专题05 阅读理解之议论文(北京高考真题+名校模拟)-备战2025年高考英语名校模拟真题速递(北京专用)

备战2025年高考英语名校模拟真题速递(北京专用) 第一期 专题05 阅读理解之议论文(北京高考真题+名校模拟) （2024·北京·高考真题）The notion that we live in someone else’s video game is irresistible to many. Searching the term “simulation hypothesis” (模拟假说) returns numerous results that debate whether the universe is a computer simulation — a concept that some scientists actually take seriously. Unfortunately, this is not a scientific question. We will probably never know whether it’s true. We can, instead, use this idea to advance scientific knowledge. The 18th-century philosopher Kant argued that the universe ultimately consists of things-in-themselves that are unknowable. While he held the notion that objective reality exists, he said our mind plays a necessary role in structuring and shaping our perceptions. Modern sciences have revealed that our perceptual experience of the world is the result of many stages of processing by sensory systems and cognitive (认知的) functions in the brain. No one knows exactly what happens within this black box. If empirical (实证的) experience fails to reveal reality, reasoning won’t reveal reality either since it relies on concepts and words that are contingent on our social, cultural and psychological histories. Again, a black box. So, if we accept that the universe is unknowable, we also accept we will never know if we live in a computer simulation. And then, we can shift our inquiry from “Is the universe a computer simulation?” to “Can we model the universe as a computer simulation? ” Modelling reality is what we do. To facilitate our comprehension of the world, we build models based on conceptual metaphors (隐喻) that are familiar to us. In Newton’s era, we imagined the universe as a clock. In Einstein’s, we uncovered the standard model of particle (粒子) physics. Now that we are in the information age, we have new concepts such as the computer, information processing, virtual reality, and simulation. Unsurprisingly, these new concepts inspire us to build new models of the universe. Models are not the reality, however. There is no point in arguing if the universe is a clock, a set of particles or an output of computation. All these models are tools to deal with the unknown and to make discoveries. And the more tools we have, the more effective and insightful we can become. It can be imagined that comparable to the process of building previous scientific models, developing the “computer simulation” metaphor-based model will also be a hugely rewarding exercise. 1．What does the author intend to do by challenging a hypothesis? A．Make an assumption. B．Illustrate an argument. C．Give a suggestion. D．Justify a comparison. 2．What does the phrase “contingent on” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A．Accepted by. B．Determined by. C．Awakened by. D．Discovered by. 3．As for Kant’s argument, the author is _________. A．appreciative B．doubtful C．unconcerned D．disapproving 4．It is implied in this passage that we should _________. A．compare the current models with the previous ones B．continue exploring the classical models in history C．stop arguing whether the universe is a simulation D．turn simulations of the universe into realities up. （2022·北京·高考真题）Quantum ( 量子 ) computers have been on my mind a lot lately. A friend has been sending me articles on how quantum computers might help solve some of the biggest challenges we face as humans. I’ve also had exchanges with two quantum-computing experts. One is computer scientist Chris Johnson who I see as someone who helps keep the field honest. The other is physicist Philip Taylor. For decades, quantum computing has been little more than a laboratory curiosity. Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us “cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction.” This is the sort of hype ( 炒作 ) that annoys Johnson. He worries that researchers are making promises they can’t keep. “What’s new,” Johnson wrote, “is that millions of dollars are now potentially available to quantum computing researchers.” As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work’s potential. If researchers can’t keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. Lots of other technologies have gone through stages of excitement. But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because “‘quantum’ stands for something cool you shouldn’t be able to understand.” And that brings me back to Taylor, who suggested that I read his book Q for Quantum. After I read the book, Taylor patiently answered my questions about it. He also answered my questions about PyQuantum, the firm he co-founded in 2016. Taylor shares Johnson’s concerns about hype, but he says those concerns do not apply to PyQuantum. The company, he says, is closer than any other firm “by a very large margin ( 幅度 )” to building a “useful” quantum computer, one that “solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise.” He adds, “People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others.” Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition “by a wide margin”, as Taylor claims? I don’t know. I’m certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers. But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson. 5．Regarding Johnson’s concerns, the author feels ________. A．sympathetic B．unconcerned C．doubtful D．excited 6．What leads to Taylor’s optimism about quantum computing? A．His dominance in physics. B．The competition in the field. C．His confidence in PyQuantum. D．The investment of tech companies. 7．What does the underlined word “prone” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Open. B．Cool. C．Useful. D．Resistant. 8．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．Is Johnson More Competent Than Taylor? B．Is Quantum Computing Redefining Technology? C．Will Quantum Computers Ever Come into Being? D．Will Quantum Computing Ever Live Up to Its Hype? （2021·北京·高考真题）Early fifth-century philosopher St．Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him．Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it．Today's state-of-the-art atomic（原子的） clocks have proven Einstein right．Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking． Forget about time as an absolute．What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy,we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．What if our definition of time reflected that？ Recently，I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that's connected to circumstances on our planet，conditions that might change as a result of global warming．We're now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers，which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes．We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect． The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics．It's a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame（时间框架），and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones．Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet．Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies． Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars，early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena．In pre-Classical Greece，for instance，people“corrected”official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season．Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness． When St．Augustine admitted his inability to define time， he highlighted one of time 's most noticeable qualities：Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context．Any timekeeping system is valid，and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose． 9．What is the main idea of Paragraph 1？ A．Timekeeping is increasingly related to nature． B．Everyone can define time on their own terms． C．The qualities of time vary with how you measure it． D．Time is a major concern of philosophers and scientists． 10．The author raises three questions in Paragraph 2 mainly to________． A．present an assumption B．evaluate an argument C．highlight an experiment D．introduce an approach 11．What can we learn from this passage？ A．Those who do not go on river time will live an imbalanced life． B．New ways of measuring time can help to control Earth systems． C．Atomic time will get ahead of river time if the rivers run slower． D．Modern technology may help to shape the rivers’ temporal frame． 12．What can we infer from this passage？ A．It is crucial to improve the definition of time． B．A fixed frame will make time meaningless． C．We should live in harmony with nature． D．History is a mirror reflecting reality． （2020·北京·高考真题）Certain forms of AI are indeed becoming ubiquitous. For example, algorithms (算法) carry out huge volumes of trading on our financial markets, self-driving cars are appearing on city streets, and our smartphones are translating from one language into another. These systems are sometimes faster and more perceptive than we humans are. But so far that is only true for the specific tasks for which the systems have been designed. That is something that some AI developers are now eager to change. Some of today’s AI pioneers want to move on from today’s world of “weak” or “narrow” AI, to create “strong” or “full” AI, or what is often called artificial general intelligence (AGI). In some respects, today’s powerful computing machines already make our brains look weak. AGI could, its advocates say, work for us around the clock, and drawing on all available data, could suggest solutions to many problems. DM, a company focused on the development of AGI, has an ambition to “solve intelligence”. “If we’re successful,” their mission statement reads, “we believe this will be one of the most important and widely beneficial scientific advances ever made.” Since the early days of AI, imagination has outpaced what is possible or even probable. In 1965, an imaginative mathematician called Irving Good predicted the eventual creation of an “ultra-intelligent machine…that can far surpass all the intellectual (智力的) activities of any man, however clever.” Good went on to suggest that “the first ultra-intelligent machine” could be “the last invention that man need ever make.” Fears about the appearance of bad, powerful, man-made intelligent machines have been reinforced (强化) by many works of fiction — Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Terminator film series, for example. But if AI does eventually prove to be our downfall, it is unlikely to be at the hands of human-shaped forms like these, with recognisably human motivations such as aggression (敌对行为). Instead, I agree with Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, who believes that the heaviest risks from AGI do not come from a decision to turn against mankind but rather from a dogged pursuit of set objectives at the expense of everything else. The promise and danger of true AGI are great. But all of today’s excited discussion about these possibilities presupposes the fact that we will be able to build these systems. And, having spoken to many of the world’s foremost AI researchers, I believe there is good reason to doubt that we will see AGI any time soon, if ever. 13．What does the underlined word “ubiquitous” in Paragraph I probably mean? A．Enormous in quantity. B．Changeable daily. C．Stable in quality. D．Present everywhere. 14．What could AGI do for us, according to its supporters? A．Help to tackle problems. B．Make brains more active. C．Benefit ambitious people. D．Set up powerful databases. 15．As for Irving Good’s opinion on ultra-intelligent machines, the author is ____________. A．supportive B．disapproving C．fearful D．uncertain 16．What can be inferred about AGI from the passage? A．It may be only a dream. B．It will come into being soon. C．It will be controlled by humans. D．It may be more dangerous than ever. （2024·北京海淀·二模）We are a social animal. Indeed, it is our sociality — such as the ability to make sense of each other, to communicate, to work cooperatively and, finally, to create culture — that marks us off from other animal species. But then why are we everywhere striving to increase our isolation and limit our contact with others? As musician David Byrn e argues in an essay published last month, it is a striking fact about the new technologies that have so come to shape our lives, that they have precisely this effect: they limit our need for human contact. Online shopping? Check. Automated checkout? Check. Ride hail apps? Check. Efficiency is the key. We purchase efficiency by limiting the human aspect, known as “autonomous operation”. This is perhaps even more pronounced with new technologies on the horizon. Take the MOOC, the teacher-less virtual classroom. As Byrn e notes, this is meant to deliver the values of a learning environment without, well, without the environment — you get to stay at home — no teacher, but also, no fellow students. Byrne isn’t claiming we are consciously choosing to isolate ourselves. We shop online because it is convenient. The absence of contact with others is a side-effect. Maybe even an unavoidable one, as one of the things that makes online shopping so easy is precisely the absence of contact with other people. But Bryne’s thought is that whatever our intention, the tendency of our tech to isolate us may be a feature, not a bug. His hypothesis is that we actually, at some level, crave (渴望) the increased isolation and we are actually making technologies to satisfy impulses that, in some way, go beyond or against our social nature. But I wonder, is this really new? Even if we are social by nature, and do everything we can to embed ourselves socially, the need to find ways to be alone is, well, nothing new. It’s also striking that the very activities that risk separating us — in the old days, books, newspapers, TV; nowadays, the latest apps also connect us. We read about each other. What we read gives us information to share with each other. I am well aware of the data that shows the more time you spend on social media, the sadder and more isolated and envious you feel of others. But how novel is the isolating effect of social media? Being there reminds me a lot of what it was like to be social in high school — you have a vivid sense of your status and your standing in relation to others, and you have to deal with that. This may be isolating, sure. But it’s the isolating face of the social lives we’ve always had. It is isolating because of the ways technology brings us into real contact with others, not because it removes that contact. I wonder whether more isolation is a real option, after all. 17．Which of the following best reflects “autonomous operation”? A．Getting a toothbrush via a hotel delivery robot. B．Teaching mom how to establish a smart home. C．Seeking help by calling human customer services. D．Having an online meeting at home with colleagues. 18．Which of the following might the author agree? A．Technology offers fresh insights into our social status. B．Actions seemingly isolating can bond people. C．Social platforms help bring people closer. D．Social media has come to define our life. 19．What would be the best title for the passage? A．What Technologies Do to Human Nature B．Do Technologies Shape Our Lives? C．How Isolation Changes with Connection D．Can We Erase Human Element? （2024·北京东城·二模）You might not think that an AI capable of making music would stimulate your emotion, but others think differently, particularly those who gathered at Mexico City’s Symphony Hall in 2019 for Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony, which I finished using melodies generated by an AI. As the orchestra (管弦乐团) finished Schubert’s original work and began the music the AI and I had written, I could feel the crowd’s energy shift from astonishment to indignation and fear. They seemed afraid that an AI might be able to make emotional symphonic music. You can see their point: an AI that makes emotional music could affect the emotional lives of thousands or even millions of people in a small, but profound way, just like a human musician does. Positive and negative, people reacted very strongly to AI’s symphonic debut (首秀). Even though most people don’t believe that AI can create something enjoyable, they, at least partly, did enjoy the Unfinished Symphony. Enjoyment in music implies that there’s something in the music that the listener connects to, a perception of shared emotion. But, in the case of AI music, an emotion shared with who? AI, as of yet, has no emotions. So what is the meaning of music made without an emotional composer? The unsatisfying answer is that music has no objective meaning. A composer can decide how a piece of music sounds, but it’s the listener that decides what it means. No matter how it’s created, music doesn’t exist in a vacuum (真空) to the listener. The meaning we assign to music depends on its context — how the piece connects to other elements in our lives. Without context, music is like the results of a game whose rules have been lost. The context for a music is part of who you are. The music is emotional to you because you have the context to appreciate it. As it continues to evolve, AI music will develop its own context. Certainly, it’ll be different from human-made music. It’ll mix existing genres to create new ones; it’ll combine instruments that we wouldn’t think of combining. Its rules will be different. I’m now always asked the same question: “Who put the emotion in that music: you, the composer, or the AI?” But that’s not the question they really want to ask, though. There’s a deeper question that most people are too afraid to ask right now: “Are my emotions so simple that they can be maneuvered by a machine?” In my experience, this could be possible one day. If a modestly capable music AI in 2019 could stir up emotions of an audience, maybe AI can have a more powerful effect on our emotional lives than we’d like to admit. 20．The audience reacted strongly to the symphony mainly due to ______. A．their doubts about AI’s capabilities B．their uneasiness about AI’s influence C．the orchestra’s brilliant presentation of AI music D．the likeness between AI music and the original work 21．What might the author agree with? A．AI poses little impact on people’s emotions. B．Music bears no intended emotional meaning. C．AI music will outperform human-made music. D．The context reflects people’s interpretation of music. 22．What does the word “maneuvered” underlined in Paragraph 6 most probably mean? A．Refreshed. B．Challenged. C．Revealed. D．Directed. 23．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．Are Composers To Be Replaced? B．Would AI Music Be a Rising Trend? C．Could AI Make Music That Moves You? D．Was the Unfinished Symphony Successful? （2024·北京·三模）Is it possible to persuade mankind to live without war? War is an ancient institution, which has occurred ever since men were organized into units larger than the family. In the past human race managed to survive it. Why should it not continue to survive even if wars go on occurring from time to time? Moreover, people like war, and will feel frustrated without it. And without war there will be no adequate opportunity for heroism or self-sacrifice. Modem technology has changed this. Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man. For the present, it is nuclear weapons that cause the most serious danger, but bacteriological or chemical weapons may, before long, offer an even greater threat. If we succeed in abolishing nuclear weapons, our work will not be done. It will never be done until we have succeeded in abolishing war. To do this, we need to persuade mankind to look upon international questions in a new way, not as contests of force, in which the victory goes to the side which is most skillful in killing people, but by arbitration (通过仲裁) in accordance with agreed principles of law. It is not easy to change very old mental habits, but this is what must be attempted. There are those who say that the adoption of this or that ideology (意识形态) would prevent war. I believe this to be a big error. All ideologies are based upon dogmatic (武断的) statements that are, at best, doubtful, and at worst, totally false. Their followers believe in them so fanatically that they are willing to go to war in support of them. The movement of world opinion during the past few years has been very largely such as we can welcome. It has become a commonplace that nuclear war must be avoided. Of course very difficult problems remain in the world, but the spirit in which they are being approached is a better one than it was some years ago. It has begun to be thought, even by the powerful men who decide whether we shall live or die, that negotiations should reach agreements even if both sides do not find these agreements wholly satisfactory. It has begun to be understood that the important conflict nowadays is not between different countries, but between man and the atom bomb. 24．From the passage we can learn that war now is ______. A．as bad as in the past B．worse than in the past C．as necessary as in the past D．not so dangerous as in the past 25．What does the underlined sentence in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A．Men, as well as war, will have to make the ultimate choice between the two. B．Modern technology has empowered man to choose whether to have war or not. C．At least 6,000 years later, man has finally decided to abandon war once and for all. D．People will eventually destroy themselves if they choose to go to war at modern times. 26．As for ideology, what does the author intend to tell us? A．Certain ideology is superior regarding its truthfulness. B．It is useless to adopt an ideology to prevent war. C．Not every ideology is not worth fighting for. D．It is wrong to follow any ideology. 27．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．War or No War, That Is A Question B．Nuclear Weapons Bring the End of Human Race C．Towards a Future Without War: A Call for Global Arbitration D．From Ideology to Negotiation: A New Approach to International Conflicts （2024·北京海淀·一模）“Assume you are wrong.” The advice came from Brian Nosek, a psychology professor, who was offering a strategy for pursuing better science. To understand the context for Nosek’s advice, we need to take a step back to the nature of science itself. You see despite what many of us learned in elementary school, there is no single scientific method. Just as scientific theories become elaborated and change, so do scientific methods. But methodological reform hasn’t come without some fretting and friction. Nasty things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life’s work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow. What Nosek recommended was a strategy for changing the way we offer and respond to critique. Assuming you are right might be a motivating force, sustaining the enormous effort that conducting scientific work requires. But it also makes it easy to interpret criticisms as personal attacks. Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong — a goal that your critic presumably shares. One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it’s easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too. Despite these worries, I like Nosek’s suggestion because it builds in cognitive humility along with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of community — we’re all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of getting things right. Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis (假说): that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don’t know if that’s true. In fact, I should probably assume that it’s wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together. 28．What can we learn from Paragraph 3? A．Reformers tend to devalue researchers’ work. B．Scientists are unwilling to express kind criticisms. C．People hold wrong assumptions about the culture of science. D．The scientific community should practice critical self-reflection. 29．The strategy of “assuming you are wrong” may contribute to ______. A．the enormous efforts of scientists at work B．the reliability of potential research results C．the public’s passion for scientific findings D．the improvement in the quality of evidence 30．The underlined word “demoralizing” in Paragraph 5 means ______. A．discouraging B．ineffective C．unfair D．misleading 31．The tone the author uses in talking about the untested hypothesis is ______. A．doubtful but sincere B．disapproving but soft C．authoritative and direct D．reflective and humorous （2024·北京延庆·一模）It is rapidly emerging as one of the most important technological, and increasingly ideological, divides of our times: should powerful generative artificial intelligence systems be open or closed? Supporters say they broaden access to the technology, stimulate innovation and improve reliability by encouraging outside scrutiny. Far cheaper to develop and deploy, smaller open models also inject competition into a field dominated by big US companies such as Google. Microsoft and OpenAI that have invested billions developing massive, closed and closely controlled generative Al systems. But detractors argue open models risk lifting the lid on a Pandora’s box of troubles. Bad actors can exploit them to spread personalised disinformation, while terrorists might use them to manufacture cyber or bio weapons. “The danger of open source is that it enables more crazies to do crazy things, “Geoffrey Hinton, one of the pioneers of modern AI, has warned. The history of OpenAI, which developed the popular ChatGPT chatbot, is itself instructive. As its name suggests, the research company was founded in 2015 with a commitment to develop the technology as openly as possible. But it later abandoned that approach for both competitive and safety reasons. Once OpenAI realised that its generative AI models were going to be “unbelievably potent”, it made little sense to open source them, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist said. Supporters of open models hit back, ridiculing the idea that open generative AI models enable people to access information they could not otherwise find from the internet or a rogue scientist. They also highlight the competitive self-interest of the big tech companies in shouting about the dangers of open models, whose intention is to establish their own market dominance strongly. But there is an ideological dimension to this debate, too. Yann LeCun, chief scientist of Meta, has likened the arguments for controlling the technology to medieval obscurantism (蒙昧主义): the belief that only a self-selecting priesthood of experts is wise enough to handle knowledge. In the future, all our interactions with the vast digital repository of human knowledge will be mediated through Al systems. We should not want a handful of Silicon Valley companies to control that access. Just as the internet flourished by resisting attempts to enclose it, so AI will thrive by remaining open, LeCun argues. Wendy Hall, royal professor of computer science at Southampton university, says we do not want to live in a world where only the big companies run generative Al. Nor do we want to allow users to do anything they like with open models. “We have to find some compromise,” she suggests. We should certainly resist the tyranny (暴政) of the binary (二进制) when it comes to thinking about AI models. Both open and closed models have their benefits and flaws. As the capabilities of these models evolve, we will constantly have to tweak the weightings between competition and control. 32．What does the underlined word “potent” in Paragraph 4 most probably mean? A．Accessible. B．Powerful. C．Significant. D．Unnoticeable. 33．What can we learn from this passage? A．It needs billions of dollars to develop and deploy open-source models. B．The field of generative AI systems is dominated by big companies. C．Only self-selecting experts can handle open models wisely. D．Users can do anything they like with open models at this moment. 34．Regarding Wendy Hall’s suggestions, the author is ______. A．sympathetic B．puzzled C．unconcerned D．opposed 35．Which of the following would be the best title for the passage? A．How to Keep the Lid on the Pandora’s Box of Open AI B．Divides on Open AI: technology and ideology C．Where does the Debate on Open AI End D．Pros and Cons of Open AI （2024·北京延庆·一模）EVs are in the middle of an obesity epidemic Fisker, an electric vehicle, unveiled the future line-up on August 3rd. It included: a souped-up, off-road version of the Ocean. Though Fisker says sustainability is one of its founding principles, it is indulging in a trait almost universal among car firms: building bigger, stronger cars, even when they are electric. There are two reasons for this. The first is profit. As with conventional cars, bigger EVs generate higher margins. The second is consumer preference. For decades, drivers have been opting for SUVs and pickup trucks rather than smaller cars, and this now applies to battery-charged ones. EV drivers, who worry about the availability of charging infrastructure, want more range, hence bigger batteries. That may help make for a more reassuring ride. But eventually the supersizing trend will prove to be unsustainable and unsafe. For now, carmakers can argue that however big the electric rigs, they have a positive impact on the planet. Though manufacturing EVs—including sourcing the metals and minerals that go into them—generates more greenhouse gases than a conventional car, they quickly compensate for that through the absence of tallpipe emissions. But in the long run the trend for bigger butteries may backfire, for economic and environmental reasons. First, the bigger the battery, the more pressure there will be on the supply chain. If battery sizes increase there are likely to be looming seareitles of lithium and nickel. That will push up the cost of lithium-ion batteries, undermining carmakers’ profitability. Second, to charge bigger batteries in a carbon-neutral way requires more low-carbon electricity. That may create bottlenecks on the grid. Third, the more pressure on scarce resources vital for EV production, the harder it will be to make affordable electric cars critical for electrifying the mass market. That will slow the overall decarbonisation of transport. Finally, there is safety. Not only is a battle tank that does zero to 100 kilometres per hour in the blink of an eye a liability for anyone that happens to be in its way. Governments have ways to encourage EVs to shrink. The most important is to support the expansion of charging infrastructure, which would reduce range anxiety and promote smaller cars. Taxes could punish heavier vehicles and subsidies could promote lighter ones. Ultimately, the industry is almost sure to realise the folly of pursuing size for its own sake. The penny is starting to drop. Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, recently said carmakers could not make money with the longest-range batteries. His opposite number at General Motors, Mary Barra, has taken the unexpected step of reversing a plan to retire the affordable Chevy Bolt EV. In Europe, carmakers like Volkswagen are building smaller, cheaper EVs. Tesla is said to be planning a compact model made in Mexico. 36．Consumers want EVs with more range and bigger batteries because ______. A．they can bring more profits B．they can reduce tailpipe emissions C．they are more secure D．there are insufficient charging facilities for them 37．From the passage, we know that ______. A．Rising cost of batteries will increase profitability B．Conventional cars produce more greenhouse gases than EVs in production C．Bigger batteries may create more pressure on the supply chain D．The demand on scarce resources in EVs makes electric cars more affordable 38．What is the passage trying to tell us? A．Lighter electric vehicles should be encouraged. B．Bigger, stronger cars are safer and more sustainable. C．Supersizing electric vehicles have a positive impact on the planet. D．EVs with bigger batteries may help make for a more comfortable ride. 试卷第1页，共3页 试卷第1页，共3页 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 参考答案： 1．C 2．B 3．A 4．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了哲学家对于宇宙的认知和信息时代下的作者对于宇宙争论的看法。 1．推理判断题。根据第一段“Searching the term “simulation hypothesis” (模拟假说) returns numerous results that debate whether the universe is a computer simulation —— a concept that some scientists actually take seriously. Unfortunately, this is not a scientific question. We will probably never know whether it’s true. We can, instead, use this idea to advance scientific knowledge.(搜索“模拟假说”这一术语会得到许多关于宇宙是否是计算机模拟的争论结果——一些科学家实际上认真对待这个概念。不幸的是，这不是一个科学问题。我们可能永远都不知道这是不是真的。相反，我们可以利用这个想法来推进科学知识)”可知，作者对于模拟假说提出质疑，是为了提出自己的建议，建议使用这一想法来推进科学知识。故选C项。 2．词句猜测题。根据第二段“If empirical (实证的) experience fails to reveal reality, reasoning won’t reveal reality either since it relies on concepts and words that are contingent on our social, cultural and psychological histories. Again, a black box.(如果经验不能揭示现实，推理也不会揭示现实，因为它依赖于contingent on我们的社会、文化和心理历史的概念和词语)”可知，句中that引导限制性定语从句，指代先行词concepts and words，且结合常识，概念和词语取决于我们的社会、文化和心理历史，推测划线短语表示“取决于”，与determined by意义相近。故选B项。 3．推理判断题。根据第二段“The 18th-century philosopher Kant argued that the universe ultimately consists of things-in-themselves that are unknowable. While he held the notion that objective reality exists, he said our mind plays a necessary role in structuring and shaping our perceptions. (18世纪的哲学家康德认为，宇宙最终由不可知的事物本身组成。虽然他认为客观现实是存在的，但他说，我们的大脑在构建和塑造我们的感知方面发挥着必要的作用)”以及第三段“So, if we accept that the universe is unknowable, we also accept we will never know if we live in a computer simulation.(因此，如果我们接受宇宙是不可知的，我们也接受我们永远不会知道我们是否生活在计算机模拟中)”可知，作者引用康德的观点，并在客观陈述后利用该观点来构建自己的论述，由此可知，作者对康德的论点持欣赏的态度。故选A项。 4．推理判断题。根据第四段“There is no point in arguing if the universe is a clock, a set of particles or an output of computation. All these models are tools to deal with the unknown and to make discoveries. And the more tools we have, the more effective and insightful we can become. (争论宇宙是否是一个时钟、一组粒子还是计算输出的产物是没有意义的。所有这些模型都是处理未知事物和发现事物的工具。我们拥有的工具越多，我们就能变得越有效、越有洞察力)”以及第五段“It can be imagined that comparable to the process of building previous scientific models, developing the “computer simulation” metaphor-based model will also be a hugely rewarding exercise.(可以想象，与之前构建科学模型的过程相比，开发基于“计算机模拟”隐喻的模型也将是一项非常有益的工作)”可知，作者认为争论宇宙是否是虚拟的，这是没有意义的，我们应该停止争论宇宙是否为模拟，而应该着手于将其作为一个模型来探索和理解，这样会更有助于科学的进步。故选C项。 5．A 6．C 7．A 8．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。主要论述了“量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？”，计算机科学家克里斯·约翰逊和物理学家菲利普·泰勒分别阐明了自己的观点。 5．推理判断题。根据第三自然段“As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work’s potential. If researchers can’t keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. （随着量子计算吸引了更多的关注和资金，研究人员可能会误导投资者、记者、公众，最糟糕的是，他们自己的工作潜力。约翰逊警告说，如果研究人员不能兑现承诺，兴奋可能会让位于怀疑、失望和愤怒）”根据最后一段“ But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson.”（但我相信泰勒，就像我相信约翰逊一样）可知，关于约翰逊的担忧，作者是支持的。A. sympathetic同情的，赞同的；B. unconcerned不关心的；C. doubtful怀疑的；D. excited激动的。故选A。 6．细节理解题。根据倒数第二段“The company, he says, is closer than any other firm “by a very large margin ( 幅度 )” to building a “useful” quantum computer, one that “solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise.” He adds, “People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others.”（ 他说，这家公司比其他任何公司都“在很大程度上”接近于制造出“有用的”量子计算机，它“解决了一个有影响力的问题，否则我们无法解决这个问题”。他补充说:“人们自然会不相信我的观点，但我已经花了很多时间来定量地比较我们与他人的做法）”可知，泰勒对量子计算的乐观来源于他对PyQuantum的信心。故选C。 7．词义猜测题。根据第三自然段“But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because “‘quantum’ stands for something cool you shouldn’t be able to understand.”（ 但约翰逊表明，量子计算的某些方面使得它特别 prone被炒作，可能是因为“量子”代表了一些你不应该理解的酷东西。”）”可知，本句中含有一个原因状语从句，因为““量子”代表了一些你不应该理解的酷东西”，所以它特别容易被炒作。故prone意为“易于……的”。A. Open.开放的；易受损害的；B. Cool. 酷的；C. Useful. 有用的；D. Resistant. 有抵抗力的。故选A。 8．主旨大意题。根据第二自然段“Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us “cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction. This is the sort of hype ( 炒作 ) that annoys Johnson.”（ 现在，大型科技公司和许多小型公司都在量子计算领域进行了投资。据《商业周刊》报道，量子机器可以帮助我们“治愈癌症，甚至采取措施将气候变化转向相反的方向。这种炒作让约翰逊感到恼火。”）”以及最后一段“Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition “by a wide margin”, as Taylor claims? I don’t know. I’m certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers.（PyQuantum真的能像泰勒所说的那样“以巨大的优势”领先所有竞争对手吗？我不知道。我当然不会建议我的朋友或其他人投资量子计算机。但我信任泰勒，就像我信任约翰逊一样。）”可知，本文主要论述了“量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？”，计算机科学家克里斯·约翰逊和物理学家菲利普·泰勒分别阐明了自己的观点。所以短文的最佳标题为“量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？”。故选D。 9．B 10．D 11．C 12．C 【分析】本文是议论文。文章通过讨论时间的定义，讲述了人们应该和大自然和谐相处，保护环境。 9．主旨大意题。根据第一段最后一句“Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking．(即使是先进的物理学也不能决定性地告诉我们时间是什么，因为答案取决于你要问的问题)”以及上文列举的哲学家St．Augustine和爱因斯坦对于时间的定义可推断，第一段主要讲述每个人都可以用自己的话来定义时间。故选B项。 10．推理判断题。根据第二段的“We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．(我们越来越意识到，我们不能只是用工程学来控制地球系统，意识到，如果我们希望保持平衡，我们就需要调节我们的行动。)”进而提出问题“What if our definition of time reflected that？(如果时间的定义反映那些会怎么样呢)”，结合前两个问题“What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy, we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？(如果我们不考虑天文学方面的时间，而是将时间与生态学联系起来呢？如果我们允许环境条件来设定人类生活的节奏呢)”可推断，第二段提出的三个问题是为了介绍方法。故选D项。 11．细节理解题。根据第三段的“We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect．（如果水道继续以目前的速度流动，我们对它进行了编程，匹配了一个原子时间。如果河流在未来的平均运行速度更快，时间就会超过标准时间。如果它们的运行速度较慢，你就会看到相反的效果。）”可知，如果河流运行速度得较慢，原子时间将超过河流时间。故选C项。 12．推理判断题。根据第二段的“We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．(我们越来越意识到，我们不能只是用工程学来控制地球系统，意识到，如果我们希望保持平衡，我们就需要调节我们的行动。)”和倒数第二段的“Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness(时间与环境的暂时联系对它们的生存至关重要。同样，河流时间和我们正在开发的其他时间保护系统也可能会鼓励人们提高环境意识)”可推断，从这篇文章中我们知道我们应该与自然和谐共处，保护环境。故选C。 13．D 14．A 15．B 16．A 【分析】这是一篇议论文。文章主要就通用人工智能(AGI)实现的可能性进行了论述。 13．词义猜测题。根据划线词所在句后面的For example, algorithms (算法) carry out huge volumes of trading on our financial markets, self-driving cars are appearing on city streets, and our smartphones are translating from one language into another(例如，算法在我们的金融市场上进行大量交易，自动驾驶汽车出现在城市街道上，我们的智能手机正在从一种语言翻译成另一种语言)可知，人工智能在我们生活中用处十分广泛。由此推知，划线词所在句意为“某些形式的人工智能确实正在变得无处不在”，即划线词与D选项“Present everywhere.(在任何地方存在)”意思接近。故选D项。 14．细节理解题。根据第二段AGI could, its advocates say, work for us around the clock, and drawing on all available data, could suggest solutions to many problems(AGI的倡导者说，AGI可以24小时为我们工作，并利用所有可用的数据，可以提出许多问题的解决方案)可知，AGI(通用人工智能)的倡导者认为，AGI(通用人工智能)可以提出许多问题的解决方案，帮助我们解决问题。因此，A选项“Help to tackle problems(帮助解决问题)”符合题意。故选A项。 15．推理判断题。根据第三段Since the early days of AI, imagination has outpaced what is possible or even probable. In 1965, an imaginative mathematician called Irving Good predicted the eventual creation of an “ultra-intelligent machine…that can far surpass all the intellectual (智力的) activities of any man, however clever.”(自从人工智能的早期，想象力已经超过了可能。1965年，一位富有想象力的数学家欧文·古德预言，最终将创造出一台“超智能机器……它将远远超过任何一个人的智力活动，无论他有多聪明。”)可知，作者认为Irving Good对“超智能机器”的想象力超出了实现的可能，作者并不赞成他的观点，因此B项“disapproving(不赞成)”符合题意。故选B项。 16．推理判断题。根据文章最后一句And, having spoken to many of the world's foremost AI researchers, I believe there is good reason to doubt that we will see A GI any time soon, if ever. (而且，在与世界上许多顶尖的人工智能研究人员交谈后，我相信有充分的理由怀疑我们是否会很快看到AGI)可推断出，通用人工智能（AGI）或许只是一个梦想，A选项“It may be only a dream(它也许仅仅是一个梦想)”符合题意。故选择A项。 17．A 18．B 19．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章讨论了在线购物和社交媒体如何可能无意中导致人们感到孤独，但同时强调这些活动也提供了与他人建立联系的机会，反映了现代社会中人们在追求便利与社交之间的平衡。 17．推理判断题。由文章第三段中“Efficiency is the key. We purchase efficiency by limiting the human aspect, known as “autonomous operation”. This is perhaps even more pronounced with new technologies on the horizon. Take the MOOC, the teacher-less virtual classroom. As Byrn e notes, this is meant to deliver the values of a learning environment without, well, without the environment — you get to stay at home — no teacher, but also, no fellow students. (效率是关键。我们通过限制人的方面来获得效率，被称为“自主操作”。随着新技术的出现，这一点可能更加明显。以MOOC为例，即没有教师的虚拟课堂。正如伯恩所指出的，这意味着在没有环境的情况下，传递学习环境的价值——你可以呆在家里——没有老师，也没有同学)”可知，通过限制人为因素（即自主操作）来提高效率。由此推知，通过酒店送货机器人获取牙刷正好符合“自主操作”的定义，因为这一过程中没有人为的参与，完全由机器人自主完成。故选A。 18．推理判断题。由文章第六段中“Even if we are social by nature, and do everything we can to embed ourselves socially, the need to find ways to be alone is, well, nothing new. It’s also striking that the very activities that risk separating us — in the old days, books, newspapers, TV; nowadays, the latest apps — also connect us. We read about each other. What we read gives us information to share with each other. (即使我们天生具有社交性，并尽我们所能融入社会，寻找独处方式的需求也不是什么新鲜事。同样令人吃惊的是，那些有可能把我们分开的活动——在过去，书籍、报纸、电视；如今，最新的应用程序也连接着我们。我们互相了解对方。我们所读的东西给我们提供信息，让我们彼此分享)” 可推知，作者认为看似孤立的行为实际上可以让人们产生联系。故选B。 19．主旨大意题。通读全文，尤其是由文章第二段“But then why are we everywhere striving to increase our isolation and limit our contact with others? As musician David Byrn e argues in an essay published last month, it is a striking fact about the new technologies that have so come to shape our lives, that they have precisely this effect: they limit our need for human contact. Online shopping? Check. Automated checkout? Check. Ride hail apps? Check. (但是，为什么我们到处都在努力增加我们的孤立，限制我们与他人的接触呢？正如音乐家David Byrn在上月发表的一篇文章中所指出的那样，新技术如此塑造了我们的生活，一个令人震惊的事实是，它们恰恰具有这样的效果：它们限制了我们对人际交往的需求。)”可知，文章主语讨论了在线购物和社交媒体如何可能无意中导致人们感到孤独，但同时强调这些活动也提供了与他人建立联系的机会，反映了现代社会中人们在追求便利与社交之间的平衡。由此可知，D项“Can We Erase Human Element? (我们能抹去人类元素吗？)”适合作本文最佳标题。故选D。 20．B 21．B 22．D 23．C 【导语】这是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了人工智能是否能创作出富含情感的音乐的问题，论述了作者对于音乐中情感的看法。 20．推理判断题。根据第二段“As the orchestra (管弦乐团) finished Schubert’s original work and began the music the AI and I had written, I could feel the crowd’s energy shift from astonishment to indignation and fear. They seemed afraid that an AI might be able to make emotional symphonic music. You can see their point: an AI that makes emotional music could affect the emotional lives of thousands or even millions of people in a small, but profound way, just like a human musician does.(当管弦乐队演奏完舒伯特的原创作品，开始演奏人工智能和我共同创作的音乐时，我能感觉到观众的情绪从惊讶转变为愤怒和恐惧。他们似乎担心人工智能可能会创作出充满情感的交响乐。你可以看到他们的观点：一个制作情感音乐的人工智能可以以一种微小但深刻的方式影响数千甚至数百万人的情感生活，就像一个人类音乐家一样。)”可知，观众之所以对交响曲反应强烈，主要是因为对人工智能的影响感到不安。故选B。 21．推理判断题。根据第四段“AI, as of yet, has no emotions. So what is the meaning of music made without an emotional composer? The unsatisfying answer is that music has no objective meaning. A composer can decide how a piece of music sounds, but it’s the listener that decides what it means.(到目前为止，人工智能还没有情感。那么，没有情感作曲家的音乐有什么意义呢?令人不满意的答案是，音乐没有客观意义。作曲家可以决定一段音乐的声音，但听众可以决定它的意义。)”可知，作者可能会同意音乐没有预期的情感含义。故选B。 22．词句猜测题。根据第二段“You can see their point: an AI that makes emotional music could affect the emotional lives of thousands or even millions of people in a small, but profound way, just like a human musician does.(你可以看到他们的观点：一个制作情感音乐的人工智能可以以一种微小但深刻的方式影响数千甚至数百万人的情感生活，就像一个人类音乐家一样。)”以及划线词上文“Are my emotions so simple that they can be”和后文“by a machine”可知，人工智能制作的音乐可以影响数千甚至数百万人的情感生活，所以大多数人不敢问的问题是：我的情绪是否简单到可以被机器操纵？故划线词意思是“操纵”，与D选项Directed“指示，指导”意思最接近。故选D。 23．主旨大意题。根据第三段“Positive and negative, people reacted very strongly to AI’s symphonic debut (首秀). Even though most people don’t believe that AI can create something enjoyable, they, at least partly, did enjoy the Unfinished Symphony.(不管是正面还是负面，人们对AI的交响乐首演反应非常强烈。尽管大多数人不相信人工智能可以创造出令人愉快的东西，但他们（至少在一定程度上）确实喜欢《未完成的交响曲》)”结合文章主要讨论了人工智能是否能创作出富含情感的音乐的问题，论述了作者对于音乐中情感的看法。可知，C选项“人工智能能做出打动你的音乐吗？”最符合文章标题。故选C。 24．B 25．D 26．B 27．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。在当前的国际形势之下，作者阐述人类应该以一种新的方式看待国际问题，而不是把它看作武力的较量。这种方式就是通过根据公认的法律原则进行仲裁。 24．推理判断题。根据文章第二段“Modem technology has changed this”（现代科技改变了这一点）以及“For the present, it is nuclear weapons that cause the most serious danger, but bacteriological or chemical weapons may, before long, offer an even greater threat.”（目前，造成最严重危险的是核武器，但不久之后，细菌或化学武器可能带来更大的威胁。）可推知，现在的战争比过去更糟糕。故选B。 25．词句猜测题。根据文章第二段“Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man. For the present, it is nuclear weapons that cause the most serious danger, but bacteriological or chemical weapons may, before long, offer an even greater threat. If we succeed in abolishing nuclear weapons, our work will not be done. It will never be done until we have succeeded in abolishing war. ”（要么人会消灭战争，要么战争会消灭人。目前，造成最严重危险的是核武器，但细菌或化学武器不久可能会带来更大的威胁。如果我们成功地废除了核武器，我们的工作也还没有完成。除非我们成功地废除了战争，否则这是永远不会实现的。）可知，只有成功废除战争，才能算做完成人类的工作，由此可推知，如果人们选择在现代进行战争，他们最终将自我毁灭。故选D。 26．细节理解题。根据文章第三段“All ideologies are based upon dogmatic (武断的) statements that are, at best, doubtful, and at worst, totally false. Their followers believe in them so fanatically that they are willing to go to war in support of them.”（所有的意识形态都建立在武断的陈述之上，往好了说，这些陈述是可疑的，往坏了说，这些陈述是完全错误的。他们的追随者如此狂热地相信他们，以至于他们愿意为了支持他们而去打仗。）可推知，采用意识形态来防止战争是无用的。故选B。 27．主旨大意题。根据全文内容，特别是第二段“To do this, we need to persuade mankind to look upon international questions in a new way, not as contests of force, in which the victory goes to the side which is most skillful in killing people, but by arbitration (通过仲裁) in accordance with agreed principles of law .”（要做到这一点，我们需要说服人类以一种新的方式看待国际问题，而不是将其视为武力的较量，在这种较量中，胜利属于最善于杀人的一方，而是通过根据商定的法律原则进行仲裁。）可知，作者呼吁人们以新的方式看待国际问题，通过仲裁来解决问题，以此来废除战争，因此，C选项“Towards a Future Without War: A Call for Global Arbitration”（走向无战争的未来：全球仲裁的呼吁）最能概括全文内容。故选C。 28．D 29．B 30．A 31．A 【导语】这是一篇议论文。这篇文章主要讲心理学教授BrianNosek提出“假定自己是错的”这一建议用于追求更好的科学，文章围绕该建议展开，论述其背景、面临的挑战及担忧，作者虽对这一假说存疑，但喜欢该建议，希望借助科学社区和方法工具，共同减少错误。 28．推理判断题。根据第三段的“But methodological reform hasn’t come without some fretting and friction. Nasty things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life’s work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow.(但方法改革并非没有一些烦恼和摩擦。方法论改革家说了很多难听的话，也说了很多关于他们的坏话。很少有人喜欢自己毕生工作的价值受到质疑。另一方面，很少有人善于以善意和建设性的方式提出批评。所以，挑战的一部分是弄清楚如何将批判性的自我反思融入科学文化本身，这样它就会成为这个过程中受欢迎的、完整的一部分，而不是令人尴尬的杂耍)”可知，方法上的改革面临一些挑战，其中之一就是要弄清楚如何将批判性的自我反思融入科学文化本身，使其成为过程中受欢迎和整合的一部分，这说明科学社区应该实践批判性自我反思。故选D。 29．推理判断题。根据第四段“Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong—a goal that your critic presumably shares.(相反，从假设你是错的开始，批评更容易被解释为如何减少错误的建设性建议——你的批评者可能也有同样的目标)”及第五段的“Without an appreciation for how science works, it’s easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too.(如果不了解科学是如何运作的，就很容易把不确定性或分歧当作反对科学的标志，而事实上，它们恰恰反映了科学的一些特征，正是这些特征使科学成为我们得出关于世界的可靠结论的最佳途径。科学是可靠的，因为它对证据作出反应：随着证据数量和质量的提高，我们的理论也可以而且应该改变) ”可知，“假定自己是错的”这种策略有助于科学家寻找更多的证据，提高了潜在研究结果的可靠性。故选B。 30．词义猜测题。根据第五段的“One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it’s easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science.(对这种方法的一个担忧是，它可能会使科学家……。努力少犯错误的动机可能不如承诺正确的动机有效。另一个担忧是，在科学领域行之有效的策略在与公众交流科学时可能会适得其反。如果不了解科学是如何运作的，就很容易把不确定性或分歧当作反对科学的标志)”可知，在科学领域，追求完全正确往往是一个理想化的目标，因为实现这个目标可能是困难的，甚至是不可能的。相比之下，追求变得“不那么错误”可能更为现实和可行。这种方法鼓励科学家不断学习和改进，接受在研究过程中会犯错的可能性，从而更好地理解和解决问题。虽然这种方法可能会减轻一些压力，但也可能会在一定程度上降低科学家的动机和信心，因为他们可能会觉得自己永远无法达到完美的正确性。因此，“假定自己是错的”这种策略可能会让科学家感到士气低落。故选A。 31．推理判断题。根据倒数第二段“Despite these worries, I  like Nosek’s suggestion because it builds in cognitive humility along  with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of  community — we’re all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of  getting things right.(尽管存在这些担忧，但我喜欢诺塞克的建议，因为它建立了认知上的谦卑，以及我们可以做得更好的感觉。它还建立了一种社区意识——当我们做错事的时候，我们都在同一条船上)”及最后一段的“Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis: that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don’t know if that’s true. In fact, I should probably assume that it’s wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together.(不幸的是，这仍然给我们留下了一个未经检验的假设：假设一个人是错的可以改变社会规范，并最终支持更好的科学，甚至可能是更好的生活决策。我不知道这是不是真的。事实上，我应该假设这是错的。但是有了科学界和我们最好的方法论工具的帮助，我希望我们能一起减少错误)”可知，可知，作者一方面承认自己不确定这个假说是否正确，另一方面又对其抱有希望，因此作者对未经检验的假说持怀疑但又真诚的态度。故选A 32．B 33．B 34．A 35．A 【导语】 本文是一篇议论文。文章主要围绕“生成式人工智能系统应该是开放的还是封闭的”这一论题展开，分析了开放和封闭两种观点的支持者和反对者的论据，以及这一争论背后的技术、安全和意识形态等方面的考量。 32． 词句猜测题。根据划线单词上一段““The danger of open source is that it enables more crazies to do crazy things, “Geoffrey Hinton, one of the pioneers of modern AI, has warned. (现代人工智能的先驱之一Geoffrey Hinton警告称：“开源的危险在于，它让更多的疯子能够做疯狂的事情。”)”可推测，OpenAI意识到其生成式人工智能模型功能很强大。选项A“Accessible (可进入的)”；选项B“Powerful (强大的)”；选项C“Significant (重要的)”；选项D“Unnoticeable (未被注意的)”。故选B。 33． 推理判断题。根据文章第二段“Far cheaper to develop and deploy, smaller open models also inject competition into a field dominated by big US companies such as Google. Microsoft and OpenAI that have invested billions developing massive, closed and closely controlled generative Al systems. (更小的开放式模型的开发和部署成本要低得多，也为谷歌(Google)等美国大公司主导的领域注入了竞争。微软和OpenAI已经投入数十亿美元开发大规模、封闭和严格控制的生成人工智能系统。)”可推测出，生成式AI系统领域主要由大公司主导。故选B。 34． 推理判断题。根据文章倒数第二段“Wendy Hall, royal professor of computer science at Southampton university, says we do not want to live in a world where only the big companies run generative Al. Nor do we want to allow users to do anything they like with open models. “We have to find some compromise,” she suggests. (南安普顿大学计算机科学皇家教授Wendy Hall表示，我们不希望生活在一个只有大公司运行生成式人工智能的世界里，也不希望允许用户用开放模型做任何他们喜欢的事情。“我们必须找到一些妥协”，她建议道。)”以及最后一段“We should certainly resist the tyranny (暴政) of the binary (二进制) when it comes to thinking about AI models. Both open and closed models have their benefits and flaws. As the capabilities of these models evolve, we will constantly have to tweak the weightings between competition and control. (在考虑人工智能模型时，我们当然应该抵制二进制的暴政。开放和封闭模式都有各自的优点和缺点。随着这些模型功能的发展，我们将不断调整竞争和控制之间的权重。)”可推测，作者对于Wendy Hall的建议表示了理解和同情。Wendy Hall认为，尽管开放模型可能带来风险，但我们应该努力解决这些问题，而不是简单地封闭这些系统。作者通过引用Wendy Hall的观点，表达了对她这一立场的理解和支持，认为她提出的观点是合理和有见地的。故选A。 35． 主旨大意题。根据文章第一段“It is rapidly emerging as one of the most important technological, and increasingly ideological, divides of our times: should powerful generative artificial intelligence systems be open or closed? (它正迅速成为我们这个时代最重要的技术和意识形态分歧之一：强大的生成式人工智能系统应该是开放的还是封闭的？)”以及全文内容可知，文章主要探讨了关于生成式人工智能系统（Open AI）是否应该开放或封闭的争论。选项A“How to Keep the Lid on the Pandora’s Box of Open AI(如何为开放AI的潘多拉魔盒盖上盖子)”恰如其分地抓住了这篇文章的本质，它讨论了在人工智能模型的发展中，需要在开放性和控制力之间取得平衡。它将人工智能的潜力比作潘多拉的盒子，强调了其好处和风险的双重性质。这个标题表明，有必要仔细管理这个“盒子”上的“盖子”，以确保人工智能的潜力得到利用，同时减轻其潜在的危害。故选A。 36．D 37．C 38．A 【导语】 本文是一篇议论文。文章主要对电动汽车行业当前的趋势进行了分析和评论，特别是对制造更大、更强的电动汽车这一现象的剖析，指出超大型电动汽车趋势的不可持续性和潜在危害。 36． 细节理解题。根据文章第二段“The second is consumer preference. For decades, drivers have been opting for SUVs and pickup trucks rather than smaller cars, and this now applies to battery-charged ones. EV drivers, who worry about the availability of charging infrastructure, want more range, hence bigger batteries.(第二是消费者偏好。几十年来，司机们一直选择SUV和皮卡，而不是较小的汽车，现在这也适用于电池充电的汽车。电动汽车司机担心充电设施的可用性，他们想要更大的续航里程，因此需要更大的电池。这可能有助于让市场更加放心。)”可知，消费者想要续航里程更长、电池容量更大的电动汽车是因为电动汽车司机担心充电设施的可用性。由此可知，他们是担心没有足够的充电设施。故选D。 37． 细节理解题。根据文章第四段“First, the bigger the battery, the more pressure there will be on the supply chain. If battery sizes increase there are likely to be looming seareitles of lithium and nickel. That will push up the cost of lithium-ion batteries, undermining carmakers’ profitability.(首先，电池越大，供应链的压力就越大。如果电池尺寸增大，可能会出现大量的锂和镍。这将推高锂离子电池的成本，削弱汽车制造商的盈利能力。)”可知，更大的电池可能会给供应链带来更大的压力。故选C。 38． 推理判断题。根据文章第四段“But in the long run the trend for bigger butteries may backfire, for economic and environmental reasons.(但从长远来看，出于经济和环境的原因，更大电池的趋势可能会适得其反。)”以及最后一段“Ultimately, the industry is almost sure to realise the folly of pursuing size for its own sake.(最终，该行业几乎肯定会意识到，为了自身利益而追求规模是多么愚蠢。)”再结合全文内容可知，在文章中，作者分析了制造更大、更强电动汽车的两个主要原因——利润和消费者偏好，并指出了这种趋势的潜在问题，包括对供应链的压力、电网的瓶颈、资源的压力以及安全问题。文章还提到了一些汽车制造商正在转向生产更小、更便宜的电动汽车的趋势。这些都表明，文章的主要观点是鼓励制造更轻型的电动汽车，而不是继续追求更大、更重的车型。故选A。 答案第1页，共2页 答案第1页，共2页 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$