Question

    “Without trust,” writes Rachel Botsman, “society cannot survive, and it certainly cannot thrive."

Clearly, we are in trouble. Two-thirds of people surveyed last year in 28 countries expressed low levels of trust in "mainstream institutions" of business, government and media.

In “Who Can You Trust?” Botsman, an Oxford lecturer offers a timely and accessible framework for understanding what trust is, how it works, why it matters and how it is evolving. It is an important guidance to the obstacles and opportunities we face as a society if we are to repair and redefine trust.

Through human history, trust has evolved in three basic stages: Local trust was enough when people lived in small communities and everybody knew everybody else; industrialization and urbanization required institutional trust so that people could trust complete strangers running governments, corporations, and standards for international trade, commerce and finance. We are now living through a massive global .shift of trust from institutions to individuals: distributed trust facilitated by high-tech platforms, many of which are run by the private sector.

This shift is caused by several factors. First, accountability is unequal. Rich, powerful and well-connected individuals have been able to accumulate vast quantities of often undocumented wealth by avoiding tax and anti-bribery laws, while ordinary people are likely to be caught and punished for lawbreaking. Second, people in power are no longer seen to deserve greater respect as the details of their lives are exposed.

Botsman does not prescribe how we deal with that. But if the old ways of giving and cancelling trust such as voting, markets and consumer choice are no longer functioning, then we must change or replace them. Systems must be "driven democratically and rationally," become more "transparent, inclusive, and accountable" and, most important, be designed to "put people first," which profit-driven platforms have failed to do sufficiently.

Tech executives are responding to the trust crisis mainly with promises of more and better technology. But Batsman warns that the responsibility for ensuring that the robots being used are trustworthy lies with the human beings who design and use them. We have not thought through how we hold those people accountable, let alone their robots. She warns against a natural tendency "to become over-reliant on machines." Ideally machines should be programmed to "understand" their own limitations and even seek human help or intervention.

A growing number of people hope that new trust mechanisms can be established through the use of exciting new technologies such as the blockchain（区块链）. In essence, blockchains are digital public ledgers of transactions that cannot be changed, thereby creating greater transparency and accountability and making corruption much harder.

However, Botsman warns that the blockchain is no panacea for human trust. Whether blockchain systems lead to more accountable governance and a more just global economy will depend on their design and the intentions of those who build them. There is no app for fixing trust.

"Who Can You Trust?" does make a clear case for why it is important for the companies, governments and other institutions to be much more transparent and subject themselves to new mechanisms that can credibly hold them accountable. It is the only way they can hope to earn and maintain trust in the future.

1.Which of the following orders of trust evolution is right?

A.institutional trust→ industrialized trust→ individual trust

B.urbanized trust→ local trust→ institutional trust

C.local trust→ institutional trust→ distributed trust

D.local trust→ urbanized trust →individual trust

2.What can we conclude from the passage?

A.Profit-driven platforms pay no attention to the importance of people.

B.It is the people who design and use technology that count in restoring trust.

C.New technologies, such as the blockchain can prevent corruption from happening.

D.People should rely on new technologies to create transparency and accountability.

3.What do the underlined words “no panacea" mean?

A.not a Herculean task B.a hard nut

C.not a cure-all medicine D.a catch -22

4.What's the author's attitude toward the possibility of using technology to restore trust?

A.Supportive B.Negative

C.Indifferent D.Skeptical

Answer

1.C

2.B

3.C

4.D

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。去年在28个国家进行的调查显示，三分之二的受访者对企业、政府和媒体等“主流机构”的信任度较低。针对这种现象，牛津大学的一名讲师博茨曼在Who Can You Trust?” 为我们提供了一个及时、易懂的框架，帮助我们理解什么是信任、信任是如何运作的、信任为什么重要以及信任是如何演变的。并说明技术可以帮助人们重建信任，但更强调重建信任的关键是设计和使用技术的人。

1.细节理解题。由第四段“Local trust was enough when people lived in small communities and everybody knew everybody else. We are now living through a massive global shift of trust from institutions to individuals: distributed trust facilitated by high-tech platforms”可知，当人们生活在小社区里，每个人都互相认识时，本地的信任就足够了。我们现在正经历着一场大规模的全球信任，从机构到个人的转变：由高科技平台推动的分布式信任。所以信任进化的顺序是C选项。故选C项。

2.推理判断题。由倒数第四段“But Batsman warns that the responsibility for ensuring that the robots being used are trustworthy lies with the human beings who design and use them”可知，但是Batsman警告说，确保使用的机器人是值得信赖的责任在于设计和使用它们的人类。所以通过Batsman的警告可以推断出，设计和使用技术的人才是重建信任的关键。故选B项。

3.词句猜测题。由倒数第二段换线词后的“Whether blockchain systems lead to more accountable governance and a more just global economy will depend on their design and the intentions of those who build them. There is no app for fixing trust”可知，区块链系统是否能带来更负责任的治理和更公正的全球经济，将取决于它们的设计和构建者的意图。没有固定信任的应用程序。所以通过上下文可以判断下划线的单词“no panacea”是“不能包治百病的灵丹妙药”。故选C项。

4.推理判断题。由倒数第四段“But Batsman warns that the responsibility for ensuring that the robots being used are trustworthy lies with the human beings who design and use them”. 但是Batsman警告说，确保使用的机器人是值得信赖的责任在于设计和使用它们的人类。倒数第二段“However, Botsman warns that the blockchain is no panacea for human trus”然而，Botsman警告说，区块链并不是人类信任的灵丹妙药。最后一段“ It is the only way they can hope to earn and maintain trust in the future”这是他们希望在未来赢得并保持信任的唯一途径。所以通过Batsman的警告可以看出，使用技术来重建信任存在着很多弊端和不确定性，而最后一段作者表示出这是他们在未来赢得并保持信任的唯一途径。由此推断出，作者对使用技术来重建信任的可能性持怀疑的态度。故选D项。