46. What did a recent research paper claim?
- A. The type of school students attend makes a difference to their future.
- B. Genetic differences between students are far greater than supposed.
- C. The advantages of selective schools are too obvious to ignore.
- D. Students' academic performance is determined by their genes.
答案：D
答案句：This is down to“hereditarian”(遗传论的) science and a recent paper claimed “differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them”. With such an assertion, the work was predictably greeted by a lot of absurd claims about “genetics determining academic success”.
参考译文：这归因于“遗传论”科学，最近一篇论文声称“就读于选拔性学校和非选拔性学校的学生在考试成绩上的差异，反映了他们之间的基因差异”。有了这样的论断，这项研究不出意料地遭到了许多关于“基因决定学业成功”的荒谬说法的追捧。
定位线索：题干“What did a recent research paper claim”→答案句取自第2段“a recent paper claimed...”；文中“differences in exam performance...mirror the genetic differences”对应选项D“Students' academic performance is determined by their genes”。
解析：题干问最近研究论文的主张，答案句直接引用论文原话，指出考试成绩差异反映基因差异，即学业表现由基因决定，对应D。A、C涉及学校类型的影响，但论文原话强调基因差异，且后文说选拔性学校优势消失，故排除；B无中生有。
47. What does the author think of the recent research?
- A. Its result was questionable.
- B. Its implication was positive.
- C. Its influence was rather negligible.
- D. Its conclusions were enlightening.
答案：A
答案句：What the research revealed was the rather less surprising result: the educational benefits of selective schools largely disappear once pupils' inborn ability and socio-economic background were taken into account. It is a glimpse of the blindingly obvious-and there's nothing to back strongly either a hereditary or environmental argument.
参考译文：这项研究揭示的结果并不令人意外：一旦将学生的先天能力和社会经济背景考虑在内，选拔性学校的教育优势在很大程度上就消失了。这是对显而易见之事的一瞥——而且没有任何东西能有力地支持遗传论或环境论的论点。
定位线索：题干“What does the author think of the recent research”→答案句取自第2段“What the research revealed was the rather less surprising result...”；文中“rather less surprising”“blindingly obvious”“nothing to back strongly”体现作者质疑态度，对应选项A“Its result was questionable”。
解析：作者用“rather less surprising”“blindingly obvious”“nothing to back strongly”等词表达对研究结果的质疑，认为其结论不可靠，对应A。B、D为正面评价，与作者质疑态度相反；C“negligible”程度过重，文中未说影响可忽略。
48. What does the author say about the relationship between DNA and intelligence?
- A. It is one of scientific certainty.
- B. It is not one of cause and effect.
- C. It is subject to interpretation of statistics.
- D. It is not fully examined by gene scientists.
答案：B
答案句：At best there is a weak statistical association and not a causal link between DNA and intelligence. Yet sophisticated statistics are used to create an intimidatory atmosphere of scientific certainty.
参考译文：充其量，DNA与智力之间只存在微弱的统计关联，而非因果关系。然而，复杂的统计被用来制造一种恐吓性的科学确定性氛围。
定位线索：题干“the relationship between DNA and intelligence”→答案句取自第3段“not a causal link between DNA and intelligence”；文中“not a causal link”对应选项B“It is not one of cause and effect”。
解析：答案句明确说DNA与智力之间“not a causal link”，即非因果关系，对应B。A与原文“intimidatory atmosphere of scientific certainty”相反，那是被制造的表象；C偷换概念，原文说统计被用来制造氛围，而非关系受统计解释；D无中生有。
50. What does the author warn against in the passage?
- A. Exaggerating the power of technology in shaping the world.
- B. Losing sight of professional ethics in conducting research.
- C. Misunderstanding the findings of human cognition research.
- D. Promoting discrimination in the name of science.
答案：D
答案句：In understanding cognitive ability, we must not elevate discrimination to a science: allowing people to climb the ladder of life only as far as their cells might suggest.
参考译文：在理解认知能力时，我们绝不能将歧视提升为一门科学：允许人们只能爬到他们的细胞所暗示的人生阶梯高度。
定位线索：题干“What does the author warn against”→答案句取自第5段“we must not elevate discrimination to a science”；文中“elevate discrimination to a science”对应选项D“Promoting discrimination in the name of science”。
解析：答案句直接警告“must not elevate discrimination to a science”，即不能以科学名义推行歧视，对应D。A、B、C均无中生有，原文未涉及夸大技术力量、职业伦理或误解认知研究结果。