2007年考研英语真题 Section II Part A (2) Intelligence Considered
Postgraduate · 来自 2007年考研英语真题 · Section II Part A (2) · 阅读理解(四选一)

Intelligence Considered

2007年考研英语真题文章逐层精读

Scientific American《科学美国人》1998 年1月 20 日一篇题为 Intelligence Considered(智商的思考)的文章。

本页是 2007年考研英语真题 Section II Part A (2) 文章的精读视角页——这篇议论文全文 454 词、4 段,CEFR 难度 C1(C1 级在考研英语文章中占 91%),作者立场为「消极批判」;英文原文之外,本篇已有的 11 项精读维度逐项展开,其中能迁移到其他考研英语真题文章的判断方法(篇章结构、修辞、言外之意、作者态度、体裁速判)随各维度一并讲透。

精读最佳实践

本页解析里的段号(P1)都可以点——点一下,原文在顶部翻开并定位到该段,解析引用的原文同步标亮;合上原文,你还停在刚才读到的位置。点 P1 试试。

PASSAGE · 文章原文

4 段英文原文

以下为2007年考研英语真题 Section II Part A (2) 的阅读理解(四选一)原文,共 4 段。左侧 P1–P4 是段落编号——本页全部解析(结构、逐段、修辞、自检题)都以它为坐标回指原文,点击解析里的段号,原文即在顶部翻开并定位到该段、引用的原文同步标亮;合上原文仍停在当前阅读位置。原文保持卷面形态,不带翻译与标注。

Intelligence Considered

For the past several years, the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade has featured a column called "Ask Marilyn." People are invited to query Marilyn vos Savant, who at age 10 had tested at a mental level of someone about 23 years old; that gave her an IQ of 228 – the highest score ever recorded. IQ tests ask you to complete verbal and visual analogies, to envision paper after it has been folded and cut, and to deduce numerical sequences, among other similar tasks. So it is a bit confusing when vos Savant fields such queries from the average Joe (whose IQ is 100) as, What's the difference between love and fondness? Or what is the nature of luck and coincidence? It's not obvious how the capacity to visualize objects and to figure out numerical patterns suits one to answer questions that have eluded some of the best poets and philosophers.

Clearly, intelligence encompasses more than a score on a test. Just what does it mean to be smart? How much of intelligence can be specified, and how much can we learn about it from neurology, genetics, computer science and other fields?

The defining term of intelligence in humans still seems to be the IQ score, even though IQ tests are not given as often as they used to be. The test comes primarily in two forms: the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scales (both come in adult and children's version). Generally costing several hundred dollars, they are usually given only by psychologists, although variations of them populate bookstores and the World Wide Web. Superhigh scores like vos Savant's are no longer possible, because scoring is now based on a statistical population distribution among age peers, rather than simply dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100. Other standardized tests, such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), capture the main aspects of IQ tests.

Such standardized tests may not assess all the important elements necessary to succeed in school and in life, argues Robert J. Sternberg. In his article "How Intelligent Is Intelligence Testing?", Sternberg notes that traditional tests best assess analytical and verbal skills but fail to measure creativity and practical knowledge, components also critical to problem solving and life success. Moreover, IQ tests do not necessarily predict so well once populations or situations change. Research has found that IQ predicted leadership skills when the tests were given under low-stress conditions, but under high-stress conditions, IQ was negatively correlated with leadership – that is, it predicted the opposite. Anyone who has toiled through SAT will testify that test-taking skill also matters, whether it's knowing when to guess or what questions to skip.

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

4 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2007年考研英语真题 的这篇原文——每段给出英文段落主旨、段落标题与中文解读,并提炼一条「这段为什么这样读」的具体方法。

  1. P1

    The Paradox of the Highest IQ

    High IQ scores do not necessarily equip individuals to answer profound, real-world questions that transcend pattern recognition and analytical tasks.

    这个 opening paragraph 为整篇文章的 critical examination 奠定基础。它通过 concrete example 引出文章的 central tension:IQ tests 声称能 measure intelligence,但 highest scorer 面对的 real questions 却 reveal 了这种 measurement 的 narrowness。这个段落的 function 是 problematize 现有的 intelligence definition,为后续段落 explore 'what intelligence really means' 和 'IQ tests' limitations' 创造 logical necessity。它和文章主旨的关系是 initiating the critique,showing readers 为什么我们需要 question IQ tests 作为 intelligence 的 sole indicator。

    追踪案例到质疑的过渡点
  2. P2

    Redefining Intelligence Beyond Scores

    Intelligence is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond test scores and requires interdisciplinary exploration to be properly understood.

    这个 brief paragraph 是全文的 thematic hinge,它从第一段的 specific problem(Marilyn 的 case)上升到 general principle(intelligence 的 nature)。它的 function 是 explicitly state 文章的 central thesis,并通过 rhetorical questions 为后续段落的 structure 提供 roadmap。和文章主旨的关系上,这个段落直接 articulate 了主旨的 first half:'intelligence encompasses more than a score'。它为后续 detailed analysis of IQ tests' limitations 提供 conceptual foundation,tell readers 我们为什么要 critically examine IQ tests——因为 intelligence 本身就 far more complex than what these tests measure。

    锁定立场陈述句
  3. P3

    The Persistence and Evolution of IQ Testing

    Despite their continued dominance in defining intelligence, IQ tests have evolved in methodology and exist in various forms, reflecting their widespread but not absolute nature.

    这个 paragraph 在文章中起 contextual grounding 的作用,它 provide 了 IQ tests 的 current landscape,为第四段的 detailed critique 做 preparation。表面上这是 neutral description,但实际上作者通过 careful selection of details 已经开始 build the case against IQ tests 的 absoluteness。和文章主旨的关系上,这个段落 demonstrate 说即使 IQ tests 很 prevalent,它们的 methodology 在 changing,their authority 不是 unquestionable 的。它 set up 了一个 important context:if we're going to critique IQ tests,我们需要 understand what they are and how they work。这个段落让后续的 critique 更 grounded 和 credible,因为作者 show 了 familiarity with the subject。

    综合事实的隐含态度
  4. P4

    The Critical Limitations of IQ Testing

    Standardized tests assess only narrow analytical and verbal skills while failing to measure creativity, practical knowledge, and adaptability, and their predictive validity varies significantly across different contexts.

    这个 final paragraph 是文章的 argumentative payoff,它 systematically dismantle IQ tests 的 validity through multiple angles of critique。和文章主旨的 perfect alignment 在于:它不仅 show IQ tests 'have limitations'(这太 weak),而是 demonstrate 说这些 limitations are significant and consequential。段落通过 expert opinion、empirical research、和 common experience 三重 evidence 建立了 compelling case:IQ tests miss essential qualities(creativity, practical knowledge),their predictions can reverse(leadership under stress),和它们 confound intelligence with test-taking skills。这个段落 complete 了文章的 logical arc:从第一段的 anecdotal questioning,到第二段的 theoretical reframing,到第三段的 contextual grounding,最后到这个段落的 systematic critique。它 deliver the article's core message:true intelligence 'encompasses far more than a test score',而 IQ tests 的 limitations 不是 minor flaws 而是 fundamental inadequacies that affect their real-world applicability。

    综合多重批判线索
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

4 道逐段细节自检题

针对2007年考研英语真题这篇原文,每段配 1 道细节题( 1 个正确项 + 5 个干扰项 ,由懒笔记精读引擎基于本段命制,非试卷原题)。 选项默认中性;点「显示答案与解析」展开正确项、解析与最快解法,现代浏览器会同步高亮正确选项。

  1. 第 1 段 定位词 Marilyn vos Savant confusing

    Why does the author find Marilyn vos Savant's role somewhat confusing?

    • A Her IQ score is lower than that of many professional philosophers.
    • B The questions submitted by readers are mainly mathematical puzzles.
    • C The abilities measured by IQ tests do not clearly qualify her to answer profound personal and philosophical questions.
    • D She refuses to explain how IQ tests are administered.
    • E Her readers expect her to solve every question with numerical patterns.
    • F The newspaper column gives no information about her educational background.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案:C

    正确项完整复现了作者的论证链:IQ tests 测量 verbal and visual analogies、spatial visualization、numerical sequences 等能力,而提问者却提出 love、luck、coincidence 等问题;作者明确说这种 suitability is not obvious。选项的 do not clearly qualify 对应 not obvious,属于谨慎否定,没有夸大为完全无关。障碍在于题目用 profound personal and philosophical questions 概括了多个原文例子,考生必须识别这是合理概括,而非逐词复现。

    两句错配核验 时间极紧时,直接抓题干中的 Marilyn vos Savant,在 第1段 完成秒级定位;随后不必逐句翻译,只读含 confusing 的句子和紧随其后的 not obvious 句。把两句压成“test skill versus question type”的错配公式,再看六项中只有正确项是否同时含有这两个变量且保持不确定语气。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 a score on a test intelligence

    What issue does the author raise about intelligence?

    • A Why children should take IQ tests more frequently than adults.
    • B How to raise a person's IQ score through computer training.
    • C Why numerical reasoning is more valuable than verbal ability.
    • D How intelligence should be understood beyond a score on a test and how much several disciplines can reveal about it.
    • E Whether intelligence is determined entirely by genetics.
    • F Why psychologists no longer accept any standardized intelligence tests.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案:D

    该项完整概括了本段提出的开放性议题:作者先说明 intelligence encompasses more than a score on a test,继而询问 being smart 的含义、intelligence 可以被界定到什么程度,以及不同 fields 能让人们了解多少。beyond a score on a test 保留了定义边界,how much several disciplines can reveal 则概括 neurology、genetics、computer science and other fields。选项使用 How 和 how much,准确保留了原文设问而非既定结论的语气。

    双槽问句压缩 在 第2段,不逐词处理前后段,直接扫描全文的问号密度。看到连续三个关于 intelligence 的 interrogatives 后,将其压缩为“定义边界 + 多学科认识”双槽位。随后检验六项,正确项是唯一同时填满两个槽位且不把疑问改成断言的选项。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 vos Savant's no longer possible

    Why are extremely high IQ scores like vos Savant's no longer possible?

    • A Psychologists have stopped administering the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.
    • B IQ tests now measure only verbal and visual analogies.
    • C The cost of professional intelligence testing has become prohibitive.
    • D Bookstores and websites no longer offer variations of IQ tests.
    • E Modern scoring compares people with age peers instead of calculating IQ from mental age and chronological age.
    • F The SAT and GRE have replaced all intelligence tests.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案:E

    正确项精确改写了 because 后的解释:scoring now based on a statistical population distribution among age peers,rather than dividing mental age by chronological age and multiplying by 100。compares people with age peers 概括 statistical population distribution,instead of 对应 rather than,完整呈现新旧标准的替换。障碍是原文句子信息长,且夹有数学计算;命题人要求考生抓住计分基准变化,而非被 multiplying by 100 分散注意。

    新旧算法替换 通过 vos Savant's 和 no longer possible 直达 第3段 后,跳过测试 forms、cost 和 SAT/GRE 等插入信息,只用眼睛截取 because 到句末的因果链。然后采用“替换箭头”判定:旧计算法被新计分基准替换,能完整表示这条箭头的只有正确项。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 high-stress conditions leadership

    What did the cited research find about IQ and leadership under high-stress conditions?

    • A Higher IQ consistently predicted stronger leadership regardless of stress level.
    • B IQ had no measurable relationship with leadership under high stress.
    • C High stress caused people to receive lower IQ scores.
    • D Creativity became the strongest predictor of leadership in stressful situations.
    • E Test-taking skill eliminated the effect of IQ on leadership.
    • F Higher IQ was associated with poorer leadership performance under high stress.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案:F

    原文明确指出在 high-stress conditions 下,IQ was negatively correlated with leadership,并解释 that is, it predicted the opposite。正确项用 was associated with 保留 correlation 而非因果,用 poorer leadership performance 准确表达 opposite 的负向预测。障碍在于常识会诱导考生选择“高 IQ 带来更强 leadership”,而作者恰恰以反直觉研究结果论证 IQ tests 的预测局限。

    压力双行表 题干中的 high-stress conditions 可直接钉住 第4段。定位后只读包含 low-stress、high-stress 和 negatively correlated 的一个长句,把它画成“低压正向 / 高压反向”的双行表。判定时不比较所有背景信息,只淘汰未保留“高压 + 反向相关”两个硬条件的选项,正确项自然保留。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

4 个意群的议论文骨架

按议论文 的行文骨架切分意群,每个意群标注它覆盖的段落与对主旨的作用——逐段读完后回到这里俯瞰全篇,能看清作者为什么按这个顺序行文。

  1. 引言 P1

    智商测试的局限性引入

    这个 introduction 通过 Marilyn vos Savant 这个 high IQ 的 case 来 illustrate 一个 paradox:拥有 highest IQ score 的人却被问到 love、luck 这些 philosophical questions,这就 reveal 了 IQ tests 可能无法 measure 真正的 intelligence 和 wisdom

    作为 opening,这个意群通过一个 concrete example 来 establish 文章的 central tension:IQ score 虽然被视为 intelligence 的 indicator,但它能否真正 capture what it means to be smart 是个 question,为后文 critique IQ tests 的 limitations 做了 groundwork

    质疑IQ分数的代表性
  2. 分论点 P2

    智能定义的复杂性

    这个 transitional segment 通过 rhetorical questions 来 emphasize intelligence 远比 test score 更 complex。它 explicitly states 核心 argument:intelligence encompasses more,并且 introduce 需要从 multiple fields(neurology, genetics, computer science)来 understand intelligence 的 idea

    这是 thesis statement 所在的意群。它 directly articulate 文章的 main argument(intelligence encompasses more than a score),并且 set up 接下来需要 explore 的 directions。作为 bridge between introduction and body,它把 opening 的 specific case 转化为 general claim

    明确智能超越分数
  3. 分论点 P3

    智商测试的现状与机制

    这个 explanatory section 详细 describe IQ tests 的 current forms(Stanford-Binet 和 Wechsler Scales),它们的 administration details(cost, availability),以及 scoring system 的 evolution。重点是 IQ score 仍然是 defining term of intelligence,但 superhigh scores 已不再 possible due to statistical distribution method

    这个意群 provide necessary background 来 understand 为什么 IQ tests 有 limitations。通过 explain 它们的 mechanics 和 standardization,为下一个意群的 critique 做 preparation。它是 informative rather than argumentative,属于 support material that grounds the critique in concrete reality

    揭示测试的技术局限
  4. 分论点 P4

    智商测试的实质缺陷

    这是 main critical argument,通过 Robert J. Sternberg 的 perspective 来 argue standardized tests 存在 fundamental flaws:它们只 assess analytical and verbal skills,却 fail to measure creativity and practical knowledge 这些 critical components。而且 IQ tests 的 predictive power 会随 populations 和 situations 变化,甚至在 high-stress conditions 下 negatively correlated with leadership

    这是文章的 argumentative climax,直接 support 主旨关于 IQ tests have significant limitations。它通过 expert testimony(Sternberg)和 research evidence(leadership study)来 substantiate the claim,并且 specify exactly what's missing(creativity, practical knowledge)和 why it matters(necessary to succeed in life)

    论证测试的能力盲区
MAIN IDEA · 速判主旨

4 步定位这篇文章的主旨

不读完全篇也能锁定主旨——以下 4 步按2007年考研英语真题 这篇原文的实际行文顺序给出,每步说明看哪里、看出什么,可直接迁移到其他考研英语文章。

  1. 首段对比转折点 P1

    议论文的 opening paragraph 通常会 present a phenomenon 或 raise a question,而 paragraph 的 closing sentence 往往会 hint at 作者的 stance 或 reveal a gap。这篇文章的 第1段 先 introduce Marilyn vos Savant 的 high IQ,然后在末尾通过 'It's not obvious how...' 这个 questioning tone 暗示 IQ tests 可能 not sufficient for measuring intelligence,这个 tension 就是文章要 address 的 core issue

  2. 过渡段设问范围 P2

    第2段 作为 bridge paragraph,通过连续的 questions('What does it mean to be smart? How much can be specified?')明确了文章要 discuss 的 scope。这种 rhetorical questions 在议论文中 serve as signposts,告诉读者接下来会 examine intelligence 的 multiple facets beyond test scores。这直接 preview 了文章主旨中的 'encompasses far more than a test score' 这个 claim

  3. 批判性词汇集群 P4

    第4段 通过 'may not assess', 'fail to measure', 'do not necessarily predict' 等 negative expressions,systematic 地 point out IQ tests 的 shortcomings。这些 explicit critiques 直接 support 主旨中的 'significant limitations' 和 'fail to capture' 等 claims。在议论文中,当作者 spend an entire paragraph listing what something 'does not' or 'fails to' do,这 typically indicates 文章的 critical stance

  4. 三段式论证闭环 P1 P2 P4

    将前三步整合:第1段 establish tension(IQ 不 sufficient),第2段 expand scope(intelligence 是 more comprehensive),第4段 provide concrete critique(列举 what's missing)。这个 three-part structure 在议论文中非常 common—challenge a narrow view, propose a broader framework, support with specific evidence。这个 pattern 直接 map 到主旨的 logic:从 'widely used' 到 'significant limitations' 到 'encompasses far more'

主旨信号词 not obvious P1 more than P2 fail to P4 argues P4 critical P4

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

智商测试虽然被广泛用于衡量智力,但存在显著局限性。它们主要评估分析和语言能力,却无法捕捉创造力、实践知识和适应能力——这些对现实成功至关重要的品质。真正的智力远不止一个测试分数所能涵盖。
IQ tests, while widely used to measure intelligence, have significant limitations. They primarily assess analytical and verbal abilities but fail to capture creativity, practical knowledge, and adaptability—qualities essential for real-world success. True intelligence encompasses far more than a test score.
WORD INFERENCE · 生词推断

4 个生词的上下文推断

不查词典,只用文中线索推出词义——每个词给出推断出的释义与 完整推理链。已收录进考研英语高频真题词集的单词可点击进入词条页。

  • elude 逃避;躲避;难以被理解或捕捉

    现在我们把所有 clues 串联起来。首先,从 semantic context 看,这些 questions 连 the best poets and philosophers 都没能解答,说明问题本身具有很强的 evasiveness。其次,sentence structure 中的 contrast 告诉我们,IQ tests 测试的 analytical skills 可能不足以 tackle 这类问题,进一步证明这些问题的 elusive nature。最后,从 morphology 角度,e- prefix 暗示'away, out'的方向性,整个词传达的是一种'逃离、避开'的动态过程。综合这三条 clues,我们可以得出:elude 的核心含义是'逃避、躲避',特指某事物(通常是答案、解决方案)难以被抓住或理解,让追寻者无法成功。

    语义场+句法对比+构词法的三角验证
  • toil 艰苦工作;辛勤劳作;艰难跋涉

    让我们整合这三个 perspectives。从 logical reasoning 看,能够 testify 的人必定是经历了 SAT 的 challenging process,这暗示 toil 与 difficulty 相关。从 contextual tone 看,整个 paragraph 在 critique standardized tests,toil 出现在这个 critical context 中,必然带有 negative 或至少是 demanding 的含义。从 collocation pattern 看,through 这个 preposition 的使用强化了'艰难穿越'的 imagery。三条线索共同指向一个结论:toil 表示的是一种 hard, exhausting work 或 struggle。结合 SAT preparation 的实际情况,我们可以确定 toil 就是'艰苦工作、辛苦努力'的意思。

    活动性质+语境基调+搭配模式的情境重现
  • envision 想象;设想;展望(在脑海中形成画面)

    现在让我们 synthesize 这些 evidence。首先,从 task description 看,envision paper 是 IQ test 的一种题型,涉及对折叠裁剪后的纸张进行某种 mental operation,最合理的推测是 mental visualization。其次,段内的 lexical echo 表明 envision 和 visualize 属于 synonymous relationship,进一步确认了'视觉化想象'这个含义。最后,morphological breakdown 揭示 en- + vision 的构成,字面义就是'使看见',与前两条线索完全 coherent。综合三方面证据,我们可以 confidently conclude:envision 意为'想象、设想',特别是指在脑海中形成清晰的视觉图像。

    构词拆解+同义呼应+语义场验证
  • query 询问;质询;疑问;问题

    让我们 integrate 这三个维度的 insights。首先,从 apposition 和 column format 看,query 的 content 就是那些具体的 questions,这建立了最直接的 semantic link。其次,从 verb-object collocation(field queries)看,queries 是需要被'接收和处理'的信息单位,这符合 questions 的 functional characteristics。最后,从 stylistic register 看,query 在 formal academic writing 中作为 question 的 elevated synonym 是完全 appropriate 的。三条线索从 different angles converge on the same conclusion:query 既可作动词表示'询问、质询',也可作名词表示'问题、疑问',是 question 的 formal variant。

    角色关系+交际方向+词性用法+语域对应
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

5 处修辞手法与仿写

每处修辞给出它在本文的具体用法、同类信号词清单与一份可直接套用的 写作仿写建议——读完能认,也能写。

  • 举例论证

    P1

    作者通过 Marilyn vos Savant 这个 concrete example 来质疑 IQ tests 的局限性。她拥有 the highest IQ score ever recorded (228分),但面对 average Joe 提出的关于 love, fondness, luck 和 coincidence 这些 philosophical questions 时,her high IQ 并不能保证她能给出 insightful answers。这个 real-world case 有力地支撑了文章的 central argument:intelligence 不能仅用 test scores 来衡量,IQ tests fail to capture 很多 essential qualities of true intelligence。

    信号词 for example for instance consider take... as an example a case in point to illustrate such as like

    仿写: 写作时要选择 representative 且 striking 的例子。思考:这个例子是否能让读者产生 'aha moment'?例如论证'学历不等于能力'时,与其泛泛而谈,不如具体讲某位 dropout entrepreneur 的成功故事。仿写模版:'Consider the case of [具体人物/事件]. Despite [表面优势A], when faced with [实际挑战B], [意外结果C]. This illustrates that [核心论点].'

  • 反问修辞

    P1 P2

    第一段结尾的 'It's not obvious how the capacity to visualize objects and to figure out numerical patterns suits one to answer questions that have eluded some of the best poets and philosophers' 是一个 rhetorical statement (虽非传统问号形式,但具有 questioning tone),第二段连续抛出三个 direct questions:'Just what does it mean to be smart? How much of intelligence can be specified, and how much can we learn about it from neurology, genetics, computer science and other fields?' 这些 rhetorical questions 不期待 immediate answers,而是引导读者 think critically about the limitations of IQ tests,为后文的 detailed analysis 做铺垫。

    信号词 what how why does is can should but is it yet however

    仿写: 使用反问时要确保问题 touches on a genuine uncertainty 或 common misconception。问题应该 naturally flow from previous content 并 lead into your argument。避免 self-answering questions that feel artificial。仿写模版:'[前文提出现象]. But [关键质疑词: does/is/can/should] [核心问题]? How much of [概念A] can be reduced to [简化理解B], and how much [更深层面C]?' 连续问句 creates momentum。

  • 对比论证

    P4

    第四段通过 Robert J. Sternberg 的观点展开 sharp contrast:traditional IQ tests assess 'analytical and verbal skills' (一方面),but fail to measure 'creativity and practical knowledge' (另一方面)。更进一步的 contrast 是:under low-stress conditions, IQ predicted leadership skills (正相关),但 under high-stress conditions, IQ was negatively correlated with leadership (负相关)。这种 stark opposition 凸显了 IQ tests 的 context-dependent nature 和 inherent limitations,强化了文章主旨:test scores cannot capture the full spectrum of intelligence。

    信号词 but however yet whereas while in contrast on the other hand conversely rather than instead of unlike negatively correlated

    仿写: 构建对比时要确保 the two sides are genuinely comparable but significantly different。使用 parallel structures 来加强对比效果。思考:是能力范围的对比?是条件变化的对比?还是预期与现实的对比?仿写模版:'While [方法/工具A] excels at [领域X] and [领域Y], it fails to [关键缺失Z]. Moreover, under [条件1], [变量] shows [结果A], but under [条件2], [同一变量] demonstrates [相反结果B] – that is, [clarify the reversal].'

  • 引用论证

    P4

    作者在第四段引用 Robert J. Sternberg 的 article 'How Intelligent Is Intelligence Testing?' 以及他的研究发现来支撑论点。通过 citing an authority in the field,文章增强了 credibility。Sternberg 作为该领域的 expert,他的 argument ('traditional tests best assess analytical and verbal skills but fail to measure creativity and practical knowledge') 和 research findings (关于 IQ 与 leadership 在不同 stress conditions 下的关系) 为文章的 critical stance 提供了 solid academic backing。

    信号词 argues according to notes that claims asserts suggests points out research has found studies show as [name] states in his/her article/book

    仿写: 选择 authoritative and relevant sources。引用时不仅要 mention the name,还要 briefly establish credibility (如职位、研究领域)。可以直接 quote 关键句,也可以 paraphrase 研究结果。仿写模版:'According to [专家名], [职位/专业领域], in his/her [著作/研究], [核心观点]. [Further details or specific findings]. This [supports/challenges/complicates] the notion that [相关论点].'

  • 因果论证

    P3

    第三段解释了 IQ scoring 的变化:'Superhigh scores like vos Savant's are no longer possible, because scoring is now based on a statistical population distribution among age peers, rather than simply dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100.' 这里 'because' 明确标示了 causal relationship:现在无法出现超高分 (result) 是由于 scoring methodology 改变了 (cause)。这个 cause-and-effect explanation 帮助读者理解 IQ testing 的演变,也暗示了 test scores 本身是 constructed measures 而非 absolute truths,进一步质疑了过度依赖 IQ scores 的做法。

    信号词 because since as due to owing to as a result therefore thus consequently leads to results in accounts for explains why

    仿写: 构建因果关系时要确保 the link is logical and not merely correlational。明确区分 direct causes 和 contributing factors。避免 oversimplified causation ('X causes Y') 当实际关系更复杂时。仿写模版:'[Result/现象] (no longer) occurs because [reason/mechanism]. Rather than [旧方式/misconception], [新理解/actual mechanism]. This shift [explains/accounts for/results in] [further implications].'

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

7 处话里有话

作者没有明说、但靠信号词传递出来的态度与暗示——每处给出原文片段、信号词类型与解读。

  • IQ测试与实际智慧问题的错配

    P1
    It's not obvious how the capacity to visualize objects and to figure out numerical patterns suits one to answer questions that have eluded some of the best poets and philosophers.

    委婉表达 It's not obvious It's not clear It's questionable One might wonder It remains to be seen It's debatable hardly

    表面说 'not obvious how X suits Y'(X如何适合Y不明显),言外之意是 questioning the validity(质疑有效性)——IQ高 doesn't mean 能回答 life's profound questions。这为全文 main thesis 埋下伏笔:IQ tests have limitations(IQ测试有局限性),不能 measure all aspects of intelligence。通过这个 concrete example(具体例子),作者 establishes 了一个 critical tone,让读者开始 doubt whether IQ truly measures intelligence。这是典型的 setup for the main argument(为主论点铺垫)。

  • 智力概念超越测试分数的暗示

    P2
    Clearly, intelligence encompasses more than a score on a test.

    情态词 Clearly Obviously Evidently Undoubtedly Certainly Surely Plainly

    用 'Clearly' 开头 indicates 作者认为这个 conclusion 是 undeniable(不可否认的),基于第一段的 Marilyn example。言外之意是:前面那个 gap between IQ scores and wisdom(IQ分数与智慧的鸿沟)already proves(已经证明)了 IQ 不能 represent complete intelligence。这句话 functions as a transitional thesis statement(过渡性主题句),从 specific case(具体案例)升华到 general principle(普遍原则),为后续 paragraphs 深入 explore what intelligence really means(智力真正意味着什么)搭建 framework。它 reinforces the article's central argument 关于 IQ tests' inadequacy(IQ测试的不足)。

  • IQ测试现状的变化与局限

    P3
    The defining term of intelligence in humans still seems to be the IQ score, even though IQ tests are not given as often as they used to be.

    让步类 even though although though while whereas even if despite the fact that

    表面是说 IQ score 仍然是 intelligence 的 defining term,但通过 'even though' 引出的事实——tests 不再像以前那样 frequently administered(频繁实施),言外之意是 questioning this defining status(质疑这种定义地位)。如果真的是 gold standard(黄金标准),为什么 usage is decreasing?这个 subtle critique 支持文章主旨:IQ tests 并非 comprehensive measure of intelligence。同时 'seems to be' 这个 hedging language(模糊限制语)也 implies uncertainty,进一步 weakens IQ's authority。这为第四段 Sternberg 的 direct criticism(直接批评)做 foreshadowing。

  • 标准化测试费用高昂的讽刺

    P3
    Generally costing several hundred dollars, they are usually given only by psychologists

    对比类 Generally costing several hundred dollars costing priced at expensive requiring payment of at a cost of charging

    通过 embedding cost information(嵌入成本信息),作者 subtly questions(微妙质疑)IQ tests' practicality 和 universality。如果 intelligence measurement 真的那么 fundamental and reliable(基础且可靠),为什么设置 economic and professional barriers(经济和专业壁垒)?这与第二段提出的问题 'what does it mean to be smart' 呼应——真正的 intelligence 应该是 universally assessable(普遍可评估的),而非 limited to those who can afford(仅限那些负担得起的人)。这个 implicit critique 加强了文章对 IQ tests as complete intelligence measure 的 skepticism,支持主旨中关于 IQ tests have significant limitations 的论点。

  • IQ分数计算方式改变的深层含义

    P3
    Superhigh scores like vos Savant's are no longer possible, because scoring is now based on a statistical population distribution among age peers, rather than simply dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100.

    对比类 no longer possible no longer used to be once was formerly previously possible but now has been replaced

    说 Marilyn 那样的 superhigh scores 'no longer possible' 言外之意是 questioning the validity(质疑有效性)of those legendary scores——它们可能是 methodological artifact(方法学假象)而非 genuine reflection of intelligence(真实反映智力)。这个 revelation directly undermines(直接削弱)第一段用来 establish IQ authority 的 example。通过 revealing that scoring changed(揭示评分改变了),作者 implies IQ measurement 本身 lacks consistency and objectivity(缺乏一致性和客观性),进一步 supporting the thesis 关于 IQ tests 不能 comprehensively assess intelligence。这是 sophisticated rhetorical move(精妙的修辞手法):用 IQ system's own evolution(IQ系统自身的演变)来 discredit its reliability。

  • 标准化测试的核心缺陷论断

    P4
    Such standardized tests may not assess all the important elements necessary to succeed in school and in life, argues Robert J. Sternberg.

    模糊限制语 may not might not perhaps not possibly not seem to appear to suggest that

    虽然用了 'may not',但紧接着 Sternberg 的 detailed criticism(详细批评)——tests fail to measure creativity and practical knowledge——实际是 asserting definitive inadequacy(断言明确的不足)。这个 hedging 只是 academic politeness(学术礼貌),真正 message 是 IQ tests are fundamentally flawed(IQ测试根本有缺陷)。这直接 supports main thesis:IQ tests have significant limitations,不能 capture essential qualities for real-world success。通过 citing expert(引用专家)和 specific examples(具体例子)like creativity 和 practical knowledge,这段提供了 concrete evidence(具体证据)来 substantiate 前面段落 implicit 的批评,形成 complete argumentative chain(完整论证链条)。

  • IQ与领导力的反向关系揭示

    P4
    Research has found that IQ predicted leadership skills when the tests were given under low-stress conditions, but under high-stress conditions, IQ was negatively correlated with leadership – that is, it predicted the opposite.

    对比类 negatively correlated inversely related opposite effect contrary to expectations predicted the opposite reverse relationship counterintuitively

    这个 finding 是 devastating blow(毁灭性打击)to IQ tests' credibility。言外之意是:IQ 不仅 incomplete(不完整),在 crucial situations(关键情境)下甚至是 misleading(误导性的)——高IQ者在 high-stress 下表现更差。这 directly supports thesis 中 'fail to capture adaptability—qualities essential for real-world success' 的论点。通过 concrete research evidence(具体研究证据),作者 demonstrates IQ tests 不仅 miss important qualities,还 may actively mislead us about who will succeed(可能积极误导我们谁会成功)in demanding real-life scenarios(要求苛刻的现实情境中)。这是文章 most powerful empirical support(最有力的实证支持),conclusively proving IQ's limitations。

AUTHOR ATTITUDE · 作者态度

作者态度:消极批判

结论先行:本文作者态度为消极批判( Questioning and Critical)。下面是按步骤还原的判断过程与文中的态度信号词。

  1. 开篇矛盾案例 P1

    议论文作者通常会在opening paragraph用具体example来establish他们要critique的target,这里的paradox表明作者doesn't take IQ scores at face value,而是认为存在fundamental问题需要explore。

  2. 局限性词汇密度 P1 P4

    Critical essays会systematically accumulate negative evidence,这些limitation words不是casual mentions,而是贯穿全文的critical thread,表明作者的core argument就是要expose IQ testing的flaws。

  3. 批判性引证 P4

    在academic discourse中,作者选择cite哪些experts和studies reveals他们的argumentative direction。这里所有的citations都是在challenge IQ tests的comprehensiveness和predictive power,没有任何positive defense of traditional testing。

  4. 单向论证结构 P1 P2 P3 P4

    议论文的overall structure reveals作者的ultimate stance。这篇文章没有任何paragraph在defend IQ tests的value,每个section都在layer by layer地expose其inadequacies,这种one-directional argumentation clearly indicates a critical and questioning attitude towards传统intelligence testing。

文中的态度信号词

  • confusing P1

    这个词directly express作者对IQ与answering深层questions之间connection的bewilderment,暗示作者认为这个relationship doesn't make logical sense,从而challenge IQ作为intelligence衡量标准的rationality。

    同类词 puzzling perplexing unclear ambiguous questionable

  • not obvious P1

    这个phrase用understatement的方式express强烈doubt,暗示visualizing objects和answering philosophical questions之间的connection根本就不存在或非常weak,thus questioning IQ tests的construct validity。

    同类词 not clear hardly evident far from certain not apparent not self-evident

  • fail to measure P4

    'Fail'是explicit negative evaluation,直接point out IQ tests的inadequacy in measuring creativity和practical knowledge,这强化了作者的argument that traditional tests有fundamental deficiencies。

    同类词 fail to assess fail to capture unable to evaluate cannot gauge miss

  • do not necessarily predict P4

    这个phrase undermines IQ tests的practical utility,表明即使在originally designed purpose(predict success)上,these tests也不reliable,特别是when conditions change,这further erodes其credibility。

    同类词 may not indicate not always correlate unreliable predictor inconsistent relationship questionable validity

  • argues P4

    当作者introduce external expert用'argues'而非neutral 'states'或'says',这indicates作者is aligning with该expert的argumentative position。这里Sternberg的argument正是criticizing traditional tests,作者的endorsement reveals同样的critical stance。

    同类词 contends claims asserts maintains suggests

  • eluded P1

    用'eluded the best poets and philosophers'这个expression来establish这些questions的profound difficulty,从而highlight IQ tests在addressing这些深层issues上的irrelevance和inadequacy,暗示high IQ doesn't equip one to handle真正important的intellectual challenges。

    同类词 baffled stumped confounded mystified puzzled

GENRE · 速判体裁

30 秒判定这是一篇议论文

体裁决定读法与出题套路。以下判断步骤与标志词全部以本文为例,可直接迁移到其他考研英语 真题文章。

如何快速判断这是一篇议论文?

  1. 开头质疑或争议点 P1

    这篇文章在第1段结尾directly questions一个controversial idea:'It's not obvious how...'这种questioning tone是议论文的典型feature。说明文会neutral地present facts,新闻报道会stick to objective events,只有议论文会challenge assumptions并提出疑问来引发思考。

  2. 引导性问句群 P2

    第2段连续抛出三个rhetorical questions:'What does it mean to be smart? How much of intelligence can be specified...'这种question pattern是议论文在building its argumentative framework。说明文会用declarative sentences来organize information,新闻报道会follow the 5W1H structure,只有议论文会strategically用questions来lead readers through its reasoning process。

  3. 专家观点交锋 P4

    第4段明确引入了Robert J. Sternberg的opposing view:'argues...''notes that traditional tests...fail to measure...'这种explicitly presenting和analyzing expert arguments是议论文的hallmark。说明文只会present facts without taking sides,新闻报道会quote sources但maintain neutrality,而议论文会actively engage with different viewpoints来build或refute arguments。

  4. 三特征综合验证 P1 P2 P4

    这是对前三个步骤的synthesis。通过验证文章simultaneously具备这三个典型的argumentative features,我们可以confidently确认这是议论文。任何单一feature可能会mislead(比如新闻评论也有观点但缺乏系统论证),但三者combined就构成了议论文的distinctive signature。

哪些词暴露了议论文体裁?

  • argues P4 观点引导词 claims contends maintains asserts suggests
  • but fail to P4 论证逻辑连接词 however yet nevertheless although despite
  • It's not obvious how P1 立场表态词 It's not obvious It's unclear It's questionable It seems doubtful One might wonder
  • Clearly P2 立场表态词 Obviously Evidently Undoubtedly Certainly Surely
  • may not assess P4 立场表态词 may not might not could fail to do not necessarily may fail to
  • Moreover P4 论证逻辑连接词 Furthermore Additionally In addition What's more Besides
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

11 句真题句逐层精讲

下列真题句各有独立的句子解析页——中文翻译、结构树逐层拆解、成分与时态、考点讲解与真题高频词。点击句子进入完整解析。

FAQ · 常见问题

关于 Intelligence Considered 的常见问题

2007年考研英语真题 Section II Part A (2) 文章 Intelligence Considered 的原文出自哪里?
Scientific American《科学美国人》1998 年1月 20 日一篇题为 Intelligence Considered(智商的思考)的文章。
2007年考研英语真题文章 Intelligence Considered 的主旨是什么?
智商测试虽然被广泛用于衡量智力,但存在显著局限性。它们主要评估分析和语言能力,却无法捕捉创造力、实践知识和适应能力——这些对现实成功至关重要的品质。真正的智力远不止一个测试分数所能涵盖。(英文表述:IQ tests, while widely used to measure intelligence, have significant limitations. They primarily assess analytical and verbal abilities but fail to capture creativity, practical knowledge, and adaptability—qualities essential for real-world success. True intelligence encompasses far more than a test score.)
Intelligence Considered(2007年考研英语真题文章)是什么体裁?难度如何?
体裁为议论文,作者立场是消极批判(Questioning and Critical)。CEFR 难度 C1,全文 454 词、4 段;在考研英语全部 70 篇真题文章中,C1 级共 64 篇(占 91%)。
2007年考研英语真题文章 Intelligence Considered 的篇章结构是怎样的?
全文 4 段按议论文骨架分为 4 个意群:引言 · 第1段——智商测试的局限性引入;分论点 · 第2段——智能定义的复杂性;分论点 · 第3段——智商测试的现状与机制;分论点 · 第4段——智商测试的实质缺陷。
Intelligence Considered 一文的作者态度是什么?
作者态度是消极批判(Questioning and Critical)。判断路径:开篇矛盾案例 → 局限性词汇密度 → 批判性引证 → 单向论证结构;文中的态度信号词包括 confusing(第1段)、not obvious(第1段)、fail to measure(第4段)、do not necessarily predict(第4段)、argues(第4段)、eluded(第1段)。
2007年考研英语真题文章 Intelligence Considered 中有哪些值得积累的生词?
按文中出现顺序共 4 个:elude(逃避;躲避;难以被理解或捕捉)、toil(艰苦工作;辛勤劳作;艰难跋涉)、envision(想象;设想;展望(在脑海中形成画面))、query(询问;质询;疑问;问题),每个词的词义都可以由文中上下文线索推断得出。

本页数据最后更新: