专题08 阅读理解议论文- 2025年高考英语二轮热点题型归纳与变式演练（北京专用）

热点题型·选择题攻略 专题08 阅读理解议论文 2024 年北京高考英语阅读理解试题题材广泛，涵盖人与自我、人与社会和人与自然等多个主题语境，贴近时代、贴近社会、贴近生活、贴近学生。试题依托语篇，全面考查学生的阅读理解能力，突出高阶思维的考查，引导中学教学回归课标、回归课堂。阅读理解的选材注重价值引领，体现学科的育人功能。例如，有的文章讲述了作者在一次考试失败后，不断突破自我、锲而不舍追逐梦想的历程；有的文章指出人类应停止“宇宙是不是模拟”的争论，依托新的科技成果，创造性地探索未知世界；还有的文章从科学的视角探讨道德规范的根源。这些文章不仅有助于考生获取有效信息，正确认识世界和中国发展大势，还能培养考生的国际意识和文化素养。 阅读理解题型多样，包括细节理解题、推理判断题、主旨大意题等。试题考查考生对语篇内容、语篇结构的理解和把握，以及对语篇内容的分析、阐释和评价。 年份 体裁 词数 话题 考点分布 细节 理解 推理 判断 主旨大意 词义猜测 2024 说明文 384 人与社会：人类道德准则的形成过程及人类建立道德准则的标准 1 1 1 0 2022 议论文 400 人与社会：量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？ 1 1 1 1 2021 议论文 480 人与社会/自然：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。 1 2 1 0 2020 议论文 433 人与社会：通用人工智能技术 1 2 0 1 议论文的内容涵盖文化、历史、文学、科学和教育等各个方面。在这类体裁的文章中把握好论点、论据和论证很重要。此类体裁的文章中有关主旨大意和推理判断的题目会较多，这也是得分比较难的题型。在阅读这类文章的时候，我们要认真把握作者的态度，领悟弦外之音，从而更好地依据文章的事实做出合理的推断。 题型01 主旨大意题 【题型诠释】 主旨大意题主要考查学生把握全文主题和理解中心思想的能力。根据多年的备考及高考实践，这类题目考查的范围是：基本论点、文章标题、主题或段落大意等。它要求考生在理解全文的基础上能较好地运用概括、判断、归纳、推理等逻辑思维方法，对文章进行高度概括或总结，属于高层次题。 干扰项：可能是文中某个具体事实或细节、可能是从文中某些(不完全的)事实或细节片面推出的错误结论、可能是非文章事实的主观臆断。而正确答案需要根据文章全面理解而归纳概括出来；不能太笼统、言过其实或以偏概全。 【典例】 （2023·北京朝阳·二模）Superhuman artificial intelligence is already among us. Well, sort of. When it comes to playing games like chess and Go, or solving difficult scientific challenges like predicting protein structures, computers are well ahead of us. But we have one superpower they aren’t close to mastering: mind reading. Humans have a mysterious ability to reason the goals, desires and beliefs of others, a crucial skill that means we can anticipate other people’s actions and the consequences of our own. Reading minds comes so easily to us, though, that we often don’t think to spell out what we want. If AIs are to become truly useful in everyday life—to cooperate effectively with us or to understand that a child might run into the road after a bouncing ball—we have to give them this gift that evolution has given us to read other people’s minds. Psychologists refer to the ability to infer another’s mental state as theory of mind. In humans, this capacity starts to develop at a very young age. How to reproduce the capability in machines is far from clear, though. One of the main challenges is context. For instance, if someone asks whether you are going for a run and you reply “it’s raining”, they can quickly conclude that the answer is no. But this requires huge amounts of background knowledge about running, weather and human preferences. Moreover, whether humans or AI, the theory of mind is supposed to emerge naturally from one’s own learning process. Building prior knowledge into AI makes it reliant on our imperfect understanding of theory of mind. In addition, AI may be capable of developing approaches we could never imagine. There can be many forms of theory of mind that we don’t know about simply because we live in a human body that has certain types of senses and a certain ability to think. Yet we might still want AI to have a more human-like form of theory of mind. Humans can clearly explain their goals and desires to each other using common language and ideas. While letting AI form the theory of mind in their learning process is likely to lead to developing more powerful AI, plainly building in shared ways to represent knowledge may be crucial for humans to trust and communicate with AI. It is important to remember, though, that the pursuit of machines with theory of mind is about more than just building more useful robots. It is also a stepping stone on the path towards a deeper goal for AI and robotics research: building truly self-aware machines. Whether we will ever get there remains to be seen. But along the way thinking about other people and other agents, we are on the path to learning to think about ourselves. 35．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．AI with Its Own Theory of Mind Is Expected B．AI with Theory of Mind Will Reshape Our Future C．AI’s Theory of Mind Is a Blessing or Suffering to Humans D．Theory of Mind Bridges the Gap Between Humans and AI 题型02 词义猜测题 【题型诠释】 阅读理解的测试中经常有猜测词、短语、习语、句子意义的题目，近几年高考阅读中词义猜测题的考查方法呈多样化，其中根据上下文语境推测词义将会越来越多。有时短文中出现一个需猜测其意义的词或短语，后文接着会出现其定义、解释或例子，这就是判断该词或短语意义的主要依据。 我们还可以根据转折或对比关系进行判断：根据上下句的连接词，如but，however，otherwise等就可以看到前后句在意义上的差别，从而依据某一句的含义来确定另一句的含义。另外，分号(；)也可以表示转折、对比或不相干的意义。还可以根据因果关系进行判断。 【典例】 （23-24高二上·北京石景山·期末）There exist cruel wars, fighting and sadness in the world today, so it’s not only necessary, but also essential to have a good sense of humor just to help us tide through difficult times in our lives. Putting a smile on someone’s face when you know they are feeling depressed, as the saying goes, makes me feel good and warms my heart. How would you feel if you could not joke around with your wife, husband, child, co-worker, neighbor, close friend, or even just someone that you are standing in line with at your corner store? I am always saying things that make others smile or laugh, even if I don’t know the person I’m joking around with. My Grandma always found humor in everything she did, even if it was the hardest job anyone could imagine. This not only relieves stress in any situation, but also is common courtesy (礼貌) to speak to others that are around you. I know of a few people that don’t have a funny bone in their bodies, as they say. Everyone around them could be rolling on the floor after hearing a great joke and they would sit there without the slightest smile on their face. They don’t get the joke that makes others laugh. I am busting a gut while they just sit there, looking at me as if I were from outer space. How can people not get a really funny joke? Laughing is essential to keeping your stress levels under control. Without humor we would find ourselves with a lot of psychological problems, or on a lot of medications to keep us from going crazy. There is too much sadness in this present world. It drives people crazy. We all need to find a way to bypass the sadness and bring a little light into our lives. So, I believe our best medicine is to get together and tell some jokes and have some fun laughing together. 7．The phrase “busting a gut” underlined in Paragraph 3 can be replaced by . A．speaking loudly B．laughing hard C．acting strangely D．explaining carefully 题型03 推理判断题 【题型诠释】   推断题要求学生在理解文章表面信息的基础上，通过语篇逻辑关系，研究细节的暗示，推敲作者态度，理解文章的寓意等。推理的结论一定是原文有这层意思，但没有明确表达的。推理要根据文章的字面意思，通过语篇、段落和句子之间的逻辑关系，各个信息所暗示和隐含的意义，作者的隐含意等对文章进行推理判断。考生要由文字的表层信息挖掘出文章的深层含义，要能透过现象看本质。 推断题是议论文中出现频率最高、难度最大的题目。推断题常常考查写作目的、作者意图、结论推断或者文章出处推断等。常见的题目如下： ①From the example in paragraph..., we can infer that ____________. ②Whats the purpose of the text? ③Whats the attitude of the author towards ...? 【典例】 （23-24高二下·北京丰台·期末）All over the world, formal education supplies the economy with workers who will increase productivity to fuel the economic machine. But this machine now threatens our very survival. If the entire world reaches the levels of consumption seen in high-income countries today, we’ll need multiple planet Earths to supply the resources. The absurd (荒谬的) idea of infinite growth within a finite territory is at the heart of our economic system. To keep this machine running, formal education generates ever more efficient “human capital”. Increasing productivity metrics (指标) rather than the individuality of students drives our civilization’s approach to schooling our young people. Whereas the Sustainable Development Goals call for turning education into a force for sustainability, the opposite is often true: The ways Western societies have come to think about education undermine our ability to deal with the environmental crisis. To get through this crisis, we need to cultivate our imagination, not undermine it. Growing up, none of my schooling fostered my ability to imagine a world different from what I saw around me. Besides, I realize the suppression (抑制) of children’s imagination doesn’t take place only in underresourced communities, but in “elite” institutions that tout “critical thinking”. Schools want to see their graduates succeed, and success is too often about maintaining current structures — not about reimagining their foundations. Essentially, our education systems shape children in the image of artificial intelligence. The perfect “worker”, AI, continually improves its own productivity but doesn’t challenge the larger structures within which it operates. It is one of the great paradoxes of our time that we invest so much into building supercomputers while marginalizing the imaginative potential of millions of human brains. What’s more, we even put our hope in solving the environmental crisis on AI. But AI, like our other technologies, can only treat the symptoms of the environmental crisis, not the causes Throughout history, achievers of great change have relied on their imaginations to address fundamental flaws in society. In my country of birth, communists kept their dreams of democracy alive for decades by imagining different futures. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela’s followers had to be radical (激进的) in their imagination to create a vision of a fairer society. Imagining democracy when living under a totalitarian regime (极权主义政权) isn’t that different from imagining degrowth when living in a world of infinite growth. The kind of intelligence that Nelson Mandela and such possessed was not artificial. The ability to reimagine the future and disrupt the current situation remains a distinctly human quality. Unlike AI, children are naturally imaginative and question the premises of society. In my research, I have observed that younger children are often the most radical in imagining different futures. As long as our imagination is curtailed, ideas like degrowth sound utopian (乌托邦的) to many, Cultivating imagination means learning from history’s disrupters who made the  impossible possible. Instead of dismissing “childish” ideas about the world’s future, it means seeing inspiration in children’s imaginations. In an education system that celebrates imagination, arts and creativity are as important as math and science. Idealism coexists with pragmatism. The environmental crisis is not a crisis of technology or science, it is a crisis of imagination. If we let children be our guides, we might be able to imagine our way to survival. 1．The author hopes education can play its role in ________. A．developing human resources B．promoting sustainable development C．increasing productivity D．maximizing economic growth 2．From the passage, we can learn that _________. A．imagination isn’t well developed in schools B．AI helps exploit the potential of human brains C．graduates’ success changes the social structures D．AI can address the root cause of economic crisis 3．Nelson Mandela is mentioned as _________. A．a success in building a fair society B．a leader who had a great influence C．a pioneer possessing the quality of AI D．an inspiration to solve social problems 4．According to the passage, the author may agree that _________. A．children’s imagination ensures human’s survival B．the environmental crisis results from technology C．imagination can help solve environmental crisis D．the “childish” ideas will ruin the world’s future 题型04 细节理解题 【题型诠释】 细节理解题主要考查考生对文章中某些细节或重要事实的理解能力。它一般包括直接理解题和语意理解题两种。直接理解题的答案与原文直接挂钩，从阅读材料中可以找到。这种题难度低，只要考生读懂文章，就能得分，属于低层次题。它们往往以what, which, who, when, where, how来提问，有时还会加上一个前提，如：According to the passage/the first/last para-graph...。 【典例】 （2023·北京西城·一模）Technology seems to discourage slow, immersive reading. Reading on a screen, particularly a phone screen, tires your eyes and makes it harder for you to keep your place. So online writing tends to be more skimmable and list-like than print. The cognitive neuroscientist Mary Walt argued recently that this “new norm” of skim reading is producing “an invisible, game-changing transformation” in how readers process words. The neuronal circuit that sustains the brain’s capacity to read now favors the rapid absorption of information, rather than skills developed by deeper reading, like critical analysis. We shouldn’t overplay this danger. All readers skim. Skimming is the skill we acquire as children as we learn to read more skillfully. From about the age of nine, our eyes start to bounce around the page, reading only about a quarter of the words properly, and filling in the gaps by inference. Nor is there anything new in these fears about declining attention spans. So far, the anxieties have proved to be false alarms. “Quite a few critics have been worried about attention span lately and see very short stories as signs of cultural decline,” the American author Selvin Brown wrote. “No one ever said that poems were evidence of short attention spans.” And yet the Internet has certainly changed the way we read. For a start, it means that there is more to read, because more people than ever are writing. If you time travelled just a few decades into the past, you would wonder at how little writing was happening outside a classroom. And digital writing is meant for rapid release and response. An online article starts forming a comment string underneath as soon as it is published. This mode of writing and reading can be interactive and fun. But often it treats other people’s words as something to be quickly harvested as fodder to say something else. Everyone talks over the top of everyone else, desperate to be heard. Perhaps we should slow down. Reading is constantly promoted as a social good and source of personal achievement. But this advocacy often emphasizes “enthusiastic”, “passionate” or “eager” reading, none of which adjectives suggest slow, quiet absorption. To a slow reader, a piece of writing can only be fully understood by immersing oneself in the words and their slow comprehension of a line of thought. The slow reader is like a swimmer who stops counting the number of pool laps he has done and just enjoys how his body feels and moves in water. The human need for this kind of deep reading is too tenaciousfor any new technology to destroy. We often assume that technological change can’t be stopped and happens in one direction, so that older media like “dead-tree” books are kicked out by newer, more virtual forms. In practice, older technologies can coexist with new ones. The Kindle has not killed off the printed book any more than the car killed off the bicycle. We still want to enjoy slowly-formed ideas and carefully-chosen words. Even in a fast-moving age, there is time for slow reading. 41．The author would probably agree that. A．advocacy of passionate reading helps promote slow reading B．digital writing leads to too much speaking and not enough reflection C．the public should be aware of the impact skimming has on neuronal circuits D．the number of Internet readers is declining due to the advances of technology 【高考真题】 【2024北京卷】 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. 28. 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. 29. What does the phrase “contingent on” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A. Accepted by. B. Determined by. C. Awakened by. D. Discovered by. 30. As for Kant’s argument, the author is _________. A. appreciative B. doubtful C. unconcerned D. disapproving 31. 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年北京卷】 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. 31. Regarding Johnson’s concerns, the author feels ________. A. sympathetic B. unconcerned C. doubtful D. excited 32. 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. 33. What does the underlined word “prone” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A. Open. B. Cool. C. Useful. D. Resistant. 34. 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年北京卷】 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． 31 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． 32. 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 33. 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． 34. 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年北京卷】 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. A GI 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 A GI 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 A GI 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 A GI any time soon, if ever. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. As for Irving Good’s opinion on ultra-intelligent machines the author is ____________. A. supportive B. disapproving C. fearful D. uncertain 45. 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. 【最新模考】 【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. 17．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. 18．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 19．The underlined word “demoralizing” in Paragraph 5 means ______. A．discouraging B．ineffective C．unfair D．misleading 20．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. 21．What does the underlined word “potent” in Paragraph 4 most probably mean? A．Accessible. B．Powerful. C．Significant. D．Unnoticeable. 22．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. 23．Regarding Wendy Hall’s suggestions, the author is ______. A．sympathetic B．puzzled C．unconcerned D．opposed 24．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 【2023·北京东城·二模】 September 2022 was apparently the month artificial intelligence essay anxiety boiled over in academia, after a user of an AI writing service claimed to be getting straight A’s with essays “written” using artificial intelligence. Most professors expressed concern. One wrote, “Grading something an AI wrote is an incredibly depressing waste of my life.” As all this online depression was playing out, I asked my students, who were mostly majors in writing, to submit a 2,000-word proposal about a local issue. I asked them to rely on the AI as much as possible. After reviewing their 22 AI essays, I can tell you confidently that the technology just isn’t there. My students used free accessible text generators online and put in a lot of effort. But, if I had believed these were genuine student essays, the very best would have earned somewhere around a C or C-minus. Many of the essays had obvious red flags for AI generation: outdated facts, quotes from prior university presidents presented as current presidents, fictional professors and named student organizations that don’t exist. At the same time, the students reported that using AI required far more time than simply writing their essays the old-fashioned way would have. There has been a fair amount written about the supposed impressiveness of AI-generated text. There are even several high-profile AI-written articles, essays or even scientific papers or screenplays that showcase this impressiveness. In many of these cases, the “authors” have access to higher-quality language models than most students are currently able to use. But, more importantly, the published examples are generally the polished form of professional writers and editors. In contrast, many of my students’ AI-generated essays showed the common problems of student writing—uncertainty about the appropriate writing style, issues with organization and transitions, and inconsistent paragraphing. Obviously, producing a quality essay with AI requires having high writing skill and revising skill to produce appropriate outputs. My experimental so tells me that a good assignment sheet is the best defense against AI essays. If your assignment is “Describe the reasons for the U.S. Civil War”, you are more likely to get AI or downloaded essay submissions. My assignment was a challenge because it asked students to address local issues of concern. There are just not enough relevant examples in the data the AI text generators are drawing from. It has been just over five years since computer scientists declared, “We should stop training radiologists(放射科医生) now. Deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” Well, we’re still training radiologists, and there’s no indication that deep learning is going to replace human doctors anytime soon. In much the same way, I strongly suspect full-on robot writing will always and forever be “just around the corner”. 28．What can we learn about the students in the experiment? A．Their writing efficiency was affected. B．Their essays were better structured. C．They preferred AI-written essays. D．They overcame AI’s weaknesses. 29．What does the author imply in Paragraph 3? A．Online text generators are far from reliable. B．Genuine student essays deserve higher marks. C．Students need to have better mastery of technology. D．Revising applications decide the quality of AI essays. 30．In the author’s opinion, what may discourage the use of AI text generators? A．Standard criteria B．Strict regulations.. C．Clear instructions. D．Unique writing tasks. 31．What is the main purpose of the passage? A．To assess AI’s influence on students’ writing. B．To discuss the threat of AI to the teaching of writing. C．To appeal for the appropriate application of AI text generators. D．To analyse the differences between genuine and Al-written essays. 原创精品资源学科网独家享有版权，侵权必究！11 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$ 热点题型·选择题攻略 专题08 阅读理解议论文 2024 年北京高考英语阅读理解试题题材广泛，涵盖人与自我、人与社会和人与自然等多个主题语境，贴近时代、贴近社会、贴近生活、贴近学生。试题依托语篇，全面考查学生的阅读理解能力，突出高阶思维的考查，引导中学教学回归课标、回归课堂。阅读理解的选材注重价值引领，体现学科的育人功能。例如，有的文章讲述了作者在一次考试失败后，不断突破自我、锲而不舍追逐梦想的历程；有的文章指出人类应停止“宇宙是不是模拟”的争论，依托新的科技成果，创造性地探索未知世界；还有的文章从科学的视角探讨道德规范的根源。这些文章不仅有助于考生获取有效信息，正确认识世界和中国发展大势，还能培养考生的国际意识和文化素养。 阅读理解题型多样，包括细节理解题、推理判断题、主旨大意题等。试题考查考生对语篇内容、语篇结构的理解和把握，以及对语篇内容的分析、阐释和评价。 年份 体裁 词数 话题 考点分布 细节 理解 推理 判断 主旨大意 词义猜测 2024 说明文 384 人与社会：人类道德准则的形成过程及人类建立道德准则的标准 1 1 1 0 2022 议论文 400 人与社会：量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？ 1 1 1 1 2021 议论文 480 人与社会/自然：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。 1 2 1 0 2020 议论文 433 人与社会：通用人工智能技术 1 2 0 1 议论文的内容涵盖文化、历史、文学、科学和教育等各个方面。在这类体裁的文章中把握好论点、论据和论证很重要。此类体裁的文章中有关主旨大意和推理判断的题目会较多，这也是得分比较难的题型。在阅读这类文章的时候，我们要认真把握作者的态度，领悟弦外之音，从而更好地依据文章的事实做出合理的推断。 题型01 主旨大意题 【题型诠释】 主旨大意题主要考查学生把握全文主题和理解中心思想的能力。根据多年的备考及高考实践，这类题目考查的范围是：基本论点、文章标题、主题或段落大意等。它要求考生在理解全文的基础上能较好地运用概括、判断、归纳、推理等逻辑思维方法，对文章进行高度概括或总结，属于高层次题。 干扰项：可能是文中某个具体事实或细节、可能是从文中某些(不完全的)事实或细节片面推出的错误结论、可能是非文章事实的主观臆断。而正确答案需要根据文章全面理解而归纳概括出来；不能太笼统、言过其实或以偏概全。 考生在解答这类题型时，需要从整体上理解语篇内容，找出贯穿语篇的主线；不管是何种体裁的文章，都是围绕一个主题来展开的。在试题设计上，3个干扰项的内容一般在文章里或多或少都有涉及，但并非主要内容，需要注意甄别。 【典例】 （2023·北京朝阳·二模）Superhuman artificial intelligence is already among us. Well, sort of. When it comes to playing games like chess and Go, or solving difficult scientific challenges like predicting protein structures, computers are well ahead of us. But we have one superpower they aren’t close to mastering: mind reading. Humans have a mysterious ability to reason the goals, desires and beliefs of others, a crucial skill that means we can anticipate other people’s actions and the consequences of our own. Reading minds comes so easily to us, though, that we often don’t think to spell out what we want. If AIs are to become truly useful in everyday life—to cooperate effectively with us or to understand that a child might run into the road after a bouncing ball—we have to give them this gift that evolution has given us to read other people’s minds. Psychologists refer to the ability to infer another’s mental state as theory of mind. In humans, this capacity starts to develop at a very young age. How to reproduce the capability in machines is far from clear, though. One of the main challenges is context. For instance, if someone asks whether you are going for a run and you reply “it’s raining”, they can quickly conclude that the answer is no. But this requires huge amounts of background knowledge about running, weather and human preferences. Moreover, whether humans or AI, the theory of mind is supposed to emerge naturally from one’s own learning process. Building prior knowledge into AI makes it reliant on our imperfect understanding of theory of mind. In addition, AI may be capable of developing approaches we could never imagine. There can be many forms of theory of mind that we don’t know about simply because we live in a human body that has certain types of senses and a certain ability to think. Yet we might still want AI to have a more human-like form of theory of mind. Humans can clearly explain their goals and desires to each other using common language and ideas. While letting AI form the theory of mind in their learning process is likely to lead to developing more powerful AI, plainly building in shared ways to represent knowledge may be crucial for humans to trust and communicate with AI. It is important to remember, though, that the pursuit of machines with theory of mind is about more than just building more useful robots. It is also a stepping stone on the path towards a deeper goal for AI and robotics research: building truly self-aware machines. Whether we will ever get there remains to be seen. But along the way thinking about other people and other agents, we are on the path to learning to think about ourselves. 35．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．AI with Its Own Theory of Mind Is Expected B．AI with Theory of Mind Will Reshape Our Future C．AI’s Theory of Mind Is a Blessing or Suffering to Humans D．Theory of Mind Bridges the Gap Between Humans and AI 【答案】 35．A 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。当涉及到下棋和围棋等游戏，或解决预测蛋白质结构等棘手的科学挑战时，计算机远远领先于我们。但我们有一个他们还没有掌握的超能力：读心术。作者希望人工智能也能具备这种思维能力，实现人类与人工智能的交流。 35．主旨大意题。通读全文，结合最后一段的“It is important to remember, though, that the pursuit of machines with theory of mind is about more than just building more useful robots. It is also a stepping stone on the path towards a deeper goal for AI and robotics research: building truly self-aware machines. (然而，重要的是要记住，追求具有思维理论的机器不仅仅是为了制造更有用的机器人。这也是迈向人工智能和机器人研究更深层目标的垫脚石：建造真正有自我意识的机器)”可知，作者期待建造真正有自我意识的机器，即作者期待人工智能具备思维理论。故A项“AI with Its Own Theory of Mind Is Expected(期待人工智有拥有自己的心智理论)”可以作为本文的最佳标题。故选A。 题型02 词义猜测题 【题型诠释】 阅读理解的测试中经常有猜测词、短语、习语、句子意义的题目，近几年高考阅读中词义猜测题的考查方法呈多样化，其中根据上下文语境推测词义将会越来越多。有时短文中出现一个需猜测其意义的词或短语，后文接着会出现其定义、解释或例子，这就是判断该词或短语意义的主要依据。 我们还可以根据转折或对比关系进行判断：根据上下句的连接词，如but，however，otherwise等就可以看到前后句在意义上的差别，从而依据某一句的含义来确定另一句的含义。另外，分号(；)也可以表示转折、对比或不相干的意义。还可以根据因果关系进行判断。 解答此类题的要领：(1)从文中找线索或信息词；(2)根据熟悉的词及词义判断新词的意思；(3)根据上下文判断新词在特定句中的确切意思。(4)要特别注意熟词新意！ 【典例】 （23-24高二上·北京石景山·期末）There exist cruel wars, fighting and sadness in the world today, so it’s not only necessary, but also essential to have a good sense of humor just to help us tide through difficult times in our lives. Putting a smile on someone’s face when you know they are feeling depressed, as the saying goes, makes me feel good and warms my heart. How would you feel if you could not joke around with your wife, husband, child, co-worker, neighbor, close friend, or even just someone that you are standing in line with at your corner store? I am always saying things that make others smile or laugh, even if I don’t know the person I’m joking around with. My Grandma always found humor in everything she did, even if it was the hardest job anyone could imagine. This not only relieves stress in any situation, but also is common courtesy (礼貌) to speak to others that are around you. I know of a few people that don’t have a funny bone in their bodies, as they say. Everyone around them could be rolling on the floor after hearing a great joke and they would sit there without the slightest smile on their face. They don’t get the joke that makes others laugh. I am busting a gut while they just sit there, looking at me as if I were from outer space. How can people not get a really funny joke? Laughing is essential to keeping your stress levels under control. Without humor we would find ourselves with a lot of psychological problems, or on a lot of medications to keep us from going crazy. There is too much sadness in this present world. It drives people crazy. We all need to find a way to bypass the sadness and bring a little light into our lives. So, I believe our best medicine is to get together and tell some jokes and have some fun laughing together. 7．The phrase “busting a gut” underlined in Paragraph 3 can be replaced by . A．speaking loudly B．laughing hard C．acting strangely D．explaining carefully 【答案】 7．B 【导语】本文是一篇议论文，主要讲的是幽默和笑的重要性。 7．词句猜测题。根据倒数第二段“Everyone around them could be rolling on the floor after hearing a great joke and they would sit there without the slightest smile on their face. They don’t get the joke that makes others laugh.(他们周围的每个人都可能在听到一个很棒的笑话后在地板上打滚，他们会坐在那里，脸上没有一丝微笑。他们听不懂让别人发笑的笑话。)”和“while they just sit there(而他们只是坐在那里)”可知，作者听到笑话会笑得很厉害，划线短语busting a gut的意思是“大笑”。故选B。 题型03 推理判断题 【题型诠释】   推断题要求学生在理解文章表面信息的基础上，通过语篇逻辑关系，研究细节的暗示，推敲作者态度，理解文章的寓意等。推理的结论一定是原文有这层意思，但没有明确表达的。推理要根据文章的字面意思，通过语篇、段落和句子之间的逻辑关系，各个信息所暗示和隐含的意义，作者的隐含意等对文章进行推理判断。考生要由文字的表层信息挖掘出文章的深层含义，要能透过现象看本质。 推断题是议论文中出现频率最高、难度最大的题目。推断题常常考查写作目的、作者意图、结论推断或者文章出处推断等。常见的题目如下： ①From the example in paragraph..., we can infer that ____________. ②Whats the purpose of the text? ③Whats the attitude of the author towards ...? 做此类题的要领：既要求学生透过文章表面文字信息推测文章的隐含意思，又要求学生对作者的态度、意图及文章细节的发展作出正确的推理判断，力求从作者的角度考虑而不是固守自己的看法。不可用主观臆断来代替文中作者的观点，不能用事实代替推理，不能用具体代替抽象，不能用现象代替实质。 【典例】 （23-24高二下·北京丰台·期末）All over the world, formal education supplies the economy with workers who will increase productivity to fuel the economic machine. But this machine now threatens our very survival. If the entire world reaches the levels of consumption seen in high-income countries today, we’ll need multiple planet Earths to supply the resources. The absurd (荒谬的) idea of infinite growth within a finite territory is at the heart of our economic system. To keep this machine running, formal education generates ever more efficient “human capital”. Increasing productivity metrics (指标) rather than the individuality of students drives our civilization’s approach to schooling our young people. Whereas the Sustainable Development Goals call for turning education into a force for sustainability, the opposite is often true: The ways Western societies have come to think about education undermine our ability to deal with the environmental crisis. To get through this crisis, we need to cultivate our imagination, not undermine it. Growing up, none of my schooling fostered my ability to imagine a world different from what I saw around me. Besides, I realize the suppression (抑制) of children’s imagination doesn’t take place only in underresourced communities, but in “elite” institutions that tout “critical thinking”. Schools want to see their graduates succeed, and success is too often about maintaining current structures — not about reimagining their foundations. Essentially, our education systems shape children in the image of artificial intelligence. The perfect “worker”, AI, continually improves its own productivity but doesn’t challenge the larger structures within which it operates. It is one of the great paradoxes of our time that we invest so much into building supercomputers while marginalizing the imaginative potential of millions of human brains. What’s more, we even put our hope in solving the environmental crisis on AI. But AI, like our other technologies, can only treat the symptoms of the environmental crisis, not the causes Throughout history, achievers of great change have relied on their imaginations to address fundamental flaws in society. In my country of birth, communists kept their dreams of democracy alive for decades by imagining different futures. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela’s followers had to be radical (激进的) in their imagination to create a vision of a fairer society. Imagining democracy when living under a totalitarian regime (极权主义政权) isn’t that different from imagining degrowth when living in a world of infinite growth. The kind of intelligence that Nelson Mandela and such possessed was not artificial. The ability to reimagine the future and disrupt the current situation remains a distinctly human quality. Unlike AI, children are naturally imaginative and question the premises of society. In my research, I have observed that younger children are often the most radical in imagining different futures. As long as our imagination is curtailed, ideas like degrowth sound utopian (乌托邦的) to many, Cultivating imagination means learning from history’s disrupters who made the  impossible possible. Instead of dismissing “childish” ideas about the world’s future, it means seeing inspiration in children’s imaginations. In an education system that celebrates imagination, arts and creativity are as important as math and science. Idealism coexists with pragmatism. The environmental crisis is not a crisis of technology or science, it is a crisis of imagination. If we let children be our guides, we might be able to imagine our way to survival. 1．The author hopes education can play its role in ________. A．developing human resources B．promoting sustainable development C．increasing productivity D．maximizing economic growth 2．From the passage, we can learn that _________. A．imagination isn’t well developed in schools B．AI helps exploit the potential of human brains C．graduates’ success changes the social structures D．AI can address the root cause of economic crisis 3．Nelson Mandela is mentioned as _________. A．a success in building a fair society B．a leader who had a great influence C．a pioneer possessing the quality of AI D．an inspiration to solve social problems 4．According to the passage, the author may agree that _________. A．children’s imagination ensures human’s survival B．the environmental crisis results from technology C．imagination can help solve environmental crisis D．the “childish” ideas will ruin the world’s future 【答案】1．B 2．A 3．D 4．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要围绕当前教育系统如何影响人类应对环境危机的能力展开讨论，提出了对现有教育模式的批判，并强调了培养想象力和创新能力的重要性。 1．推理判断题。根据第二段中的“Whereas the Sustainable Development Goals call for turning education into a force for sustainability, the opposite is often true: The ways Western societies have come to think about education undermine our ability to deal with the environmental crisis. To get through this crisis, we need to cultivate our imagination, not undermine it. (虽然可持续发展目标呼吁将教育转变为可持续发展的力量，但事实往往恰恰相反：西方社会对教育的思考方式削弱了我们应对环境危机的能力。为了度过这场危机，我们需要培养我们的想象力，而不是削弱它)”可推知，作者希望教育能在促进可持续发展方面发挥作用。故选B。 2．推理判断题。根据第三段“Growing up, none of my schooling fostered my ability to imagine a world different from what I saw around me. Besides, I realize the suppression (抑制) of children’s imagination doesn’t take place only in underresourced communities, but in “elite” institutions that tout “critical thinking”. Schools want to see their graduates succeed, and success is too often about maintaining current structures — not about reimagining their foundations. (从小到大，我所受的学校教育都没有培养我想象一个不同于我所看到的世界的能力。此外，我意识到对儿童想象力的压制不仅发生在资源匮乏的社区，也发生在鼓吹“批判性思维”的“精英”机构。学校希望看到他们的毕业生成功，而成功往往是维持现有的结构，而不是重新构想他们的基础)”可推知，学校教育中想象力并未得到充分发展。故选A。 3．推理判断题。根据第五段中的“In South Africa, Nelson Mandela’s followers had to be radical (激进的) in their imagination to create a vision of a fairer society. Imagining democracy when living under a totalitarian regime (极权主义政权) isn’t that different from imagining degrowth when living in a world of infinite growth. (在南非，Nelson Mandela的追随者必须在他们的想象中变得激进，才能创造一个更公平的社会。生活在极权主义政权下想象民主与生活在无限增长的世界里想象去增长并没有什么不同)”可推知，提及Nelson Mandela是为了强调其作为历史变革者的角色，他拥有重新构想未来的独特人类特质，从而激励人们解决社会问题，作为一个解决社会问题的灵感来源。故选D。 4．推理判断题。根据第二段中的“Whereas the Sustainable Development Goals call for turning education into a force for sustainability, the opposite is often true: The ways Western societies have come to think about education undermine our ability to deal with the environmental crisis. To get through this crisis, we need to cultivate our imagination, not undermine it. (虽然可持续发展目标呼吁将教育转变为可持续发展的力量，但事实往往恰恰相反：西方社会对教育的思考方式削弱了我们应对环境危机的能力。为了度过这场危机，我们需要培养我们的想象力，而不是削弱它)”和最后一段中的“The environmental crisis is not a crisis of technology or science, it is a crisis of imagination. If we let children be our guides, we might be able to imagine our way to survival. (环境危机不是技术或科学的危机，而是想象力的危机。如果我们让孩子成为我们的向导，我们也许能够想象我们的生存之路)”可知，作者认为想象力是解决环境危机的关键，如果释放孩子们的想象力并从中得到启发，我们或许能够想象出通往生存的道路。由此推知，作者同意想象力有助于解决环境危机的观点。故选C。 题型04 细节理解题 【题型诠释】 细节理解题主要考查考生对文章中某些细节或重要事实的理解能力。它一般包括直接理解题和语意理解题两种。直接理解题的答案与原文直接挂钩，从阅读材料中可以找到。这种题难度低，只要考生读懂文章，就能得分，属于低层次题。它们往往以what, which, who, when, where, how来提问，有时还会加上一个前提，如：According to the passage/the first/last para-graph...。 做此类题时可以使用定位法与跳读法。定位法即根据题干和选项所提供的信息直接从原文中找到相应的句子(即定位)，然后进行比较和分析(尤其要注意一些同义转换)，从而选出正确答案。跳读法即根据题干和选项所提供的信息跳读原文，并找到相关的句子(有时可能是几个句子)或段落，然后进行简单分析、推理等，从而找出正确答案。 【典例】 （2023·北京西城·一模）Technology seems to discourage slow, immersive reading. Reading on a screen, particularly a phone screen, tires your eyes and makes it harder for you to keep your place. So online writing tends to be more skimmable and list-like than print. The cognitive neuroscientist Mary Walt argued recently that this “new norm” of skim reading is producing “an invisible, game-changing transformation” in how readers process words. The neuronal circuit that sustains the brain’s capacity to read now favors the rapid absorption of information, rather than skills developed by deeper reading, like critical analysis. We shouldn’t overplay this danger. All readers skim. Skimming is the skill we acquire as children as we learn to read more skillfully. From about the age of nine, our eyes start to bounce around the page, reading only about a quarter of the words properly, and filling in the gaps by inference. Nor is there anything new in these fears about declining attention spans. So far, the anxieties have proved to be false alarms. “Quite a few critics have been worried about attention span lately and see very short stories as signs of cultural decline,” the American author Selvin Brown wrote. “No one ever said that poems were evidence of short attention spans.” And yet the Internet has certainly changed the way we read. For a start, it means that there is more to read, because more people than ever are writing. If you time travelled just a few decades into the past, you would wonder at how little writing was happening outside a classroom. And digital writing is meant for rapid release and response. An online article starts forming a comment string underneath as soon as it is published. This mode of writing and reading can be interactive and fun. But often it treats other people’s words as something to be quickly harvested as fodder to say something else. Everyone talks over the top of everyone else, desperate to be heard. Perhaps we should slow down. Reading is constantly promoted as a social good and source of personal achievement. But this advocacy often emphasizes “enthusiastic”, “passionate” or “eager” reading, none of which adjectives suggest slow, quiet absorption. To a slow reader, a piece of writing can only be fully understood by immersing oneself in the words and their slow comprehension of a line of thought. The slow reader is like a swimmer who stops counting the number of pool laps he has done and just enjoys how his body feels and moves in water. The human need for this kind of deep reading is too tenaciousfor any new technology to destroy. We often assume that technological change can’t be stopped and happens in one direction, so that older media like “dead-tree” books are kicked out by newer, more virtual forms. In practice, older technologies can coexist with new ones. The Kindle has not killed off the printed book any more than the car killed off the bicycle. We still want to enjoy slowly-formed ideas and carefully-chosen words. Even in a fast-moving age, there is time for slow reading. 41．The author would probably agree that. A．advocacy of passionate reading helps promote slow reading B．digital writing leads to too much speaking and not enough reflection C．the public should be aware of the impact skimming has on neuronal circuits D．the number of Internet readers is declining due to the advances of technology 【答案】 41．B 【导语】这是一篇议论文。文章主要论述了作者对于慢阅读的看法，指出了慢阅读的重要性和好处，并指出科技不能改变人们对这种深度阅读的需求。 41．细节理解题。根据第三段“And digital writing is meant for rapid release and response. An online article starts forming a comment string underneath as soon as it is published. This mode of writing and reading can be interactive and fun. But often it treats other people’s words as something to be quickly harvested as fodder to say something else. Everyone talks over the top of everyone else, desperate to be heard.(数字写作意味着快速释放和反应。一篇在线文章一经发表，就开始在下面形成一个评论字符串。这种写作和阅读的模式可以是互动的和有趣的。但它经常把别人的话当作可以迅速收获的素材，用来说别的东西。每个人都说得比别人多，渴望被别人听到)”可知，作者认同数字写作导致过多的表达，而缺乏足够的思考。故选B。 【高考真题】 【2024北京卷】 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. 28. 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. 29. What does the phrase “contingent on” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A. Accepted by. B. Determined by. C. Awakened by. D. Discovered by. 30. As for Kant’s argument, the author is _________. A. appreciative B. doubtful C. unconcerned D. disapproving 31. 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. 【答案】28. C 29. B 30. A 31. C 【解析】 【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。 【28题详解】 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。 【29题详解】 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。 【30题详解】 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。 【31题详解】 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。 【2022年北京卷】 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. 31. Regarding Johnson’s concerns, the author feels ________. A. sympathetic B. unconcerned C. doubtful D. excited 32. 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. 33. What does the underlined word “prone” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A. Open. B. Cool. C. Useful. D. Resistant. 34. 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? 【答案】31 A 32. C 33. A 34. D 【解题导语】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。 31.【解析】 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。 32.【解析】 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。 33.【解析】 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。 34.【解析】 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。 【2021年北京卷】 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． 31 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． 32. 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 33. 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． 34. 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． 【答案】31. B 32. D 33. C 34. C 【解析】 【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。 【31题详解】 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。 【32题详解】 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。 【33题详解】 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。 【34题详解】 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。 【2020年北京卷】 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. A GI 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 A GI 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 A GI 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 A GI any time soon, if ever. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. As for Irving Good’s opinion on ultra-intelligent machines the author is ____________. A. supportive B. disapproving C. fearful D. uncertain 45. 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. 【答案】42. D 43. A 44. B 45. A 【解析】 【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。 【42题详解】 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。 【43题详解】 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。 【44题详解】 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。 【45题详解】 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。 【最新模考】 【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. 17．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. 18．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 19．The underlined word “demoralizing” in Paragraph 5 means ______. A．discouraging B．ineffective C．unfair D．misleading 20．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 【答案】17．D 18．B 19．A 20．D 【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。 17．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。 18．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。 19．词句猜测题。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。 20．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，作者用幽默的语调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。由此推知，作者在谈论这个未经检验的假设时使用的语气是反思和幽默的。故选D。 【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. 21．What does the underlined word “potent” in Paragraph 4 most probably mean? A．Accessible. B．Powerful. C．Significant. D．Unnoticeable. 22．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. 23．Regarding Wendy Hall’s suggestions, the author is ______. A．sympathetic B．puzzled C．unconcerned D．opposed 24．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 【答案】21．B 22．B 23．A 24．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。 21．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。 22．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。 23．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。 24．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。 【2023·北京东城·二模】 September 2022 was apparently the month artificial intelligence essay anxiety boiled over in academia, after a user of an AI writing service claimed to be getting straight A’s with essays “written” using artificial intelligence. Most professors expressed concern. One wrote, “Grading something an AI wrote is an incredibly depressing waste of my life.” As all this online depression was playing out, I asked my students, who were mostly majors in writing, to submit a 2,000-word proposal about a local issue. I asked them to rely on the AI as much as possible. After reviewing their 22 AI essays, I can tell you confidently that the technology just isn’t there. My students used free accessible text generators online and put in a lot of effort. But, if I had believed these were genuine student essays, the very best would have earned somewhere around a C or C-minus. Many of the essays had obvious red flags for AI generation: outdated facts, quotes from prior university presidents presented as current presidents, fictional professors and named student organizations that don’t exist. At the same time, the students reported that using AI required far more time than simply writing their essays the old-fashioned way would have. There has been a fair amount written about the supposed impressiveness of AI-generated text. There are even several high-profile AI-written articles, essays or even scientific papers or screenplays that showcase this impressiveness. In many of these cases, the “authors” have access to higher-quality language models than most students are currently able to use. But, more importantly, the published examples are generally the polished form of professional writers and editors. In contrast, many of my students’ AI-generated essays showed the common problems of student writing—uncertainty about the appropriate writing style, issues with organization and transitions, and inconsistent paragraphing. Obviously, producing a quality essay with AI requires having high writing skill and revising skill to produce appropriate outputs. My experimental so tells me that a good assignment sheet is the best defense against AI essays. If your assignment is “Describe the reasons for the U.S. Civil War”, you are more likely to get AI or downloaded essay submissions. My assignment was a challenge because it asked students to address local issues of concern. There are just not enough relevant examples in the data the AI text generators are drawing from. It has been just over five years since computer scientists declared, “We should stop training radiologists(放射科医生) now. Deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” Well, we’re still training radiologists, and there’s no indication that deep learning is going to replace human doctors anytime soon. In much the same way, I strongly suspect full-on robot writing will always and forever be “just around the corner”. 28．What can we learn about the students in the experiment? A．Their writing efficiency was affected. B．Their essays were better structured. C．They preferred AI-written essays. D．They overcame AI’s weaknesses. 29．What does the author imply in Paragraph 3? A．Online text generators are far from reliable. B．Genuine student essays deserve higher marks. C．Students need to have better mastery of technology. D．Revising applications decide the quality of AI essays. 30．In the author’s opinion, what may discourage the use of AI text generators? A．Standard criteria B．Strict regulations.. C．Clear instructions. D．Unique writing tasks. 31．What is the main purpose of the passage? A．To assess AI’s influence on students’ writing. B．To discuss the threat of AI to the teaching of writing. C．To appeal for the appropriate application of AI text generators. D．To analyse the differences between genuine and Al-written essays. 【答案】28．A 29．A 30．D 31．B 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了人工智能引发的学术焦虑，作者通过实验告诉我们，我们不需要过于担忧人工智能的使用。 28．细节理解题。根据文章第二段“As all this online depression was playing out, I asked my students, who were mostly majors in writing, to submit a 2,000-word proposal about a local issue.  I asked them to rely on the AI as much as possible.(随着网上的沮丧情绪愈演愈烈，我让我的学生们(他们大多是写作专业的学生)就一个当地问题提交一份2000字的提案。我要求他们尽可能地依赖AI。)”“At the same time, the students reported that using AI required far more time than simply writing their essays the old-fashioned way would have.(与此同时，学生们报告说，使用人工智能比简单地用传统方式写论文需要更多的时间。)”可知，作者要求学生尽可能依赖AI来进行写作，而学生认为这样要比传统的写论文更费时间。由此判断，使用AI技术使得学生的写作效率受到了影响。故选A。 29．推理判断题。根据文章第三段“But, more importantly, the published examples are generally the polished form of professional writers and editors. In contrast, many of my students’ AI-generated essays showed the common problems of student writing—uncertainty about the appropriate writing style, issues with organization and transitions, and inconsistent paragraphing. Obviously, producing a quality essay with AI requires having high writing skill and revising skill to produce appropriate outputs.(但是，更重要的是，发表的例子通常是专业作家和编辑的润色形式。相比之下，我的许多学生的人工智能论文显示了学生写作的常见问题——不确定合适的写作风格，组织和过渡的问题，以及不一致的分段。显然，用人工智能写一篇高质量的文章需要有很高的写作技巧和修改技巧来产生适当的输出。)”可以推断，用AI文本生成器想写一篇高质量的文章是不太可能的。因此，作者认为AI文本生成器并不可靠。故选A。 30．细节理解题。根据文章倒数第二段“My experimental so tells me that a good assignment sheet is the best defense against AI essays. If your assignment is “Describe the reasons for the U.S. Civil War”, you are more likely to get AI or downloaded essay submissions. My assignment was a challenge because it asked students to address local issues of concern. There are just not enough relevant examples in the data the AI text generators are drawing from.(我的实验告诉我，一份好的作业表是对抗人工智能论文的最佳方法。如果你的作业是“描述美国内战的原因”，你更有可能得到人工智能或下载的论文提交。我的作业是一个挑战，因为它要求学生解决当地关注的问题。AI文本生成器所使用的数据中没有足够的相关例子。)”可知，作者认为如果不想让学生使用AI文本生成器，教师可以布置独特的写作任务，这样学生就无法使用AI文本生成器。故选D。 31．推理判断题。根据文章第一段“September 2022 was apparently the month artificial intelligence essay anxiety boiled over in academia, after a user of an AI writing service claimed to be getting straight A’s with essays “written” using artificial intelligence.(2022年9月显然是人工智能论文焦虑在学术界爆发的一个月，此前一名人工智能写作服务的用户声称，用人工智能“写”的论文得到了全A。大多数教授对此表示担忧。)”以及最后一段“In much the same way, I strongly suspect full-on robot writing will always and forever be “just around the corner”(同样地，我强烈怀疑完全的机器人写作将永远是“指日可待”。)”以及全文内容可知，文章主要讨论了人工智能对于写作教学的威胁，作者认为人们无需太过于担忧机器人写作会代替学生写作。故选B。 原创精品资源学科网独家享有版权，侵权必究！11 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$