专题09 阅读理解之议论文10篇（北京专用）（第二期）-备战2025年高考英语名校模拟真题速递(北京专用)

备战2025年高考英语名校模拟真题速递(北京专用) 第二期 专题09 议论文10篇 基础语篇巩固练 （24-25高三上·北京·期中）The weather in Texas may have cooled since the recent extreme heat, but the temperature will be high at the State Board of Education meeting in Austin this month as officials debate how climate change is taught in Texas schools. Pat Hardy, who sympathizes with the views of the energy sector, is resisting proposed changes to science standards for pre-teen pupils. “There are as many scientists working against all the panic of global climate change as there are those who are pushing it,” she claims. “Texas is an energy state and we need to recognize that. You need to remember where your bread is buttered.” Most scientists and experts sharply dispute Hardy’s views. Board members like her “casually dismiss the career work of scholars and scientists as just another misguided opinion,” says Dan Quinn, senior communications strategist at the Texas Freedom Network, a non-profit group that monitors public education. Such debates reflect fierce discussions across the US, as researchers, policymakers, teachers and students step up demands for a greater focus on teaching about the facts of climate change in schools. A study last year by the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit group of scientists and teachers, looking at how state public schools across the country address climate change in science classes, gave barely half of US states a grade B+ or higher. Among the 10 worst performers were some of the most populous states, including Texas, which was given the lowest grade (F) and has a disproportionate influence because its textbooks are widely sold elsewhere. Glenn Branch, the centre’s deputy director, cautions that setting state-level science standards is only one limited benchmark in a country that decentralizes decisions to local school boards. Even if a state is considered a high performer in its science standards, “that does not mean it will be taught”, he says. Another issue is that, while climate change is well integrated into some subjects and at some ages-such as earth and space sciences in high schools—it is not as well represented in curricula (教学大纲) for younger children and in subjects that are more widely taught, such as biology and chemistry. It is also less prominent in many social studies courses. Branch points out that, even if a growing number of official guidelines and textbooks reflect scientific consensus on climate change, unofficial educational materials that convey more biased perspectives are being distributed to teachers. They include materials sponsored by energy industry associations. 1．What does Quinn think of Hardy? A．She exaggerates the existing panic. B．She shows no concern for pre-teens. C．She expresses self-contradictory views. D．She denies the value of scientific work. 2．The study mentioned in Paragraph 5 shows that ________. A．Texas is reluctant to rewrite its science textbooks B．policymakers have little drive for science education C．climate education is insufficient at state public schools D．environmental teaching in some states lacks supervision 3．According to Branch, state-level science standards in the US________. A．call for regular revision B．have limited influence C．require urgent application D．prioritize local needs （24-25高三上·北京通州·期中）The Age of Information is exploding: if you tried to download all the data available today, you’d need more than 180 million years to do so. But you are wrong to assume that all information would stimulate a boost of innovation (创新) to match the output of data. Indeed, the last time we found ourselves in a period of significant innovation was over 120 years ago, called the Age of Insight (洞察力). Innovations, big or small, start with a new idea. Often, these ideas occur as a moment of insight—the result of a novel connection in our brains made between existing and new information. Studies show insights involve quiet signals deep in the brain. Anything that helps us notice quiet signals can increase the chance of insights. However, it’s becoming more challenging to find those signals today, every moment filled with an endless supply of content. Besides, we also want to increase the quality of them to sort through big new ideas and find the really valuable ones that can be hard to measure. Launched in 2015, the Eureka Scale (尤里卡量表) allows us to assess the strength of our insight experiences on a five-point scale, namely, intense emotions, motivation, memory advantage, aftershocks, and following ideas. The Scale combines these five variables into a single value to define the importance of a new idea and has broad applications for measuring and improving individual and organizational performance. Even it can be used to measure the impact of different kinds of work environments and learning approaches on participants’ growth. The level-5 insight, involving the richest emotion, motivation, and lasting impact, holds the greatest significance. In order for organizations to benefit from another age of insight, it’s not enough to try to access more data or increase the number of insights we generate. Instead, it’s about making space for the biggest ideas to emerge from all the information. Using the Scale as a way to measure how important ideas are will enable better decision-making toward practical and competitive outcomes. If we’re to enter a new age of insight, we must make timely and necessary changes to design our environments for the best insight possible to surface. 1．According to the passage, which of the following cases can increase the chance of insights? A．By engaging in ongoing social media interactions. B．By relying on technology to receive regular notices. C．By stepping away from computers between meetings. D．By participating in additional training and coaching sessions. 2．What can be inferred from the passage? A．The Eureka Scale controls the influence of our insights. B．One with a level-5 insight has minimal emotional responses. C．Both the quantity and quality of insights are essential to innovation. D．A breakthrough has been made in innovation due to a wealth of information. 3．What is the author’s attitude towards the current environment for innovations? A．Uncertain. B．Optimistic. C．Unconcerned. D．Dissatisfied. （24-25高三上·北京海淀·期中）Science should guide policy, but caution is needed when technologies like CRISPR have the potential to exclude rather than assist people to live their lives. CRISPR can be used to treat disease. Yet the far-reaching, more worrying promise of this  technology — one about which scientists seem at once excited and cautious — lies in its ability to eliminate from the gene pool what medical science identifies as faulty or abnormal genes that cause difference in individual people. Certainly, goes the logic of CRISPR’s promise, the goal of ridding future generations of terrible diseases that cause suffering and death and exhaust resources, seems an unquestionable enterprise. This logic is consistent with wider societal views. The idea that ridding society of genetic differences that count as defect (缺陷) is an undeniable “good” continues to be pervasive. Editing out a gene-linked condition, supporters may argue, is different from editing out a person, and curing disease is a good thing. But our genetic conditions are not simply entities that can be clipped away from us and our genetic conditions form a fundamental part of who we are. Using genome manipulation tools and performing genetic selection is equal to a new form of eugenic (优生学的) thinking grounded in what the communications studies scholar James L. Chemey calls “common sense” ableism, a belief system that allows people to simultaneously deny any commitment to distasteful eugenic principles while also holding them up. Ultimately, “common sense” ableism embodies a similar goal of cleansing unacceptable human variations that the campaigns to eliminate the supposedly inferior have held in the past. People with “bad” genes shouldn’t be edited out of existence in some version of a utopian (乌托邦的) future. Evaluating the quality of life of another person is morally questionable in a society based on the concept that all people are of equal value regardless of their individual differences. Expanding diversity in all its forms, including disability, strengthens the human community ethically and biologically because it opens the public and private sphere to a variety of perspectives, experiences and ideas to live together with mutual flourishing. Genome editing is powerful in reshaping medical treatments, but it can also be harmful by editing out the kinds of people that medical science, and the society it has shaped, categorize as diseased or genetically contaminated — people who are understood as having bad genes. We should be reminded that bad genes don’t necessarily lead to bad lives, just as good genes don’t necessarily lead to good lives. If CRISPR is put to use to eliminate rather than to treat genetic difference, we as a society would essentially instrumentalize this moralistic and reductionist assumption. 1．According to the author, CRISPR is________. A．a necessary evil in treating severe diseases B．a questionable tool for removing faulty genes C．a promising technology to conserve resources D．a logical approach to improving human genetics 2．The author discusses “common sense” ableism in Paragraph 4 to________. A．compare genetic selection to eugenic thinking B．trace the evolution of genetic selection in history C．offer an example of campaigns to remove bad genes D．reveal the root of the societal view on genetic differences 3．What does the underlined part in the last sentence mean? A．People need to adopt more simplified solutions. B．The society should apply CRISPR into other fields. C．This belief might be widely practiced in the society. D．The technology will be used to create a utopian future. 4．Which would be the best title for this passage? A．The Dark Side of CRISPR B．In the Wake of Genetic Selection C．In Defense of Our Bad Genes D．The Promise and Price of Gene Editing （24-25高三上·北京通州·开学考试）Automation and job replacement will be one of the most significant challenges for the global economy of the coming decades. A 2017 Mckinsey report established that 375 million workers will need to switch occupational categories by 2030. The World Economic Forum suggests that by 2022, automation will replace 75 million jobs globally — but create 133 million new ones. Research into the likelihood that a job will be impacted by digitization has largely focused on the “automatability” of the role and the following economic regional and political effects of this. What this research doesn’t take into account is something more important for the millions of taxi drivers and retail workers across the globe: their likelihood of being able to change to another job that isn’t automatable. Recent research suggests that the answer to this may be that the skills that enable workers to move up the ladder to more complex roles within their current areas might be less important than broader skills that will enable workers to change across divisions. In July, Amazon announced that it would spend $700 million retraining around 30%of its 300, 000 US workforce. While praiseworthy, it will be interesting to see the outcome. In the UK, the National Retraining Scheme has largely been led by employers, meaning that those on zero-hours contracts and part-time workers — often low-skilled — will miss out. Governance will be a crucial element of ensuring that such schemes focus on individuals and life-long learning, rather than upskilling workers into roles that will soon also face automation. According to the Mckinsey report, “growing awareness of the scale of the task ahead has yet to translate into action. Public spending on labor-force training and support has fallen for years in most member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development,” which impacts more than just the low-skilled and poorly compensated. The global impact of automation is also put into relief by research demonstrating that, between 1988 and 2015, income inequality increased throughout the world. Billions of people do not have the essentials of life as defined by the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Alongside climate change, automation is arguably tech’s biggest challenge. As with globalization, governments and employers — and us workers — ignore its potential consequences at risk to ourselves. 1．What is the author’s attitude towards retraining programs for upskilling? A．Supportive. B．Critical. C．Skeptical. D．Sympathetic. 2．According to the author, what is one consequence of automation? A．Less spending on training. B．Social unrest and instability. C．A slowdown of globalization. D．An increase in income inequality. 3．What is the purpose of the passage? A．To stress the importance of enabling workers. B．To analyze the automatability of certain jobs. C．To compare globalization with automation. D．To argue the urgency of creating new jobs. （24-25高三上·北京·开学考试）Nature vs. Nurture Curiosity has always been one of the most innate and prevailing qualities of humankind. Our endless pursuit of truth and reasons has resulted in a lot of crucial discoveries in the world. However, the more we uncover the world, the more we end up generating more questions to answer. Out of all the wonders of the world, human psychology is deemed to be one of the most controversial. The complexity of the mind and its reflection on human behavior has been a subject of many studies and debates. One of the oldest and, still, most talked about an argument in psychology is the nature against nurture debate. Nature refers to the biological structure and processes that determine a person’s physical and behavioral attributes. Due to the advancement of genetics, scientists have uncovered that physical traits such as eye color, hair type, height, and life expectancy of a person can strongly be related to the genetic makeup. These discoveries have led to the speculation that most psychological characteristics like intellect, personality, and language acquisition ability are already pre-wired to our system through our genetic pattern. In contrast, nurture theory suggests that behavior is honed from socio-cultural factors. This theory is guided by John Locke’s “blank slate” theory, which refers to the idea that the human mind, in its primal state, is a blank slate that is gradually filled in with information derived from direct and indirect experiences. This theory states people’s characteristics and behavioral diversity attend results of social and cultural influences encountered during their development. The term Nature vs. Nurture debate was put forward by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that intellect is a quantifiable and hereditary (遗传的) human trait. He also believed that intellect can be passed from generation to generation. Thus, people with high intelligence have a major chance of having highly intellectual offspring, while people having lower than average intellect are more likely to have low intellectual offspring. However , the believers of nurture theory believed that intellectual ability attends the result of inequalities in access to resources and opportunities. Thus, intellect is not a product of heredity but more of a result of the social construct. Countless research and experimentation have been conducted to put an end to the seemingly endless debate. Psychologists and researchers of the present already embrace the idea that a person’s character is highly influenced by his genetic makeup and the environment. The years of labored research on nature and nurture theory finally have born fruits. Technology and research have expanded a better understanding of the human personality and mind, and will just continuously do as time passes by. 1．Why does the author mention “curiosity” in the first paragraph? A．To predict the research results. B．To emphasize the importance of exploring. C．To lead to the argument of nature against nurture. D．To raise the reader’s interest in the theory of nature. 2．What does John Locke’s “blank slate” theory suggest? A．Human mind is always blank. B．People’s behaviors are learned. C．Behavior is determined genetically. D．Culture has little influence on human. 3．What is the attitude of Sir Francis Galton towards the theory of nurture? A．Disapproving. B．Supportive. C．Neutral. D．Cautious. 4．Which of the following might the author agree with? A．The theory of nature is not accepted by the public. B．The theory of nurture is based on the theory of nature. C．The supporters of the two theories agree with each other. D．The theory of nature and the theory of nurture both make sense. （24-25高三上·北京·阶段练习）We have been defending humanities for many decades now, but the crisis of the humanities only grows. In the face of declining student interest and mounting political scrutiny (审查), universities and colleges are increasingly putting humanities departments on the chopping block. As a humanist, I am prepared to admit that I do not know what the value of the humanities is. I once asked the best teacher I ever had why she no longer taught her favorite novel, and she said that she stopped teaching a book when she found she was no longer curious about it. The humanistic spirit is, fundamentally, an inquisitive one. In contrast, defenses of the humanities are not — and cannot be — conducted in an inquisitive spirit, because a defensive spirit is inimical to an inquisitive one. Defensiveness is, it must be admitted, an understandable response when the chopping block is brought out and you need to explain why you shouldn’t be on it, which requires their participants to pretend to know things that they do not actually know. Nonetheless, we should be alert to the danger of becoming accustomed to putting our worst foot forward. An atmosphere of urgency and calls for immediate action are hostile to fields of study like literature and philosophy that require a reflective mood, and the pretense (假装) of knowing what one doesn’t actually know is hostile to forms of inquiry that demand an open mind. A defensive mindset also encourages politicization. If the study of literature or philosophy helps to fight sexism or to promote democracy—and everyone agrees that sexism is bad, and democracy is good — then you have your answer as to why we shouldn’t cut funding for the study of literature or philosophy. Politicization is a way of arming the humanities for its political battles, but it comes at an intellectual cost. Why is sexism so bad? Why is democracy so good? Politicization silences these and other questions, whereas the function of the humanities is to raise them. Humanists are not alone in their ignorance about the purpose of their disciplines. But scientists are under a lot less pressure to explain why they exist because the society at large believes itself to already have the answer to that question. If at some point I am called on to defend the study of Homer or Descartes at some official hearing, I will do my best, but I will not run to battle; the battle will have to come to me. The task of humanists is to invite, to welcome, to excite, to engage. And when we let ourselves be ourselves, when we allow the humanistic spirit that animates us to flow out not only into our classrooms but also in our public-self presentation, we find we don’t need to defend or prove anything: We are irresistible. 1．What is the author’s main concern regarding the crisis in humanities? A．The pressure on humanists to argue for the value of their disciplines. B．The mounting political scrutiny faced by humanities departments. C．People’s little knowledge regarding the purpose of humanities. D．Students’ lack of interest in studying humanities courses. 2．What does the word “inimical” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．immune. B．relevant. C．sensitive. D．contrary. 3．What can be inferred about a defensive mindset? A．It brings about a lower chance of survival for humanities. B．It requires a reflective mood on the study of humanities. C．It leads to a compromise on human’s intellectual depth. D．It is the worst action to take in the face of the crisis. 4．Which of the following might the author most probably agree? A．The battle of humanities is a hard one to fight. B．The future of humanities remains cloudy. C．Science is more useful than humanities. D．Humanities may not need any defense. （24-25高三上·北京海淀·期末）Ask most scientists if we’re animals and you’ll get a funny look. Of course, we’re humans! But very commonly, humans are set apart from animals using random division. In 2018, a pair of long-tailed macaques were cloned to be used in biomedical research. A few years earlier, the United Nations stated that cloning people goes against human dignity. That may be a good ruling. But what exactly is dignity, and why do humans have it while intelligent, aware primates(灵长目动物) such as macaques do not? A macaque may not think or talk about dignity, but does that mean it doesn’t possess it? The fact is, biology won’t leap to our assistance here because dignity is a human invention. “Dignity” originates in Enlightenment dualist (二元论者) ideas separating cognition from physicality and instinct, and later a new binary emerged: the human mind and our physical bodies. In this worldview, the impulses and feelings of animal bodies (including our own) are viewed as less important than our mental experiences. Many of our laws and guidelines today create hard borders between humans and other animals on the basis of our supposedly superior mental properties. To maintain a strict boundary between our experiences and those of all other animals, we find ourselves prioritizing what we consider mind-based phenomena when making policies. So we demote experiences of fear and promote the idea that knowing fear — recognizing it, naming it — is what matters morally. We brush under the carpet the fact that these cognitive capacities, if present at all, change throughout our lives without altering our moral status. For example, babies experience fear but can’t conceptualize it. This doesn’t alter our belief in their moral subjecthood. I look at the history of science and psychology research to understand how our discomfort with some aspects of being animals — from moral confusion to mortality — can spur us to tell ourselves that we’re not really animals. I conclude that it’s time for a much-needed change in belief that no longer splits the world into unhelpful and unscientific binaries. The overwhelming bulk of scientific data from the past few decades points to how essential our animal, physical life is to our actions, feeling and thoughts. A research into child development has shown that significant, measurable advantages in acquiring language and mathematics follow the use of physical movement and gesture. We urgently need to get a handle on what it means to be an animal and move beyond old-fashioned dualism. It’s not just that we’re animals: embodied, physical experiences are richer and more meaningful than we’ve recognized. If that means we need to rethink our relationship to other animals, so be it. 1．What can we know about “dignity” in the passage? A．It is a term which separates humans from animals. B．It is a cognitive standard shared by all primates. C．It is an idea combining human body and mind. D．It is an emotional feature of human being. 2．Why does the author mention the example of babies in Para. 3? A．To prove cognitive ability is needed for moral subjecthood. B．To show the change of cognitive ability in moral development. C．To highlight the importance of cognitive ability in policy making. D．To stress the existence of moral status regardless of level of cognition. 3．What is the writer trying to propose? A．A shift away from dualistic thinking. B．A new method for scientific research. C．Less emphasis on physical experiences. D．More attention to cognitive development. 4．Which is the best title of the article? A．But We Are Animals, Aren’t We? B．Thus We Claim Dignity, Don’t We? C．But We Are Truly Different, Aren’t We? D．So We Prefer Our Animal Nature, Don’t We? （24-25高三上·北京朝阳·期末）Let’s start with the end. If you know anything about the state of artificial intelligence, it’s that many of the people advancing the technology are seriously worried about the technology they’ re advancing. Two statements stand out. The first followed the release of the company Open AI’s ChatGPT-4, calling for a six-month pause on any AI system going beyond GPT’s capabilities. The signatories (签署者) asked: “Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, and replace us?” The second statement, issued in May, 2023, signed by nearly all the major AI company CEOs and most of the top AI research scientists, was just 22 words long: “Mitigating (减轻) the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks like pandemics and nuclear war.” So, who’s excited for AI? I am? Maybe? AI tools are helping the speechless speak and reducing energy consumption largely. There are brilliant people who say this is kid stuff. Soon everyone will have a customized knowledge assistant. The removal of loneliness is coming. Other equally brilliant people go straight to the other direction. Their imagination covers everything from an AI-manufactured extinction-level virus to societal destruction as jobs disappear and inequality becomes permanent. OpenAI’s product launch made jaws drop. The tech is moving fast, but its impact will arrive in waves. We’ve already seen slight decrease in ChatGPT usage. That hardly means chatbots are doomed (注定失败的) or AI is a craze. Only that it’s early. It will take time to understand how people adapt to these new tools. That time should not be wasted. The processors will keep processing — and we need to get ready. Because however far-fetched the idea of an artificial general intelligence — meaning an autonomous system that one day goes beyond human abilities — it’s not impossible. We can also look out for the many ways AI tools can help us fix the hard problems humanity simply hasn’t been able to solve. That’s the goal here, in this space, to examine AI in a slightly less anxiety-stricken way. The story so far has been told by geniuses with mixed motives and terrible emotional intelligence. It’s really no surprise that they’re also lousy storytéllers. Who starts with extinction? Let’s begin again, this time with creation. All of the software we’ve ever used was engineered to work backward from an outcome. Its creators wanted to help you find a webpage or play a game. Perhaps you’ve noticed that the major AI chatbots arrived with almost no user documentation or instructions. That’s what makes this moment unique. We humans have created a tool for potentially infinite tasks. Its imperfections are ours to solve — and its powers still ours to shape. 1．What can we learn from the two statements? A．The potential of AI is cause for concern. B．AI advancement deserves a global priority. C．The risk AI brings is impossible to control. D．AI is a common interest of whoever develops it. 2．As for AI, which would the author agree with? A．It is unlikely to go beyond human abilities. B．It may be applied to handle climate change. C．It is misused by geniuses with bad motives. D．It will gradually move towards imperfection. 3．What does the underlined word “lousy” in Paragraph 4 probably mean? A．Awful. B．Gifted. C．Unexpected. D．Experienced. 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．AI Is Humans’ Doomed Enemy B．AI Is on the Road to Destruction C．Are We Aware of the Risks from AI? D．Do We Hate AI for All the Right Reasons? （24-25高三上·北京朝阳·期末）We are constantly taught that acting early rather than procrastinating is the key to success, because “he who hesitates is lost.” When we have a meaningful task, we’re advised to get it done well ahead of schedule. When we have an original idea to invent a product or start a company, we’re encouraged to be the first mover. Recently, an unusually creative doctoral student named Jihae Shin approached me with an opposite idea: procrastination might be favorable to originality. I challenged her to test it. Shin asked college students to write proposals for a business on a university campus to fill a lot where there used to be a convenience store. When they started the task immediately, they tended to propose conventional ideas — like another convenience store. When Shin randomly assigned some of the participants to procrastinate, putting off the task to play games, they produced more novel business ideas, like a lecture center and a storage facility. Independent raters evaluated the final proposals, without knowing who procrastinated and who started immediately. The proposals from the procrastinators were 28 percent more creative. Although we were excited by these results, we were concerned that procrastination wasn’t the real cause of creativity. Perhaps it was playing games that provided mental stimulation, or that simply gave them a break away from the task to think. But the experiment showed that neither playing games nor taking a break enhanced creativity. When people played games first, before learning about the task, they didn’t submit more novel proposals. To do that, they needed to actually be procrastinating while playing games, keeping the business proposal task in the back of their minds. And when they started the task immediately and then took a break before returning to it, they had already made too much progress to start over afresh. In a classic study, marketing researchers Peter Golder and Gerard Tellis compared the success of companies that were either pioneers or settlers. The pioneers were first movers. The settlers were slower to launch. When Golder and Tellis analysed hundreds of brands in three dozen different product categories, they found a surprising difference in failure rates: 47 percent for pioneers, compared with just 8 percent for settlers. Even when the pioneers did survive, they only captured an average of 10 percent of the market, compared with 28 percent for settlers. Settlers are often branded as copycats, but this fixed impression of them misses the mark. Instead of following the existing demand, they wait for the right time until they’re ready to introduce something new. It’s true that the early bird gets the worm, but we can’t forget that the early worm gets caught. 1．According to the passage, Shin’s theory suggests that ________. A．being the first mover makes success more likely B．balancing working and having a break is important C．delaying a task can offer us time to think before acting D．people are less creative due to mental stimulation of games 2．What can we learn from the classic study? A．Pioneers set a perfect standard for settlers. B．Pioneers always win competitive advantages. C．Settlers’ success is the result of strategic timing. D．Settlers turned out to be incapable of innovating. 3．What is the main purpose of the passage? A．To emphasise the importance of acting early in success. B．To demonstrate procrastination can be a resource for creativity. C．To prove the effectiveness of our traditional belief in procrastinating. D．To compare the procrastinators’ creativity between recent and classic studies. 重难语篇拔高练 （24-25高三上·北京丰台·期末）The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for machine learning development and the Chemistry Nobel was for protein structure prediction via AI. Some said the physics prize wasn’t really physics. “AI is coming for science, too,” the New York Times concluded. With powerful large language models, AIs can generate various outputs and even make Nobel-winning discoveries. But have AIs really taken over science? To begin with, the physics prize went to Hinton and John Hopfield, a physicist, who discovered how the physical dynamics of a network can encode memory. Hopfield came up with an intuitive analogy: a ball, rolling across a bumpy landscape, will often “remember” to return to the same lowest valley. Hinton’s work extended Hopfield’s model. In short, the Physics Nobel was awarded for fundamental research about the physical principles of information, not the broad umbrella of “AI” and its applications. Meanwhile, the Chemistry Nobel was awarded to biochemist David Baker and DeepMind researchers Demis Hassabis and John Jumper. Baker first developed software to design novel protein structures from scratch. Yet by 2018, of the roughly 200 million proteins cataloged in all genetic databases, only about 150, 000 had confirmed structures. Then Hassabis and Jumper introduced AlphaFold, which provided accurate folding structures for the rest. But even so, the AI has failed to predict defects in proteins. It’s not a catholicon for every problem in protein folding, but rather an excellent tool. Many of these tools have disappeared into their uses. We rarely pause to consider the transistor (晶体管) (for which the 1956 physics prize was awarded) when we use electronics containing them by the billions. Some powerful machine-learning features are already on this path. The neural networks that provide accurate language translation or song recommendations in popular consumer software programs are simply part of the service. In science, as in so many other domains, this trend suggests that when AI tools become commonplace, they will fade into the background, too. Still a reasonable concern might be that such automation threatens the efforts of human scientists. As AI becomes essential to further scientific progress, will any prizes recognize work truly free of AI? AI can revolutionize science. It has already helped us see proteins with previously unimaginable clarity. Soon AIs may dream up new molecules for batteries. In short, they may do many things, some of which previously seemed impossible. But they have a crucial limitation tied to something wonderful about science: its empirical dependence on the real world, which cannot be overcome by computation alone. Science also needs experimenters — human experts driven to study the universe, and who will ask questions an AI cannot. Physics — its core ethos is “that the world is understandable” in quantitative, predictive terms solely by careful experiment and observation. That real world still exists for future scientists to study, whether aided by AI or not. 1．Regarding the Nobel Prize in Physics, the author might think ________. A．it should have been awarded to more physicists B．it aims to encourage physicists to engage in AI research C．it is a recognition of the broad applications of AI in physics D．it is justified for its focus on physical principles of information 2．What does the word "catholicon" underlined in Paragraph 3 probably mean? A．A final solution. B．A big improvement. C．A complete cure-all. D．A common obstacle. 3．What can we learn from this passage? A．AI tools are restricted to specific scientific branches. B．AI tools will become less noticeable once widely used. C．AI will overcome its dependence on real-world experience. D．AI poses a threat on traditional methods of scientific inquiry. 4．What would be the best title for this passage? A．AI and Science: Revolution or Evolution? B．Is AI Coming to End Scientific Exploration? C．AI and Science: A New Era of Collaboration? D．Is AI Dominant in Nobel-Winning Discoveries? 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$ 备战2025年高考英语名校模拟真题速递(北京专用) 第二期 专题09 议论文10篇 基础语篇巩固练 （24-25高三上·北京·期中）The weather in Texas may have cooled since the recent extreme heat, but the temperature will be high at the State Board of Education meeting in Austin this month as officials debate how climate change is taught in Texas schools. Pat Hardy, who sympathizes with the views of the energy sector, is resisting proposed changes to science standards for pre-teen pupils. “There are as many scientists working against all the panic of global climate change as there are those who are pushing it,” she claims. “Texas is an energy state and we need to recognize that. You need to remember where your bread is buttered.” Most scientists and experts sharply dispute Hardy’s views. Board members like her “casually dismiss the career work of scholars and scientists as just another misguided opinion,” says Dan Quinn, senior communications strategist at the Texas Freedom Network, a non-profit group that monitors public education. Such debates reflect fierce discussions across the US, as researchers, policymakers, teachers and students step up demands for a greater focus on teaching about the facts of climate change in schools. A study last year by the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit group of scientists and teachers, looking at how state public schools across the country address climate change in science classes, gave barely half of US states a grade B+ or higher. Among the 10 worst performers were some of the most populous states, including Texas, which was given the lowest grade (F) and has a disproportionate influence because its textbooks are widely sold elsewhere. Glenn Branch, the centre’s deputy director, cautions that setting state-level science standards is only one limited benchmark in a country that decentralizes decisions to local school boards. Even if a state is considered a high performer in its science standards, “that does not mean it will be taught”, he says. Another issue is that, while climate change is well integrated into some subjects and at some ages-such as earth and space sciences in high schools—it is not as well represented in curricula (教学大纲) for younger children and in subjects that are more widely taught, such as biology and chemistry. It is also less prominent in many social studies courses. Branch points out that, even if a growing number of official guidelines and textbooks reflect scientific consensus on climate change, unofficial educational materials that convey more biased perspectives are being distributed to teachers. They include materials sponsored by energy industry associations. 1．What does Quinn think of Hardy? A．She exaggerates the existing panic. B．She shows no concern for pre-teens. C．She expresses self-contradictory views. D．She denies the value of scientific work. 2．The study mentioned in Paragraph 5 shows that ________. A．Texas is reluctant to rewrite its science textbooks B．policymakers have little drive for science education C．climate education is insufficient at state public schools D．environmental teaching in some states lacks supervision 3．According to Branch, state-level science standards in the US________. A．call for regular revision B．have limited influence C．require urgent application D．prioritize local needs 【答案】1．D 2．C 3．B 【导语】这是一篇议论文。本文主要讨论了在气候问题日益严重的情况下，我们应该如何加强公立学校的气候教育工作。 1．推理判断题。根据第三段关键句“Board members like her “casually dismiss the career work of scholars and scientists as just another misguided opinion,” says Dan Quinn, senior communications strategist at the Texas Freedom Network, a non-profit group that monitors public education. (监督公共教育的非营利组织德克萨斯自由网络的高级传播策略师Dan Quinn说，像她这样的董事会成员“随意地驳回学者和科学家的职业工作只是另一种误导性的观点”。)”可知，Dan Quinn认为Hardy随意地驳回学者和科学家的职业工作，由此可知，Quinn认为Hardy否认了科学工作的价值。故选D项。 2．推理判断题。根据第五段关键句“A study last year by the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit group of scientists and teachers, looking at how state public schools across the country address climate change in science classes, gave barely half of US states a grade B+ or higher. (美国国家科学教育中心是一个由科学家和教师组成的非营利组织，去年的一项研究考察了全国各州公立学校如何在科学课上应对气候变化，该研究仅给美国一半的州打了B+或更高的分数。)”可知，美国仅有一半的州在教授学生如何应对气候变化方面得了B+或更高的分数，由此可知，第5段中提到的研究表明公立学校的气候教育不足。故选C项。 3．推理判断题。根据倒数第二段关键句“Glenn Branch, the centre’s deputy director, cautions that setting state-level science standards is only one limited benchmark in a country that decentralizes decisions to local school boards. (该中心副主任格伦·布兰奇警告说，在一个将决策权下放给地方学校董事会的国家，制定州级科学标准只是一个有限的基准。)”可知，布兰奇认为制定州级科学标准只是一个有限的基准，由此可知，布兰奇认为美国州级科学标准影响力有限。故选B项。 （24-25高三上·北京通州·期中）The Age of Information is exploding: if you tried to download all the data available today, you’d need more than 180 million years to do so. But you are wrong to assume that all information would stimulate a boost of innovation (创新) to match the output of data. Indeed, the last time we found ourselves in a period of significant innovation was over 120 years ago, called the Age of Insight (洞察力). Innovations, big or small, start with a new idea. Often, these ideas occur as a moment of insight—the result of a novel connection in our brains made between existing and new information. Studies show insights involve quiet signals deep in the brain. Anything that helps us notice quiet signals can increase the chance of insights. However, it’s becoming more challenging to find those signals today, every moment filled with an endless supply of content. Besides, we also want to increase the quality of them to sort through big new ideas and find the really valuable ones that can be hard to measure. Launched in 2015, the Eureka Scale (尤里卡量表) allows us to assess the strength of our insight experiences on a five-point scale, namely, intense emotions, motivation, memory advantage, aftershocks, and following ideas. The Scale combines these five variables into a single value to define the importance of a new idea and has broad applications for measuring and improving individual and organizational performance. Even it can be used to measure the impact of different kinds of work environments and learning approaches on participants’ growth. The level-5 insight, involving the richest emotion, motivation, and lasting impact, holds the greatest significance. In order for organizations to benefit from another age of insight, it’s not enough to try to access more data or increase the number of insights we generate. Instead, it’s about making space for the biggest ideas to emerge from all the information. Using the Scale as a way to measure how important ideas are will enable better decision-making toward practical and competitive outcomes. If we’re to enter a new age of insight, we must make timely and necessary changes to design our environments for the best insight possible to surface. 1．According to the passage, which of the following cases can increase the chance of insights? A．By engaging in ongoing social media interactions. B．By relying on technology to receive regular notices. C．By stepping away from computers between meetings. D．By participating in additional training and coaching sessions. 2．What can be inferred from the passage? A．The Eureka Scale controls the influence of our insights. B．One with a level-5 insight has minimal emotional responses. C．Both the quantity and quality of insights are essential to innovation. D．A breakthrough has been made in innovation due to a wealth of information. 3．What is the author’s attitude towards the current environment for innovations? A．Uncertain. B．Optimistic. C．Unconcerned. D．Dissatisfied. 【答案】1．C 2．C 3．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。这篇文章主要讲述了信息时代的到来以及洞察力对创新的重要性。信息的数量不断增加，但并不一定能刺激创新的提升。洞察力是创新的基础，通过Eureka量表可以评估洞察力的强度和重要性。为了进入新的洞察力时代，需要找到那些重要想法的空间，以使它们能够浮出水面。 1．推理判断题。根据第二段中“Studies show insights involve quiet signals deep in the brain. Anything that helps us notice quiet signals can increase the chance of insights. (研究表明，洞察力涉及大脑深处的静默信号。任何能帮助我们注意到安静信号的东西都能增加洞察的机会。)”可知，静默的信号是产生洞察力的一种方式，因此需要避免一些干扰，比如社交媒体，并且需要适当的间隔来让大脑有机会产生新的想法，即在会议间隙远离电脑可以增加获得洞察力的可能性。故选C。 2．推理判断题。根据第二段中“Innovations, big or small, start with a new idea. Often, these ideas occur as a moment of insight—the result of a novel connection in our brains made between existing and new information. (创新，无论大小，都始于一个新的想法。通常，这些想法都是在灵光一现的瞬间产生的——这是我们大脑中在现有信息和新信息之间建立的一种新联系的结果。)”以及第三段中“Besides, we also want to increase the quality of them to sort through big new ideas and find the really valuable ones that can be hard to measure. (此外，我们还希望提高它们的质量，以便对重大的新想法进行分类，并找到那些难以衡量的真正有价值的想法。)”以及“Launched in 2015, the Eureka Scale (尤里卡量表) allows us to assess the strength of our insight experiences on a five-point scale(2015年推出的“尤里卡量表”(Eureka Scale)允许我们用五分制来评估我们的洞察力体验的强度)”可知，对于创新不论大小，都需要很多灵光一现的瞬间产生的想法（洞察力）；同时也需要提高洞察力的质量，从而才能对重大想法进行分类，确定出有真正价值的想法，尤里卡量表以对洞察力的强度进行评估进行确定。因此洞察的数量和质量对创新都至关重要。故选C。 3．推理判断题。根据最后一段中“In order for organizations to benefit from another age of insight, it’s not enough to try to access more data or increase the number of insights we generate. Instead, it’s about making space for the biggest ideas to emerge from all the information. (为了让组织从另一个洞察时代中受益，仅仅尝试访问更多数据或增加我们产生的洞察数量是不够的。相反，它是为从所有信息中脱颖而出的最伟大的想法腾出空间。)”以及第二段中“However, it’s becoming more challenging to find those signals today, every moment filled with an endless supply of content. (然而，如今要找到这些信号变得越来越困难，因为每时每刻都充斥着无穷无尽的内容。)”以及最后一段中“If we’re to enter a new age of insight, we must make timely and necessary changes to design our environments for the best insight possible to surface. (如果我们要进入一个洞察的新时代，我们必须及时做出必要的改变来设计我们的环境，以使最好的洞察可能浮出水面。)”可知，对于创新，仅仅尝试访问更多数据或增加我们产生的洞察数量是不够的，而是应该为从所有信息中脱颖而出的最伟大的想法腾出空间，可是当下随着科技的日益普及，找到这些安静的信号变得越来越有挑战性，故作者对于当下的创新环境是感到不满意的，因此作者呼吁我们必须设计我们的环境，以允许最好的洞察浮出水面。故选D。 （24-25高三上·北京海淀·期中）Science should guide policy, but caution is needed when technologies like CRISPR have the potential to exclude rather than assist people to live their lives. CRISPR can be used to treat disease. Yet the far-reaching, more worrying promise of this  technology — one about which scientists seem at once excited and cautious — lies in its ability to eliminate from the gene pool what medical science identifies as faulty or abnormal genes that cause difference in individual people. Certainly, goes the logic of CRISPR’s promise, the goal of ridding future generations of terrible diseases that cause suffering and death and exhaust resources, seems an unquestionable enterprise. This logic is consistent with wider societal views. The idea that ridding society of genetic differences that count as defect (缺陷) is an undeniable “good” continues to be pervasive. Editing out a gene-linked condition, supporters may argue, is different from editing out a person, and curing disease is a good thing. But our genetic conditions are not simply entities that can be clipped away from us and our genetic conditions form a fundamental part of who we are. Using genome manipulation tools and performing genetic selection is equal to a new form of eugenic (优生学的) thinking grounded in what the communications studies scholar James L. Chemey calls “common sense” ableism, a belief system that allows people to simultaneously deny any commitment to distasteful eugenic principles while also holding them up. Ultimately, “common sense” ableism embodies a similar goal of cleansing unacceptable human variations that the campaigns to eliminate the supposedly inferior have held in the past. People with “bad” genes shouldn’t be edited out of existence in some version of a utopian (乌托邦的) future. Evaluating the quality of life of another person is morally questionable in a society based on the concept that all people are of equal value regardless of their individual differences. Expanding diversity in all its forms, including disability, strengthens the human community ethically and biologically because it opens the public and private sphere to a variety of perspectives, experiences and ideas to live together with mutual flourishing. Genome editing is powerful in reshaping medical treatments, but it can also be harmful by editing out the kinds of people that medical science, and the society it has shaped, categorize as diseased or genetically contaminated — people who are understood as having bad genes. We should be reminded that bad genes don’t necessarily lead to bad lives, just as good genes don’t necessarily lead to good lives. If CRISPR is put to use to eliminate rather than to treat genetic difference, we as a society would essentially instrumentalize this moralistic and reductionist assumption. 1．According to the author, CRISPR is________. A．a necessary evil in treating severe diseases B．a questionable tool for removing faulty genes C．a promising technology to conserve resources D．a logical approach to improving human genetics 2．The author discusses “common sense” ableism in Paragraph 4 to________. A．compare genetic selection to eugenic thinking B．trace the evolution of genetic selection in history C．offer an example of campaigns to remove bad genes D．reveal the root of the societal view on genetic differences 3．What does the underlined part in the last sentence mean? A．People need to adopt more simplified solutions. B．The society should apply CRISPR into other fields. C．This belief might be widely practiced in the society. D．The technology will be used to create a utopian future. 4．Which would be the best title for this passage? A．The Dark Side of CRISPR B．In the Wake of Genetic Selection C．In Defense of Our Bad Genes D．The Promise and Price of Gene Editing 【答案】1．B 2．D 3．C 4．A 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要探讨了CRISPR基因编辑技术在治疗疾病的同时可能带来的社会伦理问题，特别是该技术可能导致排除遗传差异，从而影响社会多样性。 1．细节理解题。由文章第二段中“CRISPR can be used to treat disease. Yet the far-reaching, more worrying promise of this   technology — one about which scientists seem at once excited and cautious— lies in its ability to eliminate from the gene pool what medical science identifies as faulty or abnormal genes that cause difference in individual people. (CRISPR可以用于治疗疾病。然而，这项技术的深远、更令人担忧的前景——科学家们似乎既兴奋又谨慎——在于它有能力从基因库中消除医学认定的导致个体差异的缺陷或异常基因)”可知，作者认为CRISPR技术虽然有治疗疾病的能力，但也有删除基因池中有缺陷或异常基因的风险，这种做法是值得质疑的。故选B。 2．推理判断题。由文章第四段“Using genome manipulation tools and performing genetic selection is equal to a new form of eugenic (优生学的) thinking grounded in what the communications studies scholar James L. Chemey calls “common sense” ableism, a belief system that allows people to simultaneously deny any commitment to distasteful eugenic principles while also holding them up. Ultimately, “common sense” ableism embodies a similar goal of cleansing unacceptable human variations that the campaigns to eliminate the supposedly inferior have held in the past. (使用基因组操作工具和进行基因选择等同于一种新的优生思维形式，其基础是传播研究学者James L. Chemey所说的“常识”残疾歧视，这是一种信仰体系，它允许人们在否认任何令人厌恶的优生原则的同时，也支持它们。最终，“常识性”残疾歧视体现了一个类似的目标，即清除不可接受的人类变异，这与过去消除所谓的劣等运动的目标类似)”可知，作者讨论“常识”残疾主义是为了揭示社会遗传差异观的根源。故选D。 3．词句猜测题。由文章最后一段中“If CRISPR is put to use to eliminate rather than to treat genetic difference, we as a society would essentially instrumentalize this moralistic and reductionist assumption. (如果CRISPR被用于消除而不是治疗基因差异，我们作为一个社会，本质上是将这种道德主义和简化主义的假设工具化。)”可知，将这种道德主义和简化主义的假设工具化，暗示这种做法可能在社会上广泛实践。故选C。 4．主旨大意题。通读全文，尤其是由文章第一段“Science should guide policy, but caution is needed when technologies like CRISPR have the potential to exclude rather than assist people to live their lives. (科学应该指导政策，但是当像CRISPR这样的技术有可能排斥而不是帮助人们过自己的生活时，就需要谨慎)”和最后一段中“Genome editing is powerful in reshaping medical treatments, but it can also be harmful by editing out the kinds of people that medical science, and the society it has shaped, categorize as diseased or genetically contaminated — people who are understood as having bad genes. We should be reminded that bad genes don’t necessarily lead to bad lives, just as good genes don’t necessarily lead to good lives. (基因组编辑在重塑医学治疗方面是强大的，但它也可能是有害的，因为它把医学及其塑造的社会归类为患病或基因污染的人——那些被认为有坏基因的人——剔除了。我们应该记住，坏的基因并不一定导致坏的生活，正如好的基因并不一定导致好的生活一样)”可知，本文主要讨论了CRISPR基因编辑技术在治疗疾病的同时可能带来的社会伦理问题，特别是该技术可能导致排除遗传差异，从而影响社会多样性。因此，选项A“The Dark Side of CRISPR(CRISPR的阴暗面)”最适合作为本文标题。故选A。 （24-25高三上·北京通州·开学考试）Automation and job replacement will be one of the most significant challenges for the global economy of the coming decades. A 2017 Mckinsey report established that 375 million workers will need to switch occupational categories by 2030. The World Economic Forum suggests that by 2022, automation will replace 75 million jobs globally — but create 133 million new ones. Research into the likelihood that a job will be impacted by digitization has largely focused on the “automatability” of the role and the following economic regional and political effects of this. What this research doesn’t take into account is something more important for the millions of taxi drivers and retail workers across the globe: their likelihood of being able to change to another job that isn’t automatable. Recent research suggests that the answer to this may be that the skills that enable workers to move up the ladder to more complex roles within their current areas might be less important than broader skills that will enable workers to change across divisions. In July, Amazon announced that it would spend $700 million retraining around 30%of its 300, 000 US workforce. While praiseworthy, it will be interesting to see the outcome. In the UK, the National Retraining Scheme has largely been led by employers, meaning that those on zero-hours contracts and part-time workers — often low-skilled — will miss out. Governance will be a crucial element of ensuring that such schemes focus on individuals and life-long learning, rather than upskilling workers into roles that will soon also face automation. According to the Mckinsey report, “growing awareness of the scale of the task ahead has yet to translate into action. Public spending on labor-force training and support has fallen for years in most member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development,” which impacts more than just the low-skilled and poorly compensated. The global impact of automation is also put into relief by research demonstrating that, between 1988 and 2015, income inequality increased throughout the world. Billions of people do not have the essentials of life as defined by the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Alongside climate change, automation is arguably tech’s biggest challenge. As with globalization, governments and employers — and us workers — ignore its potential consequences at risk to ourselves. 1．What is the author’s attitude towards retraining programs for upskilling? A．Supportive. B．Critical. C．Skeptical. D．Sympathetic. 2．According to the author, what is one consequence of automation? A．Less spending on training. B．Social unrest and instability. C．A slowdown of globalization. D．An increase in income inequality. 3．What is the purpose of the passage? A．To stress the importance of enabling workers. B．To analyze the automatability of certain jobs. C．To compare globalization with automation. D．To argue the urgency of creating new jobs. 【答案】1．C 2．D 3．A 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章介绍了自动化的影响，分析了提高工人技能的必要性。 1．推理判断题。根据第三段中“ In the UK, the National Retraining Scheme has largely been led by employers, meaning that those on zero-hours contracts and part-time workers — often low-skilled — will miss out. (在英国，国家再培训计划在很大程度上是由雇主主导的，这意味着那些零时工合同和兼职工人——通常是低技能工人——将错过机会。)”可知，作者认为再培训项目常常会忽略更需要培训的人群。由此可知，作者对再培训项目持有怀疑的态度。故选C。 2．细节理解题。根据第五段中“The global impact of automation is also put into relief by research demonstrating that, between 1988 and 2015, income inequality increased throughout the world. (研究表明，在1988年至2015年期间，全球收入不平等加剧，这也凸显了自动化对全球的影响。)”可知，自动化加剧了收入的不平等。故选D。 3．推理判断题。根据第二段中“Recent research suggests that the answer to this may be that the skills that enable workers to move up the ladder to more complex foles within their current areas might be less important than broader skills that will enable workers to change across divisions.( 最近的研究表明，这个问题的答案可能是，那些能让员工在当前领域内晋升到更复杂职位的技能，可能不如那些能让员工在不同部门之间做出改变的更广泛的技能重要。)”以及最后一段中“Alongside climate change, automation is arguably tech’s biggest challenge. As with globalization, governments and employers — and us workers — ignore its potential consequences at risk to ourselves.( 除了气候变化，自动化可以说是科技面临的最大挑战。就像全球化一样，政府和雇主——以及我们工人——忽视了它对我们自身的潜在风险。)”并通读全文可知，文章主要说明了自动化和就业替代将是未来几十年全球经济面临的最重大挑战之一，而要应对这一趋势，当务之急是提高自身技能，尤其是跨部门跳槽所需的广泛技能。由此可推知，这篇文章是为了强调提高工人技能的重要性。故选A。 （24-25高三上·北京·开学考试）Nature vs. Nurture Curiosity has always been one of the most innate and prevailing qualities of humankind. Our endless pursuit of truth and reasons has resulted in a lot of crucial discoveries in the world. However, the more we uncover the world, the more we end up generating more questions to answer. Out of all the wonders of the world, human psychology is deemed to be one of the most controversial. The complexity of the mind and its reflection on human behavior has been a subject of many studies and debates. One of the oldest and, still, most talked about an argument in psychology is the nature against nurture debate. Nature refers to the biological structure and processes that determine a person’s physical and behavioral attributes. Due to the advancement of genetics, scientists have uncovered that physical traits such as eye color, hair type, height, and life expectancy of a person can strongly be related to the genetic makeup. These discoveries have led to the speculation that most psychological characteristics like intellect, personality, and language acquisition ability are already pre-wired to our system through our genetic pattern. In contrast, nurture theory suggests that behavior is honed from socio-cultural factors. This theory is guided by John Locke’s “blank slate” theory, which refers to the idea that the human mind, in its primal state, is a blank slate that is gradually filled in with information derived from direct and indirect experiences. This theory states people’s characteristics and behavioral diversity attend results of social and cultural influences encountered during their development. The term Nature vs. Nurture debate was put forward by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that intellect is a quantifiable and hereditary (遗传的) human trait. He also believed that intellect can be passed from generation to generation. Thus, people with high intelligence have a major chance of having highly intellectual offspring, while people having lower than average intellect are more likely to have low intellectual offspring. However , the believers of nurture theory believed that intellectual ability attends the result of inequalities in access to resources and opportunities. Thus, intellect is not a product of heredity but more of a result of the social construct. Countless research and experimentation have been conducted to put an end to the seemingly endless debate. Psychologists and researchers of the present already embrace the idea that a person’s character is highly influenced by his genetic makeup and the environment. The years of labored research on nature and nurture theory finally have born fruits. Technology and research have expanded a better understanding of the human personality and mind, and will just continuously do as time passes by. 1．Why does the author mention “curiosity” in the first paragraph? A．To predict the research results. B．To emphasize the importance of exploring. C．To lead to the argument of nature against nurture. D．To raise the reader’s interest in the theory of nature. 2．What does John Locke’s “blank slate” theory suggest? A．Human mind is always blank. B．People’s behaviors are learned. C．Behavior is determined genetically. D．Culture has little influence on human. 3．What is the attitude of Sir Francis Galton towards the theory of nurture? A．Disapproving. B．Supportive. C．Neutral. D．Cautious. 4．Which of the following might the author agree with? A．The theory of nature is not accepted by the public. B．The theory of nurture is based on the theory of nature. C．The supporters of the two theories agree with each other. D．The theory of nature and the theory of nurture both make sense. 【答案】1．C 2．B 3．A 4．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讲述了关于人性的先天论与后天论的争论。 1．推理判断题。根据第一段中“The complexity of the mind and its reflection on human behavior has been a subject of many studies and debates. One of the oldest and, still, most talked about an argument in psychology is the nature against nurture debate.(心灵的复杂性及其在人类行为上的反映一直是许多研究和争论的主题。在心理学中最古老也是至今仍最被热议的一个论题就是先天与教养的辩论)”可知，文章开头提到好奇心是为了引出人类对世界真理的追求，最终导向对人类心理复杂性的探讨，从而引入“先天与教养”的辩论主题，作者在第一段中提到“好奇心”是为了引出关于天性与教养辩论的探讨。故选C。 2．细节理解题。根据第三段中“This theory is guided by John Locke’s “blank slate” theory, which refers to the idea that the human mind, in its primal state, is a blank slate that is gradually filled in with information derived from direct and indirect experiences. This theory states people’s characteristics and behavioral diversity attend results of social and cultural influences encountered during their development.(这一理论是以约翰·洛克的“白板说”为指导的，该学说认为人的大脑在最初状态时是一块白板，会逐渐通过直接和间接的经验填充信息。这一理论认为，人们的特性和行为多样性是他们在成长过程中所遇到的社会和文化影响的结果)”可知，“白板说”强调的是人们的行为是通过学习获得的。故选B。 3．推理判断题。根据第四段中“The term Nature vs. Nurture debate was put forward by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that intellect is a quantifiable and hereditary (遗传的) human trait. He also believed that intellect can be passed from generation to generation.(“先天与教养”的辩论这一术语是由弗朗西斯·高尔顿提出的，他认为智力是一种可量化的并且可以遗传的人类特质。他也相信智力可以从一代传给另一代)”及“However , the believers of nurture theory believed that intellectual ability attends the result of inequalities in access to resources and opportunities. Thus, intellect is not a product of heredity but more of a result of the social construct.(然而，教养理论的支持者认为，智力能力是由于获取资源和机会不平等的结果。因此，智力并不是遗传的产物，而是更多地源于社会建构的结果)”可知，弗朗西斯·高尔顿对教养理论持反对态度，因为他更强调智力的遗传性和可遗传性。故选A。 4．推理判断题。根据最后一段中“Psychologists and researchers of the present already embrace the idea that a person’s character is highly influenced by his genetic makeup and the environment. (现在的心理学家和研究者们已经接受了这样一个观点：一个人的性格受到其基因构成和环境的极大影响)”可知，作者认为天性和教养的理论都具有一定的道理，因为它们都在某种程度上影响着人类的性格和行为。故选D。 （24-25高三上·北京·阶段练习）We have been defending humanities for many decades now, but the crisis of the humanities only grows. In the face of declining student interest and mounting political scrutiny (审查), universities and colleges are increasingly putting humanities departments on the chopping block. As a humanist, I am prepared to admit that I do not know what the value of the humanities is. I once asked the best teacher I ever had why she no longer taught her favorite novel, and she said that she stopped teaching a book when she found she was no longer curious about it. The humanistic spirit is, fundamentally, an inquisitive one. In contrast, defenses of the humanities are not — and cannot be — conducted in an inquisitive spirit, because a defensive spirit is inimical to an inquisitive one. Defensiveness is, it must be admitted, an understandable response when the chopping block is brought out and you need to explain why you shouldn’t be on it, which requires their participants to pretend to know things that they do not actually know. Nonetheless, we should be alert to the danger of becoming accustomed to putting our worst foot forward. An atmosphere of urgency and calls for immediate action are hostile to fields of study like literature and philosophy that require a reflective mood, and the pretense (假装) of knowing what one doesn’t actually know is hostile to forms of inquiry that demand an open mind. A defensive mindset also encourages politicization. If the study of literature or philosophy helps to fight sexism or to promote democracy—and everyone agrees that sexism is bad, and democracy is good — then you have your answer as to why we shouldn’t cut funding for the study of literature or philosophy. Politicization is a way of arming the humanities for its political battles, but it comes at an intellectual cost. Why is sexism so bad? Why is democracy so good? Politicization silences these and other questions, whereas the function of the humanities is to raise them. Humanists are not alone in their ignorance about the purpose of their disciplines. But scientists are under a lot less pressure to explain why they exist because the society at large believes itself to already have the answer to that question. If at some point I am called on to defend the study of Homer or Descartes at some official hearing, I will do my best, but I will not run to battle; the battle will have to come to me. The task of humanists is to invite, to welcome, to excite, to engage. And when we let ourselves be ourselves, when we allow the humanistic spirit that animates us to flow out not only into our classrooms but also in our public-self presentation, we find we don’t need to defend or prove anything: We are irresistible. 1．What is the author’s main concern regarding the crisis in humanities? A．The pressure on humanists to argue for the value of their disciplines. B．The mounting political scrutiny faced by humanities departments. C．People’s little knowledge regarding the purpose of humanities. D．Students’ lack of interest in studying humanities courses. 2．What does the word “inimical” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．immune. B．relevant. C．sensitive. D．contrary. 3．What can be inferred about a defensive mindset? A．It brings about a lower chance of survival for humanities. B．It requires a reflective mood on the study of humanities. C．It leads to a compromise on human’s intellectual depth. D．It is the worst action to take in the face of the crisis. 4．Which of the following might the author most probably agree? A．The battle of humanities is a hard one to fight. B．The future of humanities remains cloudy. C．Science is more useful than humanities. D．Humanities may not need any defense. 【答案】1．A 2．D 3．C 4．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文，主要讨论了人文学科所面临的危机，以及对人文学科的辩护。 1．推理判断题。根据倒数第二段“Humanists are not alone in their ignorance about the purpose of their disciplines. But scientists are under a lot less pressure to explain why they exist because the society at large believes itself to already have the answer to that question.(并非只有人文主义者对自己学科的目的一无所知。但科学家们在解释它们为什么存在的压力要小得多，因为整个社会都相信自己已经找到了这个问题的答案)”可知，科学家们的压力要比人文主义者的压力小，因为他们在解释自己学科目的的压力要比人文主义者解释自己学科目的的压力小，所以人文学科危机的主要关注点是人文主义者为他们学科的价值而争论的压力。故选A。 2．词句猜测题。根据划线词所在句中的“In contrast, defenses of the humanities are not — and cannot be — conducted in an inquisitive spirit, (相比之下，为人文学科辩护不是——也不可能——以一种好奇的精神进行的)”可推知，辩护精神和好奇精神应该是对立的，所以划线词意思是“对立的，相反的”，与contrary意思一致。故选D。 3．推理判断题。根据第三段中的“Defensiveness is, it must be admitted, an understandable response when the chopping block is brought out and you need to explain why you shouldn’t be on it, which requires their participants to pretend to know things that they do not actually know.(必须承认，当砧板被拿出来，你需要解释为什么你不应该在砧板上时，防御性是一种可以理解的反应，这需要参与者假装知道他们实际上不知道的事情)”和第四段中的“An atmosphere of urgency and calls for immediate action are hostile to fields of study like literature and philosophy that require a reflective mood, and the pretense (假装) of knowing what one doesn’t actually know is hostile to forms of inquiry that demand an open mind.(紧迫的气氛和立即采取行动的呼吁对文学和哲学等需要反思情绪的研究领域是敌对的，假装知道自己实际上不知道的东西对需要开放心态的探究形式是敌对的。)”可知，参与者假装知道他们实际上不知道的事情，这与人文学科需要开放心态的探究形式相敌对，由此可推测出，防御心态可导致人类智力深度的妥协。故选C。 4．细节理解题。根据最后一段“And when we let ourselves be ourselves, when we allow the humanistic spirit that animates us to flow out not only into our classrooms but also in our public-self presentation, we find we don’t need to defend or prove anything: We are irresistible.(当我们让自己成为自己，当我们让激励我们的人文精神不仅流入我们的课堂，而且流入我们的公开自我展示时，我们发现我们不需要捍卫或证明任何事情：我们是不可抗拒的。)”可知，作者认为人文学科可能不需要任何辩护。故选D。 （24-25高三上·北京海淀·期末）Ask most scientists if we’re animals and you’ll get a funny look. Of course, we’re humans! But very commonly, humans are set apart from animals using random division. In 2018, a pair of long-tailed macaques were cloned to be used in biomedical research. A few years earlier, the United Nations stated that cloning people goes against human dignity. That may be a good ruling. But what exactly is dignity, and why do humans have it while intelligent, aware primates(灵长目动物) such as macaques do not? A macaque may not think or talk about dignity, but does that mean it doesn’t possess it? The fact is, biology won’t leap to our assistance here because dignity is a human invention. “Dignity” originates in Enlightenment dualist (二元论者) ideas separating cognition from physicality and instinct, and later a new binary emerged: the human mind and our physical bodies. In this worldview, the impulses and feelings of animal bodies (including our own) are viewed as less important than our mental experiences. Many of our laws and guidelines today create hard borders between humans and other animals on the basis of our supposedly superior mental properties. To maintain a strict boundary between our experiences and those of all other animals, we find ourselves prioritizing what we consider mind-based phenomena when making policies. So we demote experiences of fear and promote the idea that knowing fear — recognizing it, naming it — is what matters morally. We brush under the carpet the fact that these cognitive capacities, if present at all, change throughout our lives without altering our moral status. For example, babies experience fear but can’t conceptualize it. This doesn’t alter our belief in their moral subjecthood. I look at the history of science and psychology research to understand how our discomfort with some aspects of being animals — from moral confusion to mortality — can spur us to tell ourselves that we’re not really animals. I conclude that it’s time for a much-needed change in belief that no longer splits the world into unhelpful and unscientific binaries. The overwhelming bulk of scientific data from the past few decades points to how essential our animal, physical life is to our actions, feeling and thoughts. A research into child development has shown that significant, measurable advantages in acquiring language and mathematics follow the use of physical movement and gesture. We urgently need to get a handle on what it means to be an animal and move beyond old-fashioned dualism. It’s not just that we’re animals: embodied, physical experiences are richer and more meaningful than we’ve recognized. If that means we need to rethink our relationship to other animals, so be it. 1．What can we know about “dignity” in the passage? A．It is a term which separates humans from animals. B．It is a cognitive standard shared by all primates. C．It is an idea combining human body and mind. D．It is an emotional feature of human being. 2．Why does the author mention the example of babies in Para. 3? A．To prove cognitive ability is needed for moral subjecthood. B．To show the change of cognitive ability in moral development. C．To highlight the importance of cognitive ability in policy making. D．To stress the existence of moral status regardless of level of cognition. 3．What is the writer trying to propose? A．A shift away from dualistic thinking. B．A new method for scientific research. C．Less emphasis on physical experiences. D．More attention to cognitive development. 4．Which is the best title of the article? A．But We Are Animals, Aren’t We? B．Thus We Claim Dignity, Don’t We? C．But We Are Truly Different, Aren’t We? D．So We Prefer Our Animal Nature, Don’t We? 【答案】1．A 2．D 3．A 4．A 【导语】这是一篇议论文。本文探讨了人类与动物之间的界限，特别是尊严的概念。文章指出，尊严是人类发明的，将人类与动物区分开来。作者认为，我们需要重新思考与动物的关系，并认识到身体体验比我们想象的更有意义。 1．细节理解题。根据第一段中“Ask most scientists if we’re animals and you’ll get a funny look. Of course, we’re humans! But very commonly, humans are set apart from animals using random division. In 2018, a pair of long-tailed macaques were cloned to be used in biomedical research. A few years earlier, the United Nations stated that cloning people goes against human dignity. That may be a good ruling. But what exactly is dignity, and why do humans have it while intelligent, aware primates(灵长目动物) such as macaques do not?( 如果你问大多数科学家我们是否是动物，你会得到一个有趣的表情。当然，我们是人类！但通常情况下，人类和动物是通过随机划分来区分的。2018年，一对长尾猕猴被克隆用于生物医学研究。几年前，联合国声明克隆人类违背了人类的尊严。这可能是一个很好的裁决。但尊严到底是什么，为什么人类有尊严，而像猕猴这样聪明、有意识的灵长类动物却没有？)”以及第二段中““Dignity” originates in Enlightenment dualist (二元论者) ideas separating cognition from physicality and instinct, and later a new binary emerged: the human mind and our physical bodies.(‘尊严’起源于启蒙运动的二元论思想，将认知与肉体和本能分开，后来出现了一种新的二元观念：人类的心灵和我们的肉体。)”可知，“尊严”这个概念常常被用来区分人类和动物，它源于二元论思想，将人类和动物区分开来。故选A项。 2．推理判断题。根据第三段中“So we demote experiences of fear and promote the idea that knowing fear — recognizing it, naming it — is what matters morally. We brush under the carpet the fact that these cognitive capacities, if present at all, change throughout our lives without altering our moral status. For example, babies experience fear but can’t conceptualize it. This doesn’t alter our belief in their moral subjecthood.( 因此，我们贬低了恐惧的体验，并提倡这样一种观念，即了解恐惧——识别恐惧、指出恐惧——在道德上才是重要的。我们忽略了这样一个事实，即这些认知能力，如果存在的话，会在我们的一生中发生变化，而不会改变我们的道德地位。例如，婴儿会经历恐惧，但无法将其概念化。这并没有改变我们对他们道德主体性的信念。)”可知，作者提到婴儿的例子是为了说明，尽管婴儿能体验到恐惧但不能概念化恐惧，即认知能力有限，但这并不改变我们对他们道德主体性的认知，也就是强调无论认知水平如何，道德地位都是存在的。故选D项。 3．推理判断题。根据第四段中“I conclude that it’s time for a much-needed change in belief that no longer splits the world into unhelpful and unscientific binaries.( 我的结论是，现在是时候改变信念了，不再把世界分成无意义和不科学的二元论。)”以及最后一段中“We urgently need to get a handle on what it means to be an animal and move beyond old-fashioned dualism.( 我们迫切需要弄清楚作为动物意味着什么，并超越老式的二元论。)”可推知，作者认为我们需要改变观念，摆脱那种将世界划分为无意义且不科学的二元论的思维方式。故选A项。 4．主旨大意题。根据文章大意以及第一段中“Ask most scientists if we’re animals and you’ll get a funny look. Of course, we’re humans! But very commonly, humans are set apart from animals using random division. In 2018, a pair of long-tailed macaques were cloned to be used in biomedical research. A few years earlier, the United Nations stated that cloning people goes against human dignity.( 如果你问大多数科学家我们是否是动物，你会得到一个有趣的表情。当然，我们是人类！但通常情况下，人类和动物是通过随机划分来区分的。2018年，一对长尾猕猴被克隆用于生物医学研究。几年前，联合国声明克隆人类违背了人类的尊严。)”可知，文章开篇提出人类常将自己与动物区分开，以“尊严”为例说明这种区分的不合理性，接着阐述了二元论的观念以及其带来的问题，最后呼吁人们摆脱二元论，认识到人类也是动物，身体体验的重要性。A 选项“But We Are Animals, Aren’t We?”（但我们是动物，不是吗？）符合文章主旨，强调我们应该认识到自己也是动物这一事实，适合作为文章的最佳标题。故选A项。 （24-25高三上·北京朝阳·期末）Let’s start with the end. If you know anything about the state of artificial intelligence, it’s that many of the people advancing the technology are seriously worried about the technology they’ re advancing. Two statements stand out. The first followed the release of the company Open AI’s ChatGPT-4, calling for a six-month pause on any AI system going beyond GPT’s capabilities. The signatories (签署者) asked: “Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, and replace us?” The second statement, issued in May, 2023, signed by nearly all the major AI company CEOs and most of the top AI research scientists, was just 22 words long: “Mitigating (减轻) the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks like pandemics and nuclear war.” So, who’s excited for AI? I am? Maybe? AI tools are helping the speechless speak and reducing energy consumption largely. There are brilliant people who say this is kid stuff. Soon everyone will have a customized knowledge assistant. The removal of loneliness is coming. Other equally brilliant people go straight to the other direction. Their imagination covers everything from an AI-manufactured extinction-level virus to societal destruction as jobs disappear and inequality becomes permanent. OpenAI’s product launch made jaws drop. The tech is moving fast, but its impact will arrive in waves. We’ve already seen slight decrease in ChatGPT usage. That hardly means chatbots are doomed (注定失败的) or AI is a craze. Only that it’s early. It will take time to understand how people adapt to these new tools. That time should not be wasted. The processors will keep processing — and we need to get ready. Because however far-fetched the idea of an artificial general intelligence — meaning an autonomous system that one day goes beyond human abilities — it’s not impossible. We can also look out for the many ways AI tools can help us fix the hard problems humanity simply hasn’t been able to solve. That’s the goal here, in this space, to examine AI in a slightly less anxiety-stricken way. The story so far has been told by geniuses with mixed motives and terrible emotional intelligence. It’s really no surprise that they’re also lousy storytéllers. Who starts with extinction? Let’s begin again, this time with creation. All of the software we’ve ever used was engineered to work backward from an outcome. Its creators wanted to help you find a webpage or play a game. Perhaps you’ve noticed that the major AI chatbots arrived with almost no user documentation or instructions. That’s what makes this moment unique. We humans have created a tool for potentially infinite tasks. Its imperfections are ours to solve — and its powers still ours to shape. 1．What can we learn from the two statements? A．The potential of AI is cause for concern. B．AI advancement deserves a global priority. C．The risk AI brings is impossible to control. D．AI is a common interest of whoever develops it. 2．As for AI, which would the author agree with? A．It is unlikely to go beyond human abilities. B．It may be applied to handle climate change. C．It is misused by geniuses with bad motives. D．It will gradually move towards imperfection. 3．What does the underlined word “lousy” in Paragraph 4 probably mean? A．Awful. B．Gifted. C．Unexpected. D．Experienced. 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．AI Is Humans’ Doomed Enemy B．AI Is on the Road to Destruction C．Are We Aware of the Risks from AI? D．Do We Hate AI for All the Right Reasons? 【答案】1．A 2．B 3．A 4．D 【导语】本文为一篇议论文，作者针对“AI的未来潜力是否值得担忧”这一点进行展开论述，表达了AI的不完美可以由人为解决，AI的未来力量由人类塑造的观点。 1．细节理解题。根据文章第一段“If you know anything about the state of artificial intelligence, it’s that many of the people advancing the technology are seriously worried about the technology they’ re advancing. Two statements stand out. (如果你对人工智能的现状有所了解，你就会知道，许多推进这项技术的人都非常担心他们正在推进的技术。有两种说法很突出)”及第一段陈述的两项声明可知，许多推进人工智能技术的人十分担忧这项技术，因此，人工智能的潜力令人担忧。故选A。 2．推理判断题。根据文章第三段“The processors will keep processing — and we need to get ready. Because however far-fetched the idea of an artificial general intelligence — meaning an autonomous system that one day goes beyond human abilities — it’s not impossible. We can also look out for the many ways AI tools can help us fix the hard problems humanity simply hasn’t been able to solve.(处理器会持续运行——而我们需要做好准备。因为尽管通用人工智能（即有朝一日超越人类能力的自主系统）的想法看似遥不可及，但它并非完全不可能实现。我们也可以期待人工智能工具能以多种方式帮助我们解决人类一直未能解决的难题)”及最后一段“We humans have created a tool for potentially infinite tasks. Its imperfections are ours to solve—and its powers still ours to shape.(我们人类创造了一种工具，可以完成潜在的无限任务。它的不完美有待我们去解决，而它的力量仍有待我们去塑造)”可推知，作者认为，人工智能工具能以多种方式帮助我们解决人类一直未能解决的难题，如，天气改变问题，作者会同意AI可以应用于应对气候变化。故选B。 3．词句猜测题。根据划线词前文“That’s the goal here, in this space, to examine AI in a slightly less anxiety-stricken way. The story so far has been told by geniuses with mixed motives and terrible emotional intelligence.(这就是我们的目标，在这个领域，以一种不那么焦虑的方式来研究人工智能。到目前为止，这个故事是由一些动机复杂、情商低下的天才讲述的)”可知，这些讲故事的人是糟糕的故事人，lousy与awful意思相近。故选A。 4．主旨大意题。根据文章最后一段“Let’s begin again, this time with creation. All of the software we’ve ever used was engineered to work backward from an outcome. Its creators wanted to help you find a webpage or play a game. Perhaps you’ve noticed that the major AI chatbots arrived with almost no user documentation or instructions. That’s what makes this moment unique. We humans have created a tool for potentially infinite tasks. Its imperfections are ours to solve — and its powers still ours to shape.(让我们重新开始，这次从创造开始。我们曾经使用过的所有软件都是根据结果进行逆向设计的。它的创造者想要帮助你找到网页或玩游戏。也许你已经注意到，主要的人工智能聊天机器人几乎没有用户文档或说明。这就是这一刻的独特之处。我们人类创造了一种工具，可以完成潜在的无限任务。它的不完美需要我们去解决——它的力量仍然需要我们去塑造)”及全文内容可知，作者针对“AI的未来潜力是否值得担忧”这一点进行展开论述，表达了AI的不完美可以由人为解决，AI的未来力量由人类塑造的观点，D选项“我们讨厌AI的理由都对吗？”最能概括全文主旨。故选D。 （24-25高三上·北京朝阳·期末）We are constantly taught that acting early rather than procrastinating is the key to success, because “he who hesitates is lost.” When we have a meaningful task, we’re advised to get it done well ahead of schedule. When we have an original idea to invent a product or start a company, we’re encouraged to be the first mover. Recently, an unusually creative doctoral student named Jihae Shin approached me with an opposite idea: procrastination might be favorable to originality. I challenged her to test it. Shin asked college students to write proposals for a business on a university campus to fill a lot where there used to be a convenience store. When they started the task immediately, they tended to propose conventional ideas — like another convenience store. When Shin randomly assigned some of the participants to procrastinate, putting off the task to play games, they produced more novel business ideas, like a lecture center and a storage facility. Independent raters evaluated the final proposals, without knowing who procrastinated and who started immediately. The proposals from the procrastinators were 28 percent more creative. Although we were excited by these results, we were concerned that procrastination wasn’t the real cause of creativity. Perhaps it was playing games that provided mental stimulation, or that simply gave them a break away from the task to think. But the experiment showed that neither playing games nor taking a break enhanced creativity. When people played games first, before learning about the task, they didn’t submit more novel proposals. To do that, they needed to actually be procrastinating while playing games, keeping the business proposal task in the back of their minds. And when they started the task immediately and then took a break before returning to it, they had already made too much progress to start over afresh. In a classic study, marketing researchers Peter Golder and Gerard Tellis compared the success of companies that were either pioneers or settlers. The pioneers were first movers. The settlers were slower to launch. When Golder and Tellis analysed hundreds of brands in three dozen different product categories, they found a surprising difference in failure rates: 47 percent for pioneers, compared with just 8 percent for settlers. Even when the pioneers did survive, they only captured an average of 10 percent of the market, compared with 28 percent for settlers. Settlers are often branded as copycats, but this fixed impression of them misses the mark. Instead of following the existing demand, they wait for the right time until they’re ready to introduce something new. It’s true that the early bird gets the worm, but we can’t forget that the early worm gets caught. 1．According to the passage, Shin’s theory suggests that ________. A．being the first mover makes success more likely B．balancing working and having a break is important C．delaying a task can offer us time to think before acting D．people are less creative due to mental stimulation of games 2．What can we learn from the classic study? A．Pioneers set a perfect standard for settlers. B．Pioneers always win competitive advantages. C．Settlers’ success is the result of strategic timing. D．Settlers turned out to be incapable of innovating. 3．What is the main purpose of the passage? A．To emphasise the importance of acting early in success. B．To demonstrate procrastination can be a resource for creativity. C．To prove the effectiveness of our traditional belief in procrastinating. D．To compare the procrastinators’ creativity between recent and classic studies. 【答案】1．C 2．C 3．B 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章探讨了拖延对创造力的潜在积极影响，以及在商业领域中“先发者”与“定居者”之间的成功差异。 1．细节理解题。根据第二段“When Shin randomly assigned some of the participants to procrastinate, putting off the task to play games, they produced more novel business ideas, like a lecture center and a storage facility. Independent raters evaluated the final proposals, without knowing who procrastinated and who started immediately. The proposals from the procrastinators were 28 percent more creative. (当Shin随机分配一些参与者去拖延，推迟任务去玩游戏时，他们产生了更多新颖的商业想法，比如一个讲座中心和一个存储设施。独立评审员评估了最终的提案，而不知道谁拖延了谁立即开始。拖延者的提案比立即开始者的提案更具创造性28%)”可知，Jihae Shin的理论认为拖延可能对原创性有利，因为拖延者在进行任务时，能够有更多时间思考，从而产生更具创造性的想法。故选C项。 2．细节理解题。根据最后一段“Settlers are often branded as copycats, but this fixed impression of them misses the mark. Instead of following the existing demand, they wait for the right time until they’re ready to introduce something new. (定居者经常被贴上模仿者的标签，但这种固定印象是错误的。他们不是简单地跟随现有需求，而是等待合适的时机，直到准备好推出新事物)”可知，经典研究表明，定居者(即较晚进入市场的企业)的成功在于他们能够等待合适的时机，然后推出新产品。故选C项。 3．主旨大意题。根据第一段“Recently, an unusually creative doctoral student named Jihae Shin approached me with an opposite idea: procrastination might be favorable to originality. (最近，一位名叫Jihae Shin的极具创造力的博士生向我提出了一个相反的观点：拖延可能对原创性有利)”及全文可知，整篇文章主要讨论了拖延对创造力的积极作用，并通过实验和经典研究来支持这一观点。故选B项。 重难语篇拔高练 （24-25高三上·北京丰台·期末）The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for machine learning development and the Chemistry Nobel was for protein structure prediction via AI. Some said the physics prize wasn’t really physics. “AI is coming for science, too,” the New York Times concluded. With powerful large language models, AIs can generate various outputs and even make Nobel-winning discoveries. But have AIs really taken over science? To begin with, the physics prize went to Hinton and John Hopfield, a physicist, who discovered how the physical dynamics of a network can encode memory. Hopfield came up with an intuitive analogy: a ball, rolling across a bumpy landscape, will often “remember” to return to the same lowest valley. Hinton’s work extended Hopfield’s model. In short, the Physics Nobel was awarded for fundamental research about the physical principles of information, not the broad umbrella of “AI” and its applications. Meanwhile, the Chemistry Nobel was awarded to biochemist David Baker and DeepMind researchers Demis Hassabis and John Jumper. Baker first developed software to design novel protein structures from scratch. Yet by 2018, of the roughly 200 million proteins cataloged in all genetic databases, only about 150, 000 had confirmed structures. Then Hassabis and Jumper introduced AlphaFold, which provided accurate folding structures for the rest. But even so, the AI has failed to predict defects in proteins. It’s not a catholicon for every problem in protein folding, but rather an excellent tool. Many of these tools have disappeared into their uses. We rarely pause to consider the transistor (晶体管) (for which the 1956 physics prize was awarded) when we use electronics containing them by the billions. Some powerful machine-learning features are already on this path. The neural networks that provide accurate language translation or song recommendations in popular consumer software programs are simply part of the service. In science, as in so many other domains, this trend suggests that when AI tools become commonplace, they will fade into the background, too. Still a reasonable concern might be that such automation threatens the efforts of human scientists. As AI becomes essential to further scientific progress, will any prizes recognize work truly free of AI? AI can revolutionize science. It has already helped us see proteins with previously unimaginable clarity. Soon AIs may dream up new molecules for batteries. In short, they may do many things, some of which previously seemed impossible. But they have a crucial limitation tied to something wonderful about science: its empirical dependence on the real world, which cannot be overcome by computation alone. Science also needs experimenters — human experts driven to study the universe, and who will ask questions an AI cannot. Physics — its core ethos is “that the world is understandable” in quantitative, predictive terms solely by careful experiment and observation. That real world still exists for future scientists to study, whether aided by AI or not. 1．Regarding the Nobel Prize in Physics, the author might think ________. A．it should have been awarded to more physicists B．it aims to encourage physicists to engage in AI research C．it is a recognition of the broad applications of AI in physics D．it is justified for its focus on physical principles of information 2．What does the word "catholicon" underlined in Paragraph 3 probably mean? A．A final solution. B．A big improvement. C．A complete cure-all. D．A common obstacle. 3．What can we learn from this passage? A．AI tools are restricted to specific scientific branches. B．AI tools will become less noticeable once widely used. C．AI will overcome its dependence on real-world experience. D．AI poses a threat on traditional methods of scientific inquiry. 4．What would be the best title for this passage? A．AI and Science: Revolution or Evolution? B．Is AI Coming to End Scientific Exploration? C．AI and Science: A New Era of Collaboration? D．Is AI Dominant in Nobel-Winning Discoveries? 【答案】1．D 2．C 3．B 4．B 【导语】这是一篇议论文。文章围绕2024年诺贝尔物理学奖和化学奖与AI的关联，探讨AI是否真的接管了科学。物理学奖实则是奖励关于信息物理原理的基础研究，并非AI及其应用。化学奖中，AI虽助力蛋白质结构预测，但仍有局限，并非万能。AI工具在科学等领域会逐渐平常化并退居幕后。人们担忧AI自动化威胁人类科学家的努力，未来是否有奖项认可无AI 参与的研究。AI虽能革新科学，却因依赖现实世界存在局限。科学仍需人类专家，通过实验和观察去探索宇宙，提出AI无法提出的问题。 1．细节理解题。根据第二段中“In short, the Physics Nobel was awarded for fundamental research about the physical principles of information, not the broad umbrella of “AI” and its applications.( 简而言之，诺贝尔物理学奖授予了关于信息物理原理的基础研究，而不是“人工智能”及其应用的大保护伞。)”可知，关于诺贝尔物理学奖，作者可能会认为它是合理的，因为它关注的是信息的物理原理。故选D项。 2．词义猜测题。根据第三段中“But even so, the AI has failed to predict defects in proteins.(但即便如此，人工智能也未能预测蛋白质的缺陷。)”以及划线单词句中“It’s not a …for every problem in protein folding, but rather an excellent tool.( 它并不是解决蛋白质折叠中所有问题的……，而是一个很好的工具。)”由此可知，此处为它并不是解决蛋白质折叠中所有问题的灵丹妙药。故可猜测划线单词catholicon为“灵丹妙药”的意思，和C选项A complete cure-all“包治百病”意思相近。故选C项。 3．细节理解题。根据第四段中“In science, as in so many other domains, this trend suggests that when AI tools become commonplace, they will fade into the background, too.( 在科学领域，就像在许多其他领域一样，这一趋势表明，当人工智能工具变得司空见惯时，它们也会消失在背景中。)”可知，我们能从文章中了解到人工智能工具一旦被广泛使用，将变得不那么引人注目。故选B项。 4．主旨大意题。根据文章大意以及第一段中“With powerful large language models, AIs can generate various outputs and even make Nobel-winning discoveries. But have AIs really taken over science?( 凭借强大的大型语言模型，人工智能可以产生各种输出，甚至可以获得诺贝尔奖的发现。但是人工智能真的接管了科学吗？)”和最后一段“Science also needs experimenters—human experts driven to study the universe, and who will ask questions an AI cannot. Physics—its core ethos is “that the world is understandable” in quantitative, predictive terms solely by careful experiment and observation. That real world still exists for future scientists to study, whether aided by AI or not.( 科学也需要实验者——被驱使去研究宇宙的人类专家，他们会提出人工智能无法提出的问题。物理学——它的核心精神是“世界是可以理解的”，仅仅通过仔细的实验和观察就可以定量地预测世界。不管有没有人工智能的帮助，这个真实的世界仍然存在，等待着未来的科学家去研究。)”可知，文章围绕2024年诺贝尔物理学奖和化学奖与AI的关联，探讨AI是否真的接管了科学。物理学奖实则是奖励关于信息物理原理的基础研究，并非AI及其应用。化学奖中，AI虽助力蛋白质结构预测，但仍有局限，并非万能。AI工具在科学等领域会逐渐平常化并退居幕后。人们担忧AI自动化威胁人类科学家的努力，未来是否有奖项认可无AI 参与的研究。AI虽能革新科学，却因依赖现实世界存在局限。科学仍需人类专家，通过实验和观察去探索宇宙，提出AI无法提出的问题。故这篇文章最好的标题是“人工智能将终结科学探索吗？”。故选B项。 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$