Question

【題目】 Many of us have already lost the “race against the machines” - we just don’t know it yet. That is the conclusion of new research by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Unlike most studies into the impact of automation, this one does not rely on informed guesswork about what machines will be able to do in 20 years’ time. 【1】 They are literacy, numeracy and problem-solving with computers - and compares our performance against the abilities of machines. The results are sobering, but rather than a reason to despair,

In the survey a group of computer scientists was given the same test and asked which questions computers could answer, using technology that exists but has not necessarily been rolled out yet in the workplace. The conclusion? Almost a third of workers use these cognitive skills daily in their jobs and yet their competency levels have already been matched by computers. About 44 per cent are still better than the machines. The remaining 25 per cent have jobs that do not use these skills every day.

There are two caveats. First, the OECD only asked computer scientists how well they thought machines could do. 【2】. Second, just because technology exists does not mean it will be deployed quickly in the workplace. It depends on how easily it can be made operational, how much it costs relative to the value it creates, and whether companies have the appetite to invest.

【3】. Stuart Elliott, the author, concludes that in 10 to 20 years, only workers with very strong literacy and numeracy skills will be comfortably more proficient than computers. At the minute, only about one in 10 working-age adults in OECD countries are of this standard.

It is true that the education systems in most countries have been raising their game: younger people tend to have better skills than older people (the UK being one notable, and worrying, exception). But even if you take the most skilled generation in the most skilled country - young people in Finland - two-thirds still do not meet these top levels of literacy and numeracy. 【4】.

The risks to workers from ever smarter computers are clear, but the opportunities will lie in maximizing the value of their human skills. For some people, such as talented chefs, the battle is already won. Others might need to harness the computers to leverage their human talents.

A.And yet, the implication of the study are hard to dismiss.

B.on many of these fronts, computers are behind humans, if they are in the race at all.

C.Technology does not necessary mean doom to all but the highest skilled.

D.Instead it takes three basic and compares our performance against the abilities of machines.

E.Apart from astonishing improvement in education, it looks like only a minority of people can win this race.

F.The result would be more alarming if machine were actually put to the test.

Answer 1

【答案】

【1】D

【2】F

【3】A

【4】E

【解析】

這是一篇說(shuō)明文。經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織新研究指出我們中的許多人已經(jīng)輸?shù)袅恕芭c機(jī)器的競(jìng)賽”——我們只是還不知道。文章說(shuō)明了這一研究的過(guò)程，以及這項(xiàng)研究的重要意義。文章最后提到越來(lái)越智能的計(jì)算機(jī)給工人帶來(lái)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是顯而易見(jiàn)的，但機(jī)會(huì)將在于最大限度地發(fā)揮他們的人力技能的價(jià)值。

【1】結(jié)合后文They are literacy, numeracy and problem-solving with computers - and compares our performance against the abilities of machines.可知它們是讀寫能力、計(jì)算能力和用電腦解決問(wèn)題的能力——并將我們的表現(xiàn)與機(jī)器的能力進(jìn)行比較。由此可知，本句是在啟示下文說(shuō)明需要三個(gè)基礎(chǔ)能力。其中后文compares our performance against the abilities of machines.可對(duì)應(yīng)到D選項(xiàng)compares our performance against the abilities of machines。故D選項(xiàng)“相反，它需要三個(gè)基礎(chǔ)的，并將我們的表現(xiàn)與機(jī)器的能力進(jìn)行比較的能力”符合上下文語(yǔ)境，故選D。

【2】根據(jù)上文First, the OECD only asked computer scientists how well they thought machines could do.可知首先，經(jīng)合組織只問(wèn)了計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)家他們認(rèn)為機(jī)器能做得多好。由此可知，本句承接上文繼續(xù)說(shuō)明機(jī)器如果被投入試驗(yàn)，結(jié)果會(huì)令人震驚。故F選項(xiàng)“如果真把這臺(tái)機(jī)器投入試驗(yàn)，其結(jié)果將更令人震驚”符合上下文語(yǔ)境，故選F。

【3】結(jié)合后文Stuart Elliott, the author, concludes that in 10 to 20 years, only workers with very strong literacy and numeracy skills will be comfortably more proficient than computers. At the minute, only about one in 10 working-age adults in OECD countries are of this standard.可知作者Stuart Elliott總結(jié)說(shuō)，在10到20年內(nèi)，只有具備很強(qiáng)的讀寫能力和計(jì)算能力的工人才能比計(jì)算機(jī)熟練得多。目前，經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家每10個(gè)工作年齡的成年人中只有一個(gè)符合這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。由此可知，后文在說(shuō)明這項(xiàng)研究對(duì)未來(lái)工人的重要性，由此可推知這項(xiàng)研究的重要意義是不容忽視的。故A選項(xiàng)“然而，這項(xiàng)研究的意義很難被忽視”符合上下文語(yǔ)境，故選A。

【4】結(jié)合上文It is true that the education systems in most countries have been raising their game: younger people tend to have better skills than older people (the UK being one notable, and worrying, exception). But even if you take the most skilled generation in the most skilled country - young people in Finland - two-thirds still do not meet these top levels of literacy and numeracy.可知誠(chéng)然，大多數(shù)國(guó)家的教育系統(tǒng)都在提高他們的水平：年輕人往往比老年人擁有更好的技能（英國(guó)是一個(gè)值得注意的、令人擔(dān)憂的例外）。但是，即使你把芬蘭最熟練的一代人——芬蘭的年輕人——帶到最熟練的國(guó)家，三分之二的人仍然達(dá)不到這些最高水平的識(shí)字率和計(jì)算能力。由此可知，只有三分之一的人能達(dá)到最高水平的識(shí)字率和計(jì)算能力，即只有少數(shù)人才能贏得這場(chǎng)競(jìng)賽。故E選項(xiàng)“除了驚人的教育進(jìn)步外，似乎只有少數(shù)人能贏得這場(chǎng)競(jìng)賽”符合上下文語(yǔ)境，故選E。