What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?查看材料A.The eagemess to be accepted．B.The impulse to influence others．C.The readiness to be influenced．D.The inclination to rely on others．
What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?查看材料
A.The eagemess to be accepted．
B.The impulse to influence others．
C.The readiness to be influenced．
D.The inclination to rely on others．
B.The impulse to influence others．
C.The readiness to be influenced．
D.The inclination to rely on others．
参考解析
解析：细节题。根据最后一段中的“…is the presence not of a few influentials but，rather，of a?critical mass of easily influenced people．”可知，C项正确。
相关考题：
What separated the period of Middle English from that of Modern English was _______ A the Norman ConquestB the influence of the French languageC the Europe renaissance movementD the influence of Latin
根据下列材料，请回答 21～25 题：Come on –Everybody’s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.The idea seems promising，and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology.” Dare to be different, please don’t smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it’s presented here is that it doesn’t work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form. of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior. we see every day.Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It’s like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that’s the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.第 21 题 According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as[A] a supplement to the social cure[B] a stimulus to group dynamics[C] an obstacle to school progress[D] a cause of undesirable behaviors
Passage 1In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that"social epidemics"are driven in?large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are?unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected．The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn′t?explain how ideas actually spread．The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested?theory called the"two-step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the?influentials and from them to everyone else．Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it?suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of?the work for them．The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain?looks,brands,or neighborhoods．In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some?small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid?attention．Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people?can drive trends．In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials?have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed．In fact,they don′t seem to be?required of all．The researchers′argument stems from a simple observation about social influence:With the?exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outsize presence is primarily a function of?media,not interpersonal,influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don′t?interact with that many others．Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to?the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics,by influencing their friends and?colleagues directly．For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected must then?influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how?many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential．If people?in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the?cascade of change won′t propagate very far or affect many people．Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics?of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations,manipulating a?number of variables relating to people′s ability to influence others and their tendency to be?influenced．They found that the principal requirement for what is called"global cascades"—the?widespread propagation of influence through networks--is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people．What the researchers have observed recently shows that__________．查看材料A.the power of influence goes with social interactionsB.interpersonal links can be enhanced through the mediaC.influentials have more channels to reach the publicD.most celebrities enjoy wide media attention
Passage 1In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that"social epidemics"are driven in?large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are?unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected．The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn′t?explain how ideas actually spread．The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested?theory called the"two-step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the?influentials and from them to everyone else．Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it?suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of?the work for them．The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain?looks,brands,or neighborhoods．In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some?small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid?attention．Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people?can drive trends．In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials?have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed．In fact,they don′t seem to be?required of all．The researchers′argument stems from a simple observation about social influence:With the?exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outsize presence is primarily a function of?media,not interpersonal,influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don′t?interact with that many others．Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to?the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics,by influencing their friends and?colleagues directly．For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected must then?influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how?many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential．If people?in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the?cascade of change won′t propagate very far or affect many people．Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics?of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations,manipulating a?number of variables relating to people′s ability to influence others and their tendency to be?influenced．They found that the principal requirement for what is called"global cascades"—the?widespread propagation of influence through networks--is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people．The underlined phrase"these people"in Paragraph 4 refers to the ones who__________．查看材料A.stay outside the network of social influenceB.have little contact with the source of influenceC.are influenced and then influence othersD.are influenced by the initial influential
Passage 1In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that"social epidemics"are driven in?large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are?unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected．The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn′t?explain how ideas actually spread．The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested?theory called the"two-step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the?influentials and from them to everyone else．Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it?suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of?the work for them．The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain?looks,brands,or neighborhoods．In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some?small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid?attention．Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people?can drive trends．In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials?have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed．In fact,they don′t seem to be?required of all．The researchers′argument stems from a simple observation about social influence:With the?exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outsize presence is primarily a function of?media,not interpersonal,influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don′t?interact with that many others．Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to?the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics,by influencing their friends and?colleagues directly．For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected must then?influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how?many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential．If people?in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the?cascade of change won′t propagate very far or affect many people．Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics?of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations,manipulating a?number of variables relating to people′s ability to influence others and their tendency to be?influenced．They found that the principal requirement for what is called"global cascades"—the?widespread propagation of influence through networks--is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people．The author suggests that the"two-step flow theory"__________．查看材料A.serves as a solution to marketing problemsB.has helped explain certain prevalent trendsC.has won support from influentialsD.requires solid evidence for its validity
Passage 1In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that"social epidemics"are driven in?large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are?unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected．The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn′t?explain how ideas actually spread．The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested?theory called the"two-step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the?influentials and from them to everyone else．Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it?suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of?the work for them．The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain?looks,brands,or neighborhoods．In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some?small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid?attention．Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people?can drive trends．In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials?have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed．In fact,they don′t seem to be?required of all．The researchers′argument stems from a simple observation about social influence:With the?exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outsize presence is primarily a function of?media,not interpersonal,influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don′t?interact with that many others．Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to?the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics,by influencing their friends and?colleagues directly．For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected must then?influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how?many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential．If people?in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the?cascade of change won′t propagate very far or affect many people．Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics?of social influence by conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations,manipulating a?number of variables relating to people′s ability to influence others and their tendency to be?influenced．They found that the principal requirement for what is called"global cascades"—the?widespread propagation of influence through networks--is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people．By citing the book The Tipping Point,the author intends to__________．查看材料A.analyze the consequences of social epidemicsB.discuss influentials'function in spreading ideasC.exemplify people's intuitive response to social epidemicsD.describe the essential characteristics ofinfluentials
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.35.what is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?A.The eagerness to be acceptedB.The impulse to influence othersC.The readiness to be influencedD.The inclination to rely on others
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.34.The underlined phrase"these people"in paragraph 4 refers to the ones whoA.stay outside the network of social influenceB.have little contact with the source of influenceC.are influenced and then influence othersD.are influenced by the initial influential
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.32.The author suggests that the"two-step-flow theory"A.serves as a solution to marketing problemsB.has helped explain certain prevalent trendsC.has won support from influentialsD.requires solid evidence for its validity
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.31.By citing the book The Tipping Point,the author intends toA.analyze the consequences of social epidemicsB.discuss influentials'function in spreading ideasC.exemplify people's intuitive response to social epidemicsD.describe the essential characteristics of influentials.
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point,Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals,often called influentials,who are unusually informed,persuasive,or well-connected.The idea is intuitively compelling,but it doesn't explain how ideas actually spread.The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the"two step flow of communication":Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else.Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials,those selected people will do most of the work for them.The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks,brands,or neighborhoods.In many such cases,a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing,promoting,or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention.Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work,however,some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed.In fact,they don't seem to be required of all.The researchers'argument stems from a simple observing about social influence,with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media,not interpersonal,influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don't interact with that many others.Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who,according to the two-step-flow theory,are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly.For a social epidemic to occur,however,each person so affected,must then influence his or her own acquaintances,who must in turn influence theirs,and so on;and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential.If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant,for example,the cascade of change won't propagate very far or affect many people.Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence,the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations,manipulating a number of variables relating to people's ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call"global cascades"–the widespread propagation of influence through networks–is the presence not of a few influentials but,rather,of a critical mass of easily influenced people.33.What the researchers have observed recently shows thatA.the power of influence goes with social interactionsB.interpersonal links can be enhanced through the mediaC.influentials have more channels to reach the publicD.most celebrities enjoy wide media attention
As both a religion and a social force,Puritanism has made a widespread influence in the United States.A: afar-reachingB: a disturbingC: an annoyingD: a favorable
A.stay outside the network of social influence B.have little contact with the source of influence C.are influenced and then influence others D.are infuenced by the initial influential
What the element ‘-es’ indicates is third person singular, present tense, the element ‘-ed’ past tense, and ‘-ing’ progressive aspect. Since they are the smallest unit of language and meaningful, they are also（）.AphonemesBmorphemesCallophonesDphones
What layer of the TMN （telecommunications management network） model does CTM fit into？（）A、Network management layerB、Element management layerC、Business management layerD、Network element layer
填空题What is required of the applicants in terms of social image?They must enjoy a ____ social image.
单选题请阅读 Passage l,完成第 21~25小题。 Passage1 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in largepart by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often calledinfluentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. Theidea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actuallyspread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-soundingbut largely untested theory called the two-step flow ofcommunication: Information flows from the media to the influential andfrom them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow becauseit suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selectedpeople will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain thesudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. Inmany such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group ofpeople was wearing promoting, or developingwhatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of thiskind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drivetrends. In their recent work，however，some researchers have come up with the finding that influential havefar less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, theydon 't seem to be required of all.The researchers ' argument stems from a simple observation aboutsocial influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like OprahWinfrey-whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, notinterpersonal, influence-even the most influential members of a populationsimply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrityinfluentials who，according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive socialepidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, eachperson so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances，who must intum influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to eachof these people has little to do with the initialinfluential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initialinfluential prove resistant. for example, the cascade of change won ' tpropagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth aboutinterpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influenceby conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a numberof variables relating to people's ability to influence others and theirtendency to be influenced. They foundthat the principal requirement for what is called global cascades---the widespreadpropagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but ,rather, of a critical mass of easilyinfluenced people.What the researchers have observed recently shows that_____Athe power of influence goes with social interactionsBinterpersonal links can be enhanced through the mediaCinfluentials have more channels to reach the publicDmost celebrities enjoy wide media attention
单选题请阅读 Passage l,完成第 21~25小题。 Passage1 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in largepart by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often calledinfluentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. Theidea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actuallyspread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-soundingbut largely untested theory called the "two-step flow ofcommunication": Information flows from the media to the influential andfrom them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow becauseit suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selectedpeople will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain thesudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. Inmany such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group ofpeople was wearing promoting, or developingwhatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of thiskind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drivetrends. In their recent work，however，some researchers have come up with the finding that influential havefar less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, theydon 't seem to be required of all.The researchers ' argument stems from a simple observation aboutsocial influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like OprahWinfrey-whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, notinterpersonal, influence-even the most influential members of a populationsimply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrityinfluentials who，according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive socialepidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, eachperson so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances，who must intum influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to eachof these people has little to do with the initialinfluential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initialinfluential prove resistant. for example, the cascade of change won ' tpropagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth aboutinterpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influenceby conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a numberof variables relating to people's ability to influence others and theirtendency to be influenced. They foundthat the principal requirement for what is called "global cascades"---the widespreadpropagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but ,rather, of a critical mass of easilyinfluenced people.By citing the book The Tipping Point, the author intends to_____Aanalyze the consequences of social epidemicsBdiscuss influentials ' function in spreading ideasCexemplify people ' s intuitive response to social epidemicsDdescribe the essential characteristics of influential
单选题请阅读 Passage l,完成第 21~25小题。 Passage1 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in largepart by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often calledinfluentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. Theidea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actuallyspread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-soundingbut largely untested theory called the "two-step flow ofcommunication": Information flows from the media to the influential andfrom them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow becauseit suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selectedpeople will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain thesudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. Inmany such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group ofpeople was wearing promoting, or developingwhatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of thiskind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drivetrends. In their recent work，however，some researchers have come up with the finding that influential havefar less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, theydon 't seem to be required of all.The researchers ' argument stems from a simple observation aboutsocial influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like OprahWinfrey-whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, notinterpersonal, influence-even the most influential members of a populationsimply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrityinfluentials who，according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive socialepidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, eachperson so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances，who must intum influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to eachof these people has little to do with the initialinfluential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initialinfluential prove resistant. for example, the cascade of change won ' tpropagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth aboutinterpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influenceby conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a numberof variables relating to people's ability to influence others and theirtendency to be influenced. They foundthat the principal requirement for what is called "global cascades"---the widespreadpropagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but ,rather, of a critical mass of easilyinfluenced people.The author suggests that the "two-step flow theory"____Aserves as a solution to marketing problemsB .has helped explain certain prevalent trendsBhas won support from influentialsCrequires solid evidence for its validity
单选题请阅读 Passage l,完成第 21~25小题。 Passage1 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in largepart by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often calledinfluentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. Theidea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actuallyspread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-soundingbut largely untested theory called the "two-step flow ofcommunication": Information flows from the media to the influential andfrom them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow becauseit suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selectedpeople will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain thesudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. Inmany such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group ofpeople was wearing promoting, or developingwhatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of thiskind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drivetrends. In their recent work，however，some researchers have come up with the finding that influential havefar less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, theydon 't seem to be required of all.The researchers ' argument stems from a simple observation aboutsocial influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like OprahWinfrey-whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, notinterpersonal, influence-even the most influential members of a populationsimply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrityinfluentials who，according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive socialepidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, eachperson so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances，who must intum influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to eachof these people has little to do with the initialinfluential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initialinfluential prove resistant. for example, the cascade of change won ' tpropagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth aboutinterpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influenceby conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a numberof variables relating to people's ability to influence others and theirtendency to be influenced. They foundthat the principal requirement for what is called "global cascades"---the widespreadpropagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but ,rather, of a critical mass of easilyinfluenced people.The underlined phrase "these people" in Paragraph 4 refers to the ones who____Astay outside the network of social influenceBhave little contact with the source of influenceCare influenced and then influence othersDare influenced by the initial influential
单选题请阅读 Passage l,完成第 21~25小题。 Passage1 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in largepart by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often calledinfluentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. Theidea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn't explain how ideas actuallyspread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-soundingbut largely untested theory called the two-step flow ofcommunication: Information flows from the media to the influential andfrom them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow becauseit suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selectedpeople will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain thesudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. Inmany such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group ofpeople was wearing promoting, or developingwhatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of thiskind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drivetrends. In their recent work，however，some researchers have come up with the finding that influential havefar less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, theydon 't seem to be required of all.The researchers ' argument stems from a simple observation aboutsocial influence: With the exception of a few celebrities like OprahWinfrey-whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, notinterpersonal, influence-even the most influential members of a populationsimply don't interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrityinfluentials who，according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive socialepidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, eachperson so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances，who must intum influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to eachof these people has little to do with the initialinfluential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initialinfluential prove resistant. for example, the cascade of change won ' tpropagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth aboutinterpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of social influenceby conducting thousands of computer simulations of populations, manipulating a numberof variables relating to people's ability to influence others and theirtendency to be influenced. They foundthat the principal requirement for what is called global cascades---the widespreadpropagation of influence through networks—is the presence not of a few influentials but ,rather, of a critical mass of easilyinfluenced people.What is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence?AThe eagerness to be accepted.BThe impulse to influence others.CThe readiness to be influenced.DThe inclination to rely on others.