专题06 阅读理解（议论文类）（北京专用）-【好题汇编】2025年高考英语一模试题分类汇编

专题06 阅读理解——议论文类 编者按：2025年北京十区高三一模分类整理，深度解析，排版整齐。 （一） （2025年·海淀·一模） If you find yourself with several million dollars more than you need, how should you spend the money? One answer might be to do whatever you want, within the bounds of the law. Another is to donate it to a charity. You may also support an organization that is working to reduce existential risks. The history of philosophy consists of attempts to shed light on such questions. However, philosophy’s open secret is that these attempts don’t add up to anything decisive. When it comes to what we ought to do in any given situation, different ethical systems offer different guidance. Conflict is baked into questions like, “What ought I to do?” Or is it? An awareness of difference is certainly crucial to such an inquiry. But this needn’t become a conflict until you’re forced to pick a side. Some philosophers have sought to eliminate the conflict between ethical systems. Derek Parfit, one of the most respected philosophers of the past fifty years, devoted the second half of his life to precisely this task. Unfortunately, the position that different ethical positions can be reconciled (和解) is itself a position others may not accept. Parfit believed people could have a good reason to act morally, independent of their knowledge or beliefs. If you find yourself in a position to alleviate (减轻) others’ suffering without significantly inconveniencing yourself, then you should act. It is just a moral fact that there is a right thing that you ought to do. By contrast, Bernard Williams argued it made no sense to talk about people’s reasons independently from their motivations. Someone cannot have a reason to do something that they have no desire to do-because however wrong-headed their preferences may be, subjectivity is the ground truth for “having a reason”. As in Peter Singer’s parable (寓言) of a child drowning in a shallow pond, it self-evidently seems immoral not to save this child if the only cost for you is a pair of new trainers. This is as clear as a philosophical argument can get. However, as with all moral reasoning, you are free to reject the logic or assumptions behind Singer’s argument, regardless of its clarity. Parfit was a philosopher’s philosopher. Yet he suffered from the fact that irreconcilable ethical systems exist. Why? Because one conclusion that follows from this is that, if the differences between such systems cannot be resolved by philosophical means, conflict of a literal kind will always exist beneath their differences. As Karl Popper puts it, “ If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” This is the rub. Philosophy is of the world as well as of the page-and even the gentlest words may, sooner or later, need an army to defend them. “We should therefore claim,” Popper continued, “in the name of the tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” I’m not surprised that Parfit felt despair at the limits of his persuasiveness. What’s amazing is that more philosophers don’t feel the same way. 31. What can we learn from the first three paragraphs? A. Philosophy can help resolve ethical conflicts. B. Ethical inquiries aid in serving the public good. C. Conflicting views exist between ethical systems. D. Accepting conflicts is the basis of philosophical inquiry. 32. What can be inferred from the passage? A. Philosophers stress logic over subjectivity. B. Williams holds moral reasoning forces acceptance. C. Parfit believes moral acts require personal sacrifice. D. Reconciling ethical systems has real-world implications. 33. According to Karl Popper, we can learn that . A. intolerance originates in absolute tolerance B. unlimited tolerance invites self-destruction C. tolerance is for people who share the same values D. philosophical ideals sometimes require military defense 34. How does the author feel towards Parfit’s pursuit? A Sympathetic. B. Hopeless. C. Skeptical. D. Astonished. 【答案】31. C 32. D 33. B 34. A 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。本文主要讨论了伦理体系之间的差异和冲突，以及哲学家们对于如何解决这些冲突的不同观点。文章还通过卡尔·波普尔的话强调了宽容的限度，指出无限制的宽容可能导致自我毁灭。最后，作者对帕菲特因无法说服更多人而感到绝望表示同情。 【31题详解】 细节理解题。根据文章第二段“However, philosophy’s open secret is that these attempts don’t add up to anything decisive. When it comes to what we ought to do in any given situation, different ethical systems offer different guidance. (然而，哲学的一个公开的秘密是，这些尝试并没有得出任何决定性的结论。当谈到我们在任何给定的情况下应该做什么时，不同的伦理体系提供了不同的指导。)”可知，在给定的情况下，不同的伦理提供不同的指导，因此从前三段中可以了解到伦理体系之间存在相互冲突的观点。故选C项。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据文章第四段“Unfortunately, the position that different ethical positions can be reconciled is itself a position others may not accept. (不幸的是，认为不同的伦理立场可以和解的观点本身就是一种可能不被其他人接受的观点。)”以及后文对于伦理体系和解的讨论，可以推断出，调和伦理体系具有现实意义，但并非所有人都会接受。故选D项。 【33题详解】 细节理解题。根据文章倒数第二段“As Karl Popper puts it, “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”(正如卡尔·波普尔所说，“如果我们甚至对那些不容忍的人也表现出无限的宽容，那么宽容的人将被摧毁，连同他们的宽容一起。”)”可知，根据卡尔·波普尔的观点，无限的宽容会导致自我毁灭。故选B项。 【34题详解】 推理判断题。根据文章最后一段“I’m not surprised that Parfit felt despair at the limits of his persuasiveness. What’s amazing is that more philosophers don’t feel the same way. (我对帕菲特因自己说服力有限而感到绝望并不感到惊讶。令人惊讶的是，更多的哲学家并没有同样的感受。)”可知，作者对于帕菲特的追求是持同情的态度。故选A项。 （二） （2025年·东城·一模） Years after my art history class, I am insufferable at museums. “That’s definitely a Matisse,” I say. “You can telI because of the brushwork and the use of colour.” Sometimes it is not a Matisse but oftentimes it is. It is unsettling to learn, then, that for all of my carefully won art appreciation, I am in danger of being surpassed by an insect. In a recent study, honeybees — whose brains are the size of grass seeds — were shown Picassos and Monets paired side by side. Below the prints were two small containers, one containing sugar water and the other nothing at all. Which to enter? Bees couldn’t see or smell whether a given container held the treat until they’d already flown inside it. But they could let the masterpieces guide them: for some bees, the reward was always under the Picasso, while for the rest it was under the Monet. Over the course of many trials, the bees learned to fly straight for the correct container. Indeed, they even performed slightly better than chance when faced with pairs of paintings they’d never seen before. The bees had learned to discriminate, however modestly, between the two artists’ styles. To be sure, humans still have the edge. Last year a team of researchers led by Liane Gabora found that art students were perfectly capable of identifying which well-known artist was behind which unknown painting. Creative writing students were similarly excellent at spotting little-read passages by Hemingway or Dickens — a skill I can only assume no honeybee has yet demonstrated. Even more impressively, though, the students could recognize as-yet-unseen samples of each other’s work, including work in entirely different mediums. Creative writers could identify their fellow writers’ paintings and sketches; painters had a pretty good idea who’d brought which poem or clay pot. It’s clear what the bees were doing: picking up and categorizing complex visual patterns in the pairs of images. But recognizing differences across mediums is altogether different. Whether we’re writing poems or building sculptures, Gabora argues, we’re doing so with the same mind: one that structures information in the same way, has been shaped by the same experiences, and longs to express the same ideas. Naturally, our techniques and preoccupations in one domain should “out” us in another. But still I wonder: Just what about these techniques and preoccupations did the trick? The researchers did their best to keep subject matter from ruling the day by instructing, for instance, artists who happened to be surfers not to bring in art that depicted (描绘) surfing. But what of less obvious subject matter — like Western landscapes? And what of the obsessions that come into our work unawares? A correlational study like this one will not answer these questions. Perhaps my biggest question has to do with people who don’t identify as artists, and haven’t settled — or at least would claim so-on a personal style. Are their creations also a reflection of their worldview? It seems likely that, at least to some extent, bad art is all alike, while only good art is good in its own way. 31. Why does the author mention bees? A. To present an example. B. To put forward a theory. C. To draw out a comparison. D. To highlight a research finding. 32. Why does the author think humans still have the edge? A. Because we can transfer our experiences. B. Because we can discriminate styles. C. Because we can categorize patterns. D. Because we can learn from trials. 33. What does the underlined word “out” in Paragraph 6 probably mean? A. Assist. B. Trick. C. Beat. D. Expose. 34 What might be the best title for the passage? A. Will Bees Beat Humans? B. How Will You View a View? C. Why Good Art Works Wonders? D. What Makes Hemingway Hemingway? 【答案】31. C 32. A 33. D 34. D 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了蜜蜂识别画作与人类艺术鉴赏能力的对比及思考。 【31题详解】 细节理解题。根据第二段中“It is unsettling to learn, then, that for all of my carefully won art appreciation, I am in danger of being surpassed by an insect. In a recent study, honeybees — whose brains are the size of grass seeds — were shown Picassos and Monets paired side by side.(然而，令人不安的是，尽管我精心培养了对艺术的鉴赏力，但我却有可能被一种昆虫超越。在最近的一项研究中，蜜蜂——它们的大脑只有草籽大小——被展示了毕加索和莫奈的画作，并排摆放在一起)”可知，作者提到蜜蜂是为了与人类进行艺术鉴赏能力的对比。故选C。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第四段中“Last year a team of researchers led by Liane Gabora found that art students were perfectly capable of identifying which well-known artist was behind which unknown painting. Creative writing students were similarly excellent at spotting little-read passages by Hemingway or Dickens — a skill I can only assume no honeybee has yet demonstrated.(去年，由Liane Gabora领导的一个研究小组发现，艺术专业的学生完全有能力分辨出哪幅画背后是哪位知名艺术家。创意写作专业的学生同样擅长发现海明威或狄更斯的小片段——我只能假设蜜蜂还没有表现出这种技能)”以及第五段“Even more impressively, though, the students could recognize as-yet-unseen samples of each other’s work, including work in entirely different mediums.(然而，更令人印象深刻的是，学生们能够识别出彼此尚未见过的作品样本，包括完全不同媒介的作品)”可知，作者认为人类仍然有优势是因为人类能够转移经验，识别不同艺术家的风格和跨媒介的作品。其中，A选项“因为我们可以转移我们的经验”最全面地概括了这一点。故选A。 【33题详解】 词句猜测题。根据第六段中“Whether we’re writing poems or building sculptures, Gabora argues, we’re doing so with the same mind: one that structures information in the same way, has been shaped by the same experiences, and longs to express the same ideas. Naturally, our techniques and preoccupations in one domain should ‘out’ us in another.(Gabora认为，无论我们是写诗还是建造雕塑，我们都是用同样的思维去做的：这种思维方式以同样的方式组织信息，受到同样的经验塑造，渴望表达同样的想法。自然而然地，我们在一个领域的技术和关注点应该会在另一个领域‘out’我们)”可知，此处out意为“暴露，揭示”，即我们在一个领域的技术和关注点会揭示我们在另一个领域的身份或特点。D选项“Expose(暴露)”与此意思相符。故选D。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。文章通过讲述蜜蜂和人类在艺术方面的能力，重点强调了人类在艺术创作中独特的思维方式、经历等因素会体现在作品中，让作品具有独特的风格，就像海明威的作品具有海明威独特的风格一样。D选项“What Makes Hemingway Hemingway?(是什么让海明威成为海明威？)”，可以引申为是什么让艺术家的作品具有独特风格，符合文章主旨。故选D。 （三） （2025年·朝阳·一模） In the field where philosophy and neuroscience overlap, few questions have fascinated and confused humanity as deeply as the concept of free will. At first glance, the idea that we have the power to make choices that are not predetermined seems intuitive (直觉的). However, a closer examination reveals a complex web of philosophical arguments and scientific findings that challenge this seemingly straightforward concept. From a philosophical standpoint, the debate around free will has continued intensely for centuries. Compatibilists argue free will can coexist with determinism, as long as our actions are a result of our own desires and motivations. For example, choosing a music career out of passion is considered as a free choice within this framework. In contrast, incompatibilists maintain free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Hard determinists view the universe as a closed system governed by strict laws of nature, where every event, including human actions, is predetermined. In this view, the idea of free will is an illusion (幻觉). Neuroscience has advanced markedly in decoding the brain, revealing that many actions are preceded (先于) by neural activity. Studies on the brain’s reward system and neurotransmitters, particularly dopamine (多巴胺), further challenge the nature of free will. Addictive behaviors, for instance, can be strongly influenced by the brain’s response to dopamine. A person struggling with addiction may feel they lack the free will to resist it, as their brain chemistry has been altered in a way that forces them into acting. The scientific evidence is not conclusive, though. Some argue that the neural activity observed before conscious decisions may not be the cause of the action but rather part of the preparatory process for a decision that is still freely made. Additionally, the complexity of the human brain and the fact that much of its functioning is still not fully understood leave room for the possibility of free will. If free will is an illusion, it challenges our fundamental notions of moral responsibility. We praise and blame people for their actions because we believe they could have acted differently. How can we hold individuals accountable for their actions if they were never truly free to choose otherwise? Without free will, the essential moral framework of our societies would collapse into chaotic indifference. Free will is only an illusion if you are, too. 31. Which of the following situations reflects the compatibilists’ view? A. Driven by dopamine, Tim keeps checking his social media. B. Lucy speaks first after being randomly selected by software. C. Exposed to a sudden blinding light, Lily quickly shuts her eyes. D. Jerry shifts between companies of shared bikes based on discounts. 32. What can we learn from the passage? A. The altered brain chemistry enhances free will. B Conscious decisions are independent of neural activities. C. Hard determinists see free will vital to moral accountability. D. Neuroscientists’ views on the causes of human actions differ. 33. As for the existence of free will, the author is ________. A. neutral B. disapproving C. positive D. doubtful 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Does Neuroscience Threaten Free Will? B. Why the Arguments Against Free Will Fail C. Exploration into the Complexity of Free Will D. Free Will: Bridging Neuroscience and Philosophy 【答案】31. D 32. D 33. C 34. C 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要探讨了自由意志在哲学与神经科学领域的复杂性与争议。 【31题详解】 推理判断题。根据第二段的“Compatibilists argue free will can coexist with determinism, as long as our actions are a result of our own desires and motivations. For example, choosing a music career out of passion is considered as a free choice within this framework.(相容论者认为，自由意志可以与决定论共存，只要我们的行为是出于我们自己的欲望和动机。例如，出于热情而选择音乐事业，在这个框架下就被视为一种自由的选择)”可知，兼容论者认为只要我们的行为是自身欲望和动机的结果，自由意志就可以与决定论共存。D选项“Jerry根据折扣在共享单车公司之间转换”符合相容论者的观点，即行为是基于个人欲望和动机的自由选择。故选D。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第三段“Neuroscience has advanced markedly in decoding the brain, revealing that many actions are preceded (先于) by neural activity.(神经科学在解码大脑方面取得了显著进展，揭示出许多行为在发生之前都会有神经活动)”和第四段的“Some argue that the neural activity observed before conscious decisions may not be the cause of the action but rather part of the preparatory process for a decision that is still freely made.(有些人认为，在做出有意识的决定之前观察到的神经活动可能并非该行为的原因，而是仍为自由做出的决定所做的准备过程的一部分)”可知，神经科学表明很多行为先有神经活动，但有些人认为有意识的决定之前观察到的神经活动可能不是行为的原因，而是自由做出决定的准备过程的一部分。这说明神经科学家对于人类行为的原因存在不同的观点。故选D。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据最后一段“If free will is an illusion, it challenges our fundamental notions of moral responsibility. We praise and blame people for their actions because we believe they could have acted differently. How can we hold individuals accountable for their actions if they were never truly free to choose otherwise? Without free will, the essential moral framework of our societies would collapse into chaotic indifference. Free will is only an illusion if you are, too.(如果自由意志是一种幻觉，那么它就会挑战我们关于道德责任的基本观念。我们赞扬或责备他人的行为，是因为我们相信他们本可以做出不同的选择。如果他们从未真正拥有自由选择其他行为的能力，我们又如何能让个人对自己的行为负责呢？没有自由意志，我们社会的基本道德框架将会崩塌，陷入混乱与冷漠。只有当你也认为自由意志是幻觉时，它才真正是幻觉)”可知，作者认为如果自由意志是幻觉，会挑战我们的道德责任观念，没有自由意志社会的道德框架会崩溃，最后说 “自由意志只有在你也是幻觉时才是幻觉”，暗示作者认为自由意志是存在的，态度是积极的。故选C。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。通读全文，尤其是第一段的“In the field where philosophy and neuroscience overlap, few questions have fascinated and confused humanity as deeply as the concept of free will. At first glance, the idea that we have the power to make choices that are not predetermined seems intuitive (直觉的). However, a closer examination reveals a complex web of philosophical arguments and scientific findings that challenge this seemingly straightforward concept.(在哲学与神经科学相交汇的领域，几乎没有哪个问题能像自由意志这一概念那样，既深深吸引着人类，又让人类感到困惑。乍一看，我们拥有做出非预定选择的能力这一想法似乎是直觉上的。然而，更深入的探究揭示了一个由哲学论点和科学发现交织而成的复杂网络，这些论点和发现挑战了这一看似简单的概念)”可知，文章主要探讨了自由意志在哲学与神经科学领域的复杂性与争议，包括相容论者与不相容论者的观点、神经科学对自由意志的挑战以及科学证据的不确定性等。C选项“对自由意志复杂性的探索”最能概括文章的主旨大意。故选C。 （四） （2025年·石景山·一模） The moon stands alone. Unique in the universe, it is a lifeless and sunbaked wasteland that harbours little except what we bring to it. But that is about to change. Half a century after the Apollo programme, a private spacecraft Nova-C made the first touchdown on the moon successfully, bearing scientific instruments, microfiche (微缩胶片) story disks, cameras, and sculptures to stay on the moon forever. Its success would promise many more. Though it may seem like an exciting outlook for humanity’s space exploration ambitions, it also signals a future where the moon becomes a hotbed of ungoverned business operations that will irreversibly (不可逆地) transform it. For the first time, private capital has reached the moon, expanding beyond scientific goals. This allows private landers, even when carrying government science experiments, to include additional non-scientific payloads (有酬负载) for other customers. Items bound to raise various objections, such as human cremains (骨灰) and dehydrated water bears from past missions, have caused concerns about biological materials on the moon. There’re a lot more planned for future launches, likely sparking further debate. Before this decade is out, with a powerful enough telescope, you may be able to see evidence of human construction or even habitation on the moon. In 2023, the global space industry was valued at $469 billion, expected to exceed $1 trillion by 2030, driven by growing satellite use in manufacturing, power, and data. “We are now at a tipping point, where ideas previously limited to science fiction represent attractive investment projects,” a report read. A voluntary agreement has been used since 2020 to foster lunar cooperation. It promotes international standards, emergency assistance and data sharing. However, it also allows for exploiting (开采) lunar resources like dust, water, rare earth elements and other materials. Exploring the moon has value for science and potential benefits for Earth but humans often turn exploration into exploitation, and the moon may face the same fate. The moon won’t be alone for long. But it is and will forever be quiet. It plays host to no thunderstorms, no crashing waves, no bird songs and no anthems (国歌). We must be its voice. We will soon change its surface, and our relationship to it, forever. At the very least, we owe the moon a considered discussion of why and how we will do so. 31. What is the author’s concern about the moon’s future? A. Unregulated commercial activities. B. Illegal human construction. C. Limited payload carried to the moon. D. A lack of scientific missions. 32. The “tipping point” in Paragraph 4 indicates the change . A. from cooperation to competition B. from science to trade C. from lunar landing to settlement D. from fantasy to adventure 33. What can we infer from this passage? A. Lunar resource exploration holds great promise. B. Massive investment is beneficial to lunar development. C. Non-scientific activities can test lunar environmental limits. D. The existing agreement is insufficient in controlling over-exploitation. 34. What would be the best title for this passage? A. The Promising Moon: Playground for All B. The Moon’s Edge: Ambition Meets Reality C. The Moon’s Future: Uncover the Unknown D. The Silent Moon: Humanity’s Responsibility 【答案】31. A 32. B 33. D 34. D 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。主要介绍了私人资本进入月球，商业活动兴起，作者担忧月球面临过度开发，强调人类对月球负有责任。 【31题详解】 细节理解题。根据第二段“Though it may seem like an exciting outlook for humanity’s space exploration ambitions, it also signals a future where the moon becomes a hotbed of ungoverned business operations that will irreversibly (不可逆地) transform it.(尽管这似乎是人类太空探索野心的一个令人兴奋的前景，但它也预示着未来月球将成为不受控制的商业活动的温床，这将不可逆转地改变它)”可知，作者担心的是月球未来会成为不受监管的商业活动的温床，即未受规范的商业活动。故选A。 【32题详解】 词句猜测题。根据第三段“For the first time, private capital has reached the moon, expanding beyond scientific goals. This allows private landers, even when carrying government science experiments, to include additional non-scientific payloads (有酬负载) for other customers.(私人资本首次登上月球，超越了科学目标。这使得私人着陆器，即使在携带政府科学实验时，也可以为其他客户提供额外的非科学有酬负载)”以及第四段“‘We are now at a tipping point, where ideas previously limited to science fiction represent attractive investment projects,’ a report read.(我们现在正处于一个转折点，以前仅限于科幻小说的想法代表了有吸引力的投资项目)”可知，私人资本进入月球，商业活动兴起，以前科幻小说里的想法现在成为了有吸引力的投资项目，因此tipping point指的是从科学到贸易的转变。故选B。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据第五段“A voluntary agreement has been used since 2020 to foster lunar cooperation. It promotes international standards, emergency assistance and data sharing. However, it also allows for exploiting (开采) lunar resources like dust, water, rare earth elements and other materials.(自2020年以来，一项自愿协议一直被用来促进月球合作。它促进了国际标准、紧急援助和数据共享。然而，它也允许开采月球资源，如灰尘、水、稀土元素和其他材料)”可知，现有的协议虽然促进合作等，但也允许开采月球资源，可推知它在控制过度开采方面是不足的。故选D。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。根据第一段“The moon stands alone. Unique in the universe, it is a lifeless and sunbaked wasteland that harbours little except what we bring to it.(月亮孤零零地待着。它是宇宙中独一无二的，是一片没有生命、被阳光晒得黝黑的荒地，除了我们带给它的东西外，几乎什么都没有)”、最后一段“The moon won’t be alone for long. But it is and will forever be quiet. It plays host to no thunderstorms, no crashing waves, no bird songs and no anthems (国歌). We must be its voice. We will soon change its surface, and our relationship to it, forever. At the very least, we owe the moon a considered discussion of why and how we will do so.(月亮不会孤单太久。但它现在是，也将永远是安静的。它没有雷雨，没有巨浪，没有鸟鸣，没有国歌。我们必须成为它的声音。我们很快就会永远改变它的表面，以及我们与它的关系。至少，我们欠月球一个深思熟虑的讨论，为什么以及如何这样做)”以及文章内容可知，文章主要介绍了随着私人资本进入月球，商业活动兴起，作者担心月球面临过度开发等问题，强调人类要对月球负责。D项“寂静的月球：人类的责任” 符合主旨，适合作为文章标题。故选D。 （五） （2025年·房山·一模） Earth is a bright spot of value in the universe, partly because it contains human beings who, driven by curiosity and a non-instrumental desire to address hard questions, engage in philosophy. Philosophical inquiry makes the entire planet better than it would otherwise be. Is science better and more significant than philosophy, more central to the specialness of Earth? Of course, science can extend our lifespans and empower us to transform the environment. But the longevity and power of one species aren’t what make Earth special. Consider instead, the greatest achievements of science: the Copernican/ Galilean/ Newtonian revolution, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, breakthroughs in genetics and brain science. These transformed our understanding of the universe and our place within it. The distinctive value of human science lies in its philosophical strength— its power to guide us toward the broadest and most foundational questions about ourselves and the universe. Art is the same: at its best, it goes beyond decoration and amusement, confronting us with the puzzles of human existence. In their most ambitious forms, the arts and sciences merge into philosophy, expressing our philosophical urges. A metaphor: as the circle of light expands, so too does the ring of darkness around it. Philosophy lives in that ring of darkness. Within the circle of light lies what is straightforwardly knowable through common sense, mainstream science or other established methods. In the penumbra (半影) are matters of guesses or ideas. There’s no sharp line between light and dark, and no sharp beginning or end to the penumbra. As the light grows, the penumbral ring expands to match. There will always be darkness beyond, and philosophical questioning will chase it. We will never complete the project of understanding the fundamental structure of the world. Generations of philosophers will die without getting satisfactory answers to their most searching questions. Billions of years ago, stars exploded, forming planets, and life emerged. Some beings developed the ability to wonder about their place in the universe, their values, and their capacity for reflection. When we philosophize, we become a means by which the universe, after billions of years, momentarily thinks about itself in doubt and amazement. Nothing is more naturally valuable or worthy of respect and wonder. 31. What does the author intend to do by mentioning the brightness of Earth? A. Make an assumption. B. Present an argument. C. Give a suggestion. D. Raise a question. 32. What does the phrase “merge into” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A. Change to. B. Replace with. C. Stand for. D. Combine into. 33. What can be inferred about philosophy from the metaphor of penumbra? A. It will decline as knowledge advances. B. It will continue due to expanding unknowns. C. It aims to distinguish between light and dark. D. It remains separate from established methods. 34. The author believes that _____. A. the pursuit of endless questions is significant B. human beings are a highly emotional species C. science is the primary source of philosophical ideas D. the physical characteristics of Earth make it exceptional 【答案】31. B 32. D 33. B 34. A 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章通过对比哲学与科学、艺术的关系，强调了哲学在人类理解和探索世界中的重要性。 【31题详解】 推理判断题。根据第一段中的“Earth is a bright spot of value in the universe, partly because it contains human beings who, driven by curiosity and a non-instrumental desire to address hard questions, engage in philosophy. Philosophical inquiry makes the entire planet better than it would otherwise be.(地球是宇宙中一个有价值的亮点，部分原因是它孕育了人类，人类出于好奇心和一种非功利性的解答难题的渴望，投身于哲学。哲学探究使整个星球变得比它本来的样子更好。)”可知，作者提到地球的明亮是为了提出论点，作者认为，人类对哲学的探索使地球变得更有价值。故选B项。 【32题详解】 词句猜测题。根据划线单词上文的“In their most ambitious forms(以其最宏大的形式)”和下文的“expressing our philosophical urges(表达我们的哲学欲望)”可知，艺术和科学要以其形式表达我们的哲学欲望，肯定是要融入到哲学中去，所以划线短语merge into的意义为“并入；合并”，与combine into意义一致。故选D项。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据第四段中的“As the light grows, the penumbral ring expands to match. There will always be darkness beyond, and philosophical questioning will chase it. We will never complete the project of understanding the fundamental structure of the world.(随着光线的增加，半影环也随之扩大。前方总会有黑暗，哲学的追问会追逐黑暗。我们永远不会完成了解世界基本结构的工程。)”可知，随着知识的增长，未知的领域也在扩大，哲学将继续探索这些未知。故选B项。 【34题详解】 细节理解题。根据全文内容，特别是倒数第二段中的“There will always be darkness beyond, and philosophical questioning will chase it. We will never complete the project of understanding the fundamental structure of the world. Generations of philosophers will die without getting satisfactory answers to their most searching questions.(前方总会有黑暗，哲学的追问会追逐黑暗。我们永远不会完成了解世界基本结构的工程。一代又一代的哲学家对他们最深奥的问题，没有得到满意的答案，就死去了。)”和最后一段中的“When we philosophize, we become a means by which the universe, after billions of years, momentarily thinks about itself in doubt and amazement. Nothing is more naturally valuable or worthy of respect and wonder.(当我们进行哲学思考时，我们成为了一种手段，使得宇宙在经历了数十亿年后，能够在瞬间带着怀疑和惊叹去思考自身。没有什么比这更自然地具有价值，更值得尊重和惊叹的了。)”可知，作者认为追求无尽的问题本身是重要的。故选A项。 2 / 2 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$ 专题06 阅读理解——议论文类 编者按：2025年北京十区高三一模分类整理，深度解析，排版整齐。 （一） （2025年·海淀·一模） If you find yourself with several million dollars more than you need, how should you spend the money? One answer might be to do whatever you want, within the bounds of the law. Another is to donate it to a charity. You may also support an organization that is working to reduce existential risks. The history of philosophy consists of attempts to shed light on such questions. However, philosophy’s open secret is that these attempts don’t add up to anything decisive. When it comes to what we ought to do in any given situation, different ethical systems offer different guidance. Conflict is baked into questions like, “What ought I to do?” Or is it? An awareness of difference is certainly crucial to such an inquiry. But this needn’t become a conflict until you’re forced to pick a side. Some philosophers have sought to eliminate the conflict between ethical systems. Derek Parfit, one of the most respected philosophers of the past fifty years, devoted the second half of his life to precisely this task. Unfortunately, the position that different ethical positions can be reconciled (和解) is itself a position others may not accept. Parfit believed people could have a good reason to act morally, independent of their knowledge or beliefs. If you find yourself in a position to alleviate (减轻) others’ suffering without significantly inconveniencing yourself, then you should act. It is just a moral fact that there is a right thing that you ought to do. By contrast, Bernard Williams argued it made no sense to talk about people’s reasons independently from their motivations. Someone cannot have a reason to do something that they have no desire to do-because however wrong-headed their preferences may be, subjectivity is the ground truth for “having a reason”. As in Peter Singer’s parable (寓言) of a child drowning in a shallow pond, it self-evidently seems immoral not to save this child if the only cost for you is a pair of new trainers. This is as clear as a philosophical argument can get. However, as with all moral reasoning, you are free to reject the logic or assumptions behind Singer’s argument, regardless of its clarity. Parfit was a philosopher’s philosopher. Yet he suffered from the fact that irreconcilable ethical systems exist. Why? Because one conclusion that follows from this is that, if the differences between such systems cannot be resolved by philosophical means, conflict of a literal kind will always exist beneath their differences. As Karl Popper puts it, “ If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” This is the rub. Philosophy is of the world as well as of the page-and even the gentlest words may, sooner or later, need an army to defend them. “We should therefore claim,” Popper continued, “in the name of the tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” I’m not surprised that Parfit felt despair at the limits of his persuasiveness. What’s amazing is that more philosophers don’t feel the same way. 31. What can we learn from the first three paragraphs? A. Philosophy can help resolve ethical conflicts. B. Ethical inquiries aid in serving the public good. C. Conflicting views exist between ethical systems. D. Accepting conflicts is the basis of philosophical inquiry. 32. What can be inferred from the passage? A. Philosophers stress logic over subjectivity. B. Williams holds moral reasoning forces acceptance. C. Parfit believes moral acts require personal sacrifice. D. Reconciling ethical systems has real-world implications. 33. According to Karl Popper, we can learn that . A. intolerance originates in absolute tolerance B. unlimited tolerance invites self-destruction C. tolerance is for people who share the same values D. philosophical ideals sometimes require military defense 34. How does the author feel towards Parfit’s pursuit? A Sympathetic. B. Hopeless. C. Skeptical. D. Astonished. （二） （2025年·东城·一模） Years after my art history class, I am insufferable at museums. “That’s definitely a Matisse,” I say. “You can telI because of the brushwork and the use of colour.” Sometimes it is not a Matisse but oftentimes it is. It is unsettling to learn, then, that for all of my carefully won art appreciation, I am in danger of being surpassed by an insect. In a recent study, honeybees — whose brains are the size of grass seeds — were shown Picassos and Monets paired side by side. Below the prints were two small containers, one containing sugar water and the other nothing at all. Which to enter? Bees couldn’t see or smell whether a given container held the treat until they’d already flown inside it. But they could let the masterpieces guide them: for some bees, the reward was always under the Picasso, while for the rest it was under the Monet. Over the course of many trials, the bees learned to fly straight for the correct container. Indeed, they even performed slightly better than chance when faced with pairs of paintings they’d never seen before. The bees had learned to discriminate, however modestly, between the two artists’ styles. To be sure, humans still have the edge. Last year a team of researchers led by Liane Gabora found that art students were perfectly capable of identifying which well-known artist was behind which unknown painting. Creative writing students were similarly excellent at spotting little-read passages by Hemingway or Dickens — a skill I can only assume no honeybee has yet demonstrated. Even more impressively, though, the students could recognize as-yet-unseen samples of each other’s work, including work in entirely different mediums. Creative writers could identify their fellow writers’ paintings and sketches; painters had a pretty good idea who’d brought which poem or clay pot. It’s clear what the bees were doing: picking up and categorizing complex visual patterns in the pairs of images. But recognizing differences across mediums is altogether different. Whether we’re writing poems or building sculptures, Gabora argues, we’re doing so with the same mind: one that structures information in the same way, has been shaped by the same experiences, and longs to express the same ideas. Naturally, our techniques and preoccupations in one domain should “out” us in another. But still I wonder: Just what about these techniques and preoccupations did the trick? The researchers did their best to keep subject matter from ruling the day by instructing, for instance, artists who happened to be surfers not to bring in art that depicted (描绘) surfing. But what of less obvious subject matter — like Western landscapes? And what of the obsessions that come into our work unawares? A correlational study like this one will not answer these questions. Perhaps my biggest question has to do with people who don’t identify as artists, and haven’t settled — or at least would claim so-on a personal style. Are their creations also a reflection of their worldview? It seems likely that, at least to some extent, bad art is all alike, while only good art is good in its own way. 31. Why does the author mention bees? A. To present an example. B. To put forward a theory. C. To draw out a comparison. D. To highlight a research finding. 32. Why does the author think humans still have the edge? A. Because we can transfer our experiences. B. Because we can discriminate styles. C. Because we can categorize patterns. D. Because we can learn from trials. 33. What does the underlined word “out” in Paragraph 6 probably mean? A. Assist. B. Trick. C. Beat. D. Expose. 34 What might be the best title for the passage? A. Will Bees Beat Humans? B. How Will You View a View? C. Why Good Art Works Wonders? D. What Makes Hemingway Hemingway? （三） （2025年·朝阳·一模） In the field where philosophy and neuroscience overlap, few questions have fascinated and confused humanity as deeply as the concept of free will. At first glance, the idea that we have the power to make choices that are not predetermined seems intuitive (直觉的). However, a closer examination reveals a complex web of philosophical arguments and scientific findings that challenge this seemingly straightforward concept. From a philosophical standpoint, the debate around free will has continued intensely for centuries. Compatibilists argue free will can coexist with determinism, as long as our actions are a result of our own desires and motivations. For example, choosing a music career out of passion is considered as a free choice within this framework. In contrast, incompatibilists maintain free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Hard determinists view the universe as a closed system governed by strict laws of nature, where every event, including human actions, is predetermined. In this view, the idea of free will is an illusion (幻觉). Neuroscience has advanced markedly in decoding the brain, revealing that many actions are preceded (先于) by neural activity. Studies on the brain’s reward system and neurotransmitters, particularly dopamine (多巴胺), further challenge the nature of free will. Addictive behaviors, for instance, can be strongly influenced by the brain’s response to dopamine. A person struggling with addiction may feel they lack the free will to resist it, as their brain chemistry has been altered in a way that forces them into acting. The scientific evidence is not conclusive, though. Some argue that the neural activity observed before conscious decisions may not be the cause of the action but rather part of the preparatory process for a decision that is still freely made. Additionally, the complexity of the human brain and the fact that much of its functioning is still not fully understood leave room for the possibility of free will. If free will is an illusion, it challenges our fundamental notions of moral responsibility. We praise and blame people for their actions because we believe they could have acted differently. How can we hold individuals accountable for their actions if they were never truly free to choose otherwise? Without free will, the essential moral framework of our societies would collapse into chaotic indifference. Free will is only an illusion if you are, too. 31. Which of the following situations reflects the compatibilists’ view? A. Driven by dopamine, Tim keeps checking his social media. B. Lucy speaks first after being randomly selected by software. C. Exposed to a sudden blinding light, Lily quickly shuts her eyes. D. Jerry shifts between companies of shared bikes based on discounts. 32. What can we learn from the passage? A. The altered brain chemistry enhances free will. B Conscious decisions are independent of neural activities. C. Hard determinists see free will vital to moral accountability. D. Neuroscientists’ views on the causes of human actions differ. 33. As for the existence of free will, the author is ________. A. neutral B. disapproving C. positive D. doubtful 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Does Neuroscience Threaten Free Will? B. Why the Arguments Against Free Will Fail C. Exploration into the Complexity of Free Will D. Free Will: Bridging Neuroscience and Philosophy （四） （2025年·石景山·一模） The moon stands alone. Unique in the universe, it is a lifeless and sunbaked wasteland that harbours little except what we bring to it. But that is about to change. Half a century after the Apollo programme, a private spacecraft Nova-C made the first touchdown on the moon successfully, bearing scientific instruments, microfiche (微缩胶片) story disks, cameras, and sculptures to stay on the moon forever. Its success would promise many more. Though it may seem like an exciting outlook for humanity’s space exploration ambitions, it also signals a future where the moon becomes a hotbed of ungoverned business operations that will irreversibly (不可逆地) transform it. For the first time, private capital has reached the moon, expanding beyond scientific goals. This allows private landers, even when carrying government science experiments, to include additional non-scientific payloads (有酬负载) for other customers. Items bound to raise various objections, such as human cremains (骨灰) and dehydrated water bears from past missions, have caused concerns about biological materials on the moon. There’re a lot more planned for future launches, likely sparking further debate. Before this decade is out, with a powerful enough telescope, you may be able to see evidence of human construction or even habitation on the moon. In 2023, the global space industry was valued at $469 billion, expected to exceed $1 trillion by 2030, driven by growing satellite use in manufacturing, power, and data. “We are now at a tipping point, where ideas previously limited to science fiction represent attractive investment projects,” a report read. A voluntary agreement has been used since 2020 to foster lunar cooperation. It promotes international standards, emergency assistance and data sharing. However, it also allows for exploiting (开采) lunar resources like dust, water, rare earth elements and other materials. Exploring the moon has value for science and potential benefits for Earth but humans often turn exploration into exploitation, and the moon may face the same fate. The moon won’t be alone for long. But it is and will forever be quiet. It plays host to no thunderstorms, no crashing waves, no bird songs and no anthems (国歌). We must be its voice. We will soon change its surface, and our relationship to it, forever. At the very least, we owe the moon a considered discussion of why and how we will do so. 31. What is the author’s concern about the moon’s future? A. Unregulated commercial activities. B. Illegal human construction. C. Limited payload carried to the moon. D. A lack of scientific missions. 32. The “tipping point” in Paragraph 4 indicates the change . A. from cooperation to competition B. from science to trade C. from lunar landing to settlement D. from fantasy to adventure 33. What can we infer from this passage? A. Lunar resource exploration holds great promise. B. Massive investment is beneficial to lunar development. C. Non-scientific activities can test lunar environmental limits. D. The existing agreement is insufficient in controlling over-exploitation. 34. What would be the best title for this passage? A. The Promising Moon: Playground for All B. The Moon’s Edge: Ambition Meets Reality C. The Moon’s Future: Uncover the Unknown D. The Silent Moon: Humanity’s Responsibility （五） （2025年·房山·一模） Earth is a bright spot of value in the universe, partly because it contains human beings who, driven by curiosity and a non-instrumental desire to address hard questions, engage in philosophy. Philosophical inquiry makes the entire planet better than it would otherwise be. Is science better and more significant than philosophy, more central to the specialness of Earth? Of course, science can extend our lifespans and empower us to transform the environment. But the longevity and power of one species aren’t what make Earth special. Consider instead, the greatest achievements of science: the Copernican/ Galilean/ Newtonian revolution, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, breakthroughs in genetics and brain science. These transformed our understanding of the universe and our place within it. The distinctive value of human science lies in its philosophical strength— its power to guide us toward the broadest and most foundational questions about ourselves and the universe. Art is the same: at its best, it goes beyond decoration and amusement, confronting us with the puzzles of human existence. In their most ambitious forms, the arts and sciences merge into philosophy, expressing our philosophical urges. A metaphor: as the circle of light expands, so too does the ring of darkness around it. Philosophy lives in that ring of darkness. Within the circle of light lies what is straightforwardly knowable through common sense, mainstream science or other established methods. In the penumbra (半影) are matters of guesses or ideas. There’s no sharp line between light and dark, and no sharp beginning or end to the penumbra. As the light grows, the penumbral ring expands to match. There will always be darkness beyond, and philosophical questioning will chase it. We will never complete the project of understanding the fundamental structure of the world. Generations of philosophers will die without getting satisfactory answers to their most searching questions. Billions of years ago, stars exploded, forming planets, and life emerged. Some beings developed the ability to wonder about their place in the universe, their values, and their capacity for reflection. When we philosophize, we become a means by which the universe, after billions of years, momentarily thinks about itself in doubt and amazement. Nothing is more naturally valuable or worthy of respect and wonder. 31. What does the author intend to do by mentioning the brightness of Earth? A. Make an assumption. B. Present an argument. C. Give a suggestion. D. Raise a question. 32. What does the phrase “merge into” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A. Change to. B. Replace with. C. Stand for. D. Combine into. 33. What can be inferred about philosophy from the metaphor of penumbra? A. It will decline as knowledge advances. B. It will continue due to expanding unknowns. C. It aims to distinguish between light and dark. D. It remains separate from established methods. 34. The author believes that _____. A. the pursuit of endless questions is significant B. human beings are a highly emotional species C. science is the primary source of philosophical ideas D. the physical characteristics of Earth make it exceptional 2 / 2 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $$