【文章內容簡介】 like it more.”A classic example is： when you hear a song for the first time and hate it， but after a couple more listens, you start to like it. So it is with watching a TV mercial. In an art store, seeing an artwork frequently highlights the idea that the particular piece of art is important. You start to appreciate it and feel connected to it.Traditionally, museums make considerable profits by selling things related io big exhibitions like Van Gogh paintings. But that model is changing. Those big shows puts us in a very challenging position of being reliant on whether people e to see a particular show, or whether or not there39。s product that is appropriate to develop for that particular show, Leanne explains.A better tactic might be relying on museumgoers themselves to drive stocking decisions. Getting out in the museum while people are walking around, really trying to understand what they’re thinking about when they finally do make it into the store is something that we always try to keep top of mind.28 According to Leanne Graeff, what are the items in the MET store meant to do?A. To make visitors feel absurd.B. To help fund several local museums.C. To strongly impress visitors with art.D. To try out the mereexposure effect,29. How does the author clarify the mereexposure effect?A. By drawing parisons.B. By using statistics.C. By presenting arguments.D. By giving examples.30. What does Leanne probably agree with in terms of big shows?A. They fail to appeal to visitors.B. They cause pressure on the art store.C. They force the store to change its location.D. They make appropriate products available.31. What does the underlined word tactic in the last paragraph refer to?A. A pricing system.B. A business trap.C. A product development method.D. A customer plaint response.DImagine you had never tasted lemonade. You would still probably assume that lemon juice mixed with sugar tastes better than lemon juice alone. Because you know what lemons taste like, and you know what sugar tastes like.You can recall those past experiences, and make a prediction about your response to something new. Researchers call the ability to predict our future emotional state affective forecasting. And some have suggested that the skill is unique to humans. But is it?“We bined different liquids and asked participants, the orangutan （猩猩）and the humans, to predict what such novel liquid binations taste like, and whether they prefer one or the other,” Lund University cognitive scientist GabrielaAlina Saueiuc told us.She and her colleagues offered their cocktails（雞尾酒）to a 21yearold male orangutan named Naong, who lives in Sweden39。s Furuvik Zoo. They used four ingredientscherry juice, rhubarb juice, lemon juice, and apple cider vinegarwhich they bined into six unfamiliar mixtures. Altogether, that made for 24 possible parisons of one drink against another.Naong watched the researchers mix his drinks. Then he got to choose from the two sets before him. And in 21 of the 24 trials, Naong matched the researchers39。 predictions： that his choice would be based on his relative fondness for the separate ingredients. For example, since he liked rhubarb juice better thanlemon juice, he also preferred rhubarbcherry juice to lemoncherry juicedespite having had no experience with either.“We are impressed with Naong39。s ability to be so consistent in his choices. Both human and orangutan species seemed to make consistent choices about future events even if they had no previous experience to guide their decisionmaking.It39。s a single study with a single orangutan. But probably we will soon mark yet another skill off the list of things that were once thought to be specific to our species. Perhaps what’s truly unique about us is our ongoing search for something unique about us.32. What did the scientists ask Noang t