懒笔记
2018年考研英语二真题 Section I Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good
Postgraduate · 来自 2018年考研英语二真题 · Section I · 完形填空（四选一）

Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good

2018年考研英语二真题文章逐层精读

Scientific American《科学美国人》2016年7月1日一篇题为Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good(好奇心本身没有好处)的科普文。

本页是 2018年考研英语二真题 Section I 文章的精读视角页——这篇说明文全文 351 词、5 段，CEFR 难度 C1（C1 级在考研英语二文章中占 77%），作者立场为「客观中立」；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

5 段英文原文

以下为2018年考研英语二真题 Section I 的完形填空（四选一）原文，共 5 段。左侧 P1–P5 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。

Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good

Why do people read negative Internet comments and do other things that will obviously be painful? Because humans have an inherent need to resolve uncertainty, according to a recent study in Psychological Science. The new research reveals that the need to know is so strong that people will seek to satisfy their curiosity even when it is clear the answer will hurt.

In a series of four experiments, behavioral scientists at the University of Chicago and the Wisconsin School of Business tested students' willingness to expose themselves to unpleasant stimuli in an effort to satisfy curiosity. For one trial, each participant was shown a pile of pens that the researcher claimed were from a previous experiment. The twist? Half of the pens would deliver an electric shock when clicked.

Twenty-seven students were told which pens were electrified; another twenty-seven were told only that some were electrified. When left alone in the room, the students who did not know which ones would shock them clicked more pens and incurred more shocks than the students who knew what would happen. Subsequent experiments reproduced this effect with other stimuli, such as the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard and photographs of disgusting insects.

The drive to discover is deeply rooted in humans, much the same as the basic drives for food or shelter, says Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago. Curiosity is often considered a good instinct – it can lead to new scientific advances, for instance – but sometimes such inquiry can backfire. The insight that curiosity can drive you to do self-destructive things is a profound one.

Unhealthy curiosity is possible to resist, however. In a final experiment, participants who were encouraged to predict how they would feel after viewing an unpleasant picture were less likely to choose to see such an image. These results suggest that imagining the outcome of following through on one's curiosity ahead of time can help determine whether it is worth the endeavor. "Thinking about long-term consequences is key to reducing the possible negative effects of curiosity," Hsee says. In other words, don't read online comments.

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

5 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2018年考研英语二真题 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 Painful Need to Know

    Humans seek painful information because curiosity drives them to resolve uncertainty.

    本段承担全文的 introduction 功能：它提出核心发现，即人会为了消除 uncertainty 而追求痛苦信息。它为后文的 experiments 提供待验证的假设，也预先埋下 curiosity 可能 harmful 的主题，从而与文章主旨形成直接对应。

    抓住“明知痛苦仍要知道”
  2. P2

    Testing Curiosity with Electric Pens

    Researchers designed experiments to test whether uncertainty-driven curiosity leads to unpleasant experiences.

    本段将首段的心理学解释转化为可检验的 experiment，使文章从提出观点进入证据建构阶段。带电笔制造的未知风险，精准对应文章主旨中的 uncertainty，并为下一段的结果提供了必要背景。

    目的统领实验设计
  3. P3

    Uncertainty Leads to Self-Inflicted Discomfort

    Uncertainty made students seek more information and endure more unpleasant stimuli.

    本段是全文最核心的 evidence paragraph，它以对照实验直接验证首段提出的假设：人会为消除 uncertainty 而接受本可避免的痛苦。多种刺激下的重复结果增强了论证的可信度，并为后文讨论 curiosity 的双面性奠定事实基础。

    对照组差异推出结论
  4. P4

    The Double-Edged Nature of Curiosity

    Curiosity is a fundamental human drive that can be beneficial but also self-destructive.

    本段由实验事实上升到理论解释：因为 curiosity 是 deeply rooted 的基本驱力，人们才会出现前文所述的冒险行为。同时，它把文章从“实验发现”推进到“价值判断”，明确指出好奇心虽有积极意义，却也可能 self-destructive，承接全文主旨的中间转折。

    紧扣转折两面概括
  5. P5

    How to Resist Unhealthy Curiosity

    Imagining long-term consequences can help people resist unhealthy curiosity.

    本段完成全文的 solution 环节，回应了前文“好奇心可能使人自我伤害”的问题。它证明人们可以通过预想后果来调节 curiosity，从而完整落实文章主旨中“提前想象长期结果有助于抵制不健康好奇心”的结论。

    由实验结果提炼对策
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

5 道逐段细节自检题

针对2018年考研英语二真题这篇原文，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 painful

    What does the study suggest about people's response to information that may be painful?

    • A They avoid it because negative comments rarely provide useful answers.
    • B They seek it only when the outcome is unlikely to be harmful.
    • C They may seek it to reduce uncertainty even when they expect it to hurt.
    • D They read it mainly to compare their opinions with those of other people.
    • E They become less curious after learning that an answer could be painful.
    • F They rely on online comments to make long-term decisions.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项完整保留原文逻辑：seek 对应主动获取信息，reduce uncertainty 对应 resolve uncertainty，even when they expect it to hurt 对应明知答案会造成痛苦仍满足 curiosity。其障碍在于使用抽象的 information behavior 概括具体例子，并以同义表达替换原词。

    行为条件三筛 时间极紧时，用 painful 与 study 两个信号快速定位 第1段，再把选项压缩成“行为方向＋心理原因＋条件强度”三个标签。无需逐字翻译，直接排除 behavior direction 相反、添加无依据目的或使用绝对化限定的选项，保留三项均与文本证据吻合的正确项。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 pens one trial

    What was the crucial feature of the pens used in one trial?

    • A All of them had been used in a previous experiment and could shock the users.
    • B They produced an unpleasant sound when they were clicked.
    • C They were marked to show which ones were electrified.
    • D Half of them were designed to deliver an electric shock when clicked.
    • E They delivered shocks only after participants had viewed unpleasant pictures.
    • F They were given only to students who knew what would happen.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    该项保留 half of the pens、deliver an electric shock 和 when clicked 三个硬细节。designed to 是对实验设置的合理概括。主要障碍是原文此前提到 previous experiment，可能诱使考生把材料来源误当作 crucial feature。

    材料三硬点 使用 pens 与 one trial 直达 第2段，然后只提取材料描述中的“比例＋触发动作＋后果”。扫描选项时，正确项应同时匹配这三个 hard facts；任何改变数量、刺激类型或触发条件的选项都可立即排除。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 pens were electrified

    Compared with students who knew which pens were electrified, students lacking that knowledge were more likely to do what?

    • A Avoid clicking any pens in order to prevent electric shocks.
    • B Identify the electrified pens more accurately than the other group.
    • C Experience fewer shocks because they clicked the pens less often.
    • D Choose the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard instead of the pens.
    • E Click more pens and consequently receive more electric shocks.
    • F Leave the room before the researcher could observe them.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：E

    该项对应 clicked more pens 与 incurred more shocks 两个平行结果。consequently 合理呈现按动更多钢笔与遭受更多电击之间的结果关系。障碍在于题干使用 lacking that knowledge 抽象描述分组，而选项返回具体 observable actions。

    组别方向代入 用 pens were electrified 定位 第3段，再扫描该段中的 comparison words 和并列结果，不必停留在样本人数或后续刺激。将题干中的未知组代入比较结构，正确项必须同时保持 group identity 与 result direction。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 curiosity

    How is curiosity characterized in relation to its effects on human behavior?

    • A It is a harmful impulse that should be eliminated from scientific inquiry.
    • B It is less fundamental than the drives for food and shelter.
    • C It produces scientific advances only when people avoid unpleasant stimuli.
    • D It affects people mainly by satisfying their need for food and shelter.
    • E It becomes self-destructive only after repeated exposure to electric shocks.
    • F It is a basic human drive that can foster advances but can also lead to self-destructive actions.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：F

    basic human drive 对应与 food or shelter 的 basic drives 类比；foster advances 对应 scientific advances；lead to self-destructive actions 概括 backfire 与 self-destructive things。选项保留 can 的 possibility，并完整呈现 positive 与 negative 两面。

    双面情态验项 在 第4段 中快速识别 definition、positive effect 与 negative effect 三类表达，再以 coverage 和 modal strength 筛选。正确项应完整容纳概念本质及双向可能性；只保留一面或加入 only、should 等过强限制的选项可以直接排除。

  5. 第 5 段 定位词 predict unpleasant picture

    Why were participants encouraged to predict their feelings after viewing an unpleasant picture?

    • A To help them consider the likely consequences before deciding whether to satisfy their curiosity.
    • B To make the unpleasant picture seem less disgusting to them.
    • C To ensure that they would choose to view the image.
    • D To identify which photographs had been used in previous experiments.
    • E To test whether electric shocks could reduce unhealthy curiosity.
    • F To encourage them to read online comments more carefully.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：A

    该项对应 imagining the outcome ahead of time、determine whether it is worth the endeavor 以及 thinking about long-term consequences。before deciding 保留时间顺序，whether to satisfy their curiosity 概括决策对象。其障碍是以 decision mechanism 概括实验结果，而非机械复述观看概率下降。

    操作后找机制 用 predict 和 unpleasant picture 直接定位 第5段，再沿实验操作向后寻找 results suggest 引出的机制解释。把每个选项归类为 material、result、mechanism 或 unrelated application；正确项应属于 mechanism，并与实验观察保持一致。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

4 个意群的说明文骨架

按说明文 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. P1

    提出现象与研究发现

    开篇直接 present 一个 phenomenon：人们为什么会 read negative comments 或做明显 painful 的事？紧接着给出 research finding，指出这源于 humans 内在的 need to resolve uncertainty，即使 the answer will hurt 也要 satisfy curiosity。这是典型 expository writing 的 opening pattern，先抛出 puzzling behavior 再用 scientific evidence 来 explain。

    作为说明文的 lead-in section，这个 意群 establish 了整篇文章要 explain 的 central phenomenon。它通过 relatable example（reading negative comments）来 hook readers' attention，然后立即 introduce 核心 concept：curiosity-driven behavior，为后续的 detailed explanation 和 experimental evidence 搭建 framework。

    引出好奇心驱动痛苦行为的核心现象
  2. P2 P3

    实验设计与结果呈现

    这两个 paragraphs 详细 describe 了 experimental design 和 findings。第2段 介绍 the setup：researchers 用 pens that deliver electric shocks 来 test students，有的 participants know which pens are risky，有的 don't know。第3段 报告 results：not knowing 的 students clicked more pens，还 mention 了用 other unpleasant stimuli 做的 follow-up experiments。这是说明文中 standard 的 evidence section，通过 controlled experiments 来 support 前面的 claim。

    作为说明文的 body evidence section，这个 意群 通过 rigorous experimental data 来 validate 开篇提出的 theory。它不仅 demonstrate that curiosity drives painful behavior，还通过 controlled variables（knowing vs. not knowing）来 pinpoint the mechanism：uncertainty 是 key driver。Multiple experiments 的 mention 增强 credibility，让 readers 看到这不是 isolated finding。

    提供实验证据验证好奇心理论
  3. P4

    深层解释与负面影响警示

    这个 paragraph 从 experimental data 上升到 theoretical interpretation。Christopher Hsee 的 expert opinion 把 curiosity 比作 basic drives like food or shelter，说明它是 deeply rooted。但关键是 introduce nuance：curiosity 虽然 generally positive（leads to scientific advances），但 sometimes can backfire 导致 self-destructive behavior。这是说明文中的 implication section，在 present evidence 之后 explain deeper meaning 和 potential risks。

    这个 意群 在说明文中 serve as analytical depth layer。它不满足于 just presenting data，而是 through expert interpretation 来 contextualize the findings within broader understanding of human nature。Introducing the concept of "self-destructive" behavior 也 prepare readers for 下一个 意群 about resistance strategies，形成 problem-solution 的 logical flow。

    揭示好奇心的双面性及潜在危害
  4. P5

    应对策略与实践建议

    Final paragraph 给出 practical solution：unhealthy curiosity is possible to resist。通过 another experiment 说明 predicting how you'd feel beforehand 可以 reduce 看 unpleasant content 的 tendency。Hsee 的 quote 强调 "thinking about long-term consequences" 是 key。结尾用 concrete advice（"don't read online comments"）来 circle back to 开篇的 example，形成 cohesive closure。这是说明文的 application section，从 explanation 转向 actionable guidance。

    作为说明文的 concluding practical section，这个 意群 complete the explanatory arc by offering 读者 tools to apply the knowledge。它不只是 summarize findings，而是 through additional experimental evidence 和 expert recommendation 来 empower readers to manage their curiosity。The callback to the opening example（online comments）creates satisfying circularity，强化 real-world relevance。

    提供抵抗不健康好奇心的具体方法
MAIN IDEA · 速判主旨

5 步定位这篇文章的主旨

不读完全篇也能锁定主旨——以下 5 步按2018年考研英语二真题 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. 首段疑问或矛盾现象 P1

    说明文的 first paragraph 通常会提出一个 puzzling behavior 或者 research question 来 engage readers,这个 opening question 往往直接指向文章要 explore 的 main topic。本文第一段通过 why-question 提出了人们为什么会做 obviously painful things 这个 curiosity-driven behavior,这就是整篇文章要 explain 的 central phenomenon

  2. 实验设计的变量操控 P2 P3

    说明文特别是 scientific expository texts 会用 dedicated paragraphs 来 describe experimental design,这些 methodology sections 通过 concrete examples 来 clarify 研究的 specific focus。第二、三段详细描述了 electric shock pens 和 uncertainty conditions 的 experiments,明确了文章聚焦于 curiosity under uncertainty 这个 narrowed-down topic

  3. 专家评价中的转折态度 P4

    说明文的 main idea 不仅是 present facts,更要传达 author's perspective on those facts。第四段引入 expert voice (Christopher Hsee) 并使用 evaluative terms (curiosity can backfire, self-destructive, profound insight) 来 establish 作者对 curiosity 的 nuanced view - 既 acknowledge benefits 又 highlight risks。这种 two-sided evaluation 构成了主旨的 critical dimension

  4. 结尾的行为建议 P5

    说明文尤其是 problem-oriented articles 通常会在 conclusion 提出 actionable advice 或 coping strategies,这代表了作者认为 most important takeaway。第五段提供了 resist unhealthy curiosity 的 concrete method (imagining consequences) 和 practical tip (don't read online comments),说明文章主旨不仅要 explain the phenomenon 还要 offer solutions

  5. 四要素逻辑链整合 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

    说明文的 complete main idea 必须涵盖 what (phenomenon), why (evidence), so what (evaluation), now what (implication) 四个层次。本文主旨完整整合了:现象(人类有 resolve uncertainty 的 need),证据(experiments 证明即使 painful 也要 satisfy curiosity),评价(curiosity 有 beneficial 和 self-destructive 两面性),建议(can resist by imagining consequences)。这种 four-element integration 才构成 comprehensive understanding

主旨信号词 inherent need P1 even when P1 backfire P4 resist P5 long-term consequences P5

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

研究表明,人类有强烈的内在需求去消除不确定性,这种好奇心即使在结果会带来痛苦时也会驱使人们行动。虽然好奇心通常是有益的,但它也可能导致自我毁灭性行为。然而,事先想象长期后果可以帮助抵制不健康的好奇心。
Research shows that humans have a strong inherent need to resolve uncertainty, which drives curiosity even when outcomes will be painful. While curiosity is generally beneficial, it can lead to self-destructive behavior. However, imagining long-term consequences beforehand can help resist unhealthy curiosity.
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。

  • incur 招致,遭受(尤指坏事)

    让我们把这三条 clues 串起来。首先,从 syntactic structure 看,incur 和 click 是 parallel actions,而 clicking pens 直接导致了 receiving shocks,说明 incur 表达的是一个 result 或 consequence。其次,comparative structure 显示不知情的 students incurred more shocks,这个 more 说明 incur 是可以被量化的,而且是 passive receiving 的性质。最后,整个 paragraph 的 negative semantic field 确认了 incur 专门用来描述 acquiring undesirable outcomes。综合这三个 dimensions,我们可以 confidently conclude:incur 的核心含义是「招致」或「遭受」某种负面后果,especially something you don't want。

    三维定位动词性质
  • backfire 产生事与愿违的不良后果,适得其反

    现在让我们 integrate all three clues。首先,转折关系 but 告诉我们 backfire 和前面的 positive outcomes 形成 contrast,这确立了它的 negative nature。然后,下一句的 self-destructive elaboration 具体说明了 backfire 的 consequence:intended good action 导致了 harm。最后,morphological analysis 的 back + fire image 给我们提供了一个 vivid mental picture:action 反过来伤害了 actor himself。把这三个 layers 叠加,backfire 的完整含义浮现出来了:某个 action or plan 产生了与 original intention 相反的、往往是 harmful 的效果,就像子弹反向射击一样。

    转折-阐释-意象三联法
  • endeavor 努力,尝试,事业(需付出努力的任务或行动)

    让我们把这三条 threads 编织在一起。首先,'worth the endeavor' 这个 collocation 确立了 endeavor 是某种 requires cost or effort 的 thing。接着,anaphoric reference 具体指明 endeavor 在这里就是 following through on curiosity 这个 action。最后,整个 paragraph 的 deliberative tone 强调了 endeavor 不是 casual action,而是需要 conscious weighing of costs and benefits 的 undertaking。综合这三个 aspects,endeavor 的核心含义浮现了:它指的是一个 purposeful, effortful undertaking that requires consideration and commitment,可以译为「努力」或「尝试」,但带有 more formal and serious 的意味。

    搭配-指代-基调三角定位
  • electrify 通电的,带电的

    现在让我们 synthesize all the evidence。Passive construction 'were electrified' 告诉我们这是一个 state imposed on the pens。Morphological analysis 显示 -fy suffix 表示「使具有电的性质」。Contrastive context 确认 electrified 是一个 distinguishing property that some pens have and others don't。把这三个 clues 放在一起,再结合 第2段 中 electric shock 的 explicit mention,答案就很清楚了:electrified 表示「通电的」「带电的」,指 objects have been made to carry or conduct electricity,在这个 specific context 中就是指 pens 被设置成可以 deliver electric shocks 的状态。

    语态-词缀-对比三步析义
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

6 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。

  • 举例子

    P2 P3

    文章通过 a series of four experiments 来具体说明 curiosity drives painful behavior 这个抽象观点。特别是 the pen experiment，researchers 设计了一个 electric shock scenario，让 participants 主动去 click 那些可能会 shock 他们的笔。这个 concrete example 非常有力地证明了文章的 central thesis：人们会因为 the need to resolve uncertainty 而做出 self-destructive things。通过这个 tangible case，读者能够 viscerally understand 这种 curiosity-driven behavior，而不仅仅是停留在 abstract concept 层面。

    信号词 for example for instance such as for one trial in one case to illustrate consider take the case of

    仿写： 当你要 explain 一个 abstract concept 时，问自己：能否找到一个 concrete scenario 让读者 experience 这个概念？比如要说明 procrastination 的危害，与其说 it causes stress，不如描述 a student facing a deadline，staying up all night，experiencing panic。仿写模版：【Abstract claim】+ For example/For instance + 【Specific scenario with details】+ This demonstrates/illustrates + 【Link back to main point】。

  • 列数字

    P3

    文章用 Twenty-seven students 这个 precise number 来呈现 experimental data，增强了 scientific credibility。通过 quantify participants，研究显示这不是 anecdotal evidence 而是 systematic research。这些 specific figures 让 findings 更 objective and verifiable，符合 scientific discourse 的要求。数字的使用强化了文章作为 research-based explanation 的性质，使 claims about curiosity 更具 authoritative weight。

    信号词 percent number of out of ratio rate statistics show data indicates measured at approximately exactly

    仿写： 当你 present research findings 或 want to establish scale 时，用 specific numbers 替代 vague quantifiers。问自己：这个 claim 能否用 measurable data 支撑？比如与其说 many people，不如说 67% of respondents 或 in a survey of 500 participants。仿写模版：【General claim】+ Specifically/Precisely + 【number + noun】+ 【action/result with quantifiable outcome】。

  • 作比较

    P3

    文章通过 contrast two groups of students 来揭示 uncertainty 的作用：那些 didn't know which pens were electrified 的学生 clicked more pens 并 incurred more shocks，而 those who knew 则更 cautious。这个 direct comparison 精准地 isolate 了 uncertainty 作为 the driving variable。通过 juxtapose these two conditions，文章让读者 clearly see 正是 the need to resolve uncertainty 而非 curiosity alone 在 drive risky behavior。这种 contrastive structure 是 demonstrating causation 的有力方式。

    信号词 more than less than in contrast however whereas while compared to unlike on the other hand similarly likewise

    仿写： 当你 want to demonstrate causation 或 highlight key differences 时，structure your explanation around comparison。问自己：changing what variable 会 produce different outcomes？设置 two parallel scenarios 只改变 one element，然后 observe different results。仿写模版：【Group A with condition X】+ 【specific behavior/result】+ In contrast/However/Meanwhile + 【Group B with condition Y】+ 【different behavior/result】+ This difference reveals/demonstrates + 【key insight】。

  • 打比方

    P4

    文章将 the drive to discover 比作 the basic drives for food or shelter，这个 powerful analogy 将 curiosity 提升到了 fundamental biological need 的层面。通过 liken curiosity to survival instincts，作者 establish 了它的 deeply rooted nature in human psychology。这个 comparison 帮助读者 understand 为什么 curiosity 如此 irresistible，即使 when outcomes are painful。这个 metaphorical framing 也为后续 discuss 'self-destructive' aspects 做了 foundation，因为 even basic drives can be harmful when excessive。

    信号词 like as similar to much the same as just as comparable to analogous to resembles parallels mirrors

    仿写： 当你 explain abstract concepts 时，找一个 readers universally understand 的 concrete phenomenon 来 draw parallels。问自己：这个 concept 的 core mechanism 类似什么 physical or familiar process？确保 the comparison illuminates rather than confuses。仿写模版：【Abstract concept】+ is like/much the same as/similar to + 【familiar concrete thing】+ just as + 【explain the parallel】+ this shows + 【return to abstract point】。

  • 引资料

    P4 P5

    文章 cite Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago 的观点，通过 quote an expert 来 lend authority 到关于 curiosity 的 claims。这个 attribution 不仅 provide credibility 而且 acknowledge the research source。后续 Hsee 的 direct quotation 'Thinking about long-term consequences is key...' 直接 present expert opinion，强化了文章的 practical advice。通过 reference recognized researchers 和 their institutions，文章 establish 自己作为 reporting on legitimate scientific findings 而非 personal speculation。

    信号词 says according to notes argues states explains research shows studies indicate experts suggest as noted by

    仿写： 当你 make significant claims 时，support them with expert opinions 或 research findings。问自己：谁是这个 field 的 authority？他们说了什么 relevant things？要 integrate quotations smoothly：先 introduce the source，然后 present their view，最后 explain its relevance。仿写模版：【Expert name + credentials】+ says/argues/notes + 【paraphrased or quoted statement】+ This suggests/indicates + 【link to your argument】。Direct quotes 用于 particularly compelling or precise language。

  • 下定义

    P1 P4

    虽然文章没有 explicitly state 'curiosity is defined as...'，但通过 describe 'the need to resolve uncertainty' 和 'the drive to discover'，作者 operationally define 了他们所讨论的 curiosity。这种 functional definition 比 dictionary definition 更有用，因为它 specify 了文章关注的 particular aspect of curiosity。通过 clarify 这个 working definition early，文章 ensure readers understand 后续 discussion 的 scope and focus。

    信号词 is defined as refers to means is represents constitutes involves in other words that is specifically

    仿写： 当你 introduce key concepts 时，provide clear definitions 即使 readers might be familiar with the term。问自己：这个 term 的 which specific meaning 是我要讨论的？用 'refers to', 'means', 'is defined as' 等 phrases，或通过 describe characteristic features。仿写模版：【Term】+ refers to/means/is + 【essential characteristics】+ Specifically/In this context + 【clarify scope or distinguish from related concepts】。

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

6 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。

  • 负面评论阅读的普遍性暗示

    P1
    Why do people read negative Internet comments and do other things that will obviously be painful?

    转折类/反预期强调 obviously clearly evidently apparently seemingly ostensibly on the surface

    这个 implication 是：reading negative comments 是一个 widespread phenomenon，尽管 obviously painful，人们还是会 engage in it。通过 obviously 这个词，author 暗示这是一个 counterintuitive behavior，需要 scientific explanation。它对 main idea 的 value 在于：establish 文章的 research question，即 curiosity-driven behavior 即使 lead to pain 也无法 resist，为后续 experimental evidence 和 psychological mechanism 的 exploration 做 foundation。

  • 好奇心强度的反常实验设计

    P2
    The twist? Half of the pens would deliver an electric shock when clicked.

    转折类/悬念制造 The twist the twist the catch however but here's the thing surprisingly unexpectedly

    The implication 是：这个 experimental design 故意 introduce pain/risk element，to create 一个 curiosity versus safety 的 dilemma。通过 'the twist' 这种 casual tone，author 在 engage reader，同时 emphasize 实验的 ingenious nature。对于 article's theme，它的 role 是 demonstrate 研究者如何 operationalize 'painful curiosity'，为后续 findings (students clicked more despite knowing shock risk) 提供 methodological context，证明 curiosity 能 override rational self-protection。

  • 无知驱动更危险行为的实验对比

    P3
    the students who did not know which ones would shock them clicked more pens and incurred more shocks than the students who knew what would happen

    对比类/程度强化 more less fewer greater higher lower increased

    这个 implication 的 essence 是：uncertainty 不只是 motivate exploration，更会 drive people to take MORE risks。'More pens and more shocks' 这个 quantitative comparison 暗示 not knowing 产生了一种 compulsive quality，让 students 无法 resist。对 main thesis 的 contribution 在于：provide empirical evidence for 'need to resolve uncertainty' 的 overwhelming power，证明即使 knowing there's pain，uncertainty 还是会 push people toward self-destructive behavior，这 reinforce 了 curiosity 的 double-edged nature。

  • 好奇心的双刃性质

    P4
    Curiosity is often considered a good instinct – it can lead to new scientific advances, for instance – but sometimes such inquiry can backfire.

    转折类/价值对比 but however yet nevertheless nonetheless still although

    这个 implication 是：curiosity 虽然 generally valuable，但 context matters。'Backfire' 这个词 suggest 好奇心可能 turn against oneself，产生 unintended negative consequences。对 article's central argument 的 role 是：establish curiosity 的 paradoxical nature，为最后一段的 practical advice (如何 resist unhealthy curiosity) 提供 rationale。它 connect scientific findings to real-world application，暗示需要 discriminate between healthy 和 destructive curiosity。

  • 抵制不健康好奇心的可能性

    P5
    Unhealthy curiosity is possible to resist, however.

    转折类/解决方案引入 however fortunately on the bright side that said the good news is luckily it is possible to

    这个 implication 的 key message 是：虽然 curiosity 很 powerful，人们并非 completely helpless。'Possible to resist' 暗示通过 cognitive strategy 可以 intervene。对 overall argument 的 significance 在于：prevent 文章 end on pessimistic note，instead offer practical solution (prospective imagination)。这 complete 文章的 rhetorical arc：problem identification → experimental evidence → mechanism explanation → actionable solution，最终 empower readers to make better decisions about their curiosity-driven behavior。

  • 理论联系实际的幽默收尾

    P5
    In other words, don't read online comments.

    总结类/通俗化改写 In other words in other words put simply to put it another way that is to say in simpler terms essentially

    这个 implication 非常 clever：author 用 opening paragraph 提到的 specific behavior (reading negative comments) 作为 closing，形成 circular structure。'Don't read online comments' 这个 blunt, humorous advice 把 complex research about curiosity and self-control distill 成 immediately applicable guideline。对 article's rhetorical effectiveness 的 value 是：make scientific findings memorable and actionable，用 everyday example 来 demonstrate broader principle，让 readers 能 instantly connect abstract theory to concrete decision，这 enhance retention 和 practical application。

AUTHOR ATTITUDE · 作者态度

作者态度：客观中立

结论先行：本文作者态度为客观中立（ objective yet cautionary）。下面是按步骤还原的判断过程与文中的态度信号词。

  1. 开篇定调识别 P1

    说明文的 opening 通常会 establish the tone，如果作者只是 present the study results 没有加入 personal judgment，那就偏向 objective；如果有 surprising、alarming 这类词就可能带有 attitude。

  2. 专家引语定位 P4 P5

    说明文中引用专家的话 expert citations 如果只是 provide information，作者保持 neutral；但如果引用的内容是 warning、caution 或 positive endorsement，作者可能通过 borrowed voice 表达自己的 stance。

  3. 转折建议识别 P5

    说明文如果纯客观，会 balanced presentation of facts；但如果出现明确的 solution-oriented paragraph 或用 however 引出 preventive measures，说明作者不只是 inform 还想 guide behavior，这体现出 cautionary attitude。

  4. 整体态度综合 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

    说明文的态度判断需要 holistic view，不能只看某个词。这篇文章的 dominant mode 是 explanation，但 embedded warnings 和 final advice 让整体态度从 purely objective 转向 objective with caution。关键是作者没有 explicitly criticize，而是通过 scientific evidence 和 expert voice 来 implicitly warn。

文中的态度信号词

  • reveals P1

    这个词是 neutral reporting verb，表示作者在 present research findings 而不是 make judgments，体现了说明文开头的 objective stance，为后续的 cautionary elements 打下 credible foundation。

    同类词 shows indicates demonstrates suggests finds

  • will obviously be painful P1

    这个 phrase 虽然看似 negative，但配合 why do people 的 questioning frame，作者是在 set up the puzzle 而不是 make moral judgment，体现了 intellectual curiosity 而非 criticism，符合说明文的 problem-presentation mode。

    同类词 obviously painful clearly harmful evidently negative plainly unpleasant manifestly damaging

  • backfire P4

    这是文章的 first clear evaluative term，标志着从 neutral description 转向 cautionary interpretation。Backfire 表达了 negative outcome，配合 sometimes 说明作者在 acknowledge risks，这是 cautionary attitude 的 key signal。

    同类词 have negative consequences lead to harm result in damage prove detrimental turn counterproductive

  • self-destructive P4

    这是 Hsee 引语中的 strong negative term，但因为是 within expert quote，作者通过 borrowed voice 表达 warning 而保持自己的 objective distance，这是说明文中 convey caution 的巧妙方式。

    同类词 self-harmful self-sabotaging damaging to oneself detrimental to one's wellbeing

  • profound P4

    这个词表示作者对 the insight 的 high valuation，虽然是 positive term 但用来 emphasize the importance of a warning，体现了作者认为 understanding this risk 很重要，强化了 cautionary stance。

    同类词 significant important crucial vital essential

  • however P5

    这是文章的 critical turning point，从 presenting the problem 转向 offering solutions。However 引出的内容是 resistance strategies，标志着作者从 objective reporter 转为 implicit advisor，这是 cautionary attitude 最明确的 structural signal。

    同类词 nevertheless yet but still though

  • possible to resist P5

    这是 solution-focused language，表示作者不只是 warn about risks 还提供 actionable advice，体现了 constructive caution 而非 pessimistic criticism，是说明文中 responsible cautionary approach 的体现。

    同类词 can be avoided preventable controllable manageable able to overcome

  • key to reducing P5

    这是 Hsee 的第二个引语，用 key to 直接给出 actionable advice，标志着作者通过 expert voice 完成了从 neutral reporting 到 clear guidance 的转变，是 cautionary attitude 的 culmination。

    同类词 key to essential for crucial for important for critical to

  • don't read online comments P5

    这是全文唯一的 direct imperative，用 don't 给出 explicit advice，呼应开头的 question，完成了从 why people do it 到 why you shouldn't 的 full circle，是 cautionary attitude 最 straightforward 的 expression。

    同类词 don't avoid refrain from resist stay away from

GENRE · 速判体裁

30 秒判定这是一篇说明文

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说明文？

  1. 首段提出现象或问题 P1

    第一段提出了'Why do people read negative Internet comments'这个 phenomenon,并给出'because humans have an inherent need to resolve uncertainty'的解释。这种 question-answer 的结构是典型的说明文特征,而不是议论文的 argument 或新闻的 event reporting。

  2. 详述实验或研究过程 P2 P3

    第二段和第三段详细描述了'a series of four experiments'和具体的 experimental procedure(pen experiment, electric shock, participant behavior)。这种 detailed research description 是说明文的核心特征,议论文只会简要引用 evidence 来支持观点,新闻报道不会如此详尽地描述 research methodology。

  3. 总结发现并给出启示 P4 P5

    第四段总结了'the drive to discover is deeply rooted'这个 insight,第五段给出了'how to resist unhealthy curiosity'的 practical application。这种从 explanation 到 implication 的结构是说明文特征,而议论文会 restate thesis and call for action,新闻会 provide updates or future outlook。

  4. 解释型结构与客观语气 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

    整篇文章遵循'提出现象(why people do painful things)→ 实验说明(experiments show curiosity drives behavior)→ 总结启示(curiosity can be managed)'的 explanatory structure。全文 tone 是 neutral and informative,没有 persuasive language 或 breaking news style,确认是说明文。

哪些词暴露了说明文体裁？

  • according to a recent study P1 研究来源引用词 research reveals scientists tested experiments reproduced study shows research indicates
  • The new research reveals that P1 说明对象定义解释词 reveals that shows that explains why demonstrates how illustrates that
  • In a series of four experiments P2 说明顺序与例证词 In a series of experiments For one trial In the first stage Subsequently For instance
  • The twist? P2 说明顺序与例证词 The key point? The catch? The interesting part? Here's the thing What's notable is
  • Subsequent experiments reproduced this effect P3 说明顺序与例证词 Subsequent experiments reproduced Further studies confirmed Additional tests showed Follow-up research demonstrated Similar results appeared in
  • such as P3 说明顺序与例证词 for example for instance including like namely
  • The drive to discover is deeply rooted in humans P4 事物属性功能描述词 is deeply rooted in is inherent to is characteristic of functions as operates by
  • Curiosity is often considered a good instinct – it can lead to new scientific advances, for instance P4 事物属性功能描述词 can lead to results in causes produces brings about
  • but sometimes such inquiry can backfire P4 事物属性功能描述词 can backfire may result in might cause could produce has the potential to
  • These results suggest that P5 说明对象定义解释词 results suggest that findings indicate that data show that evidence demonstrates that observations reveal that
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

9 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 Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good 的常见问题

2018年考研英语二真题 Section I 文章 Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good 的原文出自哪里？
Scientific American《科学美国人》2016年7月1日一篇题为Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good(好奇心本身没有好处)的科普文。
2018年考研英语二真题文章 Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good 的主旨是什么？
研究表明,人类有强烈的内在需求去消除不确定性,这种好奇心即使在结果会带来痛苦时也会驱使人们行动。虽然好奇心通常是有益的,但它也可能导致自我毁灭性行为。然而,事先想象长期后果可以帮助抵制不健康的好奇心。（英文表述：Research shows that humans have a strong inherent need to resolve uncertainty, which drives curiosity even when outcomes will be painful. While curiosity is generally beneficial, it can lead to self-destructive behavior. However, imagining long-term consequences beforehand can help resist unhealthy curiosity.）
Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good（2018年考研英语二真题文章）是什么体裁？难度如何？
体裁为说明文，作者立场是客观中立（objective yet cautionary）。CEFR 难度 C1，全文 351 词、5 段；在考研英语二全部 94 篇真题文章中，C1 级共 72 篇（占 77%）。
2018年考研英语二真题文章 Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good 的篇章结构是怎样的？
全文 5 段按说明文骨架分为 4 个意群：第1段——提出现象与研究发现；第2段、第3段——实验设计与结果呈现；第4段——深层解释与负面影响警示；第5段——应对策略与实践建议。
Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good 一文的作者态度是什么？
作者态度是客观中立（objective yet cautionary）。判断路径：开篇定调识别 → 专家引语定位 → 转折建议识别 → 整体态度综合；文中的态度信号词包括 reveals（第1段）、will obviously be painful（第1段）、backfire（第4段）、self-destructive（第4段）、profound（第4段）、however（第5段）、possible to resist（第5段）、key to reducing（第5段）、don't read online comments（第5段）。
2018年考研英语二真题文章 Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good 中有哪些值得积累的生词？
按文中出现顺序共 4 个：incur（招致,遭受(尤指坏事)）、backfire（产生事与愿违的不良后果,适得其反）、endeavor（努力,尝试,事业(需付出努力的任务或行动)）、electrify（通电的,带电的），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：