2020考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 95

Unit 95

Neither Oliver Williamson of the University of California at Berkeley nor Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University at Bloomington was widely tipped to win this year’s Nobel Prize for economics. This may be because their work sits at the boundary of economics, law and political science, and tackles different questions to the ones that economists have traditionally studied. Mr. Williamson and Ms. Ostrom work independently of each other but both have contributed plenty to economists’ understanding of which institutions—firms, markets, governments, or informal systems of social norms, for example—are best suited for conducting different types of economic transactions.

Ronald Coase, a British economist who won the Nobel Prize in 1991, argued that in some situations, and for some kinds of transactions, administrative decision-making within a single legal entity is more efficient than a straightforward market transaction. Mr. Coase’s arguments were influential and convinced economists that the internal workings of organisations were worth paying attention to explicitly. But it was left to Mr. Williamson to refine Mr. Coase’s theory and clarify what features of certain transactions made carrying them out more efficient within a firm rather than in the market.

Mr. Williamson showed that complex transactions involving investment decisions that are much more valuable within a relationship than to a third party are best done within a firm. Part of the problem, he argued, was that some economic transactions are so complicated, and involve so many things which could go wrong, that writing a legally enforceable contract that takes all possibilities into account is impossible. Simpler transactions are completed easily in markets; more complicated ones may demand firms. But in later work he also showed that organising matters within companies had costs: in particular, it relied on internal authority to get things done, and this could be abused.

Ms. Ostrom has concentrated on a different aspect of economic governance. She has spent her life studying how human societies manage common resources such as forests, rivers, pastures or wildlife. Just as with public goods, it is difficult to prevent people from using the commons. But unlike public goods, and like private ones, what one person takes leaves less for others. Economic theory then predicts that rational individuals will overuse these resources.

Economists have tended to emphasise property rights as a solution to the problem of managing common resources. But Ms. Ostrom spent much of her early career studying how communities managed such common resources. She found that groups of people tended to have complex sets of rules, norms and penalties to ensure that such resources were used sustainably. Such self-governance often worked well. Successful informal institutions, she found, have certain features in common, which sets them apart from institutions that fail. The principles of game theory, particularly the theory of repeated interactions, proved remarkably useful in formulating general principles of how common resources ought to be managed without necessarily resorting to private or state ownership.

Mr Williamson launched an entire branch of economic theorising which looks more deeply into firms than economists had tended to do previously. His theories have also helped with understanding the choice between equity and debt, and corporate finance more generally. Ms. Ostrom’s research has spawned many experiments about how people interact strategically. Some of these have influenced game theory, which originally provided Ms. Ostrom with her analytical tools.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象：第1~ 5題分別模仿2002年真題Text 4第1、2、4題和Text 3第3、5題。

1. From the first paragraph we learn that ______.

A) Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom were not considered candidates for the Noble Prize in Economics

B) the research focus of Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom touches upon a variety of fields

C) the works of Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom are irrelevant to the study of economics

D) Elinor Ostrom is known as the first female winner of the Nobel Prize since its establishment

2. Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the text?

A) Williamson and Ostrom’s winning the prize mainly attributes to their cooperation in research.

B) Williamson has identified a series of factors which make the transactions in the market different from those within firms.

C) Both Williamson and Ostrom address the question of economic transactions.

D) It is commonly agreed among economists that transactions within firms tend to be more efficient.

3. Ostrom and Williamson’s researches show that ______.

A) it is universally true that complex transactions are more efficient in companies

B) to write a contract for complicated transactions is impossible

C) the prediction about rational individuals overusing common resources is incorrect

D) privatization is not necessarily the solution of problems about common resources

4. Which of the following best defines the word “self-governance” （Line 4, Paragraph 5）?

A) self-management.

B) self-control.

C) self-government.

D) self-manipulation.

5. We can draw a conclusion from the text that ______.

A) their researches shed light on the future of cross-disciplinary social studies

B) their researches help improve the research tools for economics

C) their researches have tremendously revolutionized the field of economics

D) their researches give people new insights into neglected problems

篇章剖析

文章介紹了2009年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲獎(jiǎng)人威廉森和奧斯特羅姆的主要研究，突出了其研究跨學(xué)科性的重大意義。第一段指出了兩位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家研究的獨(dú)特之處，引出話題；第二、三段簡(jiǎn)要介紹了威廉森的研究?jī)?nèi)容及取得的成果；第四、五段描述了奧斯特羅姆的研究領(lǐng)域和成果；最后一段簡(jiǎn)要說明了這兩人的跨學(xué)科研究對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的重要意義。文章層次分明，結(jié)構(gòu)清晰。

詞匯注釋

tip /t?p/ v. 事先指出（優(yōu)勝者）

boundary /?ba?ndr?/ n. 界線；邊界

transaction /tr?n?z?k?n/ n. 交易；業(yè)務(wù)

administrative /?d?m?n?str?t?v/ adj. 管理的；行政的

abuse /??bju?z/ v. 濫用，妄用

governance /?g?v?n?ns/ n. 統(tǒng)治；管理；支配

property right 產(chǎn)權(quán)

launch /l??nt?/ v. 開始；積極投入

難句突破

Part of the problem, he argued, was that some economic transactions are so complicated, and involve so many things which could go wrong, that writing a legally enforceable contract that takes all possibilities into account is impossible.

主體句式：Part of the problem was that ...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：盡管主語(yǔ)和系動(dòng)詞之間有一個(gè)插入語(yǔ)，本句的主干還是比較簡(jiǎn)單的。本句的難點(diǎn)在于that引導(dǎo)的賓語(yǔ)從句，要理解這個(gè)從句重點(diǎn)要抓住so... that... 結(jié)構(gòu)。與一般情況相比，本句中兩個(gè)并列的so...進(jìn)一步增加了句子的復(fù)雜性，而這兩個(gè)so... 都是用來描述economic transaction并引出下面的that從句的。最后，that從句的主干是writing a legally enforceable contract is impossible，其中又包含了一個(gè)that引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句來修飾contract。

句子譯文：但他指出，這里的問題在于，某些經(jīng)濟(jì)交易如此復(fù)雜，牽涉到的容易出錯(cuò)的東西又如此之多，以至于要把所有的可能性都寫進(jìn)具有法律效力的合同是不可能的。

題目分析

1. B 推理題。第一段說明了威廉森和奧斯特羅姆不是2009年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的熱門人選，并簡(jiǎn)單介紹了他們的研究特點(diǎn)。雖然該段第一句話提到兩人并不是獲獎(jiǎng)的熱門人選，但是他們既然獲獎(jiǎng)了，那么他們一定都獲得了提名，因此A項(xiàng)是錯(cuò)誤的。該段第二句話表明兩人都以跨學(xué)科研究而著稱，但他們的研究必然涉及經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，所以B項(xiàng)正確而C項(xiàng)不正確。D項(xiàng)的信息文中沒有提及，也不正確。

2. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。文中第一段最后一句話提到，這兩個(gè)人雖然是各自獨(dú)立進(jìn)行研究，但都主要研究哪類組織更適合哪類經(jīng)濟(jì)交易，因此C項(xiàng)正確，而因?yàn)閮烧邲]有合作，因此A項(xiàng)不正確。第二段最后一句話指出，威廉森的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)了某些交易的哪些特征會(huì)導(dǎo)致其在公司內(nèi)部運(yùn)作比在市場(chǎng)上更有效率，而B項(xiàng)是說他發(fā)現(xiàn)了一系列使得在公司內(nèi)部交易與在市場(chǎng)上交易有所不同的因素，不夠準(zhǔn)確。第二段指出很多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們都受科斯的理論影響，相信應(yīng)該把注意力轉(zhuǎn)到組織內(nèi)部的運(yùn)作，但并不是說經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家普遍認(rèn)同公司內(nèi)部交易更有效，所以D項(xiàng)也不正確。

3. D 推理題。文章第二段至第五段分別寫了兩位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的具體研究成果。雖然文章第三段指出威廉森的研究說明復(fù)雜的交易在公司內(nèi)部進(jìn)行更有效，但也指出威廉森后期提出了修正，即公司內(nèi)部交易也是有成本的，故A是錯(cuò)誤的。第三段中說要把所有的可能性都寫進(jìn)合同是不可能的，而不是說寫合同是不可能的，所以B項(xiàng)不正確。第三段的最后一句話提出了該預(yù)期，但是文章中并沒有詳細(xì)說明這一預(yù)期是否正確，所以C項(xiàng)也不正確。文章第五段最后一句話指出，解決公共資源的問題不一定要采取私有化或者國(guó)有化的辦法，因此D項(xiàng)正確。

4. A 語(yǔ)義題。從構(gòu)詞法和上下文可以推知self-governance是“自我管理”的意思，故A選項(xiàng)正確。

5. A 推理題。文章第一段指出，兩人做的都是跨學(xué)科研究，本來不是獲獎(jiǎng)的熱門人選但最終卻獲得了諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)，由此可見，威廉森和奧斯特羅姆的研究預(yù)示了社會(huì)科學(xué)跨學(xué)科研究的未來，故A項(xiàng)正確。最后一段指出，奧斯特羅姆的理論影響了博弈論這一經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的重要研究工具，但這個(gè)情況并不適用于威廉森，因此B項(xiàng)錯(cuò)誤。C項(xiàng)所述有些夸張，文中沒有說兩人的研究帶來了革命性的影響。最后一段提到，威廉森關(guān)注前人忽略的問題，但奧斯特羅姆是否屬于這種情況文中沒有具體說明，所以D項(xiàng)也不正確。

參考譯文

美國(guó)加州大學(xué)伯克利分校的奧利弗·威廉森和印第安納大學(xué)布魯明頓校區(qū)的埃莉諾·奧斯特羅姆并不是今年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的熱門人選?；蛟S這是因?yàn)樗麄冎饕獜氖陆?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、法學(xué)和政治學(xué)的跨學(xué)科研究，其研究問題與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家研究的傳統(tǒng)問題不太一樣。威廉森和奧斯特羅姆雖各自獨(dú)立進(jìn)行研究，但他們都對(duì)加深經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家對(duì)于哪類組織——公司、市場(chǎng)、政府或者其他社會(huì)規(guī)范體系，更適合進(jìn)行哪類經(jīng)濟(jì)交易的了解做出了很大貢獻(xiàn)。

1991年獲諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的英國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家科斯認(rèn)為：在某些情況下，就某種類型的交易而言，在單獨(dú)的法人實(shí)體內(nèi)部做出的行政決策比在市場(chǎng)上的直接交易更有效率?？扑沟睦碚撚绊懢薮螅菇?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家確信，直截了當(dāng)?shù)匕炎⒁饬D(zhuǎn)到組織內(nèi)部的運(yùn)作才是值得他們做的事情。不過，是威廉森真正地將科斯的理論進(jìn)行了細(xì)化發(fā)展，他進(jìn)一步指出了某些交易的哪些特征會(huì)導(dǎo)致其在公司內(nèi)部運(yùn)作的效率優(yōu)于在市場(chǎng)上的效率。

威廉森證明了如果一些復(fù)雜的交易牽涉到投資決策，這種投資決策相比第三方來說對(duì)關(guān)聯(lián)方具有更大的價(jià)值，此時(shí)該交易最好是內(nèi)部進(jìn)行。但他指出，這里的問題在于，某些經(jīng)濟(jì)交易如此復(fù)雜，牽涉到的容易出錯(cuò)的東西又如此之多，以至于要把所有的可能性都寫進(jìn)具有法律效力的合同是不可能的。簡(jiǎn)單一些的交易可在市場(chǎng)上輕松完成，而較為復(fù)雜的交易也許就需要公司的參與。不過，在其后期著作中，他也證明在公司內(nèi)部組織交易是有成本的：特別是做事需要依靠?jī)?nèi)部權(quán)威，但權(quán)威有可能被濫用。

奧斯特羅姆則主要研究經(jīng)濟(jì)治理的另一個(gè)方面。她畢生致力于研究人類社會(huì)如何管理諸如森林、河流、牧場(chǎng)或野生動(dòng)植物等的公共資源。就像公共物品那樣，要想阻止人們使用公共資源是很困難的。但是，與公共物品不一樣而與私人物品一樣的是，當(dāng)有人使用公共資源時(shí)，留給其他人的資源就相應(yīng)地減少了。經(jīng)濟(jì)理論由此預(yù)言，在這種情況下理性的個(gè)人會(huì)過度地使用這些共同資源。

經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們一直傾向于強(qiáng)調(diào)用產(chǎn)權(quán)來解決公共資源的管理問題。但是奧斯特羅姆將其職業(yè)生涯早期的大部分時(shí)間用來研究某些團(tuán)體會(huì)如何管理這些公共資源。她發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些團(tuán)體傾向于建立一些系統(tǒng)的規(guī)矩、準(zhǔn)則和處罰條例以保證這些資源能被可持續(xù)地使用，這種治理方法通常很奏效。她還發(fā)現(xiàn)，成功的非正式團(tuán)體有一定的共性，這使其區(qū)別于那些不成功的團(tuán)體。在這里博弈論的原則，特別是重復(fù)互動(dòng)的博弈論被證明相當(dāng)有用，有助于制定一些管理公共資源的通用規(guī)則而不是必須采取私有化或者國(guó)有化。

威廉森創(chuàng)立了經(jīng)濟(jì)理論化的一整個(gè)分支，與此前的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家所做的研究相比，該分支更深入地考察了公司的內(nèi)部運(yùn)作。他的理論對(duì)我們更廣泛地理解公司關(guān)于籌股還是借債的選擇，以及公司金融也很有助益。同時(shí)，奧斯特羅姆的研究還引發(fā)了許多探討人們?nèi)绾螒?zhàn)略性地互動(dòng)的實(shí)驗(yàn)。有些實(shí)驗(yàn)還對(duì)最初給奧斯特羅姆提供分析工具的博弈論產(chǎn)生了影響。

Unit 96

Some people, notably Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford University, regard religion as a disease. It spreads, they suggest, like a virus, except that the “viruses” are similar to those infecting computers—bits of cultural software that take over the hardware of the brain and make it do irrational things.

Corey Fincher, of the University of New Mexico, has a different hypothesis for the origin of religious diversity. He thinks not that religions are like disease but that they are responses to disease—or, rather, to the threat of disease. If he is right, then people who believe that their religion protects them from harm may be correct, although the protection is of a different sort from the supernatural one they perceive.

Mr. Fincher is not arguing that disease-protection is religion’s main function. Biologists have different hypotheses for that. Not all follow Dr Dawkins in thinking it pathological. Some see it either as a way of promoting group solidarity in a hostile world, or as an accidental consequence of the predisposition to such solidarity. This solidarity-promotion is one of Mr. Fincher’s starting points. The other is that bacteria, viruses and other parasites are powerful drivers of evolution. Many biologists think that sex, for example, is a response to parasitism. The continual mixing of genes that it promotes means that at least some offspring of any pair of parents are likely to be immune to a given disease.

Mr. Fincher and his colleague Randy Thornhill wondered if disease might be driving important aspects of human social behaviour, too. Their hypothesis is that in places where disease is rampant, it behoves groups not to mix with one another more than is strictly necessary, in order to reduce the risk of contagion. They therefore predict that patterns of behaviour which promote group exclusivity will be stronger in disease-ridden areas. Since religious differences are certainly in that category, they specifically predict that the number of different religions in a place will vary with the disease load.

Proving the point involved collating a lot of previous research. Even defining what constitutes a religion is fraught with difficulty. But using accepted definitions of uniqueness, exclusivity, autonomy and superiority to other religions they calculated that the average number of religions per country is 31. The range, though, is enormous—from 3 to 643. C觝te d’lvoire, for example, has 76 while Norway has 13, and Brazil has 159 while Canada has 15. They then did the same thing for the number of parasitic diseases found in each country. The average here was 200, with a range from 178 to 248.

Obviously, some of the differences between countries are caused by differences in their areas and populations. But these can be accounted for statistically. When they have been, the correlation between the number of religions in a place and how disease-ridden it is looks impressive. There is less than one chance in 10,000 that it has come about accidentally.

The two researchers also looked at anthropological data on how much people in “traditional”（i.e., non-urban）societies move around in different parts of the world. They found that in more religiously diverse（and more disease-ridden）places people move shorter distances than in healthier, religiously monotonous societies. The implication is that religious diversity causes people to keep themselves to themselves, and thus makes it harder for them to catch germs from infidels.

Of course, correlation is not causation. But religion is not the only cultural phenomenon that stops groups of people from mixing. Language has the same effect, and in another, as yet unpublished study Mr. Fincher and Dr Thornhill found a similar relationship there too. Moreover, their search of the literature turned up work which suggests that xenophobia is linked psychologically with fear of disease （the dirty foreigner...）. Perhaps, then, the underlying reason why there is so much hostility between ethnic groups is nothing to do with the groups themselves, but instead with the diseases they may bring.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象：第1、2題分別模仿1998年真題Text 5第1題和Text 4第2題；第3題模仿1993年真題Text 2第1題；第4題模仿1999年真題Text 1第3題；第5題模仿1997年真題Text 4第4題。

1. What can we know about the views of Richard Dawkins and Corey Fincher from the first two paragraphs?

A) They disagree on which kind of mental disease religion belongs to.

B) Fincher hypothesizes that religion results from how people react to disease.

C) Fincher thinks it is inappropriate to compare religion with computer virus.

D) Dawkins opposes the viewpoint that religion is a response to disease.

2. Which of the following best describes the two starting points of Mr. Fincher’s hypothesis?

A) Group survival and immunity.

B) Group solidarity and genetic mutation.

C) Group connection and parasitism drive.

D) Group hostility and parenting.

3. By saying the areas are “disease-ridden”（Line 5, Paragraph 4）, the author means those areas are ______.

A) driven by diseases

B) with relatively fewer diseases

C) rife with various diseases

D) featured with incurable diseases

4. The anthropological data that they studied demonstrates that ______.

A) the sanitation of an area is closely relevant to the number of its religions

B) it is strongly convincing that religious diversity restricts people from traveling

C) people who live in healthier areas are aware that religious diversity brings disease

D) religious and language work together to cause xenophobia

5. The best title for this passage could be ______.

A) Religion as a Response to Disease

B) Religion as a Disease

C) Religion Diversity and Disease

D) Religion and Biological Research

篇章剖析

本文是一篇說明文，主要介紹了新墨西哥大學(xué)的科里·芬徹提出的新假設(shè)，即宗教是人類對(duì)疾病，或者說是對(duì)疾病威脅的反應(yīng)。第一段首先簡(jiǎn)單介紹了前人（理查德·道金斯）的觀點(diǎn)，引出文章話題；第二段進(jìn)入正題，說明芬徹提出的觀點(diǎn)；第三段介紹了生物學(xué)上的相關(guān)假設(shè)和解釋；第四至七段具體介紹了芬徹及其同事有關(guān)宗教與疾病關(guān)系的研究；第八段則提出，除了宗教之外，語(yǔ)言也是阻止人們接觸的一個(gè)文化現(xiàn)象。

詞匯注釋

irrational /??r???nl/ adj. 非理性的

hypothesis /ha??p?θ?s?s/ n. 假說；前提

pathological /?p?θ??l?d??kl/ adj. 病理上的；疾病的，病態(tài)的

solidarity /?s?l??d?r?ti/ n. 團(tuán)結(jié)

predisposition /?pri?d?sp??z??n/ n. 傾向；素質(zhì)

parasite /?p?r?sa?t/ n. 寄生生物

parasitism /?p?r?sa?t?z?m/ n. 寄生狀態(tài)

collate /k??le?t/ v. 校對(duì)，核對(duì)；對(duì)照

constitute /?k?nst?tju?t/ v. 構(gòu)成，組成

fraught /fr??t/ adj. 充滿…的；伴隨…的

anthropological /??nθr?p??l?d??kl/ adj. 人類學(xué)的

xenophobia /?zen??f??b??/ n. 對(duì)外國(guó)（人）的無理仇視（或畏懼）

難句突破

But using accepted definitions of uniqueness, exclusivity, autonomy and superiority to other religions they calculated that the average number of religions per country is 31.

主體句式：But they calculated that...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句的主干比較簡(jiǎn)單，不過在主語(yǔ)前面有一個(gè)很長(zhǎng)的狀語(yǔ)，增加了理解本句的難度?！皍sing accepted definitions of uniqueness, exclusivity, autonomy and superiority to other religions”是狀語(yǔ)部分，用來說明他們用什么樣的方法取得了這個(gè)平均數(shù)。英語(yǔ)中，狀語(yǔ)的位置比較靈活，因此這個(gè)部分也可以放在句子最后。本句中狀語(yǔ)出現(xiàn)在句子開頭主要是為了強(qiáng)調(diào)研究方法，同時(shí)也可以自然地承接上一個(gè)句子。

句子譯文：但根據(jù)一些公認(rèn)的定義，如獨(dú)特性、排他性、自治及相對(duì)其他宗教的優(yōu)越性，芬徹和他的同事計(jì)算出平均每個(gè)國(guó)家的宗教數(shù)量為31個(gè)。

題目分析

1. B 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章前兩段列舉了理查德·道金斯和科里·芬徹各自的觀點(diǎn)和假設(shè)。第二段指出，芬徹認(rèn)為“宗教并不像疾病，而是對(duì)疾病的反應(yīng)——或者說是對(duì)疾病威脅的反應(yīng)”，這是兩人觀點(diǎn)的最大不同，所以應(yīng)該選B，而A項(xiàng)顯然是錯(cuò)的。C項(xiàng)文中沒有提及，同樣，文中也沒有提及道金斯對(duì)芬徹觀點(diǎn)的態(tài)度，因此D也不正確。

2. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。文中第三段說明了芬徹教授的兩個(gè)理論起點(diǎn)，其一是團(tuán)結(jié)促進(jìn)說，其二是“細(xì)菌、病毒及其他一些寄生物是推動(dòng)進(jìn)化的強(qiáng)大動(dòng)力”，只有C項(xiàng)最準(zhǔn)確地概括了這兩點(diǎn)，所以正確答案是C。

3. C 推理題。做對(duì)這道題不一定要認(rèn)識(shí)disease-ridden這個(gè)詞，根據(jù)上下文就可以推出這個(gè)詞的意思。第四段這個(gè)詞所在句子的上文指出“他們假定在疾病泛濫的地區(qū)，為了降低傳染風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，各個(gè)群體之間除了在非常必要的情況下有責(zé)任避免彼此接觸”，因此很容易就可以猜出來“排他的行為模式更加明顯”的地區(qū)應(yīng)該是流行著各種疾病的地區(qū)，所以答案是C，rife with意為“充滿”。

4. A 細(xì)節(jié)題。第七段主要分析了宗教多樣性和一個(gè)地區(qū)人們健康之間的關(guān)系，第八段隨之指出“相關(guān)關(guān)系并不是因果關(guān)系”，因此現(xiàn)在能夠得出的結(jié)論只能是二者之間的相關(guān)關(guān)系，所以A正確。B項(xiàng)關(guān)于兩者之間關(guān)系的描述與原文相反；C項(xiàng)文中沒有提到；D與最后兩段的描述不符，因此這三個(gè)選項(xiàng)都不正確。

5. A 主旨題。文章主要就是介紹科里·芬徹關(guān)于宗教是人類對(duì)疾病的反應(yīng)這一理論，所以很顯然A項(xiàng)最為合適。B項(xiàng)是第一段道金斯的觀點(diǎn)；C項(xiàng)提到的宗教多樣性與疾病只是文章部分內(nèi)容；D項(xiàng)也不正確，因?yàn)槲闹胁粌H僅是說宗教與生物研究，還提到了人類學(xué)研究等。

參考譯文

有些人認(rèn)為宗教是一種疾病，牛津大學(xué)進(jìn)化生物學(xué)家理查德·道金斯就是這一觀點(diǎn)的代表。持這一觀點(diǎn)的人認(rèn)為，宗教像病毒一樣到處傳播，只不過這種“病毒”更像是計(jì)算機(jī)病毒——一些文化軟件被惡意植入人們的大腦硬件中，從而控制大腦硬件，使其做出各種不理性的事情。

關(guān)于宗教多樣性問題的起源，新墨西哥大學(xué)的科里·芬徹則有不同的假設(shè)。他認(rèn)為宗教并不像疾病，而是對(duì)疾病的反應(yīng)——或者說是對(duì)疾病威脅的反應(yīng)。如果他的假設(shè)成立，那些相信宗教可以保佑自己免受傷害的人們或許是有道理的，盡管這種保護(hù)并非來自他們所信奉的超自然的力量。

芬徹教授的觀點(diǎn)并不是說宗教的主要功能是防御疾病。關(guān)于這一點(diǎn)生物學(xué)家提出了諸多假設(shè)，而并不是所有人都接受道金斯先生關(guān)于宗教是一種疾病的假設(shè)。一些人將宗教視為亂世之中促進(jìn)群體團(tuán)結(jié)的途徑，抑或是追求團(tuán)結(jié)過程中的一個(gè)意外結(jié)果。這種團(tuán)結(jié)促進(jìn)說正是芬徹教授的理論起點(diǎn)之一。另一個(gè)理論起點(diǎn)是，細(xì)菌、病毒及其他一些寄生物是推動(dòng)進(jìn)化的強(qiáng)大動(dòng)力。比如，許多生物學(xué)家認(rèn)為性是對(duì)寄生病菌的一種反應(yīng)。其后的基因結(jié)合意味著任何父母至少有某一子女很可能對(duì)某一特定疾病免疫。

芬徹教授和他的同事蘭迪·桑希爾的研究問題是：疾病是否同樣也是引起人類社會(huì)行為的重要誘因？他們假定在疾病泛濫的地區(qū)，為了降低傳染風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，各個(gè)群體除了在非常必要的情況下有責(zé)任避免彼此接觸。因此他們推斷，在多病地區(qū)排他的行為模式將更加明顯。宗教當(dāng)然屬于排他行為，他們還具體地預(yù)測(cè)出隨著疾病數(shù)量不同，某一地區(qū)不同宗教的數(shù)量也會(huì)不同。

證實(shí)這一觀點(diǎn)需要對(duì)大量以往的研究進(jìn)行整理。甚至定義什么組成了宗教都十分困難。但根據(jù)一些公認(rèn)的定義，如獨(dú)特性、排他性、自治及相對(duì)其他宗教的優(yōu)越性，芬徹和他的同事計(jì)算出平均每個(gè)國(guó)家的宗教數(shù)量為31個(gè)，不過跨度范圍很大，從3個(gè)到643個(gè)不等。例如，科特迪瓦有76個(gè)不同的宗教，而挪威有13個(gè)；巴西有159個(gè)，而加拿大有15個(gè)。他們又同樣統(tǒng)計(jì)了各國(guó)寄生性疾病的數(shù)量，平均值為200，跨度為178到248。

顯然，國(guó)家間的某些不同是由地理位置和人口數(shù)量的不同造成的。但宗教數(shù)量及疾病數(shù)量的不同是可以由統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)解釋的。芬徹及其同事這樣做了，他們得出的宗教數(shù)量與疾病泛濫情況相關(guān)的結(jié)論讓人印象深刻。僅僅由于偶然得出這一結(jié)論的幾率小于萬(wàn)分之一。

兩位專家也參閱了人類學(xué)的某些數(shù)據(jù)，了解“傳統(tǒng)”社會(huì)（也就是城市出現(xiàn)之前）人們?cè)谑澜绺鞯剡w徙的情況。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在宗教更為多樣的（以及疾病更泛濫）的地方，人們遷徙的路途要短于那些生活較為健康、宗教單一的人群。這意味著宗教多樣性減少了人們與他族的接觸，因而這使他們不易受到異族病菌的侵染。

當(dāng)然，相關(guān)關(guān)8系并不是因果關(guān)系。宗教也不是唯一一個(gè)阻止人們接觸的文化現(xiàn)象。語(yǔ)言也有相同的效果，在另外一篇由芬徹先生和桑希爾博士撰寫但尚未發(fā)表的論文中，他們也發(fā)現(xiàn)了類似的相關(guān)關(guān)系。此外，通過對(duì)文學(xué)作品的研究，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)外國(guó)人的憎惡感也與心理上恐懼疾病有關(guān)（骯臟的外國(guó)人…）。那么，或許少數(shù)民族之間充滿敵意背后的原因與民族本身無關(guān)，而是因?yàn)閷?duì)異族可能帶來疾病的憎惡。