SAT阅读：总结类题目(Summary)

发布时间：2017-05-02 11:42

　　小结题考查对SAT阅读文章内容、观点、结构的总结。故在阅读的时候，不仅要关注细节内容，也要关注文章的big picture(大意)，要特别注意文章在哪里引出观点，又在哪里发生了内容的转变等等。为了更好地理解文章结构，我们建议在阅读过程中划线或做标记。另外，要注意转折类词汇、证据以及例子。转折类连接词往往标志着作者叙述或观点的转变，而通过例子和证据，读者能够更好理解作者的论证过程。

　　小结题的出题形式大致如下：

　　Which of the following provides the most reasonable summary of the passage?

　　Which of the following provides the best summary of the arguments?

　　Which of the following best describes the structure of the arguments in this passage?

　　Which of the following best describes the structure of the passage as a whole?

　　我们来看一例：

　　Whether you're the owner of the Dallas Cowboys or captain of the playground dodge ball team, the goal in picking players is the same: Get the top talent. Hearts have been broken, allegiances tested, and budgets busted as teams contend for the best athletes. The motivation for recruiting peak performers are obvious—exceptional players are the key to team success—and this belief is shared not only by coaches and sports fans, but also by corporations, investors, and even whole industries. Everyone wants a team of stars.

　　While there is no denying that exceptional players can put points on the board and enhance team success, new research by Roderick Swaab and colleagues suggests there is a limit to the benefit top talents bring to a team. Swaab and colleagues compared the amount of individual talent on teams with the teams’ success, and they found striking examples of more talent hurting the team.

　　The researchers looked at three sports: basketball, soccer, and baseball. In each sport, they calculated both the percentage of top talent on each team and the teams’ success over several years. For example, they identified top NBA talent using each player’s Estimated Wins Added (EWA), a statistic commonly employed to capture a player’s overall contribution to his team, along with selection for the All-Star tournament. Once the researchers determined who the elite players were, they calculated top-talent percentage at the team level by dividing the number of star players on the team by the total number of players on that team. Finally, team performance was measured by the team's win-loss record over 10 years. For both basketball and soccer, they found that top talent did in fact predict team success, but only up to a point. Furthermore, there was not simply a point of diminishing returns with respect to top talent; there was in fact a cost. Basketball and soccer teams with the greatest proportion of elite athletes performed worse than those with more moderate proportions of top level players.

　　Why is too much talent a bad thing? Think teamwork. In many endeavors, success requires collaborative, cooperative work towards a goal that is beyond the capability of any one individual. When a team roster is flooded with individual talent, pursuit of personal star status may prevent the attainment of team goals. The basketball player chasing a point record, for example, may cost the team by taking risky shots instead of passing to a teammate who is open and ready to score.

　　Two related findings by Swaab and colleagues indicate that there is in fact tradeoff between top talent and teamwork. First, Swaab and colleagues found that the percentage of top talent on a team affects intrateam coordination. For the basketball study, teams with the highest levels of top performers had fewer assists and defensive rebounds, and lower field-goal percentages. These failures in strategic, collaborative play undermined the team’s effectiveness. The second revealing finding is that extreme levels of top talent did not have the same negative effect in baseball, which experts have argued involves much less interdependent play. In the baseball study, increasing numbers of stars on a team never hindered overall performance. Together these findings suggest that high levels of top talent will be harmful in arenas that require coordinated, strategic efforts, as the quest for the spotlight may trump the teamwork needed to get the job done.

　　The lessons here extend beyond the ball field to any group or endeavor that must balance competitive and collaborative efforts, including corporate teams, financial research groups, and brainstorming exercises. Indeed, the impact of too much talent is even evident in other animals: When hen colonies have too many dominant, high-producing chickens, conflict and hen mortality rise while egg production drops. So before breaking the bank to recruit superstars, team owners and industry experts might want to consider whether the goal they are trying to achieve relies on individual talent alone, or a cooperative synergy from the team. If the latter, it would be wise to reign in the talent and focus on teamwork.

　　题目1：

　　Which of the following best describes the structure of the passage as a whole?

　　(A) A collection of anecdotes about sports

　　(B) A description of a study and its potential implications

　　(D) A series of arguments in favor of changing recruitment methods

　　题目2：

　　Which of the following best summarizes the passage’s interpretation of the researchers’ findings?

　　(A) Teamwork is the most important quality for sports teams.

　　(B) Individual talent is the most important quality for sports teams.

　　(D) Although individual talent is more important, very strong teamwork can make up for weak talent.

　　解析：两个问题都要求理解整篇文章的大意。我们先看下文本。

　　文本段描述一种现象，呈现了一个观点：即所有球队都争着招募的球员，因为大家都认为团队取胜的关键在于的选手。

　　文本第二段先让步，然后给出一个新观点，反驳段的观点：球员带给团队的作用有限，团队中球员太多反而伤害球队。

　　文本第三段开始举例论证。研究人员研究了三种运动：篮球，足球和棒球。第三段得出的研究结果是，在篮球和足球运动中，球员占比高的球队表现不如球员占比适中的球队。第四段第五段解释原因，原文的关键词是团队协作。同时，指出对于棒球这种对团队协作依赖小的运动，球员多不会阻碍团队表现。最后一段将研究结果拓展至更广泛的领域，并表示要权衡好竞争与合作的关系。

　　然后看题目：题目1问的是文本结构。

　　选项A：一系列体育轶事。文本不是一个接一个地呈现体育类的故事。不符。

　　选项B：对一项研究的描述以及思考。文本第二段表达观点，第三段具体描述研究，第四至第六段是对研究结果的思考。该项正确。

　　选项C: 给体育界与商界的经理的一系列忠告。文本侧重的不是忠告，而是研究反驳一个人们持有的惯常观点。

　　选项D: 一系列改变招聘方法的观点。文本并未呈现很多的关于招聘方法的观点。另外，文本重心不在招聘方法，而在影响结果。

　　故选项B正确。

　　再看第二题：题目2要求总结文本对于研究人员的发现。

　　选项A不符，对于足球篮球类运动，团队协作非常重要，但是对于棒球类运动，团队协作不如个人能力重要。

　　选项B不符，选项B刚好与选项A相反，理由同上。

　　选项C正确，正确表达了文本研究的观点。在一些诸如足球篮球的运动中，团队协作是关键。

　　选项D不符，文本并未表达个人能力比团队协作更重要的观点，而是要依据实际的运动或情况来看。

　　故选项C正确。