worry about what you're missing.

Consciously limit how much you ponder the seemingly attractive features of options you reject. Teach yourself to focus on the positive parts of the selection you make.

Control expectations.

"Don't expect too much, and you won't be disappointed" is a cliché. But that advice is sensible if you want to be more satisfied with life.

北京雅思學校

【糾錯】