Part one concludes by introducing my suggested method for adopting this philosophy: the digital declutter. This process requires yoto step away from optional online activities for thirty days. At the end of the thirty days, yowill then add back a small number of carefully chosen online activities that yobelieve will provide massive benefits to the things yovalue.

In the final chapter of part one, I’ll guide yothrough carrying out your own digital declutter. In doing so, I’ll draw on an experiment I ran in 2018 in which over 1,600 people agreed to perform a digital declutter. You’ll hear these participants’ stories and learn what strategies worked well for them, and what traps they encountered that yoshould avoid.

The second part of this book takes a closer look at some ideas that will help yocultivate (培养) a sustainable digital minimalism lifestyle. In these chapters, I examine issues such as the importance of solitude (独处) and the necessity of cultivating high-quality leisure to replace the time most now spend on mindless device use. Each chapter concludes with a collection of practices, which are designed to help yoact on the big ideas of the chapter. Yocan view these practices as a toolbox meant to aid your efforts to build a minimalist lifestyle that words for your particular circumstances.

28. What is the book aimed at?

A. Teaching critical thinking skills. B. Advocating a simple digital lifestyle.

C. Solving philosophical problems. D. Promoting the use of a digital device.

29. What does the underlined word “declutter” in paragraph 3 mean?

A. Clear-up. B. Add-on. C. Check-in. D. Take-over.

30. What is presented in the final chapter of part one?

A. Theoretical models. B. Statistical methods.

C. Practical examples. D. Historical analyses.

31. What does the author suggest readers do with the practices offered in part two?

A. Use them as needed.

B. Recommend them to friends.

C. Evaluate their effects.

D. Identify the ideas behind them.

D

On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.

This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whaterer reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.

But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.

In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together.” Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.

32. What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly about?

A. The methods of estimation. B. The underlying logic of the effect.

C. The causes of people’s errors. D. The design of Galton’s experiment.

33. Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if ________.

A. the crowds were relatively small

B. there were occasional underestimates

C. individuals did not communicate

D. estimates were not fully independent

34. What did the follow-up study focus on?

A. The size of the groups.

B. The dominant members.

C. The discussion process.

D. The individual estimates.

35. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies?

A. Unclear. B. Dismissive. C. Doubtful. D. Approving.

第二节 (共5小题;每小题2.5分，满分12.5分)

阅读下面短文，从短文后的选项中选出可以填入空白处的最佳选项。选项中有两项为多余选项。

Personal Forgiveness

Taking responsibility for mistakes is a positive step, but don’t beat yourself up about them. To err (犯错) is human. 36 Yocan use the followning writing exercise to help yodo this.