阅读理解86-北京市部分地区近两年（2024-2025）高二英语期末真题汇编

1 阅读理解-阅读单选86 试题基本信息 。题型：阅读理解-阅读单选（约490词) 。 核心知识点：社会问题与社会现象、议论文、当代教育问题 。考查重点：作者态度、细节理解、词义猜测、主旨归纳 材料剖析 ·文章主题：研究评估中的清晰度问题，批判当前评估标准的模糊性，呼吁明确标准。 。结构分析： 一第一段：引出研究评估中清晰度的重要性，指出当前评估标准存在模糊性问题。 一第二段：分析模糊语言的负面影响，如误解和不公，以哈勃望远镜项目为例。 一第三段：强调概念清晰度是改善公平的首要因素，提出通过对话制定标准。 第四段：回应管理者对灵活语言的依赖，指出需平衡具体化与包容性，并强调制定明 确标准的必要性。 阅读理解短文 The need for clarity extends beyond how we communicate science to how we evaluate it.Who can really define stock phrases such as'a significant contribution to research'?Or understand what high impact'or 'world-class'mean?Scientists demand that institutions should be clear about their criteria and consider all scholarly outputs-preprints,code,data,peer review,teaching,mentoring and so on.My view about the practices in research assessment is that most assessment guidelines permit sliding standards:instead of clearly defined terms,they give us feel-good slogans that lack any fixed meaning.Facing the problem will get us much of the way towards a solution.Broad language increases room for misunderstanding.High impact'can be code for where research is published.Or it can mean the effect that research has had on its field,or on society locally or globally -often very different things.Yet confusion is the least of the problems.Words such as 'world-class' and excellent'allow assessors to vary comparisons depending on whose work they are assessing. Academia()cannot be a fair and reasonable system if standards change depending on whom we are evaluating.Unconscious bias()associated with factors such as a researcher's gender, ethnic origin and social background helps the academic injustice continue.It was only with double- blind review of research proposals that women finally got fair access to the Hubble Space Telescope. Many strategies exist to improve fairness in academia,but conceptual clarity is paramount.Being clear about how specific qualities are valued leads assessors to think critically about whether those qualities are truly being considered.Achieving that conceptual clarity requires discussion with 2 faculties,staff and students:hours and hours of it.The University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands,for example,held a series of conversations,each involving 20-60 researchers,and then spent another year revising its research assessment policies to recognize social impacts.Frank conversations about what is valued in a particular context,or at a specific institution,are an essential first step in developing concrete recommendations.Although ambiguous(模棱两可的) terms,for instance 'world-class'and 'significant',are a barrier when performing assessments, university administrators have said that they rely on flexible language to make room to reward a variety of contributions.So it makes sense that more specific language in review and promotion must be able to accommodate varied outputs,outcomes and impacts of scholarly work.Setting specific standards will be tough.It will be inviting to fall back on the misleading standards such as impact factors,or on ambiguous terms that can be agreed to by everyone but applied wisely by no one.It is too early to know what those standards will be or how much they will vary,but the right discussions are starting to happen.They must continue. 题目选项列表 31.Regarding the current practices in research assessment,the author is A.supportive B.puzzled C.unconcerned D.disapproving 32.What can we learn from this passage? A.Bias on assessors can cause inequality. B.Frank conversations harm scholarly work. C.Specific qualities need to be clearly stated. D.Broad language ensures academic fairness. 33.What does the word "paramount"underlined in Para.4 most probably mean? A.primary.B.recognized.C.optional.D.accomplished. 34.Which would be the best title for the passage? A.Fix research assessment.Change slogans for clear standards. B.Fix research assessment.Change evaluations for conversations. C.Define research assessment.Change simplicity for specification D.Define research assessment.Change broad language for flexible one. 3 核心词汇详解 1.clarity 核心词性 名词(，高频核心)：清晰；清楚（指思维、表达或视觉等方面的明晰度） 常用搭配：clarity of thought(思维清晰)、lack clarity(缺乏清晰度) 词性转换 形容词：clear(清晰的；清楚的) 动词：clarify(澄清；阐明) 副词：clearly(清晰地；明显地) 高频搭配 clarity of communication(沟通的清晰度)、gain clarity(获得清晰认识)、 with clarity(清晰地)、lack of clarity(缺乏清晰度) 易混辨析 clarity vs clearness:clarity更抽象，侧重“逻辑、思路或概念上的明晰”； clearness侧重“视觉、听觉等感官上的清楚” 2.criteria 核心词性 名词(n,高频核心)：标准；准则(criterion的复数形式) 常用搭配：meet the criteria(符合标准)、evaluation criteria(评估标准) 词性转换 单数形式：criterion(单数)标准；准则) 形容词：critical(关键的：批判的) 副词：critically(批判地；关键地) 高频搭配 selection criteria(选拔标准)、judging criteria(评判标准)、establish criteria (制定标准)、meet strict criteria(符合严格标准) 易混辨析 criteria vs standard:criteria侧重“用于判断、评估的具体准则”，多为 复数；standard含义更广，指“普遍认可的标准、水平” 3.scholarly 核心词性 形容词(adj,高频核心)：学术的：学术性的；博学的；有学问的 常用搭配：scholarly research(学术研究)、a scholarly professor(博学的教 授) 词性转换 名词：scholar(学者；奖学金获得者) 名词：scholarship(奖学金；学术研究) 副词：scholarly(学术上地；博学地) 高频搭配 scholarly work(学术著作)、scholarly output(学术成果)、scholarly journal (学术期刊)、scholarly approach(学术方法) 易混辨析 scholarly vs academic:scholarly侧重“学者的、学术性的（强调严谨 性)”；academic侧重“与学校、教育相关的学术”，范围更厂 4.ambiguous 核心词性 形容词(adj.,高频核心)：模棱两可的；含糊不清的（指语言、含义等不明 确) 常用搭配：ambiguous terms(模棱两可的术语)、ambiguous statement(含 糊的陈述) 词性转换 名词：ambiguity（含糊；歧义) 副词：ambiguously（含糊地；模棱两可地) 反义词：unambiguous(明确的；清晰的) 高频搭配 ambiguous meaning(含糊的意思)、remain ambiguous(仍然含糊不清)、 ambiguous language(模棱两可的语言)、ambiguous situation(模糊的局势) 易混辨析 ambiguous vs vague:ambiguous侧重“有多种可能的解释，导致理解混 乱”；vague侧重“内容不具体、不清晰，缺乏细节” 5.paramount 核心词性 形容词(adj,高频核心)：最重要的；首要的（强调在众多事物中处于最高 地位) 常用搭配：be paramount(至关重要)、paramount importance(头等重要) 词性转换 副词：paramountly(最重要地；首要地) 名词：paramountcy(最高地位；至上) 高频搭配 of paramount importance(至关重要的)、consider sth.paramount(认为某 事最重要)、safety is paramount(安全第一) 易混辨析 paramount vs primary:paramount语气更强，强调“超越其他一切的 最重要”；primary侧重“在顺序或重要性上排在第一位” paramount vs dominant:paramount强调“重要性上的首要”；dominant 侧重“力量或影响力上的主导” 6.accommodate 核心词性 动词(v,高频核心)：容纳：接纳；适应：迁就：顾及：考虑到 常用搭配：accommodate500 people(容纳500人)、accommodate changes (适应变化) 词性转换 名词：accommodation(住宿；膳宿) 形容词：accommodating(乐于助人的；随和的) 高频搭配 accommodate to sth.(适应某事)、accommodate sb.with sth.(为某人提 供某物)、accommodate different views(顾及不同观点)、be accommodated in(被安置在…) 易混辨析 accommodate vs adapt:accommodate侧重“调整自身或事物以适应外 部需求”；adapt侧重“通过改变自身习惯、方式来适应新环境” 5 答案与逐题解析 正确答案：31-34DCAA 31.D (disapproving) 考点：作者态度推断 语境逻辑：第一段明确指出“most assessment guidelines permit sliding standards::instead of clearly defined terms,,they give us feel--good slogans that lack any fixed meaning”,即用模糊的 口号代替明确定义的标准，可见作者对当前评估实践持否定态度。 选项辨析：A.supportive(支持的)与原文否定态度相悖；B.puzzled(困惑的)强调不理解， 而作者是明确批判：C.unconcerned(不关心的)与文中“Facing the problem will get us much of the way towards a solution”的积极讨论矛盾；D.disapproving(不赞成的)符合“sliding standards'”“lack fixed meaning”等负面评价。 32.C (Specific qualities need to be clearly stated.) 考点：细节理解与推理 语境逻辑：第四段“Being clear about how specific qualities are valued leads assessors to think critically about whether those qualities are truly being considered”明确指出需清晰说明特定品 质的价值标准。 选项辨析：A.原文是“Unconscious bias..helps the academic injustice continue”,强调偏见 导致不公，而非“assessors can cause inequality'”(评估者本身导致不平等)，偷换概念；B.第 五段“Frank conversations..are an essential first step”说明坦诚对话有益，“harm”与原文 矛盾；D.第三段“Broad language increases room for misunderstanding”表明宽泛语言损害公 平，“ensures”与原文相反。 33.A(primary..） 考点：词义猜测 语境逻辑：前文指出模糊术语导致不公，“Many strategies exist to improve fairness..but conceptual clarity is paramount”中“but”转折强调概念清晰的重要性，后文“Being clear about..leads assessors to think critically”进一步说明其核心地位。 选项辨析：A.primary(首要的)符合“核心重要”的语境；B.recognized(被认可的)仅强调 状态，无重要性层级；C.optional(可选的)与“必须具备”的逻辑矛盾：D.accomplished(完 成的)描述动作结果，与语境不符。 34.A (Fix research assessment.Change slogans for clear standards.) 考点：主旨归纳 语境逻辑：全文批判当前评估中模糊口号（如“world-class”“significant'”)的问题，呼吁用 清晰标准替代，首段“instead of clearly defined terms,.they give us feel-good slogans'”和末段 “Setting specific standards will be tough”点明核心。 选项辨析：B.“Change evaluations for conversations'”将“对话”作为目标，而原文“conver- sations”是制定标准的手段，非核心；C.“Define research assessment”偏离重点，文章并非定 义评估本身，而是改进评估标准；D.“Change broad language for flexible one”与末段“more specific language.must be able to accommodate varied outputs”矛盾，作者反对“flexible language”而主张“specific standards”,