专题06 阅读理解（议论文）（北京专用）2026年高考英语一模分类汇编

专题05 阅读理解（议论文） 主题01 人与自我——生活与做人 Passage 1 （2026·北京丰台·一模） The singularly most important question we will ever ask is, “Who am I?” Generally speaking, we are not taught how to answer that question. We don’t even ask it. Most commonly, we define ourselves by the mirrors we see from the external world. We are being looked at. And we are looking at other people’s observations and perceptions as if they are a mirror image of who we are. But you know how mirrors are. We only get a reversed (相反的) image. We have internalized other people’s ideas and we believe that they define us. Even in the case, used here only as an example, of the child who internalizes a rebel identity. We say he’s “out of control.” He’s just trying to embarrass his parents. He’s just a “difficult child.” If none of that is true, then who is he really? From the transpersonal therapy perspective, little Johnny has become what his parents needed him to be. What? Nobody in their right mind would want to raise a rebel. Right? Perhaps Johnny’s parents have lived an unconsciously restrained life, strictly following the socially acceptable codes of the day. Yet, internally, they are itching (渴望) to be different. They just can’t because this role as the “good guy” has captured them. However, all the itching internal stuff has to go somewhere. The simplest answer is that it is projected onto little Johnny. Then the parent can deal with it externally; they may typically react by trying to get Johnny to take on the identity of another good guy. That is how it is for most of us. We introject an idea of who we are, which we have received by looking into the eyes of parents and family members, and we live it out as if it is truly who we are. Often, it is reinforced many times over many years, in this case, by trying to get Johnny to live in the parents’ cage, which only means Johnny will have to rebel yet again. Under all that identification, we ask, who are we really? The way to find it is to stop looking into other people’s eyes and start looking within. Once that decision is made, it might be a good time to seek a therapist who will help us do that in a safe environment. Within that safe environment, you might also start journaling. Journaling is a dialogue with yourself — a dialogue between identity and self, or someone with whom you have unresolved issues. The real journey, the one that will need to be made in a safe space, is made of determination. Determination to go deeper and deeper. This is the true hero’s journey in which you finally meet and retrieve your own self. 1．What are the first two paragraphs mainly about? A．The misconstruction of self-perception. B．The internalized reflection of self-identity. C．People’s confusion about their internal world. D．People’s observation of a reversed mirror image. 2．Why does the author mention the example of a “rebel” child? A．To criticize a practice. B．To challenge an argument. C．To illustrate an idea. D．To raise an assumption. 3．What does the underlined word “introject” in Paragraph 6 probably mean? A．Absorb. B．Introduce. C．Value. D．Generate. 4．It is implied in the passage that we should ________. A．address unresolved issues with parents B．balance given identity and genuine self C．reclaim the authority to define who we are D．reshape our identity in a safe environment 主题02 人与社会——科学与技术 Passage 1 （2026·北京东城·一模） Whom would you trust more: an expert who seems to have all of the answers or one who admits what he doesn’t know? We have spent the past five years studying that question. Our research was sparked by a tension we both noticed early in our academic careers. Our graduate studies made us deeply aware of how little we knew about our respective research areas, even as we developed specialized knowledge in these fields. Scholars call this particular variety of self-awareness “intellectual humility”, and it’s something we suspect many experts encounter as they transition into a new role. On the other hand, barely anyone seemed to expect us to be intellectually humble in our then new positions. People seemed to engage with us as know-it-all, capital-E experts who could confidently answer any questions that were even remotely related to our specialties. The scariest part was that we could have easily exploited these opportunities to share our opinions on topics well beyond our expertise. These experiences got us thinking about intellectual humility among experts, which is linked with many desirable behaviors, including considering others’ perspectives, and being better at conflict resolution. Conversely, when experts claim to know more than they actually do, this is not only the abandonment of trust but also potentially disastrous in terms of promoting public conversation. Given these high stakes, we designed a series of studies to understand how people think about expertise. We asked 100 participants to freely describe their understanding of expertise, analyzed about 200 related posts on the Internet, and asked 700 online participants to tackle a word sorting task in which they identified and grouped different terms such as “knowledge” or “qualifications” into broader perspectives on expertise. The results suggested that most people assume that exceptional knowledge is a defining feature of expertise. The thought that expertise is defined by solving problems and getting results was also a repeated tendency. At first glance, there’s nothing wrong with using qualifications and a demonstrated record of overcoming problems to examine someone’s position as an expert. On second thought, these understandings of expertise may leave some people defenseless to perceiving expertise in those who only appear to know their stuff. These people are expected to move from simplistic understandings of what makes an expert to more thoughtful ones. In future research, we want to see if it’s possible to create more substantial changes in how people understand expertise — changes that last for weeks, months and potentially years. It remains to be confirmed whether helping people prize intellectual humility in experts might make them better at detecting when someone is overstepping beyond the boundaries of their expertise, and accordingly ensure that humble experts, who are aware of and admit the limits of their expertise, are there to help humanity address our world’s most pressing challenges. 1．As for people’s perception of experts, the author is ______. A．supportive B．puzzled C．tolerant D．sceptical 2．What can be inferred about the results of present studies? A．Expertise encourages a know-it-all mindset. B．Experts fail to live up to people’s expectation. C．Intellectual humility springs from public belief. D．Problem-solving ability ranks high in expertise. 3．What can we learn from the last paragraph? A．Humility among experts should be promoted. B．A better model to assess humility is expected. C．Refining judgment on experts needs continued exploration. D．Tackling urgent issues relies on humble experts’ joint efforts. Passage 2 （2026·北京东城·一模） Rewilding is a simple concept: areas of wilderness are identified for restoration, native animals and plants are reintroduced, and natural processes take over. The term was coined in the 1990s. Much like nature, language undergoes continuous transformation. To some, rewilding now incorporates the idea of building “corridors” so that species can cross from one area of wilderness to another, as they would have done in pre-human times. To others, it is about letting “natural chaos” take over, meaning any human interference is prohibited. Why might the average person be drawn to the idea of rewilding? Many hold that nostalgia is behind it. The fact is that most of us can’t say, “Where did all those Red Admiral butterflies go, that were once so common in my back garden?” We cannot recall things that are beyond living memory, let alone a time when wild pigs and deer ran through forests. Indeed, we need not be remotely sentimental (多愁善感) to see why biodiversity is desirable. There are numerous benefits to rewilding, such as restoring natural biodiversity and improving the ecological resilience of damaged landscapes. Actually, at the most pragmatic level, without healthy ecosystems, our crops will fail and obviously we will not survive. A workable food chain must start with pollinators, such as bees and hoverflies. Intensive farming, however, has largely removed the wildflowers they feed on and turned much of our landscape into lifeless soil. Only by reintroducing missing insects, plants and animals can we reverse this trend. The idea of rewilding has certainly caught the public eye, and journalists have played their part in this. Some have warned about the potential terrible consequences. Others have showered praise on the plan of releasing beavers back into streams. Devoting attention to efforts like these is no bad thing, yet rewilding is something different altogether: an entire ecosystem becoming self-regulatory and self-sustaining. Furthermore, if the public are to be persuaded of the benefits of rewilding, they must be confident that journalists are providing the full picture. In Spain’s Guadarrama hills, for example, wolves’ return brings conservation joy but raises local concerns over lost sheep and cattle. Honest discussion about this kind of issue is required. Rewilding projects, it has to be said, do not always go as planned. The idea that we should allow nature to reclaim parts of our landscape is far more divisive than say, any proposal for reducing plastic waste or tackling the illegal wildlife trade. Few people would be blind to the advantages of limiting plastic consumption or argue against protecting elephants. Yet not so long ago, no-one gave a second thought to these things. It took the incredible efforts of a few passionate, principled individuals to educate the majority of us through long campaigning and evidence-based argument. Hopefully, fifty years from now, with ecosystems flourishing again, people will question why our generation ever saw rewilding as debated. 1．Why does the author mention Red Admiral butterflies? A．To contradict a claim. B．To justify a comparison. C．To challenge a convention. D．To illustrate an assumption. 2．What does the word “pragmatic” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Complex. B．Precise. C．Advanced. D．Practical. 3．As for rewilding, which would the author agree with? A．The media play a major role in its progress. B．Objective reporting facilitates its promotion. C．Public concern about it shapes media coverage. D．Disagreement among journalists outweighs agreement. 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．Rewilding: One Step at a Time B．Rewilding: Back to the Unknown C．Rewilding: A Race against Limits D．Rewilding: The Recall of the Wild 主题01 人与社会——社会与文化 Passage 1 （2026·北京海淀·一模） Meritocracy (优绩主义) has become a leading social ideal. Politicians continually return to the theme that the rewards of life — money, jobs, university admission — should be distributed according to skill and effort. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort depend a great deal on one’s genetic gifts and upbringing. This is to say nothing of other fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, Robert Frank recounts the coincidences behind the stellar rise of many successful entrepreneurs. Luck intervenes by offering people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances where merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is weak and indirect at best. In addition to being false, research suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. The “ultimatum game” is a common psychological experiment, where one player is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player, who may accept or reject the offer. If the offer is rejected, neither gets anything. Usually a relatively even split is offered. In one variation, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers. Players who were led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who engaged in games of chance. Similar studies suggest that just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Simply asking subjects to recall external contributors to their successes made them more likely to give to charity than those remembering internal factors. Part of meritocracy’s moral appeal is its power to justify the existing social order. On top of that, it also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of personal worth and worldly failures become signs of personal weaknesses. Meritocracy ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination and indifference to the struggles of the unfortunate. 1．What can we learn from the first three paragraphs? A．Politicians argue life rewards are set at birth. B．Talent and determination owe nothing to luck. C．Industry enhances merit and directs to success. D．Merit is largely decided by circumstantial factors. 2．What does the author imply by citing the “ultimatum game” experiment? A．The results confirm meritocracy’s moral appeal. B．Belief in merit may encourage selfishness and bias. C．Ideas of skill can increase our willingness to donate. D．Games of chance ensure even distribution of resources. 3．The author feels meritocracy’s moral appeal is ______. A．erroneous B．justified C．practical D．groundless 4．What is the purpose of this passage? A．To criticise the mindset of chasing success. B．To challenge a commonly held social belief. C．To compare different social reward systems. D．To evaluate the pros and cons of meritocracy. Passage 2 （2026·北京顺义·一模） More than 50 years ago, Jane Goodall amazed the scientific community by reporting that chimpanzees were using tools to fish for insects. This observation was astonishing, as scientists believed tool-making was a uniquely human feature. Today, the evidence that many other species learn from each other and have cultural ways of behaving is vast. A recent special issue highlights evidence from whales to wallabies (沙袋鼠), showing learning from others is widespread across the animal kingdom. For many species, culturally transmitted (传承的) behaviour can be mission-critical: an important way to share survival skills or to adapt to changing environments. In conservation, these insights are starting to reshape practice, from reintroductions to managing conflicts between humans and wildlife over habitat use. Meanwhile, the idea of “longevity conservation” is gaining attention as researchers show that some of the longest-living animals have not only developed extraordinary genetic adaptations to cope with an extended lifetime, but some are also the keepers of ecological knowledge shared culturally between generations. The emerging view is that some of these older individuals can hold knowledge critical to adapting to unstable environments. Our evolving understanding also requires us to rethink what we mean by “world heritage”. If whales and birds can have cultural traditions too, should we treat the loss of their song or feeding techniques as seriously as we treat the loss of a human memorial? This will be a stretch for many, but not for all of us. Many Indigenous (土著的) communities have long understood that other species share knowledge. Bottle nose dolphins that help fishers in Brazil are an example of relationships that could only occur when humans are listening deeply to nature. Perhaps the most important challenge that looking beyond human cultures presents is to the idea of human exceptionalism. The more we learn about other species’ cultures, the harder it is to deny that we are surrounded by a planet full of “others”, who have values and emotions. It took more than 50 years from Goodall’s report for conservation bodies to debate the importance of non-human cultures. In the intervening decades, we have begun to chip away at the false belief of human exceptionalism. We already live among a diversity of other cultural life forms. Truly absorbing this knowledge might just encourage the far-reaching shift we need if we are to meet our responsibilities as guardians of this rich bio-cultural diversity. 1．What can we learn from this passage? A．Genetic adaptations rely on knowledge sharing. B．Using tools is a unique feature for chimpanzees. C．Long-lived animals transmit knowledge across generations. D．Changing environments hold back the cultural transmission. 2．How does the author feel about the possibility of the loss of animal cultures? A．Puzzled. B．Concerned. C．Doubtful. D．Hopeless. 3．What does the author mainly convey by mentioning Indigenous communities? A．The recognition of animal cultures is long-standing. B．The protection of animal cultures is challenging. C．Animals have extraordinary intelligence. D．Animals are great partners to humans. 4．What is implied in this passage? A．Conservation bodies question the value of animal cultures. B．Knowledge holds the power to restore biodiversity. C．Human false beliefs are easy to change. D．We need a real cultural awakening. 主题02 人与自然——环境保护 Passage 1 （2026·北京延庆·一模） Few people can better represent people’s wonder at the natural world than Sir David Attenborough, a television presenter in his nineties. In recent years, Sir David has been campaigning passionately for an end to the plastic that his film crews find scattered across the planet. “The plastic in our oceans ought never to have got there in the first place,” he said. “Much of it perhaps ought not to have even been manufactured at all.” The first statement is reasonable, but the second is not — for it disregards the extraordinary benefits that plastics, and the industry which produces them, have provided both to humans and to the environment. Although the drawbacks of the world’s reliance on plastics are all too apparent, the benefits they provide, in the form of reducing waste and cost, are all too easily overlooked. While being lighter, more durable, and cheaper and easier to manufacture, plastics have made possible a range of new materials. These materials have become vital in everything from building to carmaking to consumer electronics. Plastics have also eased the world’s reliance on older materials, and on the living beings from which many of them came. There are perhaps 10m pianos in the world. If all their white keys were made of ivory, how many elephants would remain? Just as the benefits of plastics are often unseen, however, so are some potential harms. The sight of plastic waste ruining beautiful natural areas and harming wildlife used to be one of the biggest complaints against plastics. Now concerns grow over what happens when they break up into microscopic fragments invisible to the naked eye. In the past decade such “microplastics” have been found in food chains, in human brains and even in the apparently untouched snow of Antarctica. Being detectable does not make something dangerous. It might only show how good our instruments in use are. To tackle the pollution, the best approach is not to ban plastics, but to manage them more carefully. Better recycling technologies, now under development, are one part of the answer. The proportion of plastics which end up being recycled has doubled in the past two decades, but it is still only 9%. This is not because people do not care about the planet, but because recycling is harder and more costly than most people realise. Greater use should therefore be made of landfill. When properly managed and well monitored, this is far less environmentally ruinous than often believed, and can be simpler and more effective than ineffective recycling. Incinerators (焚烧), which generate energy and capture carbon, though unpopular, are a useful option too. Regarding plastics, the benefits are very much greater than most people will allow — and so is the potential for managing the costs. 1．What does the underlined word “disregards” in paragraph 1 most probably mean? A．Ignores. B．Emphasizes. C．Minimizes. D．Uncovers. 2．What can we learn about plastics from the passage? A．Their main use is for packaging. B．They contribute to wildlife protection. C．Their potential harms are still unnoticed. D．They are not dangerous for being detectable. 3．About plastic pollution management, the author is ________. A．in favor of improved management B．supportive of a complete ban on plastics C．content that landfill is the effective solution D．optimistic that recycling will solve the problem 4．What is the main idea of the passage? A．Microplastics pose hidden threats to ecosystems and humans. B．Plastics need urgent solutions for severe environmental harm. C．The benefits of Plastic far outweigh drawbacks despite challenges. D．Effective waste management is central to reducing plastic pollution. 试卷第1页，共3页 1 / 17 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题05 阅读理解（议论文） 答案 主题01 人与自我——生活与做人 Passage 1：1．A 2．C 3．A 4．C 主题02 人与社会——科学与技术 Passage 1：1．D 2．D 3．C Passage 2：1．D 2．D 3．B 4．D 主题01 人与社会——社会与文化 Passage 1：1．D 2．B 3．A 4．B Passage 2：1．C 2．B 3．A 4．D 主题02 人与自然——环境保护 Passage 1：1．A 2．B 3．A 4．C 试卷第1页，共3页 1 / 17 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题05 阅读理解（议论文） 主题01 人与自我——生活与做人 Passage 1 （2026·北京丰台·一模） The singularly most important question we will ever ask is, “Who am I?” Generally speaking, we are not taught how to answer that question. We don’t even ask it. Most commonly, we define ourselves by the mirrors we see from the external world. We are being looked at. And we are looking at other people’s observations and perceptions as if they are a mirror image of who we are. But you know how mirrors are. We only get a reversed (相反的) image. We have internalized other people’s ideas and we believe that they define us. Even in the case, used here only as an example, of the child who internalizes a rebel identity. We say he’s “out of control.” He’s just trying to embarrass his parents. He’s just a “difficult child.” If none of that is true, then who is he really? From the transpersonal therapy perspective, little Johnny has become what his parents needed him to be. What? Nobody in their right mind would want to raise a rebel. Right? Perhaps Johnny’s parents have lived an unconsciously restrained life, strictly following the socially acceptable codes of the day. Yet, internally, they are itching (渴望) to be different. They just can’t because this role as the “good guy” has captured them. However, all the itching internal stuff has to go somewhere. The simplest answer is that it is projected onto little Johnny. Then the parent can deal with it externally; they may typically react by trying to get Johnny to take on the identity of another good guy. That is how it is for most of us. We introject an idea of who we are, which we have received by looking into the eyes of parents and family members, and we live it out as if it is truly who we are. Often, it is reinforced many times over many years, in this case, by trying to get Johnny to live in the parents’ cage, which only means Johnny will have to rebel yet again. Under all that identification, we ask, who are we really? The way to find it is to stop looking into other people’s eyes and start looking within. Once that decision is made, it might be a good time to seek a therapist who will help us do that in a safe environment. Within that safe environment, you might also start journaling. Journaling is a dialogue with yourself — a dialogue between identity and self, or someone with whom you have unresolved issues. The real journey, the one that will need to be made in a safe space, is made of determination. Determination to go deeper and deeper. This is the true hero’s journey in which you finally meet and retrieve your own self. 1．What are the first two paragraphs mainly about? A．The misconstruction of self-perception. B．The internalized reflection of self-identity. C．People’s confusion about their internal world. D．People’s observation of a reversed mirror image. 2．Why does the author mention the example of a “rebel” child? A．To criticize a practice. B．To challenge an argument. C．To illustrate an idea. D．To raise an assumption. 3．What does the underlined word “introject” in Paragraph 6 probably mean? A．Absorb. B．Introduce. C．Value. D．Generate. 4．It is implied in the passage that we should ________. A．address unresolved issues with parents B．balance given identity and genuine self C．reclaim the authority to define who we are D．reshape our identity in a safe environment 【答案】1．A 2．C 3．A 4．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章探讨了人们如何通过外部世界的“镜子”错误地定义自我，分析了叛逆孩子案例背后的心理投射机制，并指出真正的自我认知需要停止向外寻求，转而向内探索，收回定义自我的权力。 1．主旨大意题。根据第一段中“Most commonly, we define ourselves by the mirrors we see from the external world. (最常见的是，我们通过从外部世界看到的镜子来定义自己。)”以及第二段中“We have internalized other people’s ideas and we believe that they define us. (我们内化了别人的想法，并相信它们定义了我们。)”可知，前两段主要论述了人们依赖外部镜像来认知自我，这是一种错误的自我感知构建。故选A。 2．推理判断题。根据第四段中“From the transpersonal therapy perspective, little Johnny has become what his parents needed him to be. What? Nobody in their right mind would want to raise a rebel. Right? (从超个人心理治疗的角度看，小约翰尼变成了他父母需要他成为的样子。什么？没有一个神志正常的人会想要养出一个叛逆的孩子，对吧？)” 可知，作者引用这个例子是为了具体阐述前文提到的观点：我们往往会内化他人的想法，甚至活成了别人(如父母)潜意识里投射给我们的样子。故选C。 3．词句猜测题。根据第六段中“We introject an idea of who we are, which we have received by looking into the eyes of parents and family members, and we live it out as if it is truly who we are. (我们‘introject’一个关于我们是谁的想法，这个想法是通过观察父母和家人的眼睛获得的，然后我们照着这种想法生活，好像那就是真实的自己。)”结合第二段中提到的“internalized other people’s ideas (内化了别人的想法)”，可推断“introject”意为“吸收、内化”，与absorb意思相近。故选A。 4．推理判断题。根据第七段“Under all that identification, we ask, who are we really? The way to find it is to stop looking into other people’s eyes and start looking within. (在所有这些身份认同之下，我们问：我们到底是谁？找到答案的方法是停止看别人的眼睛，开始向内看。)”以及最后一段“This is the true hero’s journey in which you finally meet and retrieve your own self. (这是真正的英雄之旅，你最终遇见并找回自己。)”可知，文章暗示我们应该收回定义自己的权力，不再依赖外部评价。故选C。 主题02 人与社会——科学与技术 Passage 1 （2026·北京东城·一模） Whom would you trust more: an expert who seems to have all of the answers or one who admits what he doesn’t know? We have spent the past five years studying that question. Our research was sparked by a tension we both noticed early in our academic careers. Our graduate studies made us deeply aware of how little we knew about our respective research areas, even as we developed specialized knowledge in these fields. Scholars call this particular variety of self-awareness “intellectual humility”, and it’s something we suspect many experts encounter as they transition into a new role. On the other hand, barely anyone seemed to expect us to be intellectually humble in our then new positions. People seemed to engage with us as know-it-all, capital-E experts who could confidently answer any questions that were even remotely related to our specialties. The scariest part was that we could have easily exploited these opportunities to share our opinions on topics well beyond our expertise. These experiences got us thinking about intellectual humility among experts, which is linked with many desirable behaviors, including considering others’ perspectives, and being better at conflict resolution. Conversely, when experts claim to know more than they actually do, this is not only the abandonment of trust but also potentially disastrous in terms of promoting public conversation. Given these high stakes, we designed a series of studies to understand how people think about expertise. We asked 100 participants to freely describe their understanding of expertise, analyzed about 200 related posts on the Internet, and asked 700 online participants to tackle a word sorting task in which they identified and grouped different terms such as “knowledge” or “qualifications” into broader perspectives on expertise. The results suggested that most people assume that exceptional knowledge is a defining feature of expertise. The thought that expertise is defined by solving problems and getting results was also a repeated tendency. At first glance, there’s nothing wrong with using qualifications and a demonstrated record of overcoming problems to examine someone’s position as an expert. On second thought, these understandings of expertise may leave some people defenseless to perceiving expertise in those who only appear to know their stuff. These people are expected to move from simplistic understandings of what makes an expert to more thoughtful ones. In future research, we want to see if it’s possible to create more substantial changes in how people understand expertise — changes that last for weeks, months and potentially years. It remains to be confirmed whether helping people prize intellectual humility in experts might make them better at detecting when someone is overstepping beyond the boundaries of their expertise, and accordingly ensure that humble experts, who are aware of and admit the limits of their expertise, are there to help humanity address our world’s most pressing challenges. 1．As for people’s perception of experts, the author is ______. A．supportive B．puzzled C．tolerant D．sceptical 2．What can be inferred about the results of present studies? A．Expertise encourages a know-it-all mindset. B．Experts fail to live up to people’s expectation. C．Intellectual humility springs from public belief. D．Problem-solving ability ranks high in expertise. 3．What can we learn from the last paragraph? A．Humility among experts should be promoted. B．A better model to assess humility is expected. C．Refining judgment on experts needs continued exploration. D．Tackling urgent issues relies on humble experts’ joint efforts. 【答案】1．D 2．D 3．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章探讨了人们对专家的认知方式，指出人们通常认为专业知识是专家的核心特征，而忽略了“智力谦逊”的重要性，并呼吁进一步研究如何帮助人们更全面地理解专家品质。 1．推理判断题。根据第五段中“The results suggested that most people assume that exceptional knowledge is a defining feature of expertise. The thought that expertise is defined by solving problems and getting results was also a repeated tendency.(结果表明，大多数人认为卓越的知识是专业知识的决定性特征。认为专业知识是通过解决问题和取得成果来定义的这一想法也是一种反复出现的倾向)”以及第六段中“On second thought, these understandings of expertise may leave some people defenseless to perceiving expertise in those who only appear to know their stuff. These people are expected to move from simplistic understandings of what makes an expert to more thoughtful ones.(再一想，这些对专业知识的理解可能会让一些人在面对那些只是看似懂行的人时，无法辨别其真正的专业水平。这些人应该从对专家特质的简单化理解转向更深思熟虑的理解)”可知，作者认为人们目前对专家的认知过于简单化(只看重知识)，容易被表面现象迷惑，需要转向更深入的思考。由此可推断出作者对人们当前认知专家的方式持怀疑态度。故选D项。 2．推理判断题。根据第五段中“The results suggested that most people assume that exceptional knowledge is a defining feature of expertise. The thought that expertise is defined by solving problems and getting results was also a repeated tendency.(结果表明，大多数人认为卓越的知识是专业知识的决定性特征。认为专业知识是由解决问题和取得成果来定义的观点也是一种反复出现的倾向)”可知，研究结果表明，大多数人认为专业知识是通过解决问题和取得成果来定义的，由此可推知，解决问题的能力在专业知识中排名很高。故选D项。 3．推理判断题。根据最后一段中“In future research, we want to see if it’s possible to create more substantial changes in how people understand expertise — changes that last for weeks, months and potentially years. It remains to be confirmed whether helping people prize intellectual humility in experts might make them better at detecting when someone is overstepping beyond the boundaries of their expertise (在未来的研究中，我们想探究是否有可能让人们对专业知识的理解发生更实质性的改变——这种改变能持续数周、数月甚至数年。帮助人们重视专家身上的智识谦逊，是否能使他们更善于察觉有人何时超越了自己的专业边界，这仍有待证实)”可知，作者指出关于如何改变人们对专家的认知以及智力谦逊的作用仍需进一步研究和证实，说明完善对专家的判断需要持续探索。故选C项。 Passage 2 （2026·北京东城·一模） Rewilding is a simple concept: areas of wilderness are identified for restoration, native animals and plants are reintroduced, and natural processes take over. The term was coined in the 1990s. Much like nature, language undergoes continuous transformation. To some, rewilding now incorporates the idea of building “corridors” so that species can cross from one area of wilderness to another, as they would have done in pre-human times. To others, it is about letting “natural chaos” take over, meaning any human interference is prohibited. Why might the average person be drawn to the idea of rewilding? Many hold that nostalgia is behind it. The fact is that most of us can’t say, “Where did all those Red Admiral butterflies go, that were once so common in my back garden?” We cannot recall things that are beyond living memory, let alone a time when wild pigs and deer ran through forests. Indeed, we need not be remotely sentimental (多愁善感) to see why biodiversity is desirable. There are numerous benefits to rewilding, such as restoring natural biodiversity and improving the ecological resilience of damaged landscapes. Actually, at the most pragmatic level, without healthy ecosystems, our crops will fail and obviously we will not survive. A workable food chain must start with pollinators, such as bees and hoverflies. Intensive farming, however, has largely removed the wildflowers they feed on and turned much of our landscape into lifeless soil. Only by reintroducing missing insects, plants and animals can we reverse this trend. The idea of rewilding has certainly caught the public eye, and journalists have played their part in this. Some have warned about the potential terrible consequences. Others have showered praise on the plan of releasing beavers back into streams. Devoting attention to efforts like these is no bad thing, yet rewilding is something different altogether: an entire ecosystem becoming self-regulatory and self-sustaining. Furthermore, if the public are to be persuaded of the benefits of rewilding, they must be confident that journalists are providing the full picture. In Spain’s Guadarrama hills, for example, wolves’ return brings conservation joy but raises local concerns over lost sheep and cattle. Honest discussion about this kind of issue is required. Rewilding projects, it has to be said, do not always go as planned. The idea that we should allow nature to reclaim parts of our landscape is far more divisive than say, any proposal for reducing plastic waste or tackling the illegal wildlife trade. Few people would be blind to the advantages of limiting plastic consumption or argue against protecting elephants. Yet not so long ago, no-one gave a second thought to these things. It took the incredible efforts of a few passionate, principled individuals to educate the majority of us through long campaigning and evidence-based argument. Hopefully, fifty years from now, with ecosystems flourishing again, people will question why our generation ever saw rewilding as debated. 1．Why does the author mention Red Admiral butterflies? A．To contradict a claim. B．To justify a comparison. C．To challenge a convention. D．To illustrate an assumption. 2．What does the word “pragmatic” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Complex. B．Precise. C．Advanced. D．Practical. 3．As for rewilding, which would the author agree with? A．The media play a major role in its progress. B．Objective reporting facilitates its promotion. C．Public concern about it shapes media coverage. D．Disagreement among journalists outweighs agreement. 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．Rewilding: One Step at a Time B．Rewilding: Back to the Unknown C．Rewilding: A Race against Limits D．Rewilding: The Recall of the Wild 【答案】1．D 2．D 3．B 4．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了“再野生化”这一概念，包括其定义、公众对其的看法、好处以及面临的挑战，同时强调了客观报道在推动“再野生化”进程中的重要性。 1．推理判断题。根据第二段中“Why might the average person be drawn to the idea of rewilding? Many hold that nostalgia is behind it. The fact is that most of us can’t say, “Where did all those Red Admiral butterflies go, that were once so common in my back garden?” (为什么普通人会被“再野生化”的想法所吸引?许多人认为这背后是怀旧情绪。事实上，我们大多数人都说不出：“那些曾经在我家后院很常见的红蛱蝶都到哪里去了?”)”可知，作者提到红蛱蝶是为了说明人们对于过去生物多样性的怀念，进而支持人们被“再野生化”想法吸引这一假设。故选D项。 2．词句猜测题。划线词前文“There are numerous benefits to rewilding, such as restoring natural biodiversity and improving the ecological resilience of damaged landscapes. (再野生化有很多好处，比如恢复自然生物多样性和改善受损景观的生态恢复能力。)”谈论的是再野生化对环境和生态的影响，是宏观方面的意义，而后文“without healthy ecosystems, our crops will fail and obviously we will not survive (没有健康的生态系统，我们的庄稼就会歉收，显然我们将无法生存)”强调了健康生态系统对我们生存的实际重要性，前后形成对比。由此可推知，“at the most pragmatic level”指的是“在最实际的层面上”，故划线词pragmatic意为“实际的”。故选D项。 3．推理判断题。根据第四段中“Furthermore, if the public are to be persuaded of the benefits of rewilding, they must be confident that journalists are providing the full picture. (此外，如果要说服公众相信“再野生化”的好处，他们必须确信记者提供了全面的信息。)”可知，作者认为客观全面的报道有助于公众了解“再野生化”的好处，从而推动其推广。故选B项。 4．主旨大意题。通读全文，尤其是第一段中“Rewilding is a simple concept: areas of wilderness are identified for restoration, native animals and plants are reintroduced, and natural processes take over. (“再野生化”是一个简单的概念：确定需要恢复的荒野区域，重新引入本地动植物，让自然过程接管。)”可知，文章主要讨论了“再野生化”这一概念，包括其定义、公众看法、好处以及面临的挑战，D项“再野生化：荒野的回归”符合文章主旨，适合作为文章标题。故选D项。 主题01 人与社会——社会与文化 Passage 1 （2026·北京海淀·一模） Meritocracy (优绩主义) has become a leading social ideal. Politicians continually return to the theme that the rewards of life — money, jobs, university admission — should be distributed according to skill and effort. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort depend a great deal on one’s genetic gifts and upbringing. This is to say nothing of other fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, Robert Frank recounts the coincidences behind the stellar rise of many successful entrepreneurs. Luck intervenes by offering people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances where merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is weak and indirect at best. In addition to being false, research suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. The “ultimatum game” is a common psychological experiment, where one player is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player, who may accept or reject the offer. If the offer is rejected, neither gets anything. Usually a relatively even split is offered. In one variation, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers. Players who were led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who engaged in games of chance. Similar studies suggest that just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Simply asking subjects to recall external contributors to their successes made them more likely to give to charity than those remembering internal factors. Part of meritocracy’s moral appeal is its power to justify the existing social order. On top of that, it also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of personal worth and worldly failures become signs of personal weaknesses. Meritocracy ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination and indifference to the struggles of the unfortunate. 1．What can we learn from the first three paragraphs? A．Politicians argue life rewards are set at birth. B．Talent and determination owe nothing to luck. C．Industry enhances merit and directs to success. D．Merit is largely decided by circumstantial factors. 2．What does the author imply by citing the “ultimatum game” experiment? A．The results confirm meritocracy’s moral appeal. B．Belief in merit may encourage selfishness and bias. C．Ideas of skill can increase our willingness to donate. D．Games of chance ensure even distribution of resources. 3．The author feels meritocracy’s moral appeal is ______. A．erroneous B．justified C．practical D．groundless 4．What is the purpose of this passage? A．To criticise the mindset of chasing success. B．To challenge a commonly held social belief. C．To compare different social reward systems. D．To evaluate the pros and cons of meritocracy. 【答案】1．D 2．B 3．A 4．B 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章针对当下流行的优绩主义社会理念展开论述，指出成功并非只由能力和努力决定，运气等偶然因素同样重要，并且信奉优绩主义会使人变得自私、产生偏见，最终提出应当摒弃这一理念。 1．推理判断题。根据第二段中的“This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort depend a great deal on one’s genetic gifts and upbringing.(这在很大程度上是因为能力本身在很大程度上是运气的结果。天赋和坚持不懈的努力能力在很大程度上取决于一个人的基因天赋和成长环境。)”以及第三段中的“This is to say nothing of other fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story.(更不用说每个成功故事中都存在的其他偶然环境因素了。)”可知，能力在很大程度上由环境等偶然因素决定。故选D项。 2．推理判断题。根据第四段“In addition to being false, research suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. The “ultimatum game” is a common psychological experiment, where one player is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player, who may accept or reject the offer. If the offer is rejected, neither gets anything. Usually a relatively even split is offered. In one variation, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers. Players who were led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who engaged in games of chance. Similar studies suggest that just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes.(研究表明，信奉优绩主义不仅是错误的，还会让人变得更加自私、缺乏自省，甚至更容易做出歧视性的行为。“最后通牒游戏” 是一项常见的心理学实验：实验中一名参与者会获得一笔钱，并需要提出自己与另一名参与者的分配方案，后者可以选择接受或拒绝该方案。如果方案被拒绝，两人都将一无所获。通常情况下，人们会提出相对公平的分配方式。 在该实验的一个变体中，参与者在提出分配方案前会先进行一场虚假的技能比拼。那些被引导认为自己“获胜”的参与者，会比参与纯概率游戏的人给自己分配更多的钱。类似研究还表明，仅仅是脑海中产生 “凭借能力取胜” 的想法，就会让人对不平等的结果更加宽容。)”可知，作者通过引用“最后通牒游戏”实验暗示相信能力决定成败可能会助长自私与偏见。故选B项。 3．推理判断题。根据倒数第二段“Part of meritocracy’s moral appeal is its power to justify the existing social order. On top of that, it also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of personal worth and worldly failures become signs of personal weaknesses.(优绩主义的道德吸引力部分在于它为现有社会秩序辩护的能力。除此之外，它还提供了奉承。在成功由才能决定的地方，每一次胜利都可以看作是个人价值的反映，而世俗的失败则成为个人弱点的标志。)”以及最后一段“Meritocracy ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination and indifference to the struggles of the unfortunate.(优绩主义作为一种关于世界如何运作的信念和一种普遍的社会理想，都应该被摒弃。它是错误的，相信它会鼓励自私、歧视和对不幸者挣扎的冷漠。)”可知，作者认为优绩主义的道德吸引力是错误的。故选A项。 4．推理判断题。根据第一段中的“Meritocracy (优绩主义) has become a leading social ideal.(优绩主义已经成为一种主要的社会理想。)”以及最后一段中的“Meritocracy ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal.(优绩主义作为一种关于世界如何运作的信念和一种普遍的社会理想，都应该被摒弃。)”结合全文内容可知，文章主要围绕优绩主义展开讨论，指出其错误及不良影响，目的是挑战一种普遍持有的社会信念。故选B项。 Passage 2 （2026·北京顺义·一模） More than 50 years ago, Jane Goodall amazed the scientific community by reporting that chimpanzees were using tools to fish for insects. This observation was astonishing, as scientists believed tool-making was a uniquely human feature. Today, the evidence that many other species learn from each other and have cultural ways of behaving is vast. A recent special issue highlights evidence from whales to wallabies (沙袋鼠), showing learning from others is widespread across the animal kingdom. For many species, culturally transmitted (传承的) behaviour can be mission-critical: an important way to share survival skills or to adapt to changing environments. In conservation, these insights are starting to reshape practice, from reintroductions to managing conflicts between humans and wildlife over habitat use. Meanwhile, the idea of “longevity conservation” is gaining attention as researchers show that some of the longest-living animals have not only developed extraordinary genetic adaptations to cope with an extended lifetime, but some are also the keepers of ecological knowledge shared culturally between generations. The emerging view is that some of these older individuals can hold knowledge critical to adapting to unstable environments. Our evolving understanding also requires us to rethink what we mean by “world heritage”. If whales and birds can have cultural traditions too, should we treat the loss of their song or feeding techniques as seriously as we treat the loss of a human memorial? This will be a stretch for many, but not for all of us. Many Indigenous (土著的) communities have long understood that other species share knowledge. Bottle nose dolphins that help fishers in Brazil are an example of relationships that could only occur when humans are listening deeply to nature. Perhaps the most important challenge that looking beyond human cultures presents is to the idea of human exceptionalism. The more we learn about other species’ cultures, the harder it is to deny that we are surrounded by a planet full of “others”, who have values and emotions. It took more than 50 years from Goodall’s report for conservation bodies to debate the importance of non-human cultures. In the intervening decades, we have begun to chip away at the false belief of human exceptionalism. We already live among a diversity of other cultural life forms. Truly absorbing this knowledge might just encourage the far-reaching shift we need if we are to meet our responsibilities as guardians of this rich bio-cultural diversity. 1．What can we learn from this passage? A．Genetic adaptations rely on knowledge sharing. B．Using tools is a unique feature for chimpanzees. C．Long-lived animals transmit knowledge across generations. D．Changing environments hold back the cultural transmission. 2．How does the author feel about the possibility of the loss of animal cultures? A．Puzzled. B．Concerned. C．Doubtful. D．Hopeless. 3．What does the author mainly convey by mentioning Indigenous communities? A．The recognition of animal cultures is long-standing. B．The protection of animal cultures is challenging. C．Animals have extraordinary intelligence. D．Animals are great partners to humans. 4．What is implied in this passage? A．Conservation bodies question the value of animal cultures. B．Knowledge holds the power to restore biodiversity. C．Human false beliefs are easy to change. D．We need a real cultural awakening. 【答案】1．C 2．B 3．A 4．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文，主要讲的是动物文化的存在、重要性及其对人类认知和保护实践的影响。 1．细节理解题。根据第二段“Meanwhile, the idea of “longevity conservation” is gaining attention as researchers show that some of the longest-living animals have not only developed extraordinary genetic adaptations to cope with an extended lifetime, but some are also the keepers of ecological knowledge shared culturally between generations.(与此同时，“长寿保护”的理念也逐渐受到关注，因为研究人员发现，一些寿命最长的动物不仅已经进化出非凡的基因适应能力以应对漫长的生命周期，而且其中一些还是代代相传的生态知识的守护者，这些知识是通过文化传承下来的。)”可知，长寿的动物会在世代之间传递知识。故选C。 2．细节理解题。根据第三段“If whales and birds can have cultural traditions too, should we treat the loss of their song or feeding techniques as seriously as we treat the loss of a human memorial?(如果鲸鱼和鸟类也能拥有文化传统，那么我们是否应该像对待人类的纪念物那样严肃地对待它们歌声或觅食方式的丧失呢？)”可知，作者对于动物文化的可能消亡这一情况的态度是担忧的，故选B。 3．推理判断题。根据倒数第二段“Many Indigenous (土著的) communities have long understood that other species share knowledge. Bottle nose dolphins that help fishers in Brazil are an example of relationships that could only occur when humans are listening deeply to nature.(许多原住民社区早就明白，其他物种也拥有知识。在巴西，帮助渔民的瓶鼻海豚就是这种关系的一个例证，这种关系只有当人类深入倾听自然时才会出现。)”可知，作者提及原住民社区时主要想传达的信息是对动物文化的认可由来已久。故选A。 4．推理判断题。根据最后一段“We already live among a diversity of other cultural life forms. Truly absorbing this knowledge might just encourage the far-reaching shift we need if we are to meet our responsibilities as guardians of this rich bio-cultural diversity.(我们已经生活在一个由各种不同文化生物形态组成的环境中。如果我们想要履行作为这一丰富生物文化多样性的守护者的责任，那么真正理解这一知识或许能够促使我们实现必要的重大转变。)”可知，我们需要一场真正的文化觉醒，以认识到并尊重其他物种的文化，故选D。 主题02 人与自然——环境保护 Passage 1 （2026·北京延庆·一模） Few people can better represent people’s wonder at the natural world than Sir David Attenborough, a television presenter in his nineties. In recent years, Sir David has been campaigning passionately for an end to the plastic that his film crews find scattered across the planet. “The plastic in our oceans ought never to have got there in the first place,” he said. “Much of it perhaps ought not to have even been manufactured at all.” The first statement is reasonable, but the second is not — for it disregards the extraordinary benefits that plastics, and the industry which produces them, have provided both to humans and to the environment. Although the drawbacks of the world’s reliance on plastics are all too apparent, the benefits they provide, in the form of reducing waste and cost, are all too easily overlooked. While being lighter, more durable, and cheaper and easier to manufacture, plastics have made possible a range of new materials. These materials have become vital in everything from building to carmaking to consumer electronics. Plastics have also eased the world’s reliance on older materials, and on the living beings from which many of them came. There are perhaps 10m pianos in the world. If all their white keys were made of ivory, how many elephants would remain? Just as the benefits of plastics are often unseen, however, so are some potential harms. The sight of plastic waste ruining beautiful natural areas and harming wildlife used to be one of the biggest complaints against plastics. Now concerns grow over what happens when they break up into microscopic fragments invisible to the naked eye. In the past decade such “microplastics” have been found in food chains, in human brains and even in the apparently untouched snow of Antarctica. Being detectable does not make something dangerous. It might only show how good our instruments in use are. To tackle the pollution, the best approach is not to ban plastics, but to manage them more carefully. Better recycling technologies, now under development, are one part of the answer. The proportion of plastics which end up being recycled has doubled in the past two decades, but it is still only 9%. This is not because people do not care about the planet, but because recycling is harder and more costly than most people realise. Greater use should therefore be made of landfill. When properly managed and well monitored, this is far less environmentally ruinous than often believed, and can be simpler and more effective than ineffective recycling. Incinerators (焚烧), which generate energy and capture carbon, though unpopular, are a useful option too. Regarding plastics, the benefits are very much greater than most people will allow — and so is the potential for managing the costs. 1．What does the underlined word “disregards” in paragraph 1 most probably mean? A．Ignores. B．Emphasizes. C．Minimizes. D．Uncovers. 2．What can we learn about plastics from the passage? A．Their main use is for packaging. B．They contribute to wildlife protection. C．Their potential harms are still unnoticed. D．They are not dangerous for being detectable. 3．About plastic pollution management, the author is ________. A．in favor of improved management B．supportive of a complete ban on plastics C．content that landfill is the effective solution D．optimistic that recycling will solve the problem 4．What is the main idea of the passage? A．Microplastics pose hidden threats to ecosystems and humans. B．Plastics need urgent solutions for severe environmental harm. C．The benefits of Plastic far outweigh drawbacks despite challenges. D．Effective waste management is central to reducing plastic pollution. 【答案】1．A 2．B 3．A 4．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了塑料的益处远大于弊端，并强调应更有效地管理塑料污染。 1．词句猜测题。根据第一段中““The plastic in our oceans ought never to have got there in the first place,” he said. “Much of it perhaps ought not to have even been manufactured at all.” The first statement is reasonable, but the second is not—for it disregards the extraordinary benefits that plastics, and the industry which produces them, have provided both to humans and to the environment.(他说：“海洋里的塑料本就不该出现在那里。”“其中很多塑料或许根本就不该被生产出来。”第一个说法是合理的，但第二个不是，因为它disregards了塑料及其生产行业给人类和环境带来的巨大好处。)”可知，第二个说法忽视了塑料及其生产行业给人类和环境带来的巨大好处，所以disregards意思是“忽视”。故选A。 2．细节理解题。根据第三段“Plastics have also eased the world’s reliance on older materials, and on the living beings from which many of them came. There are perhaps 10m pianos in the world. If all their white keys were made of ivory, how many elephants would remain?(塑料也减轻了世界对旧材料以及许多材料来源的生物的依赖。世界上大约有1000万架钢琴。如果所有的白键都是用象牙做的，那还会剩下多少头大象呢？)”可知，塑料有助于保护野生动物。故选B。 3．推理判断题。根据第五段中“To tackle the pollution, the best approach is not to ban plastics, but to manage them more carefully.(为了解决污染问题，最好的方法不是禁止使用塑料，而是更仔细地管理它们)”可知，作者支持改善管理来解决塑料污染问题。故选A。 4．主旨大意题。通读全文，尤其是根据第一段中“The first statement is reasonable, but the second is not — for it disregards the extraordinary benefits that plastics, and the industry which produces them, have provided both to humans and to the environment.(第一个说法是合理的，但第二个不是，因为它忽视了塑料及其生产行业给人类和环境带来的巨大好处)”以及最后一段中“Regarding plastics, the benefits are very much greater than most people will allow — and so is the potential for managing the costs.(对于塑料来说，其好处远远超过大多数人所承认的，管理成本的可能性也是如此)”可知，文章主要讲述了尽管塑料存在污染问题，但其益处远超弊端，应加强管理而非禁用。故选C。 试卷第1页，共3页 1 / 17 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $