Text 3

We have all encountered them, in both our personal and professional lives. Think about the times you felt tricked or frustrated by a membership or subscription that had a seamless sign-up process but was later difficult to cancel. Something that should be simple and transparent can be complicated, intentionally or unintentionally, in ways that impair consumer choice. These are examples of dark patterns.

First coined in 2010 by user experience expert Harry Brignull, “dark patterns" is a catch-all term for practices that manipulate user interfaces to influence the decision-making ability of users. Brignull identifies 12 types of common dark patterns, ranging from misdirection and hidden costs to “roach motel”, where a user experience seems easy and intuitive at the start, but turns difficult when the user tries to get out.

In a 2019 study of 53,000 product pages and 11,000 websites, researchers found that about one in 10 employs these design practices. Though widely prevalent, the concept of dark patterns is still not well understood. Business and nonproft leaders should be aware of dark patterns and try to avoid the gray areas they engender.

Where is the line between ethical, persuasive design and dark patterns? Businesses should engage in conversations with IT, compliance, risk, and legal teams to review their privacy policy, and include in the discussion the customer/user experience designers and coders responsible for the company's user interface, as well as the marketers and advertisers responsible for sign-ups, checkout baskets, pricing, and promotions. Any or all these teams can play a role in creating or avoiding “digital deception.”

Lawmakers and regulators are slowly starting to address the ambiguity around dark patterns, most recently at the state level. In March, the California Attorney General announced the approval of additional regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) that “ensure that consumers will not be confused or misled when seeking to exercise their data privacy rights.” The regulations aim to ban dark patterns- this means prohibiting companies from using "confusing language or unnecessary steps such as forcing them to click through multiple screens or listen to reasons why they shouldn’t opt out.”

As more states consider promulgating additional regulations, there is a need for greater accountability from within the business community. Dark patterns also can be addressed on a self-regulatory basis, but only if organizations hold themselves accountable, not just to legal requirements, but also to industry best practices and standard.

31. It can be learned from the first two paragraphs that dark patterns ______.

[A] improve user experiences

[B] leak user information for profit

[C] undermine users’ decision-making

[D] remind users of hidden costs

32. The 2019 study on dark patterns is mentioned to show ______.

[A] their major flaws

[B] their complex designs

[C] their severe damage

[D] their strong presence

33. To handle digital deception, businesses should ______.

[A] listen to customer feedback

[B] talk with relevant teams

[C] turn to independent agencies

[D] rely on professional training

34. The additional regulations under the CCPA are intended to ______.

[A] guide users through opt-out processes

[B] protect consumers from being tricked

[C] grant companies data privacy rights

[D] restrict access to problematic content

35. According to the last paragraph, a key to coping with dark patterns is ______.

[A] new legal requirements

[B] businesses' self-discipline

[C] strict regulatory standards

[D] consumers' safety awareness

31. [C] undermine users’ decision-making

32. [D] their strong presence

33. [B] talk with relevant teams

34. [B] protect consumers from being tricked

35. [B] businesses' self-discipline

Text 4

Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior; evidence either way is weak, relying on contrived laboratory tests or sometimes unreliable self-reports. But a new study published in Cognition found that, in at least one real-world situation, a single ethics lesson may have had lasting effects.

The researchers investigated one class session’s impact on eating meat. They chose this particular behavior for three reasons, according to study co-author Eric Schwitzgebel, a philosopher at the University of California, Riverside: students’ attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good because it reduces environmental harm and animal suffering. Half of the students in four large philosophy classes read an article on the ethics of factory-farmed meat, optionally watched an 11-minute video on the topic and joined a 50-minute discussion. The other half focused on charitable giving instead. Then, unknown to the students, the researchers studied their anonymized meal-card purchases for that semester—nearly 14,000 receipts for almost 500 students.

Schwitzgebel predicted the intervention would have no effect; he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors, including voting rates, blood donation and returning library books. But among student subjects who discussed meat ethics, meal purchases containing meat decreased from 52 to 45 percent—and this effect held steady for the study’s duration of several weeks. Purchases from the other group remained at 52 percent.

“That's actually a pretty large effect for a pretty small intervention,” Schwitzgebel says.

Psychologist Nina Strohminger at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable. And if real, she notes, it might be reversible by another nudge: “Easy come, easy go.”

Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence—classmates or teaching assistants leading the discussions may have shared their own vegetarianism, showing it as achievable or more common. Second, the video may have had an emotional impact. Least rousing, he thinks, was rational argument, although his co-authors say reason might play a bigger role. Now the researchers are probing the specific effects of teaching style, teaching assistants’ eating habits and students’ video exposure. Meanwhile Schwitzgebel—who had predicted no effect—will be eating his words.

36. Scientists generally believe that the effects of ethics classes are ______.

[A] hard to determine

[B] narrowly interpreted

[C] difficult to ignore

[D] poorly summarized

37. Which of the following is a reason for the researchers to study meat-eating?

[A] It is common among students.

[B] It is a behavior easy to measure.

[C] It is important to students’ health.

[D] It is a hot topic in ethics classes.

38. Eric Schwitzgebel’s previous findings suggest that ethics professors ______.

[A] are seldom critical of their students

[B] are less sociable than other professors

[C] are not sensitive to political issues

[D] are not necessarily ethically better

39. Nina Strohminger thinks that the effect of the intervention is ______.

[A] permanent

[B] predictable

[C] uncertain

[D] unrepeatable

40. Eric Schwitzgebel suspects that the students’ change in behavior ______.

[A] can bring psychological benefits

[B] can be analyzed statistically

[C] is a result of multiple factors

[D] is a sign of self-development

【答案解析】

36. [A] hard to determine

【解析】本题为细节题。根据题干关键词Scientists、ethics classes定位到第一段①句的前半句：Although ethics classes are common around the world, scientists are unsure if their lessons can actually change behavior。其中can actually change behavior(确实能够改变行为)指的就是题干中的effects(效果)。A项hard to determine(很难确定)是对①句中unsure(不确定的)的同义替换。所以本题选A。

37. [B] It is a behavior easy to measure.

【解析】本题为细节题。根据题干关键词reason定位到第二段②句：They chose this particular behavior for three reasons ...: students’ attitudes on the topic are variable and unstable, behavior is easily measurable, and ethics literature largely agrees that eating less meat is good ...。其中They指the researchers，this particular behavior指meat-eating。B项It is a behavior easy to measure(它是一种容易测量的行为)是对②句中behavior is easily measurable(行为是容易测量的)的同义替换。所以本题选B。

38. [D] are not necessarily ethically better

【解析】本题为细节题。根据题干关键词previous findings和ethics professors定位到第三段①句的后半句：he had previously found that ethics professors do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors, including voting rates, blood donation ...。其中he指Eric Schwitzgebel, a range of behaviors指的是包括投票率、献血等在内的道德行为。D项are not necessarily ethically better(未必在道德上更好)是对①句中do not differ from other professors on a range of behaviors(在一系列行为上与其他教授并无不同)的合理概括。所以本题选D。

39. [C] uncertain

【解析】本题为细节题。根据题干关键词Nina Strohminger和the effect定位到第四段②句：Psychologist Nina Strohminger ... says she wants the effect to be real but cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable。其中the effect指the effect of the intervention。C项uncertain(不确定的)是对②句中cannot rule out some unknown confounding variable(不能排除一些未知的混淆变量)的合理推断，即Nina Strohminger认为一些混淆变量可能和the intervention干预手段一起影响了实验结果，因此干预手段的效果是不确定的。所以本题选C。

40. [C] is a result of multiple factors

【解析】本题为细节题。根据题干关键词Schwitzgebel suspects定位到第五段①句的前半句：Schwitzgebel suspects the greatest impact came from social influence，即导致学生行为变化的最大影响来自于社会影响。结合②句中的Second, the video may have had an emotional impact(第二，视频可能产生了情感方面的影响)，以及③句中的Least rousing ... was rational argument(最不激动人心的是理性讨论)，可知Schwitzgebel提到了社会影响、视频、理性讨论等多种影响因素。C项is a result of multiple factors(是多种因素的结果)是对①-③句中各种影响因素的合理概括。所以本题选C。