2025届浙江省金华市义乌市高三下学期三模英语CD篇阅读讲解及拓展阅读分析 练习

拓展阅读题及参考答案： 限训25 With a surface hot enough to melt lead in its atmosphere, Venus has been described as “Earth’s evil twin” — similar in size, yet worlds apart. The question of whether Venus was ever habitable has long been a hot topic among scientists. Some astronomers believe the planet was once much more hospitable, but a recent research by Tereza Constantinou, a PhD student from the University of Cambridge, has now dealt a blow to the idea that it ever hosted life as we know it. Constantinou noted that early in the formation of Venus, the planet was covered in a vast sea of magma (岩浆). If this cooled quickly, water would form oceans or be trapped as it crystallised (结晶), meaning the planet’s interior (内部) would be water-rich. As a result, water would be released when volcanoes erupt. “If you look at any photos of volcanism on Earth, you can see these large clouds coming out. Most of that is water,” said Constantinou. But if the magma cooled slowly, water would have ended up as steam in the atmosphere. In this situation, water would not be trapped inside the interior of the planet. Constantinou and his colleagues studied changes in the Venusian atmosphere to cast light on the water content of its interior. When they analysed the amount of substances being refilled, they found very little water was being added. In other words, volcanic eruptions are “dry”. “The shortage of water in volcanic release reflects an equally dry Venusian interior,” said Constantinou. The team announced that their findings did not support the theory that Venus had surface oceans of water in its past, or a habitable climate. Their conclusion could soon be tested. Later this decade, NASA is set to launch a mission to carry out fly-bys of Venus. Constantinou said resolving the question could help astronomers rule out Venus as a habitable planet now that the dry interior of Venus suggests it never has the oceans of liquid water traditionally thought necessary for life to begin. 30．What is the finding of the recent research? A．Venus is Earth’s identical twin. B．Venus sets the whole world apart. C．Venus was unlikely to sustain life. D．Venus was more habitable than thought. 31．What is paragraph 2 mainly talking about concerning the research? A．Its methods. B．Its procedures. C．Its potential impact. D．Its theoretical foundation. 32．How did Constantinou and his colleagues draw their conclusion? A．By analysing the changes of water content. B．By studying the properties of substances. C．By investigating the components of water. D．By examining the differences of volcanoes. 33．What can the finding be used to do according to Constantinou? A．Carry out more fly-bys. B．Identify upcoming threats. C．Conduct Venus observations. D．Narrow down astronomers’ search. 与之前两篇文章的详细对比 分析角度 C篇：拯救Mar Piccolo (环境新闻/案例研究) D篇：屏幕时间文章研究 (学术研究摘要) 本文：金星水源研究 文本类型 环境新闻 / 案例研究 学术研究摘要 学术研究摘要 核心焦点 解决一个具体的地方性环境问题 探索一个社会科学的传播规律 探索一个行星科学的起源问题 开头方式 叙事式：人物引语和场景 学术式：社会现象+研究问题 学术式：科学争议+研究问题 主角 人物（渔民、科学家）和地点 研究概念（变量、数据） 研究概念（行星、大气、岩浆）和研究者 结构驱动 故事驱动：问题->解决方案->评价 研究驱动：问题->方法->结果->发现 研究驱动：假设->方法->结果->结论 语言情感 富有感情（“dead”, “lifeblood”） 客观中立 客观中立，偶有生动比喻（“evil twin”） 数据呈现 定性为主，定量为辅 高度数据化与量化 理论推演与间接测量（通过大气变化推断内部成分） 结尾 人物引语，情感升华 事实陈述，客观收尾 展望未来验证（NASA任务），强调科学意义 结论： 本文与“D篇”的相同点：它们都遵循了“研究问题 -> 研究方法 -> 研究结果 -> 研究结论 -> 研究意义”的严谨逻辑链。 本文与“D篇”的细微差别：学科领域不同。文章二属于社会科学，依赖于大数据分析；而本文属于自然科学（行星科学），依赖于物理化学模型和间接观测数据的分析。然而，这种学科差异并不改变其作为“学术研究摘要”的根本文本类型。 因此，这篇文章是“学术研究摘要”在自然科学领域的一个优秀范例。它成功地將复杂的行星科学理论转化为普通读者可以理解的內容，同时保持了科学的严谨性。 限训27 Do you know which letter was the last one to be added to the English alphabet? Or what is the name of the galaxy that our planet Earth is part of? In 2009, Colin Camerer and his colleagues were among the first ones to study how our brains respond to trivia (琐事) questions like these, because they wanted to see what happens in our brains when we feel curious. To do this, they ran a brain imaging study that allowed researchers to see which brain regions are activated as people engage in mental activities like seeing, thinking, selecting, and so on. They found that for questions about which participants had reported high curiosity, parts of the brain typically associated with reward lit up. These areas usually light up when we are expecting that something good or rewarding is about to happen. Imagine how you feel just before watching a concert or a movie you’ve been eager to see. Next came the Reveal. When participants finally got the answers to the questions, the parts of their brains that are typically associated with memory and learning became active. Even more telling was that these areas were more strongly activated when the initial guess was incorrect than when it was correct. Simply put, what these findings suggest is that curiosity sets up an anticipation of a reward (for the correct answer), and once we receive the reward (the correct answer), the brain acts to consolidate (巩固) our memory so that we learn the correct answer. This learning is stronger if we have initially failed rather than succeeded. And such learning from failure is also stickier. Even after ten days, Camerer and colleagues found that participants could remember the correct answers to the questions they had initially guessed incorrectly, showing that failure can make us curious to learn the correct answer, and once we learn it, it sticks for longer as well. 17．Which aspect of the human brain does Colin Camerer’s study focus on? A．Its response to curiosity. B．Its state during learning. C．Its function development. D．Its development with age. 18．The brain’s reward system will be activated when ________. A．the imagination goes wild B．people engage in leisure activities C．anticipation levels increase D．people witness something good 19．According to the Reveal part, what may make our brains more eager to learn? A．Incorrect choices. B. A better reward. C．An active atmosphere. D．Confusing questions. 20．Which of the following books is the text most likely selected from? A．The Art from Trivia Questions B．Must-Have Abilities of Successful People C．Unsolved Mysteries in the World D．The Secrets to Being a Super Learner 与之前两篇文章的详细对比 特征 本文(好奇心研究) C篇(屏幕时间研究) D篇(贻贝修复) 核心类型 科普说明文 学术研究摘要 环境新闻/案例研究 结构驱动 逻辑驱动：按科学发现的内在逻辑阐述 研究驱动：按研究步骤组织 故事驱动：按事件发展叙事 首要目标 解释一个科学概念及其意义 呈现一项研究的数据和发现 报道一个事件及解决方案 语言特点 解释性、比喻性、普适性 客观、数据化、学术性 叙事性、情感化、地方性 相似度 N/A 非常高 (同属研究说明文) 中等 (同属说明文，但目的不同) 结论： 这篇文章最契合的类别是 “科学研究发现说明文” 。它与我们分析过的D篇文章（屏幕时间研究）同属一个大类，都是基于一项具体研究向读者传递科学知识。但它比D篇更侧重于对科学发现的解读和普及，因此更具 “科普” 性质。它可以看作是D篇的“兄弟篇”，一个侧重社会科学发现，一个侧重神经科学发现，但都属于向大众传播研究成果的优秀范例。 （题目来源：基于2021年北京市海淀区高三一模阅读理解C篇改编） The Struggle to Save a Dying Lake Lake Erie, once a thriving ecosystem, is now choking under the weight of pollution. For decades, agricultural runoff, carrying excessive fertilizers, has been flowing into the lake. This pollution fuels the growth of massive, toxic algae blooms that turn the water green, deplete oxygen, and create “dead zones” where aquatic life cannot survive. The commercial fishing industry, which once prospered here, has collapsed, mirroring the despair of local communities. In response, a team of environmental scientists has proposed an innovative solution: the large-scale cultivation of seaweed farms. “Seaweed is a powerful natural filter,” explains Dr. Lena Schmidt, the project's lead researcher. “Our pilot project has shown that these farms can effectively absorb excess nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus directly from the water, significantly improving water clarity and quality within a single growing season. The operating cost is a fraction of building new water treatment facilities.” However, not all experts are convinced. Dr. Ben Carter, a limnologist (湖沼学家), acknowledges the promise but urges caution. “While phytoremediation with seaweed is scientifically sound for small-scale applications, scaling it up to an entire Great Lake is a monumental challenge. The sheer size of Erie and the constant influx of new pollutants mean the process would need to be continuous and likely combined with stricter regulations on farm runoff to be truly effective in the long term.” Despite the skepticism, Dr. Schmidt remains determined. “We have to start somewhere. Doing nothing is not an option,” she argues. “This project is a crucial step forward. But ultimately, even the most successful remediation will be undone if we don't address the pollution at its source.” 1. What is the main problem facing Lake Erie? A. Overfishing has destroyed its ecological balance. B. Toxic algae blooms are killing aquatic life. C. Seaweed farms are depleting oxygen levels. D. Water treatment facilities are too expensive. 2. What is the proposed solution to the lake's problem? A. Placing strict bans on agricultural activities. B. Introducing new species to replace dead fish. C. Building advanced water treatment plants. D. Using seaweed to absorb harmful nutrients. 3. What is Dr. Ben Carter's primary concern regarding the solution? A. It is too expensive for the local government to afford. B. The seaweed might itself become an invasive species. C. It may not be sufficient for a lake of that size alone. D. The pilot project's data was inaccurate and unscientific. 4. Which of the following would Dr. Schmidt most likely agree with? A. The solution is perfect and will solve the problem completely. B. Technological innovation is the only way to address pollution. C. Remediation efforts must be paired with source control. D. The project should be abandoned due to its scale. 5. What is the author's main purpose in writing this article? A. To warn about the dangers of agricultural development. B. To report on an environmental problem and a potential solution. C. To criticize the government for its inaction. D. To promote the commercial benefits of seaweed farming. 答案：BDCB 本文符合“C篇”的类型特征： 主题高度一致：都是关于环境污染及其生态经济影响。 文章结构完全相同： 第一部分（问题描述）：都以一个具体的人物或场景引入，生动描述环境问题及其对当地社区和传统行业的沉重打击。 第二部分（解决方案）：都引入科学家团队及其试点项目，阐述技术原理、优势（如成本低、有效）。 第三部分（争议与局限）：都引用另一位专家的观点，对解决方案的局限性（如规模、时间）提出谨慎看法，并强调需要综合方法。 第四部分（坚定态度与深层呼吁）：项目领导者都保持坚定态度，并最终指出根本在于切断污染源。 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $