题型05 阅读理解之议论文（解题技巧+题型专练）（北京高考真题+各区模拟）（北京专用）2026年高考英语二轮复习讲练测

目录 I. 考情透视 1 II.解题技巧 2 III. 真题汇编 2 2025东城期末 2 2025西城期末 4 2025朝阳期末 7 2025海淀期末 9 2025丰台期末 12 2025石景山期末 15 2025东城一模 18 2025西城一模 21 2025朝阳一模 24 2025海淀一模 27 2025丰台一模 30 2025石景山一模 33 2025 东城二模 35 2025 西城二模 38 2025 朝阳二模 40 2025 海淀二模 42 2025 丰台二模 44 I. 考情透视 1. 语篇特点 · 语篇结构：提出问题 → 分析问题 → 解决问题 · 内容特点 · 题材：涉及社会、科技、文化、环境等多个领域 · 观点：可能包含不同的观点和立场 · 能力要求：需要对多话题具备基础认知与理解能力；需辨别作者观点和论据，理解论证方式 · 语言特点：可能出现复杂句子结构与高级词汇；需要具备长难句理解能力 2. 命题维度 从近年高考真题来看，议论文语篇主要考查推理判断题（含观点态度题）、推测词义题、主旨要义题、细节理解题，常见设问方式如下： ① 推理判断题：基于细节信息的逻辑推断，常见设问： · “What can we learn/infer from this passage?” · “What can be inferred about…from the passage?” 其中观点态度题考查作者对讨论对象的态度（支持/反对/中立等），常见设问： · “As for/Regarding…, the author is ______.” · “What is the author’s attitude to/towards…?” · “What does the author think of…?” ② 推测词义题：依托语篇逻辑（段落间宏观逻辑+句间微观逻辑）解题，常见设问： · “What does the underlined word…probably mean?” ③ 主旨要义题：考查文章/段落的主题、标题或主旨大意，常见设问： · “Which would be the best title for the passage?” · “What is the main idea of Paragraph 1?” · “What are the first two paragraphs mainly about?” ④ 细节理解题：常见设问： · “What leads to…?” II.解题技巧 1. 观点态度推断题 · ① 客观中立类词汇（如objective、neutral）常为正确选项；作者态度多为肯定支持（如approving、supporting）或否定反对（如negative、disapproving）。 · ② 作者提出观点并论证，态度一般不会是indifferent（冷漠的）或uninterested（不感兴趣的）。 · ③ 可通过词语褒贬性判断态度，如褒义：wonderfully、successfully；贬义：negatively、doubtfully。 · ④ 区分作者与他人观点：文中引用的观点是论据，作者观点通常与主旨关联。 2. 细节信息推断题 属于高层次推理题，解题关键： · 从整体把握语篇，在表面意义与隐含意义、已知信息与未知信息间建立关联。 · 技巧一：明确语篇主旨，若找不到主旨句，需定位主旨词（高频词或题干关键词）。 3. 推测词义题 （注：图片该部分仅显示标题，需结合语篇逻辑解题） 4. 主旨要义题 分为“归纳主旨”和“提炼标题”两类，解题核心： · 抓住主题句：语篇主题句常出现在开头（揭示主旨）或结尾（归纳观点）；部分文章主旨贯穿全文，需通过段落大意与整体逻辑概括。 · 避免以偏概全：不能将段落主题或细节当作全文主旨。 III. 真题汇编 2025东城期末 D The age of artificial intelligence has begun, and it brings plenty of anxieties. Almost all of the conversations about risk have to do with the potential consequences of AI systems pursuing goals that depart from what they were programmed to do and that are not in the interests of humans. But this is only one side of the danger. Imagine what could unfold if AI does do what humans want. “What humans want,” of course, isn’t a monolith. Different people have countless ideas of what constitutes “the greater good.” Even if we could get everyone to focus on the well-being of the entire human species, it’s unlikely we’d be able to agree on what that might look like. That seems to be the reason that DeepMind recently founded an internal organization focused on AI safety and preventing its manipulation by bad actors. But it’s not ideal that what’s “bad” is going to be determined by a handful of individuals at this one particular corporation — complete with their blind spots and personal and cultural biases (偏见). The potential problem goes beyond humans harming other humans. What’s “good” for humanity has, many times throughout history, come at the expense of other sentient (有知觉力的) beings. Such is the situation today. In the US alone, we have billions of animals kept in confinement, subjected to cruel treatment, and denial of their basic psychological and physiological needs at any given time. Entire species are dominated and systemically butchered so that we can have omelets, burgers and shoes. If AI does exactly what “we” want it to, that would likely mean enacting this mass cruelty more efficiently, at an even greater scale and with more automation and fewer opportunities for sympathetic humans to step in and flag anything particularly horrifying. A better goal than aligning AI with humanity’ s immediate interests would be what I would call “sentient alignment” — AI acting in accordance with the interests of all sentient beings, including humans, all other animals and, should it exist, sentient AI. This will strike some as aggressive, because what’s good for all sentient life might not always agree with what’s good for humankind. It might sometimes, even often, be in opposition to what humans want or what would be best for the greatest number of us. Peter Singer, a philosopher, argued that an AI system’s ultimate goals and priorities are more important than it being aligned with humans. “The question is really whether this super intelligent AI is going to be benevolent and want to produce a better world,” Singer said, “and even if we don’t control it, it still will produce a better world in which our interests will get taken into account.” I’m with Singer on this. Decentering humankind to any extent, and especially to this extreme, is an idea that will challenge people. But that’s necessary if we’re to prevent our current belief from spreading in new and awful ways. 31. The author mentions the organization founded by DeepMind to __________. A. question a solution B. clarify a belief C. illustrate an example D. explain a practice 32. Which of the following can best present the idea of “sentient alignment”? A. AI extends the same rights to living beings. B. AI promotes the interaction among species. C. AI benefits from the development of humans. D. AI meets the demands of perceptive creatures. 33. What does the underlined word “benevolent” in Paragraph 7 probably mean? A. Ambitious. B. Generous. C. Resourceful. D. Competitive. 34. The author’s major concern in developing AI is that __________. A. AI poses a threat to the world B. society’s morals are in decline C. humans prioritize their own needs D. sentient beings deepen cultural biases 【答案】31. A 32. D 33. B 34. C 核心主题 AI时代存在双重风险，除了AI偏离人类编程目标，更危险的是AI精准执行人类需求时，因人类利益的排他性对其他有知觉生物造成伤害，进而提出“感知对齐”的解决方案。 段落结构 引出话题：AI焦虑的常见视角是AI偏离目标，转折提出核心风险——AI按人类意愿行事。 铺垫矛盾：“人类需求”并非统一整体，甚至常以牺牲其他有知觉生物为代价。 质疑现有方案：DeepMind成立AI安全组织，但“坏”的定义由少数人决定，存在偏见与局限。 例证危害：美国数十亿动物遭受残忍对待，AI会让这种残忍更高效、大规模地发生。 提出解决方案：“感知对齐”即AI需兼顾人类、其他动物及潜在感知AI等所有有知觉生物的利益。 引用支持：哲学家Peter Singer认为AI的终极善意目标比“对齐人类”更重要。 总结立场：支持“去人类中心主义”，这是避免现有偏见扩散的必要选择。 题目答案及解析 31. 答案：A。解析：作者提到DeepMind的组织，并非肯定其作用，而是指出“由少数人定义‘坏’”的局限性，本质是质疑该解决方案，而非澄清信念、举例说明或解释做法。 32. 答案：D。解析：“感知对齐”的核心是“AI符合所有有知觉生物的利益”，“满足有感知生物的需求”精准对应这一概念，其他选项均与定义无关。 33. 答案：B。解析：结合上下文，Singer强调AI需“benevolent”并“创造更美好世界”，该词应译为“仁慈的、慷慨的”，与Generous含义一致。 34. 答案：C。解析：作者核心担忧是人类优先自身需求，这种自私会被AI放大，伤害其他有知觉生物，其他选项均非核心担忧。 2025西城期末 D In the early 1900s, an American chemist named Harvey W. Wiley led the famous “Poison Squad” experiment. His studies revealed the dangers of unregulated (未经监管的) food additives and raised public awareness about the importance of knowing what was in the food they consumed. However, it wasn’t until nearly 90 years later that companies in the U. S. began disclosing the ingredients inside the boxes, cans, and bags that lined grocery store shelves. Fast-forward to today, and it’s hard to imagine walking through a supermarket without seeing these labels. Yet, when we surf the Internet — another essential marketplace in our lives — we often absorb vast amounts of digital information without any understanding of its emotional or mental “nutritional value.” But what if every webpage came with a content label? A study we conducted, published today in Nature Human Behavior, revealed that individuals with poorer mental health tended to seek out more negative and frightening content online. This, in turn, worsened their symptoms, creating a destructive cycle. To break this cycle, we introduced content labels that provided users with emotional “nutrition information” about the websites they were about to visit. Would this webpage make you feel better or worse? Was it full of negativity, or was it likely to brighten your mood? When users were shown these labels on the search engine results page, they were far less likely to click on negative content. As a result, this led to improved mood after browsing (浏览). However, it’s important to note that you wouldn’t want people to make decisions solely based on the emotional tone of a website. Staying informed about the world — despite the potential for sadness or anxiety — is often essential. To address this, we developed a plugin that provides users with not only labels about a website’s emotional tone but also scores indicating the practicality, helpfulness, and ability of the information to enhance understanding. These scores, displayed on the search engine results page, are calculated using a machine learning algorithm (运算法则) trained on thousands of human assessments. Anne-Linda Camerini, a researcher specializing in digital media and mental health, pointed out that while much of the focus on mental health and technology has been on limiting screen time, the type of content we consume is just as critical. This shift could transform the conversation around mental health and technology. Instead of framing the Internet as inherently harmful, content labels offer a way to create a healthier digital experience. Just as nutrition labels empower people to make better food choices, content labels could enable users to make smarter, healthier decisions online. 32. What does the author intend to do by mentioning Harvey’s studies? A. Make a comparison. B. Illustrate a point. C. Suggest an alternative. D. Challenge an assumption. 33. According to the passage, how do content labels aim to create a healthier digital experience? A. By encouraging users to avoid the Internet altogether. B. By showing emotional tone and website usefulness. C. By training users to spend less time online. D. By restricting access to negative content. 34. What is the purpose of this passage? A. To stress the necessity of categorizing webpages. B To suggest new solutions to mental health problems. C. To criticize social media sites for spreading negativity. D. To highlight the importance of regulating online content. 【答案】32. B 33. B 34. A 核心主题 类比食品标签，提出“网络内容情感标签”方案，解决“负面内容→心理健康恶化”的恶性循环，同时兼顾内容的实用性与信息价值。 段落结构 类比铺垫：Harvey的食品添加剂研究推动食品标签普及，转折提出疑问——网络内容为何没有“情感营养标签”？ 研究发现：心理健康较差者易沉迷负面内容，形成恶性循环；情感标签能减少负面内容点击，改善浏览情绪。 优化方案：标签需同时包含“情感基调”与“实用性/帮助性/理解度评分”，避免单纯排斥负面信息。 专家观点：数字媒体专家指出，内容类型对心理健康的影响不亚于屏幕时间，标签能打造更健康的数字体验。 总结：内容标签如营养标签，赋能用户做出更明智的网络选择。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第一段“In the early 1900s, an American chemist named Harvey W. Wiley led the famous “Poison Squad” experiment. His studies revealed the dangers of unregulated (未经监管) food additives and raised public awareness about the importance of knowing what was in the food they consumed. However, it wasn’t until nearly 90 years later that companies in the U. S. began disclosing the ingredients inside the boxes, cans, and bags that lined grocery store shelves.(20世纪初，一位名叫Harvey W. Wiley的美国化学家领导了著名的“毒药小队”实验。他的研究揭示了不受管制的食品添加剂的危险，并提高了公众对了解他们所食用的食品中含有什么的重要性的认识。然而，直到近90年后，美国的公司才开始披露杂货店货架上的盒子、罐子和袋子里的成分)”以及第二段“Fast-forward to today, and it’s hard to imagine walking through a supermarket without seeing these labels. Yet, when we surf the Internet — another essential marketplace in our lives — we often absorb vast amounts of digital information without any understanding of its emotional or mental “nutritional value.” But what if every webpage came with a content label?(快进到今天，很难想象在超市里看不到这些标签。然而，当我们上网时——我们生活中另一个重要的市场，我们经常吸收大量的数字信息，却不了解其情感或精神上的“营养价值”。但是如果每个网页都有一个内容标签呢？)”可知，作者提到哈维的研究是为了说明论点。故选B。 【33题详解】 细节理解题。根据倒数第二段“However, it’s important to note that you wouldn’t want people to make decisions solely based on the emotional tone of a website. Staying informed about the world — despite the potential for sadness or anxiety — is often essential. To address this, we developed a plugin that provides users with not only labels about a website’s emotional tone but also scores indicating the practicality, helpfulness, and ability of the information to enhance understanding.(然而，重要的是要注意，你不希望人们仅仅根据网站的情感基调来做决定。保持对世界的了解——尽管可能会感到悲伤或焦虑——通常是必不可少的。为了解决这个问题，我们开发了一个插件，它不仅可以为用户提供关于网站情感基调的标签，还可以为用户提供分数，表明信息的实用性、有用性和能力，以增强他们的理解)”可知，内容标签通过展示情感基调和网站有用性创造更健康的数字体验。故选B。 【34题详解】 推理判断题。根据第二段“Yet, when we surf the Internet — another essential marketplace in our lives — we often absorb vast amounts of digital information without any understanding of its emotional or mental “nutritional value.” But what if every webpage came with a content label?(然而，当我们上网时——我们生活中另一个重要的市场，我们经常吸收大量的数字信息，却不了解其情感或精神上的“营养价值”。但是如果每个网页都有一个内容标签呢？)”结合文章主要说明了网站内容标签的作用以及重要性。可知，这篇文章的目的是强调网页分类的必要性。故选A。 2025朝阳期末 D Pure mathematics fascinates me, precisely because it is so inaccessible. I envision it as a remote, chilly, dangerous place, like Antarctica’s Sentinel Range. The hard y souls who surmount its peaks seem superhuman. Perhaps because I romanticize mathematicians, I’m troubled by the thought that machines might replace them. I stated this possibility in The Death of Proof, published in the October 1993 Scientific American. In response to the growing complexity of mathematics, I reported, mathematicians were becoming increasingly reliant on computers. I asked, “Will the great mathematicians of the next century be made of silicon (硅)?” Mathematicians are still annoyed about that article, even as the trends I described have continued. Anthony Bordg at Cambridge University worries that his field could face a “replication crisis” (复制危机) like that troubling scientific research. Mathematicians, Bordg notes, sometimes accept a proof not because they have checked it, step by step, but because they trust the proof’s methods and author. Given the “increasing difficulty in checking the correctness of mathematical arguments”, old-fashioned peer review may no longer be sufficient. Outstanding mathematicians have published “proofs” so novel and elaborate that even specialists in the relevant mathematics can’t validate them. Bordg suggests computerized “proof assistants ” will help confirm proofs. Researchers have already invented an “interactive theorem prover (交互式定理证明程序)” that can check proofs and even propose improvements. Some mathematicians welcome the digitization of mathematics for accuracy. Others are conflicted. Michael Harris sees mathematics as “a free, creative activity” pursued for its own sake, for the pure joy of discovery and insight. He worries such tools will encourage a “limited vision” of mathematics as an economic product rather than “a way of being human”. After all, many funders of mathematical research, including technology giants, value mathematics primarily for its applications. We value science for applications, too. Sentimental science writing, including mine, implies that science’s purpose is insight into nature. In the modern era, however, science’s primary goal is power. Science helps us control nature for various ends: to enrich and entertain, to boost economy, and to defeat enemies. Modern physics, to most of us, is incomprehensible, but who cares when physics gives us smartphones and hydrogen bombs? Physicists often adopt a utilitarian (实用主义的) mindset, exemplified by the slogan “Shut up and calculate!” That is what professors supposedly tell students stuck in quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees have predicted artificial intelligence will play an increasing role in physics. Wouldn’t it be funny if a quantum AI finds the long-sought unified theory of physics, but not even brilliant theorist Edward Witten understands it? Given the powerful forces behind automatization if machines can replace mathematicians, they probably will, just as they are replacing drivers, bank tellers, travel agents, cashiers and other workers. Mathematicians’ wishes, such as their desire to pursue truth purely for its own sake, might be unlikely. The charm of math can hardly be preserved in face of the powerful forces behind automatization. 32. “Replication crisis” is mentioned to _________. A. reduce a particular concern B. justify the use of digital assistants C. question the role of authority in math D. highlight the potential threat of machines 33. Advocates of utilitarianism in science would probably agree that _________. A. insight into nature is a priority B. automatization is a major trend C. quantum AI remains a fantasy D. power is an approach to digitization 34. What can be learned from this passage? A. Utilitarian mindset pushes physics forward. B. Quantum mechanics unifies theories of physics. C. The humanity of mathematics is hard to maintain. D. Leading mathematicians’ proofs are beyond understanding. 【答案】32. B 33. B 34. C 核心主题 纯数学的数字化趋势引发争议，机器（证明辅助工具）可能取代人类数学家，而数学的“人文性”（创造性、纯粹探索欲）面临实用主义的冲击。 段落结构 个人情感：作者对纯数学的浪漫化想象，视数学家为“超人”。 核心担忧：机器可能取代数学家，呼应1993年《证明的死亡》中的预测。 现实问题：数学证明日益复杂，传统同行评审失效，面临“复制危机”，数字辅助工具应运而生。 数学家分歧：部分人认可数字化的准确性，部分人担忧其将数学简化为“经济产品”，丧失人文性。 延伸对比：科学的实用主义趋势，暗示数学可能重蹈覆辙。 预测结论：自动化力量强大，机器大概率取代数学家，数学的魅力难以维系。 题目答案及解析 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第三段“Anthony Bordg at Cambridge University worries that his field could face a “replication crisis” (复制危机) like that troubling scientific research. Mathematicians, Bordg notes, sometimes accept a proof not because they have checked it, step by step, but because they trust the proof’s methods and author. Given the “increasing difficulty in checking the correctness of mathematical arguments”, old-fashioned peer review may no longer be sufficient. Outstanding mathematicians have published “proofs” so novel and elaborate that even specialists in the relevant mathematics can’t validate them. Bordg suggests computerized “proof assistants ” will help confirm proofs. Researchers have already invented an “interactive theorem prover (交互式定理证明程序)” that can check proofs and even propose improvements.(剑桥大学的Anthony Bordg担心，他的研究领域可能会面临像困扰科学研究那样的“复制危机”。博格指出，数学家有时接受一个证明，并不是因为他们已经一步一步地检验了它，而是因为他们信任这个证明的方法和作者。考虑到“检验数学论证正确性的难度越来越大”，老式的同行评议可能不再足够。杰出的数学家发表的“证明”是如此新颖和详尽，以至于连相关数学领域的专家都无法证实它们。Bordg建议计算机化的“证明助手”将帮助确认证据。研究人员已经发明了一种“交互式定理证明程序”，可以检查证明，甚至提出改进建议)”可知，提到“复制危机”是为了证明使用数字助理的合理性。故选B。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据倒数第二段“Physicists often adopt a utilitarian (实用主义的) mindset, exemplified by the slogan “Shut up and calculate!” That is what professors supposedly tell students stuck in quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees have predicted artificial intelligence will play an increasing role in physics. (物理学家常常抱着实用主义的心态，他们的口号就是“闭嘴，计算！”这应该是教授们对被量子力学困住的学生们说的话。斯蒂芬·霍金和马丁·里斯预测，人工智能将在物理学中发挥越来越大的作用)”可知，像斯蒂芬·霍金和马丁·里斯的科学实用主义的倡导者预测人工智能将在物理学中发挥越来越大的作用，他们可能会同意自动化是一个主要趋势。故选B。 【34题详解】 推理判断题。根据最后一段“Given the powerful forces behind automatization, if machines can replace mathematicians, they probably will, just as they are replacing drivers, bank tellers, travel agents, cashiers and other workers. Mathematicians’ wishes, such as their desire to pursue truth purely for its own sake, might be unlikely. The charm of math can hardly be preserved in face of the powerful forces behind automatization.(考虑到自动化背后的强大力量，如果机器能够取代数学家，它们很可能会取代数学家，就像它们正在取代司机、银行柜员、旅行社、收银员和其他工人一样。数学家们的愿望，比如纯粹为了追求真理而追求真理的愿望，可能不太可能实现。面对自动化背后的强大力量，数学的魅力很难保持)”可知，机器可能会取代数学家，数学家们纯粹为了追求真理而追求真理的愿望可能不太可能实现，数学的人性化很难维持。故选C。 2025海淀期末 D Crucial systems across the world collapsed on Friday, triggered by one mistake in a single company. The power cut of CrowdStrike, a giant in the cybersecurity industry, hit banks, airlines, and health-care systems. It may end up being the worst information technology disaster in history. This was not, however, an unforeseeable freak accident, nor will it be the last of its kind. Instead, the devastation was the inevitable outcome of modern social systems that have been designed for hyperconnected optimization (优化), not decentralized resilience. There is often a trade-off between maximum optimization and resilience. Consider a basic prehistorical social system in which many humans lived in small, isolated bands. What any single person did would have little to no effect on those living elsewhere. It was an inefficient, basic system — but if one part of the human system failed, few others were affected. Throughout our advancement as a species, from building empires to building machines, social systems have evolved to be more connected and centralized. In the 21st century, the combination of globalization and digitization has created a landscape characterized by the threat of catastrophic, immediate risk. Globalization enables large efficiency gains, where a product can be put together from carefully managed links in the global supply chain. But those systems lack resilience. Every link must fit together perfectly; the system falls apart if even one chain breaks. Centuries ago, the philosopher David Hume wrote that we can never be certain that the patterns of the past will remain the patterns of the future. This is especially true in the 21st century as we are betting more and more of our world on unstable systems. Can we really trust our species to flawlessly govern unimaginably complex systems — systems we don’t always fully understand — that can be brought down by a single screw-up? Modern societies have discounted the cost of that risk because our current reward systems favor optimization over resilience. CEOs try to deliver short-term improvements, not long-term planning. Nobody gets reelected by investing in a rainy-day fund. Business leaders are hired or fired based on quarterly results. Even though the modern quest for optimization has too often made resilience an afterthought, it is not inevitable that we continue down the risky path we’re on. And making our systems more resilient doesn’t require going back to a disconnected, primitive world, either. Instead, our complex, interconnected societies simply demand that we compromise a bit of efficiency in order to allow a little extra cushion (缓冲). If social systems rely on a more diverse digital array of companies, the societies will be less vulnerable (脆弱的). For the broader set of risks facing global society, better regulation is essential to ensure fail-safes, backups, and stress testing — so that one error doesn’t bring down entire systems. The CrowdStrike breakdown is a clear warming that the modern world is fragile by design. So far, we have decided to make ourselves vulnerable. That means we can decide differently too. 31. The author mentions the CrowdStrike mainly to ______. A. highlight its crucial role in cybersecurity B. introduce an information technology collapse C. explain why people are in a connected system D. indicate predictable failures of the modern system 32. What can be inferred about a more globalized system? A. It leads to a highly advanced digitalized network. B. It tends to prioritize adaptability over productivity. C. It enlarges the impact of local errors to a global scale. D. It guarantees immediate economic rewards for participants. 33. As for the future of social systems, which would the author agree with? A. The more disconnected they are, the more resilient they will be. B. Some efficiency should be sacrificed for more flexibility. C. Long-term planning prevents structural breakdowns. D. History can help people predict future patterns. 34. Which would be the best title for this passage? A. Hyperconnectivity: The Price of Perfection B. A Wakeful Warning: The Lesson from CrowdStrike C. System Collapse: An Inevitable Technology Disaster D. Resilience vs. Optimization: A Debate for Better Systems 【答案】31. D 32. C 33. B 34. B 核心主题 现代社会系统追求“超连接优化”，牺牲了“去中心化韧性”，导致局部错误引发全局崩溃（以CrowdStrike事件为例），呼吁在效率与韧性间寻求平衡。 段落结构 事件引入：CrowdStrike的一个错误导致全球关键系统崩溃，暗示这不是偶然。 核心矛盾：优化与韧性的权衡——原始系统低效但韧性强，现代系统高效但脆弱。 趋势分析：全球化+数字化加剧脆弱性，供应链环环相扣，任一环节断裂即引发崩溃。 深层质疑：人类无法完美掌控复杂系统，却将世界赌注于不稳定的优化模式。 根源分析：奖励机制偏爱短期优化，忽视长期韧性。 解决方案：牺牲少量效率换取缓冲，如多元化数字供应商、加强监管。 题目答案及解析 【31题详解】 推理判断题。根据第一段“Crucial systems across the world collapsed on Friday, triggered by one mistake in a single company. The power cut of CrowdStrike, a giant in the cybersecurity industry, hit banks, airlines, and health-care systems. It may end up being the worst information technology disaster in history.(周五，全球关键系统崩溃，起因是一家公司的一个失误。网络安全行业巨头 CrowdStrike 的停电影响了银行、航空公司和医疗保健系统。这可能最终成为历史上最严重的信息技术灾难。)”以及第二段“This was not, however, an unforeseeable freak accident, nor will it be the last of its kind. Instead, the devastation was the inevitable outcome of modern social systems that have been designed for hyperconnected optimization, not decentralized resilience.(然而，这并非一场不可预见的怪异事故，也不会是此类事故中的最后一次。相反，这场灾难是现代社会系统的必然结果，这些系统是为超连接优化而设计的，而非分散式弹性设计。)”可知，作者提及CrowdStrike 事件主要是为了表明现代系统存在可预见的故障。故选D项。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第四段“Globalization enables large efficiency gains, where a product can be put together from carefully managed links in the global supply chain. But those systems lack resilience. Every link must fit together perfectly; the system falls apart if even one chain breaks.(全球化带来了巨大的效率提升，产品可以由全球供应链中精心管理的环节组装而成。但这些系统缺乏弹性。每个环节都必须完美配合；哪怕只有一个环节出问题，整个系统就会崩溃。)”可知，全球化使得系统缺乏弹性，一个环节出错就可能导致整个系统崩溃，可推断出全球化的系统会将局部错误的影响扩大到全球范围。故选C项。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据倒数第二段“Even though the modern quest for optimization has too often made resilience an afterthought, it is not inevitable that we continue down the risky path we’re on. And making our systems more resilient doesn’t require going back to a disconnected, primitive world, either. Instead, our complex, interconnected societies simply demand that we compromise a bit of efficiency in order to allow a little extra cushion.(尽管现代对优化的追求常常将弹性置于次要地位，但我们并非必然要继续走这条危险的道路。而且，使我们的系统更具弹性也不需要回到一个脱节的、原始的世界。相反，我们复杂、相互关联的社会只要求我们牺牲一点效率，以便有更多的缓冲空间。)”可知，作者认为为了使系统更具弹性，即更具灵活性，应该牺牲一些效率。故选B项。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。通读全文可知，文章开篇以CrowdStrike系统崩溃这一事件展开，阐述现代社会系统因注重优化而缺乏弹性的问题，进而讨论应对措施，强调这一事件给我们带来的警示。而B选项A Wakeful Warning: The Lesson from CrowdStrike(一个警醒：来自CrowdStrike的教训) 准确概括文章主旨。故选B项。 2025丰台期末 D 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. 31. 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 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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】31. D 32. C 33. B 34. B 核心主题 2024年诺奖引发“AI接管科学”的担忧，作者解析诺奖成果，指出AI是科学工具而非主导，科学的核心仍依赖人类对现实世界的实证探索。 段落结构 引出争议：诺奖授予AI相关研究，引发“AI接管科学”的讨论。 解析物理诺奖：获奖成果是“信息物理原理”的基础研究，而非AI应用。 解析化学诺奖：AlphaFold是优秀工具，但无法解决所有蛋白质折叠问题，并非“万灵药”。 趋势预测：AI工具普及后会融入背景，不再被刻意关注。 回应担忧：AI的局限性在于“依赖计算，无法替代现实世界的实证研究”。 核心立场：科学需要人类实验者，AI是辅助而非主导。 题目答案及解析 【31题详解】 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。 【32题详解】 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。 【33题详解】 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。 【34题详解】 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。 2025石景山期末 D Experts frequently warn about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). Sadly, the rapid advancement of AI technology in recent years has not led to a common understanding of its risks, as it should have. Actually, beneath the surface of AI discussions lies conflict among divided groups, which may mislead lawmakers and the public and prevent competent regulatory measures. Understanding the motivations behind these differing views is crucial to addressing AI’s societal impact. The loudest perspective is a frightening vision from doomsayers (末日论者), who present AI as a threat to human existence, capable of wiping out life and controlling everything. This doomsaying is heightened by influential tech figures using tools like ChatGPT to shape the conversation. Some in this group focus on extreme disastrous risks and emphasize the distant future implications of our actions. While many doomsayers claim they are reasonable, their exaggerated concerns about hypothetical (假设的) existential risks amount to a misguided bet with humanity’s future. Technology historian David Brock calls such fears “wishful worries” — that is, problems that it would be nice to have, in contrast to the actual struggles of the present. While doomsayers focus on the distant future, reformers focus on immediate issues. They view AI reform as a matter of integrity, urging Big Tech to prioritize the public good over profit. These experts advocate for regulators to address current harms caused by AI, such as misinformation, monitoring, and algorithmic (算法的) unfairness. They propose initiatives like civil education for AI literacy and the design of human-centered systems to fight growing societal inequalities. Warriors, another group, describe AI through the language of national security and competitiveness. Their views benefit some tech giants and government agencies. Top AI firms seek costly regulations that they claim guard against crime and terrorism, which could secure their market dominance and limit startup competition. Governments, tightly connected to these firms, may prioritize defense applications over moral concerns, leading to regulatory blind spots. In conclusion, the differing viewpoints on AI underline the complexity of addressing its societal impact. To minimize potential harms and ensure that AI serves the public interest, it is crucial to strengthen legal frameworks that close existing gaps and hold corporations accountable. Expanding regulatory strategies can help restrict corporate overreach and foster transparency in AI development. Publicly directed projects can counterbalance corporate influence, ensuring that AI benefits society as a whole. By prioritizing accountability and collective welfare, we can shape a future where AI empowers everyone, not just a select few. 31. What is the consequence of diverse points of view on AI? A. Enhancing our ability to tackle AI issues. B. Advancing the standardization of AI guidelines. C. Delaying the creation of effective AI regulations. D. Breaking the integrity of current AI legal framework. 32. The author quotes David Brock’s words in order to ______. A. prove that AI has positive impacts B. confirm that doomsayers’ worries are justified C. suggest that the concerns over AI are overstated D show that current struggles have serious outcomes 33. What can be inferred from the passage? A. A publicly directed AI project will ultimately empower the select few. B. Reformers advocate human-centered AI systems to gain personal profits. C Warriors pursue dominance in national security by improving AI morally. D Lawmakers should toughen rules limiting corporate influence for public good. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. The Battle over AI: Power and Benefit B. Perspectives on AI: Individualism or Collectivism C. The Argument about AI: Reformers vs. Doomsayers D. Debates on the Future of AI: Innovation or Regulation 【答案】31. C 32. C 33. D 34. A 核心主题 AI风险的讨论存在三大分歧阵营（末日论者、改革者、战士），观点冲突导致监管滞后，需通过强化法律框架、扩大监管策略、推进公共项目解决。 段落结构 引出问题：AI风险缺乏共识，阵营分歧误导公众与立法者，阻碍有效监管。 阵营1：末日论者——将AI视为人类生存威胁，担忧被夸大。 阵营2：改革者——关注当下危害，呼吁以公共利益为先。 阵营3：战士——从国家安全与竞争力视角看待AI，可能忽视道德问题。 解决方案：强化法律框架、扩大监管、推进公共项目，确保AI服务全体人类。 题目答案及解析 【31题详解】 细节理解题。根据第一段中“Actually, beneath the surface of AI discussions lies conflict among divided groups, which may mislead lawmakers and the public and prevent competent regulatory measures.(实际上，在人工智能讨论的表面之下，存在着不同群体之间的冲突，这可能会误导立法者和公众，并阻碍有效的监管措施)”可知，对于人工智能持不同观点会导致有效的监管措施被阻碍，即延迟制定有效的人工智能法规。故选C。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第二段中“While many doomsayers claim they are reasonable, their exaggerated concerns about hypothetical (假设的) existential risks amount to a misguided bet with humanity’s future. Technology historian David Brock calls such fears “wishful worries” — that is, problems that it would be nice to have, in contrast to the actual struggles of the present.(尽管许多末日论者声称他们是合理的，但他们对假想存在风险的夸大担忧相当于对人类未来的错误押注。科技历史学家David Brock称这种担忧为“一厢情愿的担忧”——也就是说，与目前的实际斗争相比，最好有这些问题)”可推知，前一句提到许多末日论者夸大了人工智能的风险，后一句是引用David Brock的话是为了证明前一句的观点。故选C。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据最后一段中“To minimize potential harms and ensure that AI serves the public interest, it is crucial to strengthen legal frameworks that close existing gaps and hold corporations accountable. Expanding regulatory strategies can help restrict corporate overreach and foster transparency in AI development. Publicly directed projects can counterbalance corporate influence, ensuring that AI benefits society as a whole.(为了最大限度地减少潜在危害并确保人工智能服务于公众利益，加强法律框架以缩小现有差距并使企业承担责任至关重要。扩大监管战略有助于限制企业的过度扩张，提高人工智能发展的透明度。公共指导的项目可以抵消企业的影响，确保人工智能造福整个社会)”可推知，立法者应该加强规则，限制企业的影响力，以造福公众。故选D。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。根据全文内容，结合第一段中“Understanding the motivations behind these differing views is crucial to addressing AI’s societal impact.(理解这些不同观点背后的动机对于解决人工智能的社会影响至关重要)”和最后一段中“Publicly directed projects can counterbalance corporate influence, ensuring that AI benefits society as a whole. By prioritizing accountability and collective welfare, we can shape a future where AI empowers everyone, not just a select few.(公共指导的项目可以抵消企业的影响，确保人工智能造福整个社会。通过优先考虑问责制和集体福利，我们可以塑造一个人工智能赋予每个人权力的未来，而不仅仅是少数人)”可知，文章主要讲述了关于人工智能的不同观点，包括末日论者、改革者和战士等不同群体对人工智能的看法，最后强调，为了最小化潜在危害并确保人工智能服务于公共利益，需要加强法律框架，限制企业过度扩张，促进人工智能发展的透明度，并通过公共指导的项目平衡企业影响力。由此可知，A项“人工智能之战：权力与利益”适合作文章最佳标题。故选A。 2025东城一模 D Years after my art history class, I am insufferable at museums. “That’s definitely a Matisse,” I say. “You can tell 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 an example D. To highlight a research findings 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 form 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 Your View a View? C. Why Good Art Works Wonders? D. What Makes Hemingwau Hemingway ? 【答案】31. C 32. A 33. D 34. D 核心主题 通过蜜蜂与人类的艺术识别对比，揭示人类艺术创造力的核心——跨媒介的“个人风格”，这种风格源于统一的世界观与思维方式，是蜜蜂无法复制的。 段落结构 个人经历：作者自夸能识别艺术风格，为后续蜜蜂实验铺垫。 蜜蜂实验：蜜蜂能通过训练区分毕加索与莫奈的风格，甚至识别未见过的作品。 人类优势1：艺术/写作学生能精准识别知名艺术家的未知作品。 人类优势2（核心）：能跨媒介识别同行作品。 优势本质：人类的创作源于统一的思维方式、经历与表达欲，风格会贯穿不同媒介。 提出疑问：非艺术家是否有“个人风格”？坏艺术是否千篇一律？ 题目答案及解析 【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。 2025西城一模 D Genetic (基因的) variation is what allows a species to adapt as climate changes, new diseases arise, and novel enemies come on the scene. A slightly different genetic makeup can ensure at least some individuals will still do OK in times of crisis. But just as the number of species is declining worldwide, so, too, is the genetic diversity within many species. Until 2022, governments focused primarily on preventing species from disappearing. That year, however, when updating the United Nations’s Convention on Biological Diversity treaty (条约), participating countries agreed to start to look at genetic diversity as well. The first step toward slowing the trend is understanding it. Conservation biologist Catherine Grueber from the University of Sydney and many colleagues gathered 882 papers written between 1985 and 2019 that tracked diversity changes within 628 individual species by analyzing their DNA at at least two time points. The team used complex statistical analyses to make the data comparable, enabling them to identify trends and correlate loss of genetic diversity with floods, habitat destruction, or other disturbances. They also tracked what happened in the face of various conservation measures, such as legally protecting a species or setting aside and protecting habitat. Two-thirds of the populations analyzed exhibited a decline in diversity, Grueber and her colleagues report. That included species already known to be at risk, but it also included more common species. The implication is that those species may be less able to bounce back than expected during environmental change, says Alicia Mastretta-Yanes, a conservation geneticist. Some conservation efforts, such as ecological restoration or reducing pests (害虫), didn’t help much, the analysis found. But certain actions did seem to help, such as efforts to expand and protect habitat, introduce new individuals to declining populations, or connect two isolated populations. “It was pretty impressive that they were able to track what human disturbances and conservation actions had done,” says Moisés Alonso, an evolutionary geneticist who authored a preprint last year indicating that protecting existing habitat won’t be enough to prevent genetic diversity losses for many species. “We needed something like this,” he says. Conservation scientists emphasize the importance of continuing to monitor populations. But DNA methods aren’t always practical, some note. “It is relatively hard and expensive to measure genetic diversity directly,” Mastretta-Yanes says. To get around that, Mastretta-Yanes and others published a paper in Ecology Letters last year that used proxy (代替物) measures, such as population size, to evaluate genetic diversity in 919 species. The method, which only required about 3 hours of work per species, indicated that 58% of the species have populations that are too small to maintain their genetic diversity. The fact that these different approaches found declining diversity “makes both results more convincing,” Mastretta-Yanes says. “Finally, genetic diversity is getting the attention it deserves.” 31 What is Paragraph 3 mainly about? A. Challenges of collecting DNA data for diversity research. B. Findings on genetic diversity changes over the past 30 years. C. Research methods applied to track genetic diversity changes. D. Impacts of human disturbances on diversity of different species. 32. What can be learned from Grueber’s study? A. Habitat extension and population management preserve diversity. B. The diversity of common species tends to decline more severely. C. At-risk species better resist the impact of environmental changes. D. Ecosystem recovery and pest control drive population rise. 33. Mastretta-Yanes holds that DNA methods _______. A. will soon be replaced by proxy measures B. lack practicality due to their costs and complexity C. may get in the way of monitoring species populations D. require a large population size to achieve high accuracy 34. What is the purpose of this passage? A. To identify more effective methods applied in gene research. B. To advocate for using DNA methods exclusively in conservation efforts. C. To warn people of the threat posed by environmental changes on species. D. To draw people’s attention to effective measures against loss of diversity. 【答案】31. C 32. A 33. B 34. D 核心主题 全球物种遗传多样性持续减少（包括常见物种），传统保护措施效果有限，需通过“扩大栖息地、种群管理、替代评估方法”等有效措施应对。 段落结构 重要性：遗传多样性是物种适应环境变化的关键，但目前持续减少。 政策转变：2022年《生物多样性公约》开始关注遗传多样性。 研究方法：Grueber团队整合论文，分析物种DNA变化，关联干扰因素与保护措施。 研究发现：三分之二的种群遗传多样性下降，包括常见物种。 措施效果：生态修复、害虫控制效果有限；扩大栖息地等措施有效。 替代方法：Mastretta-Yanes提出“代理指标”评估遗传多样性，高效且成本低。 题目答案及解析 【31题详解】 主旨大意题。根据第三段“The first step toward slowing the trend is understanding it. Conservation biologist Catherine Gruéber from the University of Sydney and many colleagues gathered 882 papers written between 1985 and 2019 that tracked diversity changes within 628 individual species by analyzing their DNA at at least two time points. The team used complex statistical analyses to make the data comparable, enabling them to identify trends and correlate loss of genetic diversity with floods, habitat destruction, or other disturbances. They also tracked what happened in the face of various conservation measures, such as legally protecting a species or setting aside and protecting habitat.(减缓这一趋势的第一步是理解它。悉尼大学的保护生物学家凯瑟琳·格鲁姆萨伯和许多同事收集了1985年至2019年期间撰写的882篇论文，通过分析至少两个时间点的628个物种的DNA，追踪了它们的多样性变化。研究小组使用复杂的统计分析使数据具有可比性，使他们能够确定趋势，并将遗传多样性的丧失与洪水、栖息地破坏或其他干扰联系起来。他们还追踪了在面对各种保护措施时发生的情况，比如法律保护一个物种或留出和保护栖息地)”可知，第三段的主要内容是用于追踪遗传多样性变化的研究方法。故选C。 【32题详解】 细节理解题。根据第三段“The team used complex statistical analyses to make the data comparable, enabling them to identify trends and correlate loss of genetic diversity with floods, habitat destruction, or other disturbances. They also tracked what happened in the face of various conservation measures, such as legally protecting a species or setting aside and protecting habitat.(研究小组使用复杂的统计分析使数据具有可比性，使他们能够确定趋势，并将遗传多样性的丧失与洪水、栖息地破坏或其他干扰联系起来。他们还追踪了在面对各种保护措施时发生的情况，比如法律保护一个物种或留出和保护栖息地)”以及第四段“Two-thirds of the populations analyzed exhibited a decline in diversity, Gruéber and her colleagues report.(格鲁曼和她的同事们报告说，三分之二的被分析数量表现出多样性的下降)”可知，研究告诉我们栖息地扩展和数量管理保护多样性。故选A。 【33题详解】 细节理解题。根据最后一段“The method, which only required about 3 hours of work per species, indicated that 58% of the species have populations that are too small to maintain their genetic diversity. The fact that these different approaches found declining diversity “makes both results more convincing,” Mastertta-Yanes says. “Finally, genetic diversity is getting the attention it deserves.”(该方法只需要每个物种3小时的工作，表明58%的物种种群太小，无法维持其遗传多样性。这两种不同的方法都发现了多样性的下降，这一事实“使两种结果都更有说服力，”马斯特塔-扬斯说。“最终，基因多样性得到了应有的关注。”)”可知，Mastertta-Yanes认为，由于成本和复杂性，DNA方法缺乏实用性。故选B。 【34题详解】 推理判断题。根据第一段“Genetic (基因的) variation is what allows a species to adapt as climate changes, new diseases arise, and novel enemies come on the scene. A slightly different genetic makeup can ensure at least some individuals will still do OK in times of crisis. But just as the number of species is declining worldwide, so, too, is the genetic diversity within many species.(基因变异使一个物种能够适应气候变化、新疾病的出现和新敌人的出现。一个稍有不同的基因构成可以确保至少一些个体在危机时刻仍能安然无恙。但是，正如世界范围内的物种数量正在减少一样，许多物种内部的遗传多样性也在减少)”结合文章主要介绍了研究发现许多物种内部的遗传多样性也在减少，介绍了研究开展的经过以及发现。可知，这篇文章的目的是引起人们对防止多样性丧失的有效措施的注意。故选D。 2025朝阳一模 D 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 自由意志是哲学与神经科学的交叉难题，探讨“自由意志是否存在”——哲学上有兼容论与不兼容论之争，神经科学提供部分证据但未定论，而自由意志是人类道德责任的基础。 段落结构 引出话题：自由意志看似直觉上存在，但哲学与科学研究挑战这一认知。 哲学视角：兼容论者认为自由意志与决定论共存；不兼容论者认为二者互斥。 神经科学视角：大脑神经活动先于有意识决策，多巴胺等影响行为，挑战自由意志。 科学争议：部分观点认为神经活动是决策的准备过程，大脑复杂性为自由意志留有余地。 核心意义：若自由意志是幻觉，人类道德责任框架将崩溃。 题目答案及解析 【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。 2025海淀一模 D 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 核心主题 哲学无法解决不同伦理系统的冲突，Parfit试图调和但失败，Popper指出“无限宽容会毁灭宽容”，揭示伦理冲突的现实意义——需警惕不可调和的分歧引发的实际冲突。 段落结构 引出问题：财富分配等伦理问题，不同伦理系统给出不同答案，冲突与生俱来。 哲学尝试：Parfit毕生试图调和伦理系统的冲突，认为存在“独立于个人动机的道德事实”。 对立观点：Bernard Williams认为道德理由离不开个人动机。 例证说明：Singer的“溺水儿童”寓言看似证明道德义务的绝对性，但仍可被拒绝。 核心矛盾：伦理系统的不可调和性，可能引发实际冲突。 引用支持：Popper提出“无限宽容会毁灭宽容”，需拒绝宽容不宽容者。 题目答案及解析 【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。 2025丰台一模 D Recent findings from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in Arizona, which produced the largest 3D map of the universe, suggest that dark energy—the mysterious force driving the universe’s accelerated(加速的) expansion— might change over time. This challenges the standard model of cosmology(宇宙学), which assumes a steady acceleration. Dark energy is thought to make up nearly 70% of the cosmos, so if its behaviour really is changing as time passes, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. Since the DESI data came out, researchers have been working on ways to explain the apparent changes in the universe’s expansion rate. Dark energy isn’t directly observable, so there are several options that could fit. One solution suggested by Michael Garda at the Federal University in Brazil and his colleagues involves letting dark energy interact with dark matter, an invisible and abundant form of matter that outweighs ordinary matter. This interaction is forbidden in the standard model, but if energy could flow from the universe’s dark matter to its dark energy—essentially changing the former to the latter—the researchers’ simulations (模拟) showed that this would match the DESI measurements. Yet, the mechanism for such an energy transfer isn’t clear. This solution might also help resolve the Hubble tension, a difference in the ways we measure the expansion rate of the cosmos. Measurements of this made by analyzing nearby galaxies (known as “local” measurements) give an expansion rate, or Hubble constant, which is slightly higher than the one obtained from the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—the remaining radiation from the early universe. CMB measurements rely on a theoretical model of cosmic evolution, which may need adjustment if Garda’s proposal is correct. By allowing energy transfer between dark matter and dark energy, the adjusted model could bring CMB-based estimates more closely into line with local measurements, potentially resolving the tension. Another proposed solution involves dark radiation, an invisible form of radiation similar to light but composed of dark photons(光子). Tamar Allali at Brown University and his team suggest that dark radiation could explain the DESI data and lessened the Hubble tension by increasing the universe’s expansion rate in its early stages. “If you have more radiation, the expansion is faster in the early universe,” says Allali. Unlike adjustments to dark energy, dark radiation introduces a new component without changing existing physical laws, making it a more conservative approach. Allali notes that the DESI data does not rule out dark radiation and even shows a slight preference for it. Both models—interacting dark energy and dark radiation—fit the DESI data, but neither has been confirmed. Shawn Smith at the University of Edinburgh, UK. points out that while many unconventional models could explain the observations, none currently compete with the standard cosmological model from a fundamental physics perspective. Nevertheless, these models serve as catalysts for progress, ensuring that cosmology remains a dynamic and evolving field. 32. What does this passage mainly talk about? A. The development of scientific models to study the universe. B. The discovery of dark energy and its impact on the universe. C. The importance of DESI in studying the universe’s behavior. D. The attempts to explain the universe’s unexpected expansion. 33. Which of the following might the author agree with? A. Garda’s proposal outperforms Allali’s in its simplicity. B. Recent research has found ways for dark energy transfer. C. The DESI data has confirmed the existence of dark radiation. D. The two models share similarities in reducing Hubble tension. 34. The passage is organized in the pattern of . A. cause—effect—solution B. problem—solution—evaluation C. example—analysis—conclusion D. introduction—comparison—result 【答案】32. D 33. D 34. B 核心主题 DESI的3D宇宙地图发现“暗能量可能随时间变化”，挑战标准宇宙学模型，研究者提出“暗物质-暗能量相互作用”和“暗辐射”两种模型解释，均未被证实但推动宇宙学发展。 段落结构 重大发现：DESI的3D宇宙地图显示暗能量可能随时间变化，挑战“稳态加速”的标准模型。 重要性：暗能量占宇宙70%，其变化将重构人类对宇宙的理解。 模型1：Garda团队提出“暗物质与暗能量相互作用”，可解释DESI数据，缓解哈勃张力，但机制不明。 模型2：Allali团队提出“暗辐射”，通过加快早期宇宙膨胀解释数据，缓解哈勃张力，且不改变现有物理定律。 模型评价：两种模型均符合DESI数据，但未被证实，是宇宙学进步的催化剂。 题目答案及解析 【32题详解】 主旨大意题。根据第一段“Recent findings from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in Arizona, which produced the largest 3D map of the universe, suggest that dark energy — the mysterious force driving the universe’s accelerated expansion — might change over time. This challenges the standard model of cosmology, which assumes a steady acceleration.(亚利桑那州的暗能量光谱仪（DESI）最近的发现绘制出了宇宙最大的三维地图，表明暗能量 —— 驱动宇宙加速膨胀的神秘力量 —— 可能会随时间变化。这挑战了假设宇宙是稳定加速的标准宇宙学模型)”可知，宇宙的膨胀出现了与标准模型不符的情况。再结合第三段“Since the DESI data came out, researchers have been working on ways to explain the apparent changes in the universe’s expansion rate.(自从 DESI 数据公布以来，研究人员一直在努力寻找方法来解释宇宙膨胀率的明显变化)”可知，本文主要讲的是对解释宇宙意外膨胀的尝试。故选D。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据第四段“By allowing energy transfer between dark matter and dark energy, the adjusted model could bring CMB-based estimates more closely into line with local measurements, potentially resolving the tension.(通过允许暗物质和暗能量之间的能量转移，调整后的模型可以使基于宇宙微波背景（CMB）的估计值更接近局部测量值，有可能解决哈勃张力问题)”以及第五段“Tamar Allali at Brown University and his team suggest that dark radiation could explain the DESI data and lessened the Hubble tension by increasing the universe’s expansion rate in its early stages.(布朗大学的塔玛尔・阿拉利（Tamar Allali）和他的团队认为，暗辐射可以解释 DESI 数据，并通过提高宇宙早期的膨胀率来减轻哈勃张力)” 可知，这两种模型都在减少哈勃张力方面有相似之处，即都有可能解决哈勃张力问题。故选D。 【34题详解】 推理判断题。通读全文可知，文章第一段提出了问题，即暗能量可能随时间变化，挑战了标准宇宙学模型，宇宙膨胀出现意外情况；第三、四、五段介绍了两种解释宇宙膨胀率变化的解决方案，即让暗能量与暗物质相互作用和暗辐射的模型；第六段对这两种模型进行了评价，指出它们都符合 DESI 数据，但都未得到证实，且目前没有一个能从基础物理学角度与标准宇宙学模型竞争，不过它们推动了宇宙学的发展。由此推知，文章是按照“问题 — 解决方案 — 评价”的模式组织的。故选B。 析：文章结构为“提出问题（宇宙膨胀异常）→给出两种解决方案（模型）→评价方案（未证实但有价值）”。 2025石景山一模 D 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 私人资本进入月球开发，推动月球从科学探索转向商业活动，但缺乏有效监管，可能导致过度开发与不可逆破坏，人类需为月球的未来负责。 段落结构 背景铺垫：月球原本是无生命的荒原，即将因人类活动改变。 商业转折：Nova-C航天器成功登月，标志私人资本进入月球，非科学载荷引发争议。 产业趋势：全球太空产业价值巨大，月球成为投资热点。 现有协议：2020年自愿协议促进合作，但允许开采月球资源，缺乏约束。 核心担忧：人类常将探索变为剥削，月球可能重蹈覆辙。 呼吁责任：人类即将改变月球表面，需先认真讨论开发的原因与方式。 题目答案及解析 【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。 2025 东城二模 D For almost two centuries, newspapers have been on a journey into the mass market which gave them scale, reputation and profit but which has now reached its end. They mostly abandoned dependence on subscriptions and instead sold below production cost as a way to attract readers to sell to advertisers. Since the Internet took off, the print media’s advertising-supported business model has suffered. In the past 20 years, newspapers’ ad profits have fallen by about 80%, while circulation has roughly fallen by half. Though online traffic has risen, profit from digital advertising has failed to offset (抵消) the profit draining out of print. “Platforms have become the new kings of the media landscape,” says the Competition and Markets Authority, a regulator. This power shift has led newspapers in many countries to turn to authorities for help. Partly because they have, by their very nature, a loud voice, they have generated sympathy. How much they deserve it is another matter. The world is filled with businesses torn apart by the digital revolution without anyone rushing to the rescue. Why are newspapers different? One argument is that a thriving press supports grass-roots journalism, which, though often loss-making, supports fairness and equality. That is reasonable. Yet it is mixed with other motivations, such as the desire to choke the tech giants. The result is a range of interventions aimed at putting the pressure on big tech. Mindful of the outcry, big tech is offering a handout, promising $1bn over three years to newspapers to provide news content for its site. Some publishers saw it as an unstated admission that big tech should pay for news. If anything, the gratitude for big tech’s generosity shows how desperate newspapers are for payment of any kind. More to the point, it will not change the underlying economics of the global newspaper industry. That is because the ad-funded business model was living on fumes even before the Internet ate the world this century. Data show that newspapers have been losing share of ad dollars to TV since the 1950s — long before the web. Circulation has also fallen relative to population, suggesting that profits were supported by economic and population growth, not because the industry was producing a more popular product. Claims that the tech giants are robbing newspapers for profit sound far-fetched, too. The real failure is that papers have lost control of distribution to platforms, making it harder to monetise the traffic. This is a mistake some content industries, such as video-streaming and music, have avoided. Moreover, some of the advertising dollars made by big tech came from bringing new firms into the market, rather than taking online advertisers from newspapers. So ignore the complaining of old-media companies in distress and look instead at how some newspapers have already adapted to the digital invasion. Also some digital publications with a newsworthy focus are thriving. The question of who pays for public-interest journalism remains unanswered. But few think it ought to be tech giants. That would “undermine the principles of an independent press”. 31. Why does the author cite the statistics in Paragraph 2? A. To prove the decline of print media. B. To emphasize the popularity of platforms. C. To indicate the importance of digital advertising. D. To demonstrate the inconsistency in subscriptions. 32. The underlined phrase “was living on fumes” in Paragraph 6 probably means ______. A. was taking off B. was moving forward C. was falling apart D. was struggling along 33. Which of the following may the author agree with? A. The platform should support grass-roots journalism. B. The old media should produce marketable products. C. New online advertisers should be introduced. D. Effective interventions should be made. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Where is the Digital Age leading the press? B. Are online platforms really a way out? C. How the Internet impacts old media? D. Should big tech save newspapers? 【答案】31. A 32. D 33. B 34. D 【解析】 【导语】这是一篇议论文，作者批驳了报纸业“支持草根新闻业是在支持公平和公正”、“科技巨头正在掠夺报纸利润”这两种观点，揭露报纸行业的本质问题在其自身而非数字平台的冲击，并建议报纸业应提升内容质量从而实现自救。 【31题详解】 推理判断题。根据第二段中“In the past 20 years, newspapers’ ad profits have fallen by about 80%, while circulation has roughly fallen by half.(在过去的20年里，报纸的广告利润下降了大约80%，而发行量大约下降了一半)”可知，此处引用数据是为了证明印刷媒体的衰落，故选A。 【32题详解】 词句猜测题。根据划线部分下文“Data show that newspapers have been losing share of ad dollars to TV since the 1950s — long before the web. Circulation has also fallen relative to population(数据显示，自20世纪50年代以来——早在网络出现之前——报纸的广告收入份额就一直在输给电视。发行量相对于人口也有所下降)”可知，早在网络出现之前报纸的广告收入份额就一直在输给电视。发行量相对于人口也有所下降，由此推知划线短语所在句意为“这是因为即使在本世纪互联网吞噬世界之前，广告资助的商业模式就已经难以为继了”，was living on fumes意为“在困难中坚持，勉力维持”，故选D。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据第六段中“Circulation has also fallen relative to population, suggesting that profits were supported by economic and population growth, not because the industry was producing a more popular product.(发行量相对于人口也有所下降，这表明利润是由经济和人口增长支撑的，而不是因为该行业在生产更受欢迎的产品)”可知，旧媒体应该生产适销对路的产品，故选B。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。根据全文内容，结合最后一段中“The question of who pays for public-interest journalism remains unanswered. But few think it ought to be tech giants. That would ‘undermine the principles of an independent press’.(谁为公共新闻买单的问题仍然没有答案。但很少有人认为应该是科技巨头。这将‘破坏新闻独立的原则’)”可知，作者批驳了报纸业“支持草根新闻业是在支持公平和公正”、“科技巨头正在掠夺报纸利润”这两种观点，揭露报纸行业的本质问题在其自身而非数字平台的冲击，并建议报纸业应提升内容质量从而实现自救，D项“科技巨头应该拯救报纸吗？”最适合作为标题，故选D。 2025 西城二模 D A theme at this year’s World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting was the perceived need to “accelerate breakthroughs in research and technology.” Some of this discussion was motivated by the climate emergency, some by the opportunities and challenges presented by generative artificial intelligence. Yet in various conversations, it seemed to be taken for granted that to address the world’s problems, scientific research needs to move faster. The WEF meeting took place just two weeks after Harvard University President Claudine Gay stepped down after complaints were made about her political science scholarship. Gay’s troubles came after Stanford University President Marc Tessier Lavigne stepped down, after an internal investigation concluded that his neuroscience research had “multiple problems” and “fell below customary standards of scientific rigor.” Although it may be impossible to determine just how widespread such problems really are, it’s hard to imagine that the phenomenon of high-profile scholars correcting and withdrawing papers has not had a negative impact on public trust in science and perhaps in experts broadly. In recent years we’ve seen important papers withdrawn because of questionable data or methods. In one interesting case, Frances H. Arnold, who shared the 2018Nobel Prize in Chemistry, voluntarily withdrew a paper when her lab was unable to reproduce her results — but after the paper had been published. In an open apology, she stated that she was “a bit busy” when the paper was submitted and “did not do my job well.” Arnold’s honesty is admirable, but it raises a question: Are scholars at highly competitive places such as Harvard and Standford rushing to publishing rather than taking the time to do their work right? It’s impossible to answer this question scientifically because there’s no scientific definition of what constitutes “rushing”. But there’s little doubt that we live in a culture where academics at leading universities are under enormous pressure to produce results — and a lot of them — quickly. However, nearly a century passed between biochemist Friedrich Miescher’s identification of the DNA molecule and suggestion that it might be involved in inheritance (遗传) and the clarification of its double-helix (双螺旋) structure in the 1950s. And it took just about half a century for geologists and geophysicists to accept Alfred Wegener’s idea of continental drift (漂移). There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence that scientists and other scholars are pushing results out far faster than they used to. One recent study put the number at more than seven million a year, compared with fewer than a million as recently as 1980. Another study found 265 academic authors — two thirds of whom were in the medical and life sciences — published a paper every five days on average. The numbers suggest that the research world has prioritized quantity over quality. Researchers may need to slow down — not speed up — if we are to produce knowledge worthy of trust. 31. What does the word “rigor” underlined in Paragraph 2 most probably mean? A. Quickness and convenience. B. Flexibility and openness. C. Strictness and precision. D. Fame and popularity. 32. DNA and continental drift are examples to demonstrate that _______. A. good science takes time B. science advances with time C. research across disciplines is needed D. breakthroughs seldom happen by chance 33. Which of the following situations can best reflect the author’s concern? A. A researcher fails to produce evidence for his paper. B. A university loses young talent due to a lack of funding. C. An editor overlooks the errors in a writer’s research methods. D. A scholar publishes a paper with limited data to gain recognition. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. The Danger of Fast Science B. The Need for Trust in Science C. An Alarming Warning to Science Editors D. A Popular Trend towards Rushing Science 【答案】31. C 32. A 33. D 34. A 【解析】 【导语】这是一篇说明文。文章主要说明了如今科学研究存在急于发表论文，过于注重数量导致了很多问题。 【31题详解】 词句猜测题。根据划线词上文“his neuroscience research had “multiple problems” and “fell below customary standards of scientific (他的神经科学研究存在“多重问题”，并且“低于科学……的标准)”可知，斯坦福大学的校长因他的神经科学研究存在“多个问题”且“低于科学严谨性的惯常标准”而辞职。由于研究存在问题且未达到标准，这里的“rigor”意味着在科学研究中高水平的严格性和精确性。故划线词意思是“严格、精确”。故选C。 【32题详解】 细节理解题。根据倒数第二段“However, nearly a century passed between biochemist Friedrich Miescher’s identification of the DNA molecule and suggestion that it might be involved in inheritance (遗传) and the clarification of its double-helix (双螺旋) structure in the 1950s. And it took just about half a century for geologists and geophysicists to accept Alfred Wegener’s idea of continental drift (漂移). (然而，从生物化学家弗里德里希·米歇尔鉴定出DNA分子并提出它可能与遗传有关，到20世纪50年代对其双螺旋结构的澄清，已经过去了近一个世纪。地质学家和地球物理学家仅仅用了半个世纪的时间就接受了阿尔弗雷德·韦格纳的大陆漂移学说。)”可知，DNA和大陆漂移就是证明好的科学需要时间的例子。故选A。 【33题详解】 细节理解题。根据最后一段“There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence that scientists and other scholars are pushing results out far faster than they used to. (有大量的间接证据表明，科学家和其他学者推出结果的速度比过去快得多。)”以及“Another study found 265 academic authors — two thirds of whom were in the medical and life sciences — published a paper every five days on average. The numbers suggest that the research world has prioritized quantity over quality. Researchers may need to slow down — not speed up — if we are to produce knowledge worthy of trust. (另一项研究发现，265位学术作者——其中三分之二在医学和生命科学领域——平均每五天发表一篇论文。这些数字表明，研究界更看重数量而不是质量。如果我们要产生值得信任的知识，研究人员可能需要放慢速度，而不是加快速度。)”可知，“学者发表了一篇数据有限的论文以获得认可”最能反映作者的担忧。故选D。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。根据第一段“A theme at this year’s World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting was the perceived need to “accelerate breakthroughs in research and technology.” Some of this discussion was motivated by the climate emergency, some by the opportunities and challenges presented by generative artificial intelligence. Yet in various conversations, it seemed to be taken for granted that to address the world’s problems, scientific research needs to move faster. (今年世界经济论坛会议的一个主题是人们认为有必要“加速研究和技术的突破”。其中一些框架是由气候紧急情况推动的，另一些是由可生成人工智能带来的机遇和挑战推动的。然而，在各种对话中，人们似乎理所当然地认为，要解决世界上的问题，科学研究需要加快步伐。)”结合文章主要说明了如今科学研究存在急于发表论文，过于注重数量导致了很多问题。可知，A选项“快速科学的危险”最符合文章标题。故选A。 2025 朝阳二模 D Books are about to become a little less “Impressive!”, “Appealing!” and “Spellbinding!”. Fewer still will offer a “tour de force” (whatever one of those might be). That is because Simon & Schuster, an American publisher, has decided to stop doing book blurbs ( also called “puffs” in Britain) — those invited comments from other authors on the back of books. They are, says Sean Manning, the company’s publisher, “very awkward”. The problem with blurbs is that there is always a need to publicly evaluate books. It is a fact in the life of a writer that if one publicly publishes, one is going to be publicly judged. When negative, such judgments can be painful, when stupid, it can be maddening, but when positive, it can also be a joyful, supportive moment. However, when a writer gets prearranged remarks, it devalues legitimate (合情合理的) responses. The style of a puff is, as the name suggests, breathless. Someone might declare a book “authoritative”; another, “unputdownable”; and a third, “If you can read this book without screaming with excitement, your soul is dead”. You feel guilty, wrote George Orwell, when you are in the library and “fail to scream with delight”. Also, in theory blurbs are testament to an author’s narrative skills. In truth they are a testament to their social ones: they often reflect arm-twisting rather than artistry. Literary heavyweights hate giving them. “We would as soon sell our tears for lemon-drops”, wrote Nathaniel Parker Willis, a poet, than thus “spoil one of the truthful adjectives in the world”. New authors struggle to get blurbs, which is partly why Simon & Schuster is giving them up. Blurbs more often exemplify the very bad writing. Many are less written than pieced up from stock phrases — “A heartbreaking, unputdownable page-turner!” — with an exclamation mark at the end. This makes them exhausting to read! There has been honest copy on dust jackets — T. S. Eliot’s description of Louis MacNeice, a fellow poet, informed readers that “His work is accessible but unpopular” — but it is too rare. It turns out that the habit of using words like “unputdownable” is itself quite putdownable. Mr. Manning says his editors will use the time they save on chasing quotes to instead produce good books. Not, note, “charming” or “absorbing” books but simply “the best books possible”. It is an admirably modest aim. 32. What can we learn about blurbs? A. They serve the interest of book writers. B. They guarantee legitimate responses. C. New authors are sick of writing them. D. Readers feel guilty after reading them. 33. The author uses Eliot’s example mainly to ____________. A. advocate the originality in blurbs B. clarify a misconception about blurbs C. distinguish the various types of current blurbs D. suggest the widespread presence of dishonest blurbs 34. What can we infer from the passage? A. Blurbs are self-defeating. B. There is no need for blurbs. C. Blurbs promote social skills. D. Established authors favor blurbs. 【答案】32. A 33. D 34. A 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇说明文。文章主要讲述了美国出版商西蒙与舒斯特决定停止在书籍背面使用其他作者的书评式推荐语的现象及原因。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据第二段中“However, when a writer gets prearranged remarks, it devalues legitimate (合情合理的) responses.(然而，当作家得到预先安排好的评论时，这会降低合法回应的价值)”可知，预先安排好的书评式推荐语（blurbs）损害了读者对书籍的真正评价，即它们并不能保证书籍得到合理的回应，反而是服务于书籍出版商或作者的利益。故选A。 【33题详解】 推理判断题。根据第四段“Many are less written than pieced up from stock phrases — “A heartbreaking, unputdownable page-turner!” — with an exclamation mark at the end. This makes them exhausting to read! There has been honest copy on dust jackets — T. S. Eliot’s description of Louis MacNeice, a fellow poet, informed readers that “His work is accessible but unpopular” — but it is too rare.(许多评语与其说是写出来的，不如说是用陈词滥调拼凑起来的 ——“一本令人心碎、令人爱不释手的引人入胜的书！”—— 结尾还带有一个感叹号。这让它们读起来很累！在书的护封上也有诚实的评语 ——T. S. Eliot对同为诗人的路易斯・麦克尼斯的描述告诉读者“他的作品易懂但不受欢迎”—— 但这样的评语太少见了)” 可知，T. S. Eliot的例子是为了说明诚实的评语很少见，也就是不诚实的评语广泛存在。故选D。 【34题详解】 推理判断题。根据第二段中“However, when a writer gets prearranged remarks, it devalues legitimate (合情合理的) responses.(然而，当作家得到预先安排好的评论时，这会降低合法回应的价值)”以及第三段中“Also, in theory blurbs are testament to an author’s narrative skills. In truth they are a testament to their social ones: they often reflect arm-twisting rather than artistry.(此外，从理论上讲，书评式推荐语是作者叙事能力的证明。事实上，它们是他们社交能力的证明：它们往往反映的是胁迫，而不是艺术性)”和最后一段中“Mr. Manning says his editors will use the time they save on chasing quotes to instead produce good books.(曼宁表示，他的编辑们将把节省下来寻找引语的时间用来出版好书)”可推知，书评式推荐语（blurbs）往往不是基于书籍的真实质量，而是受到出版商或作者社交手段的影响，它们并不能真实反映书籍的价值，甚至可能损害书籍的声誉，因此可以说是自毁的。故选A。 2025 海淀二模 D In 1922 British geologist Robert Sherlock put forth what is now considered to be the central argument for recognizing the Anthropocene (人类世) as a new geological era: the scale and character of human activities have become so great as to compete with natural forces. About one hundred years later, geologists have broadly accepted Sherlock’s core idea, and the Anthropocene Working Group has proposed Crawford Lake in Canada as the official site for marking the Anthropocene. The proposal attracted a great deal of press, much of it focused on a misguided controversy over how narrowly to define the Anthropocene. Amid this debate, observers may have been left to wonder why defining this chapter in Earth’s history should matter to ordinary people at all. Sherlock was not a lone wolf. He built on the work of others. One was an American scholar George Marsh, who had called attention to deforestation and the role of humans as “disturbing agents”. In addition to revisiting deforestation, Sherlock described the changed courses of rivers through dams and canals; and the huge quantities of stuff people move while mining the raw materials of modern civilization. Human impacts were becoming so manifest, Sherlock argued, that the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” was becoming difficult to sustain. We needed a new term to study the effects of human activities on Earth. Scientists of later generations followed his footsteps. And in 2000 Eugene F. Stormer and Paul J. Crutzen formally proposed the word “Anthropocene” in a paper. But science is conservative in nature — the burden of proof is always on those making a novel claim — and the social and economic consequences of recognizing the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels have led to enormous resistance beyond scientific community. The definition of the Anthropocene matters for at least two reasons. First, it is a way for scientists to declare that the shifts going on around us are no small issue. Anthropogenic climate change is a profound change in the conditions of life on Earth. In countless ways, the past may no longer be a reliable guide to the future. We must rethink core assumptions about how we build our economies and our infrastructures, how we travel, and even how we eat. Second, the definition of the Anthropocene extends the conversation beyond climate change. What geologists can now see in rocks — from the subtle to the gross — points to the widespread and lasting impact of human activities on Earth. It is common for people to say that as climate change proceeds, we can “just adapt”. Some wealthy people even think that, if necessary, they will move to higher ground or lower latitudes. No doubt some people will become climate refugees, either voluntarily or under force. But the definition of the Anthropocene reminds us that the challenge we face is geological in scale. It affects the whole Earth. It reminds us that as this new era unfolds, there won’t be anywhere to hide. 31. What can we learn about the Anthropocene? A. It is driven by dramatic climate change. B. It is approved as a definite geological era. C. It highlights the impact of human activities. D. It marks the unique features of Crawford Lake. 32. What can be inferred from the passage? A. A shift in mindset of responsibility is in great need. B. Geological changes in rocks remain to be uncovered. C. The proof of new claims makes science conservative. D. The press focuses on the significance of the Anthropocene. 33. What does the word “manifest” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A. Direct. B. Diverse. C. Negative. D. Striking. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Does the Anthropocene Matter? B. What Does the Anthropocene Tell Us? C. Can Humans Adapt to the Anthropocene? D. How Can Humans Reduce Anthropogenic Impact? 【答案】31. C 32. A 33. D 34. A 【解析】 【导语】这是一篇说明文。文章围绕“人类世”这一概念展开，讨论了其定义，科学意义以及社会影响。 【31题详解】 细节理解题。根据第一段“In 1922 British geologist Robert Sherlock put forth what is now considered to be the central argument for recognizing the Anthropocene (人类世) as a new geological era: the scale and character of human activities have become so great as to compete with natural forces.(1922年，英国地质学家罗伯特·歇洛克提出了人类世是一个新的地质时代的核心论点：人类活动的规模和性质已经变得如此之大，以至于可以与自然力量相竞争)”可知，人类世强调人类活动的影响。故选C。 【32题详解】 推理判断题。根据倒数第三段“We must rethink core assumptions about how we build our economies and our infrastructures, how we travel, and even how we eat.(我们必须重新思考我们如何建设经济和基础设施，如何旅行，甚至如何饮食等核心假设)”以及最后一段“It reminds us that as this new era unfolds, there won’t be anywhere to hide.(它提醒我们，随着这个新时代的展开，我们将无处可藏)”可知，我们需要转变责任心态，承担更多的责任。故选A。 【33题详解】 词句猜测题。根据划线词后文“the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” was becoming difficult to sustain(“自然”和“人工”之间的区别越来越难以维持)”可知，人类的影响变得如此明显，以至于“自然”和“人为”之间的区别难以维持。故划线词意思是“显著的，引人注目的”。故选D。 【34题详解】 主旨大意题。通读全文可知，文章围绕“人类世”这一概念展开，讨论了其定义，科学意义以及社会影响。结合倒数第三段中“The definition of the Anthropocene matters for at least two reasons.(人类世的定义之所以重要，至少有两个原因)”定义人类世很重要，它彰显人类活动影响，还提醒我们需转变观念，因为人类面临的挑战规模巨大，无处可躲。因此，A选项“人类世重要吗？”最符合文章标题。故选A。 2025 丰台二模 D In an era of big research, having confidence in scientists, individually or collectively, involves trade-offs. Science is ideally built on evidence but in reality, for most people, it is based on trust. Scientific evidence is hard to access. Journals are difficult to get and their articles, written in specialised language, are only understandable to a few field experts. So, we trust experts’ results without being able to question them ourselves, believing that if needed, someone knowledgeable will. Historically, the reputation of individual scientists has been important in facilitating the spread of scıentific theories and discoveries. If a scientist is, or can appear to be, trustworthy, so might that scientist’s ideas. This can lead to odd consequences. Recognisable scientists receive more credit and trust, while unrecognisable scientists often have their work overlooked. The history of science is filled with cases where basic papers written by relatively unknown scientists were neglected for years. Consider the case of Joseph Fourier, whose classic paper on the propagation of heat had to wait 13 years to be published. Since recognisable scientists receive disproportionate (不成比例的) credit, their names become disproportionately associated with discoveries. Statistics professor Stephen Stigler formulated “Stigler’s law of eponymy” (斯蒂格勒命名法则), stating no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer. For instance, Pythagoras wasn't the first to discover the Pythagorean theorem, nor was Edwin Hubble the first to formulate Hubble’s law. However, modern science operates differently. Large collaborative (合作的) projects often produce papers with hundreds of authors. The record for the number of authors on a single scientific paper is currently 5,154. Furthermore, an editorial board composed of project group members actually wrote the papers. The papers were then placed on an electronic bulletin board for criticism and comment by all. Some massive collaborative projects constantly maintain author lists of hundreds of names, which are automatically submitted on every publication. If we can’t identify the thousands in big science projects or know their actual authors, who do we trust? I’d say we trust “science” itself regardless of the individual scıentists’ integrity. We trust the organisations that are considered scientific. Any clickbait news articles with “Science Says” in the title show this shift from trusting individuals to trusting the scientific enterprise. This shift to trusting “science” itself has risks. Misidentifying experts or trusting dishonest ones can abuse scientific erodibility. A striking example is Merchants of Doubt, where experts hid truths about acid rain and global warming. Authorship, then, serves one last function, which in some cases only benefits the historian like me: accountability. 31. What is the passage mainly about? A. The moral issues in scientific authorship and accountability. B. The role of individual scientists in modern scientific research. C. The evolution of trust in science from individuals to enterprises. D. The challenges of confirming scientific evidence in the digital age. 32. Why is “Stigler’s law of eponymy” mentioned? A. To justify an argument. B. To introduce an approach. C. To challenge a convention. D. To evaluate an assumption. 33. According to the passage, the author may agree that ________. A. modern science collaboration challenges the trust in individual scientists B. the current trend of trusting science overlooks scientists’ sacrifices C. authorship ought to be founded upon intellectual contributions D. it is vital to identify the authors of large-scale science projects 34. What is the author’s attitude towards the shift to trusting science itself? A. Sympathetic. B. Cautious. C. Disapproving. D. Puzzied. 【答案】31. C 32. A 33. A 34. B 【解析】 【导语】本文是一篇说明文。文章讲述了科学信任从个人到企业的演变，分析了这种演变背后的原因、影响以及潜在风险，并提出了作者对于这一转变的谨慎态度。 31题详解】 主旨大意题。通读全文，尤其根据第一段“In an era of big research, having confidence in scientists, individually or collectively, involves trade-offs.(在科研成果丰硕的时代，无论是选择信任个体科学家，还是选择信任科学家集体，都存在着权衡取舍。)”、第二段中“ Historically, the reputation of individual scientists has been important in facilitating the spread of scıentific theories and discoveries. (从历史上看，科学家个人的声誉在促进科学理论和发现的传播方面一直很重要。)”、第五段“Howe$ 目录 I. 考情透视 1 II.解题技巧 3 III. 真题汇编 3 2025东城期末 4 2025西城期末 5 2025朝阳期末 6 2025海淀期末 8 2025丰台期末 9 2025石景山期末 11 2025东城一模 12 2025西城一模 14 2025朝阳一模 15 2025海淀一模 17 2025丰台一模 18 2025石景山一模 20 2025 东城二模 21 2025 西城二模 23 2025 朝阳二模 24 2025 海淀二模 25 2025 丰台二模 26 I. 考情透视 1. 语篇特点 · 语篇结构：提出问题 → 分析问题 → 解决问题 · 内容特点 · 题材：涉及社会、科技、文化、环境等多个领域 · 观点：可能包含不同的观点和立场 · 能力要求：需要对多话题具备基础认知与理解能力；需辨别作者观点和论据，理解论证方式 · 语言特点：可能出现复杂句子结构与高级词汇；需要具备长难句理解能力 2. 命题维度 从近年高考真题来看，议论文语篇主要考查推理判断题（含观点态度题）、推测词义题、主旨要义题、细节理解题，常见设问方式如下： ① 推理判断题：基于细节信息的逻辑推断，常见设问： · “What can we learn/infer from this passage?” · “What can be inferred about…from the passage?” 其中观点态度题考查作者对讨论对象的态度（支持/反对/中立等），常见设问： · “As for/Regarding…, the author is ______.” · “What is the author’s attitude to/towards…?” · “What does the author think of…?” ② 推测词义题：依托语篇逻辑（段落间宏观逻辑+句间微观逻辑）解题，常见设问： · “What does the underlined word…probably mean?” ③ 主旨要义题：考查文章/段落的主题、标题或主旨大意，常见设问： · “Which would be the best title for the passage?” · “What is the main idea of Paragraph 1?” · “What are the first two paragraphs mainly about?” ④ 细节理解题：常见设问： · “What leads to…?” II.解题技巧 1. 观点态度推断题 · ① 客观中立类词汇（如objective、neutral）常为正确选项；作者态度多为肯定支持（如approving、supporting）或否定反对（如negative、disapproving）。 · ② 作者提出观点并论证，态度一般不会是indifferent（冷漠的）或uninterested（不感兴趣的）。 · ③ 可通过词语褒贬性判断态度，如褒义：wonderfully、successfully；贬义：negatively、doubtfully。 · ④ 区分作者与他人观点：文中引用的观点是论据，作者观点通常与主旨关联。 2. 细节信息推断题 属于高层次推理题，解题关键： · 从整体把握语篇，在表面意义与隐含意义、已知信息与未知信息间建立关联。 · 技巧一：明确语篇主旨，若找不到主旨句，需定位主旨词（高频词或题干关键词）。 3. 推测词义题 （注：图片该部分仅显示标题，需结合语篇逻辑解题） 4. 主旨要义题 分为“归纳主旨”和“提炼标题”两类，解题核心： · 抓住主题句：语篇主题句常出现在开头（揭示主旨）或结尾（归纳观点）；部分文章主旨贯穿全文，需通过段落大意与整体逻辑概括。 · 避免以偏概全：不能将段落主题或细节当作全文主旨。 III. 真题汇编 2025东城期末 D The age of artificial intelligence has begun, and it brings plenty of anxieties. Almost all of the conversations about risk have to do with the potential consequences of AI systems pursuing goals that depart from what they were programmed to do and that are not in the interests of humans. But this is only one side of the danger. Imagine what could unfold if AI does do what humans want. “What humans want,” of course, isn’t a monolith. Different people have countless ideas of what constitutes “the greater good.” Even if we could get everyone to focus on the well-being of the entire human species, it’s unlikely we’d be able to agree on what that might look like. That seems to be the reason that DeepMind recently founded an internal organization focused on AI safety and preventing its manipulation by bad actors. But it’s not ideal that what’s “bad” is going to be determined by a handful of individuals at this one particular corporation — complete with their blind spots and personal and cultural biases (偏见). The potential problem goes beyond humans harming other humans. What’s “good” for humanity has, many times throughout history, come at the expense of other sentient (有知觉力的) beings. Such is the situation today. In the US alone, we have billions of animals kept in confinement, subjected to cruel treatment, and denial of their basic psychological and physiological needs at any given time. Entire species are dominated and systemically butchered so that we can have omelets, burgers and shoes. If AI does exactly what “we” want it to, that would likely mean enacting this mass cruelty more efficiently, at an even greater scale and with more automation and fewer opportunities for sympathetic humans to step in and flag anything particularly horrifying. A better goal than aligning AI with humanity’ s immediate interests would be what I would call “sentient alignment” — AI acting in accordance with the interests of all sentient beings, including humans, all other animals and, should it exist, sentient AI. This will strike some as aggressive, because what’s good for all sentient life might not always agree with what’s good for humankind. It might sometimes, even often, be in opposition to what humans want or what would be best for the greatest number of us. Peter Singer, a philosopher, argued that an AI system’s ultimate goals and priorities are more important than it being aligned with humans. “The question is really whether this super intelligent AI is going to be benevolent and want to produce a better world,” Singer said, “and even if we don’t control it, it still will produce a better world in which our interests will get taken into account.” I’m with Singer on this. Decentering humankind to any extent, and especially to this extreme, is an idea that will challenge people. But that’s necessary if we’re to prevent our current belief from spreading in new and awful ways. 31. The author mentions the organization founded by DeepMind to __________. A. question a solution B. clarify a belief C. illustrate an example D. explain a practice 32. Which of the following can best present the idea of “sentient alignment”? A. AI extends the same rights to living beings. B. AI promotes the interaction among species. C. AI benefits from the development of humans. D. AI meets the demands of perceptive creatures. 33. What does the underlined word “benevolent” in Paragraph 7 probably mean? A. Ambitious. B. Generous. C. Resourceful. D. Competitive. 34. The author’s major concern in developing AI is that __________. A. AI poses a threat to the world B. society’s morals are in decline C. humans prioritize their own needs D. sentient beings deepen cultural biases 2025西城期末 D In the early 1900s, an American chemist named Harvey W. Wiley led the famous “Poison Squad” experiment. His studies revealed the dangers of unregulated (未经监管的) food additives and raised public awareness about the importance of knowing what was in the food they consumed. However, it wasn’t until nearly 90 years later that companies in the U. S. began disclosing the ingredients inside the boxes, cans, and bags that lined grocery store shelves. Fast-forward to today, and it’s hard to imagine walking through a supermarket without seeing these labels. Yet, when we surf the Internet — another essential marketplace in our lives — we often absorb vast amounts of digital information without any understanding of its emotional or mental “nutritional value.” But what if every webpage came with a content label? A study we conducted, published today in Nature Human Behavior, revealed that individuals with poorer mental health tended to seek out more negative and frightening content online. This, in turn, worsened their symptoms, creating a destructive cycle. To break this cycle, we introduced content labels that provided users with emotional “nutrition information” about the websites they were about to visit. Would this webpage make you feel better or worse? Was it full of negativity, or was it likely to brighten your mood? When users were shown these labels on the search engine results page, they were far less likely to click on negative content. As a result, this led to improved mood after browsing (浏览). However, it’s important to note that you wouldn’t want people to make decisions solely based on the emotional tone of a website. Staying informed about the world — despite the potential for sadness or anxiety — is often essential. To address this, we developed a plugin that provides users with not only labels about a website’s emotional tone but also scores indicating the practicality, helpfulness, and ability of the information to enhance understanding. These scores, displayed on the search engine results page, are calculated using a machine learning algorithm (运算法则) trained on thousands of human assessments. Anne-Linda Camerini, a researcher specializing in digital media and mental health, pointed out that while much of the focus on mental health and technology has been on limiting screen time, the type of content we consume is just as critical. This shift could transform the conversation around mental health and technology. Instead of framing the Internet as inherently harmful, content labels offer a way to create a healthier digital experience. Just as nutrition labels empower people to make better food choices, content labels could enable users to make smarter, healthier decisions online. 32. What does the author intend to do by mentioning Harvey’s studies? A. Make a comparison. B. Illustrate a point. C. Suggest an alternative. D. Challenge an assumption. 33. According to the passage, how do content labels aim to create a healthier digital experience? A. By encouraging users to avoid the Internet altogether. B. By showing emotional tone and website usefulness. C. By training users to spend less time online. D. By restricting access to negative content. 34. What is the purpose of this passage? A. To stress the necessity of categorizing webpages. B To suggest new solutions to mental health problems. C. To criticize social media sites for spreading negativity. D. To highlight the importance of regulating online content. 2025朝阳期末 D Pure mathematics fascinates me, precisely because it is so inaccessible. I envision it as a remote, chilly, dangerous place, like Antarctica’s Sentinel Range. The hard y souls who surmount its peaks seem superhuman. Perhaps because I romanticize mathematicians, I’m troubled by the thought that machines might replace them. I stated this possibility in The Death of Proof, published in the October 1993 Scientific American. In response to the growing complexity of mathematics, I reported, mathematicians were becoming increasingly reliant on computers. I asked, “Will the great mathematicians of the next century be made of silicon (硅)?” Mathematicians are still annoyed about that article, even as the trends I described have continued. Anthony Bordg at Cambridge University worries that his field could face a “replication crisis” (复制危机) like that troubling scientific research. Mathematicians, Bordg notes, sometimes accept a proof not because they have checked it, step by step, but because they trust the proof’s methods and author. Given the “increasing difficulty in checking the correctness of mathematical arguments”, old-fashioned peer review may no longer be sufficient. Outstanding mathematicians have published “proofs” so novel and elaborate that even specialists in the relevant mathematics can’t validate them. Bordg suggests computerized “proof assistants ” will help confirm proofs. Researchers have already invented an “interactive theorem prover (交互式定理证明程序)” that can check proofs and even propose improvements. Some mathematicians welcome the digitization of mathematics for accuracy. Others are conflicted. Michael Harris sees mathematics as “a free, creative activity” pursued for its own sake, for the pure joy of discovery and insight. He worries such tools will encourage a “limited vision” of mathematics as an economic product rather than “a way of being human”. After all, many funders of mathematical research, including technology giants, value mathematics primarily for its applications. We value science for applications, too. Sentimental science writing, including mine, implies that science’s purpose is insight into nature. In the modern era, however, science’s primary goal is power. Science helps us control nature for various ends: to enrich and entertain, to boost economy, and to defeat enemies. Modern physics, to most of us, is incomprehensible, but who cares when physics gives us smartphones and hydrogen bombs? Physicists often adopt a utilitarian (实用主义的) mindset, exemplified by the slogan “Shut up and calculate!” That is what professors supposedly tell students stuck in quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees have predicted artificial intelligence will play an increasing role in physics. Wouldn’t it be funny if a quantum AI finds the long-sought unified theory of physics, but not even brilliant theorist Edward Witten understands it? Given the powerful forces behind automatization if machines can replace mathematicians, they probably will, just as they are replacing drivers, bank tellers, travel agents, cashiers and other workers. Mathematicians’ wishes, such as their desire to pursue truth purely for its own sake, might be unlikely. The charm of math can hardly be preserved in face of the powerful forces behind automatization. 32. “Replication crisis” is mentioned to _________. A. reduce a particular concern B. justify the use of digital assistants C. question the role of authority in math D. highlight the potential threat of machines 33. Advocates of utilitarianism in science would probably agree that _________. A. insight into nature is a priority B. automatization is a major trend C. quantum AI remains a fantasy D. power is an approach to digitization 34. What can be learned from this passage? A. Utilitarian mindset pushes physics forward. B. Quantum mechanics unifies theories of physics. C. The humanity of mathematics is hard to maintain. D. Leading mathematicians’ proofs are beyond understanding. 2025海淀期末 D Crucial systems across the world collapsed on Friday, triggered by one mistake in a single company. The power cut of CrowdStrike, a giant in the cybersecurity industry, hit banks, airlines, and health-care systems. It may end up being the worst information technology disaster in history. This was not, however, an unforeseeable freak accident, nor will it be the last of its kind. Instead, the devastation was the inevitable outcome of modern social systems that have been designed for hyperconnected optimization (优化), not decentralized resilience. There is often a trade-off between maximum optimization and resilience. Consider a basic prehistorical social system in which many humans lived in small, isolated bands. What any single person did would have little to no effect on those living elsewhere. It was an inefficient, basic system — but if one part of the human system failed, few others were affected. Throughout our advancement as a species, from building empires to building machines, social systems have evolved to be more connected and centralized. In the 21st century, the combination of globalization and digitization has created a landscape characterized by the threat of catastrophic, immediate risk. Globalization enables large efficiency gains, where a product can be put together from carefully managed links in the global supply chain. But those systems lack resilience. Every link must fit together perfectly; the system falls apart if even one chain breaks. Centuries ago, the philosopher David Hume wrote that we can never be certain that the patterns of the past will remain the patterns of the future. This is especially true in the 21st century as we are betting more and more of our world on unstable systems. Can we really trust our species to flawlessly govern unimaginably complex systems — systems we don’t always fully understand — that can be brought down by a single screw-up? Modern societies have discounted the cost of that risk because our current reward systems favor optimization over resilience. CEOs try to deliver short-term improvements, not long-term planning. Nobody gets reelected by investing in a rainy-day fund. Business leaders are hired or fired based on quarterly results. Even though the modern quest for optimization has too often made resilience an afterthought, it is not inevitable that we continue down the risky path we’re on. And making our systems more resilient doesn’t require going back to a disconnected, primitive world, either. Instead, our complex, interconnected societies simply demand that we compromise a bit of efficiency in order to allow a little extra cushion (缓冲). If social systems rely on a more diverse digital array of companies, the societies will be less vulnerable (脆弱的). For the broader set of risks facing global society, better regulation is essential to ensure fail-safes, backups, and stress testing — so that one error doesn’t bring down entire systems. The CrowdStrike breakdown is a clear warming that the modern world is fragile by design. So far, we have decided to make ourselves vulnerable. That means we can decide differently too. 31. The author mentions the CrowdStrike mainly to ______. A. highlight its crucial role in cybersecurity B. introduce an information technology collapse C. explain why people are in a connected system D. indicate predictable failures of the modern system 32. What can be inferred about a more globalized system? A. It leads to a highly advanced digitalized network. B. It tends to prioritize adaptability over productivity. C. It enlarges the impact of local errors to a global scale. D. It guarantees immediate economic rewards for participants. 33. As for the future of social systems, which would the author agree with? A. The more disconnected they are, the more resilient they will be. B. Some efficiency should be sacrificed for more flexibility. C. Long-term planning prevents structural breakdowns. D. History can help people predict future patterns. 34. Which would be the best title for this passage? A. Hyperconnectivity: The Price of Perfection B. A Wakeful Warning: The Lesson from CrowdStrike C. System Collapse: An Inevitable Technology Disaster D. Resilience vs. Optimization: A Debate for Better Systems 2025丰台期末 D 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. 31. 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 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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? 2025石景山期末 D Experts frequently warn about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). Sadly, the rapid advancement of AI technology in recent years has not led to a common understanding of its risks, as it should have. Actually, beneath the surface of AI discussions lies conflict among divided groups, which may mislead lawmakers and the public and prevent competent regulatory measures. Understanding the motivations behind these differing views is crucial to addressing AI’s societal impact. The loudest perspective is a frightening vision from doomsayers (末日论者), who present AI as a threat to human existence, capable of wiping out life and controlling everything. This doomsaying is heightened by influential tech figures using tools like ChatGPT to shape the conversation. Some in this group focus on extreme disastrous risks and emphasize the distant future implications of our actions. While many doomsayers claim they are reasonable, their exaggerated concerns about hypothetical (假设的) existential risks amount to a misguided bet with humanity’s future. Technology historian David Brock calls such fears “wishful worries” — that is, problems that it would be nice to have, in contrast to the actual struggles of the present. While doomsayers focus on the distant future, reformers focus on immediate issues. They view AI reform as a matter of integrity, urging Big Tech to prioritize the public good over profit. These experts advocate for regulators to address current harms caused by AI, such as misinformation, monitoring, and algorithmic (算法的) unfairness. They propose initiatives like civil education for AI literacy and the design of human-centered systems to fight growing societal inequalities. Warriors, another group, describe AI through the language of national security and competitiveness. Their views benefit some tech giants and government agencies. Top AI firms seek costly regulations that they claim guard against crime and terrorism, which could secure their market dominance and limit startup competition. Governments, tightly connected to these firms, may prioritize defense applications over moral concerns, leading to regulatory blind spots. In conclusion, the differing viewpoints on AI underline the complexity of addressing its societal impact. To minimize potential harms and ensure that AI serves the public interest, it is crucial to strengthen legal frameworks that close existing gaps and hold corporations accountable. Expanding regulatory strategies can help restrict corporate overreach and foster transparency in AI development. Publicly directed projects can counterbalance corporate influence, ensuring that AI benefits society as a whole. By prioritizing accountability and collective welfare, we can shape a future where AI empowers everyone, not just a select few. 31. What is the consequence of diverse points of view on AI? A. Enhancing our ability to tackle AI issues. B. Advancing the standardization of AI guidelines. C. Delaying the creation of effective AI regulations. D. Breaking the integrity of current AI legal framework. 32. The author quotes David Brock’s words in order to ______. A. prove that AI has positive impacts B. confirm that doomsayers’ worries are justified C. suggest that the concerns over AI are overstated D show that current struggles have serious outcomes 33. What can be inferred from the passage? A. A publicly directed AI project will ultimately empower the select few. B. Reformers advocate human-centered AI systems to gain personal profits. C Warriors pursue dominance in national security by improving AI morally. D Lawmakers should toughen rules limiting corporate influence for public good. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. The Battle over AI: Power and Benefit B. Perspectives on AI: Individualism or Collectivism C. The Argument about AI: Reformers vs. Doomsayers D. Debates on the Future of AI: Innovation or Regulation 2025东城一模 D Years after my art history class, I am insufferable at museums. “That’s definitely a Matisse,” I say. “You can tell 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 an example D. To highlight a research findings 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 form 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 Your View a View? C. Why Good Art Works Wonders? D. What Makes Hemingwau Hemingway ? 2025西城一模 D Genetic (基因的) variation is what allows a species to adapt as climate changes, new diseases arise, and novel enemies come on the scene. A slightly different genetic makeup can ensure at least some individuals will still do OK in times of crisis. But just as the number of species is declining worldwide, so, too, is the genetic diversity within many species. Until 2022, governments focused primarily on preventing species from disappearing. That year, however, when updating the United Nations’s Convention on Biological Diversity treaty (条约), participating countries agreed to start to look at genetic diversity as well. The first step toward slowing the trend is understanding it. Conservation biologist Catherine Grueber from the University of Sydney and many colleagues gathered 882 papers written between 1985 and 2019 that tracked diversity changes within 628 individual species by analyzing their DNA at at least two time points. The team used complex statistical analyses to make the data comparable, enabling them to identify trends and correlate loss of genetic diversity with floods, habitat destruction, or other disturbances. They also tracked what happened in the face of various conservation measures, such as legally protecting a species or setting aside and protecting habitat. Two-thirds of the populations analyzed exhibited a decline in diversity, Grueber and her colleagues report. That included species already known to be at risk, but it also included more common species. The implication is that those species may be less able to bounce back than expected during environmental change, says Alicia Mastretta-Yanes, a conservation geneticist. Some conservation efforts, such as ecological restoration or reducing pests (害虫), didn’t help much, the analysis found. But certain actions did seem to help, such as efforts to expand and protect habitat, introduce new individuals to declining populations, or connect two isolated populations. “It was pretty impressive that they were able to track what human disturbances and conservation actions had done,” says Moisés Alonso, an evolutionary geneticist who authored a preprint last year indicating that protecting existing habitat won’t be enough to prevent genetic diversity losses for many species. “We needed something like this,” he says. Conservation scientists emphasize the importance of continuing to monitor populations. But DNA methods aren’t always practical, some note. “It is relatively hard and expensive to measure genetic diversity directly,” Mastretta-Yanes says. To get around that, Mastretta-Yanes and others published a paper in Ecology Letters last year that used proxy (代替物) measures, such as population size, to evaluate genetic diversity in 919 species. The method, which only required about 3 hours of work per species, indicated that 58% of the species have populations that are too small to maintain their genetic diversity. The fact that these different approaches found declining diversity “makes both results more convincing,” Mastretta-Yanes says. “Finally, genetic diversity is getting the attention it deserves.” 31 What is Paragraph 3 mainly about? A. Challenges of collecting DNA data for diversity research. B. Findings on genetic diversity changes over the past 30 years. C. Research methods applied to track genetic diversity changes. D. Impacts of human disturbances on diversity of different species. 32. What can be learned from Grueber’s study? A. Habitat extension and population management preserve diversity. B. The diversity of common species tends to decline more severely. C. At-risk species better resist the impact of environmental changes. D. Ecosystem recovery and pest control drive population rise. 33. Mastretta-Yanes holds that DNA methods _______. A. will soon be replaced by proxy measures B. lack practicality due to their costs and complexity C. may get in the way of monitoring species populations D. require a large population size to achieve high accuracy 34. What is the purpose of this passage? A. To identify more effective methods applied in gene research. B. To advocate for using DNA methods exclusively in conservation efforts. C. To warn people of the threat posed by environmental changes on species. D. To draw people’s attention to effective measures against loss of diversity. 2025朝阳一模 D 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 2025海淀一模 D 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. 2025丰台一模 D Recent findings from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in Arizona, which produced the largest 3D map of the universe, suggest that dark energy—the mysterious force driving the universe’s accelerated(加速的) expansion— might change over time. This challenges the standard model of cosmology(宇宙学), which assumes a steady acceleration. Dark energy is thought to make up nearly 70% of the cosmos, so if its behaviour really is changing as time passes, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. Since the DESI data came out, researchers have been working on ways to explain the apparent changes in the universe’s expansion rate. Dark energy isn’t directly observable, so there are several options that could fit. One solution suggested by Michael Garda at the Federal University in Brazil and his colleagues involves letting dark energy interact with dark matter, an invisible and abundant form of matter that outweighs ordinary matter. This interaction is forbidden in the standard model, but if energy could flow from the universe’s dark matter to its dark energy—essentially changing the former to the latter—the researchers’ simulations (模拟) showed that this would match the DESI measurements. Yet, the mechanism for such an energy transfer isn’t clear. This solution might also help resolve the Hubble tension, a difference in the ways we measure the expansion rate of the cosmos. Measurements of this made by analyzing nearby galaxies (known as “local” measurements) give an expansion rate, or Hubble constant, which is slightly higher than the one obtained from the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—the remaining radiation from the early universe. CMB measurements rely on a theoretical model of cosmic evolution, which may need adjustment if Garda’s proposal is correct. By allowing energy transfer between dark matter and dark energy, the adjusted model could bring CMB-based estimates more closely into line with local measurements, potentially resolving the tension. Another proposed solution involves dark radiation, an invisible form of radiation similar to light but composed of dark photons(光子). Tamar Allali at Brown University and his team suggest that dark radiation could explain the DESI data and lessened the Hubble tension by increasing the universe’s expansion rate in its early stages. “If you have more radiation, the expansion is faster in the early universe,” says Allali. Unlike adjustments to dark energy, dark radiation introduces a new component without changing existing physical laws, making it a more conservative approach. Allali notes that the DESI data does not rule out dark radiation and even shows a slight preference for it. Both models—interacting dark energy and dark radiation—fit the DESI data, but neither has been confirmed. Shawn Smith at the University of Edinburgh, UK. points out that while many unconventional models could explain the observations, none currently compete with the standard cosmological model from a fundamental physics perspective. Nevertheless, these models serve as catalysts for progress, ensuring that cosmology remains a dynamic and evolving field. 32. What does this passage mainly talk about? A. The development of scientific models to study the universe. B. The discovery of dark energy and its impact on the universe. C. The importance of DESI in studying the universe’s behavior. D. The attempts to explain the universe’s unexpected expansion. 33. Which of the following might the author agree with? A. Garda’s proposal outperforms Allali’s in its simplicity. B. Recent research has found ways for dark energy transfer. C. The DESI data has confirmed the existence of dark radiation. D. The two models share similarities in reducing Hubble tension. 34. The passage is organized in the pattern of . A. cause—effect—solution B. problem—solution—evaluation C. example—analysis—conclusion D. introduction—comparison—result 2025石景山一模 D 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 2025 东城二模 D For almost two centuries, newspapers have been on a journey into the mass market which gave them scale, reputation and profit but which has now reached its end. They mostly abandoned dependence on subscriptions and instead sold below production cost as a way to attract readers to sell to advertisers. Since the Internet took off, the print media’s advertising-supported business model has suffered. In the past 20 years, newspapers’ ad profits have fallen by about 80%, while circulation has roughly fallen by half. Though online traffic has risen, profit from digital advertising has failed to offset (抵消) the profit draining out of print. “Platforms have become the new kings of the media landscape,” says the Competition and Markets Authority, a regulator. This power shift has led newspapers in many countries to turn to authorities for help. Partly because they have, by their very nature, a loud voice, they have generated sympathy. How much they deserve it is another matter. The world is filled with businesses torn apart by the digital revolution without anyone rushing to the rescue. Why are newspapers different? One argument is that a thriving press supports grass-roots journalism, which, though often loss-making, supports fairness and equality. That is reasonable. Yet it is mixed with other motivations, such as the desire to choke the tech giants. The result is a range of interventions aimed at putting the pressure on big tech. Mindful of the outcry, big tech is offering a handout, promising $1bn over three years to newspapers to provide news content for its site. Some publishers saw it as an unstated admission that big tech should pay for news. If anything, the gratitude for big tech’s generosity shows how desperate newspapers are for payment of any kind. More to the point, it will not change the underlying economics of the global newspaper industry. That is because the ad-funded business model was living on fumes even before the Internet ate the world this century. Data show that newspapers have been losing share of ad dollars to TV since the 1950s — long before the web. Circulation has also fallen relative to population, suggesting that profits were supported by economic and population growth, not because the industry was producing a more popular product. Claims that the tech giants are robbing newspapers for profit sound far-fetched, too. The real failure is that papers have lost control of distribution to platforms, making it harder to monetise the traffic. This is a mistake some content industries, such as video-streaming and music, have avoided. Moreover, some of the advertising dollars made by big tech came from bringing new firms into the market, rather than taking online advertisers from newspapers. So ignore the complaining of old-media companies in distress and look instead at how some newspapers have already adapted to the digital invasion. Also some digital publications with a newsworthy focus are thriving. The question of who pays for public-interest journalism remains unanswered. But few think it ought to be tech giants. That would “undermine the principles of an independent press”. 31. Why does the author cite the statistics in Paragraph 2? A. To prove the decline of print media. B. To emphasize the popularity of platforms. C. To indicate the importance of digital advertising. D. To demonstrate the inconsistency in subscriptions. 32. The underlined phrase “was living on fumes” in Paragraph 6 probably means ______. A. was taking off B. was moving forward C. was falling apart D. was struggling along 33. Which of the following may the author agree with? A. The platform should support grass-roots journalism. B. The old media should produce marketable products. C. New online advertisers should be introduced. D. Effective interventions should be made. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Where is the Digital Age leading the press? B. Are online platforms really a way out? C. How the Internet impacts old media? D. Should big tech save newspapers? 2025 西城二模 D A theme at this year’s World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting was the perceived need to “accelerate breakthroughs in research and technology.” Some of this discussion was motivated by the climate emergency, some by the opportunities and challenges presented by generative artificial intelligence. Yet in various conversations, it seemed to be taken for granted that to address the world’s problems, scientific research needs to move faster. The WEF meeting took place just two weeks after Harvard University President Claudine Gay stepped down after complaints were made about her political science scholarship. Gay’s troubles came after Stanford University President Marc Tessier Lavigne stepped down, after an internal investigation concluded that his neuroscience research had “multiple problems” and “fell below customary standards of scientific rigor.” Although it may be impossible to determine just how widespread such problems really are, it’s hard to imagine that the phenomenon of high-profile scholars correcting and withdrawing papers has not had a negative impact on public trust in science and perhaps in experts broadly. In recent years we’ve seen important papers withdrawn because of questionable data or methods. In one interesting case, Frances H. Arnold, who shared the 2018Nobel Prize in Chemistry, voluntarily withdrew a paper when her lab was unable to reproduce her results — but after the paper had been published. In an open apology, she stated that she was “a bit busy” when the paper was submitted and “did not do my job well.” Arnold’s honesty is admirable, but it raises a question: Are scholars at highly competitive places such as Harvard and Standford rushing to publishing rather than taking the time to do their work right? It’s impossible to answer this question scientifically because there’s no scientific definition of what constitutes “rushing”. But there’s little doubt that we live in a culture where academics at leading universities are under enormous pressure to produce results — and a lot of them — quickly. However, nearly a century passed between biochemist Friedrich Miescher’s identification of the DNA molecule and suggestion that it might be involved in inheritance (遗传) and the clarification of its double-helix (双螺旋) structure in the 1950s. And it took just about half a century for geologists and geophysicists to accept Alfred Wegener’s idea of continental drift (漂移). There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence that scientists and other scholars are pushing results out far faster than they used to. One recent study put the number at more than seven million a year, compared with fewer than a million as recently as 1980. Another study found 265 academic authors — two thirds of whom were in the medical and life sciences — published a paper every five days on average. The numbers suggest that the research world has prioritized quantity over quality. Researchers may need to slow down — not speed up — if we are to produce knowledge worthy of trust. 31. What does the word “rigor” underlined in Paragraph 2 most probably mean? A. Quickness and convenience. B. Flexibility and openness. C. Strictness and precision. D. Fame and popularity. 32. DNA and continental drift are examples to demonstrate that _______. A. good science takes time B. science advances with time C. research across disciplines is needed D. breakthroughs seldom happen by chance 33. Which of the following situations can best reflect the author’s concern? A. A researcher fails to produce evidence for his paper. B. A university loses young talent due to a lack of funding. C. An editor overlooks the errors in a writer’s research methods. D. A scholar publishes a paper with limited data to gain recognition. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. The Danger of Fast Science B. The Need for Trust in Science C. An Alarming Warning to Science Editors D. A Popular Trend towards Rushing Science 2025 朝阳二模 D Books are about to become a little less “Impressive!”, “Appealing!” and “Spellbinding!”. Fewer still will offer a “tour de force” (whatever one of those might be). That is because Simon & Schuster, an American publisher, has decided to stop doing book blurbs ( also called “puffs” in Britain) — those invited comments from other authors on the back of books. They are, says Sean Manning, the company’s publisher, “very awkward”. The problem with blurbs is that there is always a need to publicly evaluate books. It is a fact in the life of a writer that if one publicly publishes, one is going to be publicly judged. When negative, such judgments can be painful, when stupid, it can be maddening, but when positive, it can also be a joyful, supportive moment. However, when a writer gets prearranged remarks, it devalues legitimate (合情合理的) responses. The style of a puff is, as the name suggests, breathless. Someone might declare a book “authoritative”; another, “unputdownable”; and a third, “If you can read this book without screaming with excitement, your soul is dead”. You feel guilty, wrote George Orwell, when you are in the library and “fail to scream with delight”. Also, in theory blurbs are testament to an author’s narrative skills. In truth they are a testament to their social ones: they often reflect arm-twisting rather than artistry. Literary heavyweights hate giving them. “We would as soon sell our tears for lemon-drops”, wrote Nathaniel Parker Willis, a poet, than thus “spoil one of the truthful adjectives in the world”. New authors struggle to get blurbs, which is partly why Simon & Schuster is giving them up. Blurbs more often exemplify the very bad writing. Many are less written than pieced up from stock phrases — “A heartbreaking, unputdownable page-turner!” — with an exclamation mark at the end. This makes them exhausting to read! There has been honest copy on dust jackets — T. S. Eliot’s description of Louis MacNeice, a fellow poet, informed readers that “His work is accessible but unpopular” — but it is too rare. It turns out that the habit of using words like “unputdownable” is itself quite putdownable. Mr. Manning says his editors will use the time they save on chasing quotes to instead produce good books. Not, note, “charming” or “absorbing” books but simply “the best books possible”. It is an admirably modest aim. 32. What can we learn about blurbs? A. They serve the interest of book writers. B. They guarantee legitimate responses. C. New authors are sick of writing them. D. Readers feel guilty after reading them. 33. The author uses Eliot’s example mainly to ____________. A. advocate the originality in blurbs B. clarify a misconception about blurbs C. distinguish the various types of current blurbs D. suggest the widespread presence of dishonest blurbs 34. What can we infer from the passage? A. Blurbs are self-defeating. B. There is no need for blurbs. C. Blurbs promote social skills. D. Established authors favor blurbs. 2025 海淀二模 D In 1922 British geologist Robert Sherlock put forth what is now considered to be the central argument for recognizing the Anthropocene (人类世) as a new geological era: the scale and character of human activities have become so great as to compete with natural forces. About one hundred years later, geologists have broadly accepted Sherlock’s core idea, and the Anthropocene Working Group has proposed Crawford Lake in Canada as the official site for marking the Anthropocene. The proposal attracted a great deal of press, much of it focused on a misguided controversy over how narrowly to define the Anthropocene. Amid this debate, observers may have been left to wonder why defining this chapter in Earth’s history should matter to ordinary people at all. Sherlock was not a lone wolf. He built on the work of others. One was an American scholar George Marsh, who had called attention to deforestation and the role of humans as “disturbing agents”. In addition to revisiting deforestation, Sherlock described the changed courses of rivers through dams and canals; and the huge quantities of stuff people move while mining the raw materials of modern civilization. Human impacts were becoming so manifest, Sherlock argued, that the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” was becoming difficult to sustain. We needed a new term to study the effects of human activities on Earth. Scientists of later generations followed his footsteps. And in 2000 Eugene F. Stormer and Paul J. Crutzen formally proposed the word “Anthropocene” in a paper. But science is conservative in nature — the burden of proof is always on those making a novel claim — and the social and economic consequences of recognizing the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels have led to enormous resistance beyond scientific community. The definition of the Anthropocene matters for at least two reasons. First, it is a way for scientists to declare that the shifts going on around us are no small issue. Anthropogenic climate change is a profound change in the conditions of life on Earth. In countless ways, the past may no longer be a reliable guide to the future. We must rethink core assumptions about how we build our economies and our infrastructures, how we travel, and even how we eat. Second, the definition of the Anthropocene extends the conversation beyond climate change. What geologists can now see in rocks — from the subtle to the gross — points to the widespread and lasting impact of human activities on Earth. It is common for people to say that as climate change proceeds, we can “just adapt”. Some wealthy people even think that, if necessary, they will move to higher ground or lower latitudes. No doubt some people will become climate refugees, either voluntarily or under force. But the definition of the Anthropocene reminds us that the challenge we face is geological in scale. It affects the whole Earth. It reminds us that as this new era unfolds, there won’t be anywhere to hide. 31. What can we learn about the Anthropocene? A. It is driven by dramatic climate change. B. It is approved as a definite geological era. C. It highlights the impact of human activities. D. It marks the unique features of Crawford Lake. 32. What can be inferred from the passage? A. A shift in mindset of responsibility is in great need. B. Geological changes in rocks remain to be uncovered. C. The proof of new claims makes science conservative. D. The press focuses on the significance of the Anthropocene. 33. What does the word “manifest” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A. Direct. B. Diverse. C. Negative. D. Striking. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Does the Anthropocene Matter? B. What Does the Anthropocene Tell Us? C. Can Humans Adapt to the Anthropocene? D. How Can Humans Reduce Anthropogenic Impact? 2025 丰台二模 D In an era of big research, having confidence in scientists, individually or collectively, involves trade-offs. Science is ideally built on evidence but in reality, for most people, it is based on trust. Scientific evidence is hard to access. Journals are difficult to get and their articles, written in specialised language, are only understandable to a few field experts. So, we trust experts’ results without being able to question them ourselves, believing that if needed, someone knowledgeable will. Historically, the reputation of individual scientists has been important in facilitating the spread of scıentific theories and discoveries. If a scientist is, or can appear to be, trustworthy, so might that scientist’s ideas. This can lead to odd consequences. Recognisable scientists receive more credit and trust, while unrecognisable scientists often have their work overlooked. The history of science is filled with cases where basic papers written by relatively unknown scientists were neglected for years. Consider the case of Joseph Fourier, whose classic paper on the propagation of heat had to wait 13 years to be published. Since recognisable scientists receive disproportionate (不成比例的) credit, their names become disproportionately associated with discoveries. Statistics professor Stephen Stigler formulated “Stigler’s law of eponymy” (斯蒂格勒命名法则), stating no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer. For instance, Pythagoras wasn't the first to discover the Pythagorean theorem, nor was Edwin Hubble the first to formulate Hubble’s law. However, modern science operates differently. Large collaborative (合作的) projects often produce papers with hundreds of authors. The record for the number of authors on a single scientific paper is currently 5,154. Furthermore, an editorial board composed of project group members actually wrote the papers. The papers were then placed on an electronic bulletin board for criticism and comment by all. Some massive collaborative projects constantly maintain author lists of hundreds of names, which are automatically submitted on every publication. If we can’t identify the thousands in big science projects or know their actual authors, who do we trust? I’d say we trust “science” itself regardless of the individual scıentists’ integrity. We trust the organisations that are considered scientific. Any clickbait news articles with “Science Says” in the title show this shift from trusting individuals to trusting the scientific enterprise. This shift to trusting “science” itself has risks. Misidentifying experts or trusting dishonest ones can abuse scientific erodibility. A striking example is Merchants of Doubt, where experts hid truths about acid rain and global warming. Authorship, then, serves one last function, which in some cases only benefits the historian like me: accountability. 31. What is the passage mainly about? A. The moral issues in scientific authorship and accountability. B. The role of individual scientists in modern scientific research. C. The evolution of trust in science from individuals to enterprises. D. The challenges of confirming scientific evidence in the digital age. 32. Why is “Stigler’s law of eponymy” mentioned? A. To justify an argument. B. To introduce an approach. C. To challenge a convention. D. To evaluate an assumption. 33. According to the passage, the author may agree that ________. A. modern science collaboration challenges the trust in individual scientists B. the current trend of trusting science overlooks scientists’ sacrifices C. authorship ought to be founded upon intellectual contributions D. it is vital to identify the authors of large-scale science projects 34. What is the author’s attitude towards the shift to trusting science itself? A. Sympathetic. B. Cautious. C. Disapproving. D. Puzzied. 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $