Many years ago in a small German town, a Jewish businessman had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to the moneylender. The moneylender, who was old and ugly, fancied the businessman’s beautiful daughter. So he proposed a bargain.
The moneylender told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty bag. The girl would then have to pick one pebble from the bag. If she picked the black pebble, she would bee the moneylender’s wife and he would forgo her father’s debt. If she picked the white pebble, she need not marry him and her father’s debt would still be forgiven. But if she refused to pick a pebble, her father would be thrown into jail.
They were standing on a pebble-strewn path. As they talked, the moneylender bent over to pick up two pebbles. The sharp-eyed girl noticed that he had picked up two black pebbles and put them into the bag. He then asked the girl to pick a pebble from the bag. No doubt she was caught in a dilemma.
What would you have done if you were the girl? Careful analysis would produce three possibilities:
1.The girl should refuse to take a pebble.
2.The girl should know that there were two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a cheat.
3.The girl should pick a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from his debt and imprisonment.
The above story is used with the hope that it will make us appreciate the difference between lateral (横向的)and logical thinking.
Read on…
The girl put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without looking at it, she fumbled and let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles. “Oh, how clumsy of me!” she said. “But never mind, if you look into the bag for the one that is left, you will be able to tell which pebble I picked.” Since the remaining pebble is black, it must be assumed that she had picked the white one. And since the moneylender dared not admit his dishonesty, the girl changed what seemed an impossible situation into an extremely advantageous one.
【小题1】The underlined word “forgo” in paragraph 2 may mean .A．pay offB．run outC．take overD．give up【小题2】Which of the following indicates lateral thinking?A．The girl refused to take a pebble and fled at once.B．The girl exposed the cheat and found another way.C．The girl picked one pebbles and made it disappear.D．The girl picked a black pebble and accepted the result.【小题3】It can be inferred from the passage that .A．The girl dropped the pebble onto the path on purposeB．The girl dropped the pebble onto the path by accidentC．The girl didn’t know there were two black pebbles in the bagD．The girl replaced a black pebble in the bag【小题4】What lesson can we learn from the story?A．Keeping calm when facing a difficult situation.B．Thinking about a plicated problem in another way.C．Thinking twice before making a final choice.D．Coming up with a clever answer is easy.D
网友回答
(答案→)D
解析：故事讲述了这样一件事：有位犹太商人不幸欠了放债人一大笔金钱。债主对商人貌美的女儿垂涎三尺，想取其为妻。于是让商人在两难选择中进行选择。债主意为胜券在握，哪知道商人的女儿用她的智慧解决这个两难的问题。故事告诉我们这样的寓意： 最复杂的问题亦有解决办法。 这只是我们没有尝试去思考。 一个人的想法就是一种创意。
【小题1】D词义猜测题。“If she picked the black pebble, she would bee the moneylender’s wife and he
would forgo her father’s debt.”该句的意思是根据债主的游戏规则“如果她挑选的是黑色鹅卵石，她将成
为她的丈夫”那么“他将 她父亲的债务。”所以推断为“放弃(give up)”。
【小题2】C推理判断题。“lateral thinking”是“从多方面考虑即横向思维”的意思。根据第四段分析的三
种可能“1.女孩应该拒绝选取鹅花石；2.女孩应该知道袋子中都是黑色鹅卵石而揭露债主进行欺诈；3.女
孩应该选择黑色卵石牺牲自己以拯救他父亲的债务和监禁。”可以排除ABD三个选项，因为它们都不是
横向思维而是传统逻辑思维的产物(三种做法都将导致“女孩必须嫁给债主的”的后果)。或根据最后一段
的叙述推断答案C正确。
【小题3】A推理判断题。从最后一段“Without looking at it, she fumbled and let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles.(还没看，一个没拿稳就掉落到铺满鹅卵石的路上，它立刻掉进所有鹅卵石中不见了)”说明她这样做即把鹅卵石掉下来是“故意的”。
【小题4】B推理判断题。女孩利用债主的心理用“反证法”击败了债主，可见“换个角度来思考复杂的问题”就有可能“柳暗花明又一村”使问题迎刃而解。故B项正确。