Выполнить задание

Найдите в тексте предложения с глаголами в Active Voice и Passive Voice временной группы Simple (не менее 4-5 каждого залога). Определите время глагола. Трансформируйте предложения, изменив залог. Образец выполнения: Why do we remember negative events? – Present Simple Active Voice Why are negative events remembered by us? – Present Simple Passive Voice

How babies think

The Statistics of Blickets in 1996 Jenny R. Saffran, Richard N. Aslin and Elissa L. Newport, all then at the University of Rochester, first demonstrated this ability in studies of the sound patterns of language. They played sequences of syllables with statistical regularities to some eight-month-old babies. For example, “bi” might follow “ro” only one third of the time, whereas “da” might always follow “bi.” Then they played the babies new strings of sounds that either followed these patterns or broke them. Babies listened longer to the statistically unusual strings. More recent studies show that babies can detect statistical patterns of musical tones and visual scenes and also more abstract grammatical patterns. Babies can even understand the relation between a statistical sample and a population. In a 2008 study my University of California, Berkeley, colleague Fei Xu showed eight-month-old babies a box full of mixed-up Ping-Pong balls: for instance, 80 percent white and 20 percent red. The experimenter would then take out five balls, seemingly at random.

The babies were more surprised (that is, they looked longer and more intently at the scene) when the experimenter pulled four red balls and one white one out of the box - an improbable outcome - than when she pulled out four white balls and one red one. Detecting statistical patterns is just the first step in scientific discovery. Even more impressively, children (like scientists) use those statistics to draw conclusions about the world. In a version of the Ping-Pong ball study with 20-month-old babies using toy green frogs and yellow ducks, the experimenter would take five toys from the box and then ask the child to give her a toy from some that were on the table. The children showed no preference between the colors if the experimenter had taken mostly green frogs from the box of mostly green toys. Yet they specifically gave her a duck if she had taken mostly ducks from the box - apparently the children thought her statistically unlikely selection meant that she was not acting randomly and that she must prefer ducks.

In my laboratory we have been investigating how young children use

statistical evidence and experimentation to figure out cause and effect, and we find their thinking is far from being “precausal.” We introduce them to a device we call “the blicket detector,” a machine that lights up and plays music when you put some things on it but not others. Then we can give children patterns of evidence about the detector and see what causal conclusions they draw. Which objects are the blickets? In 2007 Tamar Kushnir, now at Cornell University, and I discovered that preschoolers can use probabilities to learn how the machine works. We repeatedly put one of two blocks on the machine. The machine lit up two out of three times with the yellow block but only two out of six times for the blue one. Then we gave the children the blocks and asked them to light up the machine. These children, who could not yet add or subtract, were more likely to put the high probability yellow block on the machine. They still chose correctly when we waved the high-probability block over the machine, activating it without touching it. Although they thought this kind of “action at a distance” was unlikely at the start of the experiment (we asked them), these children could use probability to discover brand-new and surprising facts about the world.

In another experiment Laura Schulz, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I showed four-year-olds a toy with a switch and two gears, one blue and one yellow, on top. The gears turn when you flip the switch. This simple toy can work in many ways. Perhaps the switch makes both gears turn at once, or perhaps the switch turns the blue gear, which turns the yellow one, and so on. We showed the children pictures illustrating each of these possibilities - the yellow gear would be depicted pushing the blue one, for instance. Then we showed them toys that worked in one or the other of these ways and gave them rather complex evidence about how each toy worked. For example, the children who got the “causal chain toy” saw that if you removed the blue gear and turned the switch, the yellow gear would still turn but that if you removed the yellow gear and turned the switch, nothing happened. We asked the children to pick the picture that matched how the toy worked. Four-year-olds were amazingly good at ascertaining how the

toy worked based on the pattern of evidence that we presented to them. Moreover, when other children were just left alone with the machine, they played with the gears in ways that helped them learn how it worked - as if they were experimenting.

Another study by Schulz used a toy that had two levers and a duck and a puppet that popped up. One group of preschoolers was shown that the duck appeared when you pressed one lever and that the puppet popped up when you pressed the other one. The second group saw that when you pressed both levers at once, both toys popped up, but they never got a chance to see what the levers did separately. Then the experimenter had the children play with the toy. Children from the first group played with the toy much less than those from the second group. They already knew how it worked and were less interested in exploring it. The second group faced a mystery, and they spontaneously played with the toy, soon uncovering which lever did what.

These studies suggested that when children play spontaneously (“getting into everything”) they are also exploring cause and effect and doing experiments - the most effective way to discover how the world works.