阅读理解预测题第四组（考前预测）2026年高考英语阅读理解突破策略及押题

2026 高考英语阅读理解预测 第四组 一、选材特点 A篇（National Youth Calligraphy Competition 2026）：中国书法比赛，弘扬中华优秀传统文化，增强文化自信。应用文信息规范。 B篇（The Dandelion Painter）：无手少年用蒲公英茎作画的励志故事，体现“创造力总能找到出路”。人物真实感人，符合高考记叙文选材偏好。 C篇（Handwriting and Brain Development）：手写与大脑发育研究，呼应“数字时代是否还要教手写”的教育争议。科普文，有实验数据支持。 D篇（The Meritocracy Trap）：精英主义批判，探讨教育公平、社会流动等深层社会议题。学术议论文，论点尖锐，适合考查主旨、概念、态度。 二、命题特点 A篇第1题在线注册截止（细节），第2题软笔要求（细节，注意“provided by organizer”），第3题前20名安排（细节）。 B篇第4题最初灵感（细节），第5题颜料制作（细节），第6题收藏家评价推断（C），第7题主人公态度（B）。 C篇第8题研究发现（B），第9题词义猜测（sparse），第10题段落主旨（A），第11题作者结论（B平衡法）。 D篇第12题核心论点（B），第13题“just-world hypothesis”概念（B），第14题Dr. Yu对努力的态度（B），第15题写作目的（A）。 三、解题策略 A篇：注意“xuan paper provided by the organizer”，不能想当然认为自带。 B篇：第6题推断收藏家评价，注意关键形容词“unpretentious honesty”。 C篇：第11题作者结论在最后一段，要找“suggest”“advocate”等词。 D篇：第13题概念题，看上下文定义句“tend to view... as deserved”。 第一节 阅读理解（共15小题；每小题2.5分，满分37.5分） 阅读下列短文，从每题所给的A、B、C、D四个选项中，选出最佳选项。 A National Youth Calligraphy Competition 2026 The Chinese Calligraphy Association is proud to announce the 2026 National Youth Calligraphy Competition, open to students aged 10–18 across the country. This year’s theme is “Inheriting Tradition, Writing the Future.” Categories: Category A: Hard-tip calligraphy (pen, pencil, or marker) Category B: Soft-tip calligraphy (brush) Requirements: Each participant may submit ONE original work. Work must be created within the past 12 months. Content: Any classical Chinese poem (Tang or Song dynasty preferred) or a short original passage (no more than 50 characters). Size: Hard-tip works on A4 paper; soft-tip works on xuan paper (provided by the organizer upon registration). Prizes: Gold Award (5 winners in each category): ¥3,000 + certificate + calligraphy set Silver Award (10 winners each): ¥1,500 + certificate Bronze Award (20 winners each): ¥800 + certificate Excellence Award (50 winners each): certificate only Submission Deadline: June 30, 2026 (postmark accepted) How to Enter: Register online at www.calligraphy-youth.cn before June 15, 2026. Mail your original work to: National Youth Calligraphy Competition, 18 Huancheng Road, Beijing, 100010. Attach a printed copy of your registration confirmation. Judging Process: Preliminary round (July 1–15): All entries reviewed by a panel of calligraphers. Final round (July 20): Shortlisted participants (top 20 in each category) will be invited to Beijing for an on-site writing test. Award Ceremony: July 25, 2026, at the National Art Museum of China. For more details, contact: competition@calligraphy.cn 1. What is the deadline for online registration? A. June 15, 2026 B. June 30, 2026 C. July 1, 2026 D. July 20, 2026 2. What is required for the soft-tip calligraphy category? A. Participants must bring their own xuan paper. B. Works must be written on paper provided by the organizer. C. Only poems from the Tang dynasty are allowed. D. Each participant can submit up to three works. 3. What happens to the top 20 participants in each category? A. They receive a gold award immediately. B. They are invited to Beijing for a final test. C. They must submit a second original work. D. They will be exempt from the preliminary round. 答案解析： 1. 答案：A 解析：细节理解题。How to Enter部分明确“Register online... before June 15, 2026”，A项正确。B项June 30是作品提交截止日期，C项July 1初评开始，D项July 20决赛日期。 2. 答案：B 解析：细节理解题。Requirements中写明“soft-tip works on xuan paper (provided by the organizer upon registration)”，即由主办方提供宣纸，B项正确。A项自带宣纸、C项只允许唐诗（唐诗宋词均可）、D项可提交多份（每人一份）均错误。 3. 答案：B 解析：细节理解题。Judging Process中“Final round (July 20): Shortlisted participants (top 20 in each category) will be invited to Beijing for an on-site writing test”，B项正确。A项立即获金奖（还需终试）、C项提交第二份作品、D项免初评（初评选出前20）均错误。 B The Dandelion Painter In September 2025, an unusual exhibition opened at a small gallery in Chengdu. The paintings — landscapes, portraits, and city scenes — were strikingly beautiful, rendered in vibrant yellows and greens. What made them extraordinary was the paintbrush: a dried dandelion stem dipped in eco-friendly ink. The artist was 16-year-old Luo Wei, who has no hands. Luo Wei was born without hands due to a rare congenital condition. For most of his childhood, he believed that drawing — his deepest passion — was forever out of reach. “I used to watch other kids hold pencils,” he told reporters. “I thought art was a door locked to me.” But at age 12, during a walk in a park, he noticed a dandelion. On impulse, he picked it, dipped the hollow stem into a puddle of rainwater, and drew a line on a fallen leaf. The line was shaky but real. “That was the moment I knew I could paint,” he said. Over the next four years, Luo Wei practiced tirelessly. He developed a technique: holding the dandelion stem between his wrists, controlling pressure through subtle movements of his arms and shoulders. He experimented with different stems — thicker ones for bold strokes, thinner ones for details. He mixed his own paints from crushed flowers, tea leaves, and vegetable skins, rejecting chemical pigments that irritated his skin. His breakthrough came in early 2025, when a video of him painting a sunset using a dandelion went viral on Chinese social media. Within weeks, a local art teacher offered to mentor him for free. By August, he had completed a series of 20 works depicting his neighborhood — narrow alleyways, old teahouses, street vendors — scenes that captured the fading soul of old Chengdu. The September exhibition sold out within three days. Collectors praised his “unpretentious honesty” and “a quality of line that no trained hand could reproduce.” But Luo Wei remains focused on his mission. “I’m not trying to prove anything,” he said. “I just want to show that creativity finds a way. A dandelion is not a brush. But with enough heart, it becomes one.” In March 2026, Luo Wei’s work was featured in China Youth Art Review, and he was invited to hold a solo exhibition in Shanghai this summer. When asked about his future, he smiled: “I’m working on a series about birds in flight. Dandelion stems are light — just like feathers.” 4. What first gave Luo Wei the idea that he could paint? A. Watching other children draw with pencils. B. A video he saw of a disabled artist online. C. Drawing a line with a dandelion stem on a leaf. D. A teacher’s encouragement at school. 5. How did Luo Wei create his own paints? A. He bought them from a local art store. B. He used only commercial eco-friendly inks. C. He mixed natural materials like flowers and tea leaves. D. He received donations from chemical companies. 6. What can be inferred from the collectors’ comments? A. Luo Wei’s work is considered technically perfect. B. His paintings lack artistic value due to his disability. C. His unique style is valued for its natural honesty. D. Only disabled artists can create such works. 7. What is the best description of Luo Wei’s attitude toward his disability? A. Bitter and resentful. B. Determined and creative. C. Dependent on others for recognition. D. Indifferent and resigned. 答案解析： 4. 答案：C 解析：细节理解题。第二段他12岁时用蒲公英茎在落叶上画了一条线，“That was the moment I knew I could paint”，C项正确。A项看其他孩子画画让他觉得艺术是锁着的门，B项看视频、D项老师鼓励均不是最初给他信心的时刻。 5. 答案：C 解析：细节理解题。第三段“He mixed his own paints from crushed flowers, tea leaves, and vegetable skins”，C项正确。A项商店购买、B项只用商业环保墨水、D项化工厂捐赠均错误。 6. 答案：C 解析：推理判断题。收藏家评价“unpretentious honesty”和“a quality of line that no trained hand could reproduce”，说明他们欣赏他作品的自然诚实和独特线条，C项正确。A项技术完美（未说，反而说不是训练出来的）、B项因残疾而缺乏艺术价值（相反）、D项只有残疾艺术家才能创作（过度推断）。 7. 答案：B 解析：人物态度题。他数年如一日练习，开发技巧，面对残疾不抱怨，说“creativity finds a way”，态度为坚定和富有创造力，B项正确。A项痛苦怨恨、C项依赖他人认可、D项冷漠认命均不符合。 C The Surprising Link Between Handwriting and Brain Development As digital devices have become ubiquitous in classrooms, the practice of handwriting — especially cursive — has steadily declined. Many educators argue that teaching handwriting is a waste of time, given that students will spend their lives typing on keyboards. However, a growing body of neuroscience research suggests that dropping handwriting may come at a greater cost than previously understood. In December 2025, a team at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology published a groundbreaking study comparing brain activity in children who wrote by hand versus those who typed. Using high-density EEG to monitor neural activity, they found that handwriting activated far more extensive and interconnected brain networks than typing. Specifically, handwriting engaged regions associated with memory encoding, language processing, and motor planning — including the hippocampus and the inferior frontal gyrus. Typing, by contrast, produced relatively sparse and isolated patterns of activation. Why the difference? The researchers explain that handwriting requires precise, varied finger movements that continuously change direction and pressure. These complex motor actions send rich sensory feedback to the brain, reinforcing the neural pathways involved in letter recognition and spelling. Typing, on the other hand, involves repetitive, identical keystrokes for each letter, providing far less sensory variety. The implications for learning are significant. In a follow-up experiment, the same researchers asked a group of 60 university students to learn a new set of symbols — representing fictional letters — either by handwriting or typing. After one week, the handwriting group recalled the symbols with 40% higher accuracy and could more easily identify them when presented in different fonts. “Handwriting creates a deeper, more durable memory trace,” said Dr. Karsten Larsen, lead author. “It’s not just about motor memory. It’s about how the brain builds meaning.” Critics, however, point out that the study does not prove that handwriting causes better learning outcomes in real classroom settings. Typing has clear advantages in speed, legibility, and editability. Moreover, not all students have the fine motor skills required for neat handwriting — and forcing them to write by hand could be counterproductive. The authors acknowledge these concerns. They do not advocate for banning keyboards. Instead, they suggest a balanced approach: teaching handwriting in early grades when fine motor skills are developing, and gradually introducing typing as a complementary tool. “The goal is not to turn back the clock,” said Larsen. “The goal is to understand what the brain loses — and what it gains — with each tool we choose.” 8. What did the Norwegian study find about handwriting compared to typing? A. Handwriting activates fewer brain regions. B. Handwriting engages more extensive neural networks. C. Typing improves memory more effectively than handwriting. D. Both activities produce identical brain activation patterns. 9. What does the underlined word “sparse” in paragraph 2 most likely mean? A. Dense and connected. B. Thin and scattered. C. Strong and active. D. Simple and repetitive. 10. What is the main idea of paragraph 4? A. Handwriting helps learners remember new symbols better. B. Typing is faster and more efficient for taking notes. C. Researchers need more evidence from real classrooms. D. Handwriting requires fine motor skills that not all students have. 11. What is the author’s overall conclusion about handwriting instruction? A. Schools should completely replace handwriting with typing. B. A balanced approach with both handwriting and typing is best. C. Handwriting should only be taught to students with strong motor skills. D. The benefits of typing outweigh any advantages of handwriting. 答案解析： 8. 答案：B 解析：细节理解题。第二段研究结果“handwriting activated far more extensive and interconnected brain networks than typing”，B项正确。A项激活更少脑区（相反）、C项打字更有效记忆（相反）、D项两者相同（相反）。 9. 答案：B 解析：词义猜测题。sparse与isolated（孤立的）并列，描述打字时脑部激活模式是稀少、分散的，B项“Thin and scattered”正确。A项密集连接、C项强而活跃、D项简单重复均不符。 10. 答案：A 解析：段落主旨题。第四段通过符号学习实验，证明手写组比打字组记忆准确率高40%，且能更好识别不同字体的符号，主旨是手写帮助更好地记忆新符号，A项正确。B项打字更快更高效、C项需要更多真实课堂证据、D项手写需要精细运动技能均为其他段落内容。 11. 答案：B 解析：推理判断题。最后一段作者建议“a balanced approach: teaching handwriting in early grades... and gradually introducing typing as a complementary tool”，B项正确。A项完全取代手写、C项只教有良好运动技能的学生、D项打字好处超过手写均不是作者结论。 D The Myth of the Meritocracy Trap In early 2026, sociologist Dr. Yu Wei of Peking University published a provocative book titled The Meritocracy Trap: How Believing in Fairness Makes Us Unfair. The central argument has sparked intense debate in educational and political circles: meritocracy — the idea that success is determined solely by talent and effort — is not only false but actively harmful to social mobility. Meritocracy, Dr. Yu argues, serves as a powerful justification for inequality. When people believe that positions and rewards are distributed based on merit, they tend to view the wealthy as deserving and the poor as undeserving. This belief, known as the “just-world hypothesis,” reduces empathy for those who struggle and increases tolerance for vast economic disparities. In a meritocratic framework, failure is seen as a personal moral failing rather than the result of structural barriers. The book draws on longitudinal data from 5,000 Chinese students tracked from primary school through university graduation. The findings are striking. Students from wealthy families were three times more likely to attend elite universities than equally talented students from low-income families — not because they worked harder, but because they had access to better tutoring, quieter study environments, and parents with more educational capital. Yet when asked, 78% of the wealthy students attributed their success to “hard work alone.” Dr. Yu does not deny the importance of effort. “Hard work matters,” she writes. “But it is neither the only nor the most important factor. Family background, geographic location, school quality, and sheer luck play enormous roles. Pretending otherwise does not level the playing field; it just makes the game seem fair when it isn’t.” The policy implications are uncomfortable. If success is partly a lottery, how should society respond? Dr. Yu proposes three concrete reforms: first, universal early-childhood intervention programs to reduce the achievement gap before school begins; second, anonymized admissions processes to remove unconscious bias; third, a “luck tax” — modest redistributive policies that acknowledge the role of chance in outcomes. Critics have been swift. Some argue that focusing on structural barriers risks undermining personal responsibility. Others contend that Dr. Yu’s proposals amount to socialism in disguise. Yet her response is measured: “Acknowledging luck is not an excuse for laziness. It is an invitation to humility. And humility is the first step toward real fairness — fairness that doesn’t just reward winners but lifts up those who started behind.” The debate is far from settled. What is clear, however, is that Dr. Yu has challenged a core assumption of modern society. As one reviewer put it: “Whether you agree with her or not, you can no longer talk about success without reckoning with the myth of meritocracy.” 12. What is the main argument of Dr. Yu’s book? A. Meritocracy is a fair and effective system. B. Believing in meritocracy can increase social inequality. C. Hard work is the only factor that determines success. D. Wealthy families do not deserve their success. 13. What does the “just-world hypothesis” refer to in paragraph 2? A. The belief that the world is naturally unfair. B. The tendency to see outcomes as deserved. C. The idea that luck determines everything. D. The rejection of all social policies. 14. What is Dr. Yu’s attitude toward the role of effort in success? A. Effort is completely irrelevant. B. Effort matters, but it is not the only factor. C. Effort is more important than family background. D. Effort should be the sole criterion for admission. 15. What is the author’s purpose in writing this passage? A. To summarize Dr. Yu’s arguments and the debate she has sparked. B. To criticize Dr. Yu’s proposals as unrealistic socialism. C. To prove that meritocracy works perfectly in China. D. To explain how to become successful through hard work. 答案解析： 12. 答案：B 解析：主旨大意题。第一段核心论点“meritocracy... is not only false but actively harmful to social mobility”，后文论证相信精英主义会合理化不平等、加剧社会不公，B项正确。A项公平有效（相反）、C项努力是唯一因素（她否定这一点）、D项富裕家庭不配成功（过度简化）。 13. 答案：B 解析：词义推断题。第二段“just-world hypothesis”解释为“tend to view the wealthy as deserving and the poor as undeserving”，即倾向于将结果视为理所应当，B项正确。A项世界天生不公平、C项运气决定一切、D项拒绝所有社会政策均不对。 14. 答案：B 解析：作者态度题。第四段Dr. Yu明确说“Hard work matters. But it is neither the only nor the most important factor.”，B项正确。A项完全不相关、C项比家庭背景更重要、D项应成为唯一标准均不是她的观点。 15. 答案：A 解析：写作目的题。全文介绍了Dr. Yu的论点、证据、政策建议，以及批评者的回应和她的反驳，最后点出引发的讨论，写作目的是概括她的论点及引发的辩论，A项正确。B项批评其提议为不现实的社会主义、C项证明精英主义在中国完美运作、D项解释如何通过努力成功均不是作者目的。 1 / 8 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 2026 高考英语阅读理解预测 第四组 第一节 阅读理解（共15小题；每小题2.5分，满分37.5分） 阅读下列短文，从每题所给的A、B、C、D四个选项中，选出最佳选项。 A National Youth Calligraphy Competition 2026 The Chinese Calligraphy Association is proud to announce the 2026 National Youth Calligraphy Competition, open to students aged 10–18 across the country. This year’s theme is “Inheriting Tradition, Writing the Future.” Categories: Category A: Hard-tip calligraphy (pen, pencil, or marker) Category B: Soft-tip calligraphy (brush) Requirements: Each participant may submit ONE original work. Work must be created within the past 12 months. Content: Any classical Chinese poem (Tang or Song dynasty preferred) or a short original passage (no more than 50 characters). Size: Hard-tip works on A4 paper; soft-tip works on xuan paper (provided by the organizer upon registration). Prizes: Gold Award (5 winners in each category): ¥3,000 + certificate + calligraphy set Silver Award (10 winners each): ¥1,500 + certificate Bronze Award (20 winners each): ¥800 + certificate Excellence Award (50 winners each): certificate only Submission Deadline: June 30, 2026 (postmark accepted) How to Enter: Register online at www.calligraphy-youth.cn before June 15, 2026. Mail your original work to: National Youth Calligraphy Competition, 18 Huancheng Road, Beijing, 100010. Attach a printed copy of your registration confirmation. Judging Process: Preliminary round (July 1–15): All entries reviewed by a panel of calligraphers. Final round (July 20): Shortlisted participants (top 20 in each category) will be invited to Beijing for an on-site writing test. Award Ceremony: July 25, 2026, at the National Art Museum of China. For more details, contact: competition@calligraphy.cn 1. What is the deadline for online registration? A. June 15, 2026 B. June 30, 2026 C. July 1, 2026 D. July 20, 2026 2. What is required for the soft-tip calligraphy category? A. Participants must bring their own xuan paper. B. Works must be written on paper provided by the organizer. C. Only poems from the Tang dynasty are allowed. D. Each participant can submit up to three works. 3. What happens to the top 20 participants in each category? A. They receive a gold award immediately. B. They are invited to Beijing for a final test. C. They must submit a second original work. D. They will be exempt from the preliminary round. B The Dandelion Painter In September 2025, an unusual exhibition opened at a small gallery in Chengdu. The paintings — landscapes, portraits, and city scenes — were strikingly beautiful, rendered in vibrant yellows and greens. What made them extraordinary was the paintbrush: a dried dandelion stem dipped in eco-friendly ink. The artist was 16-year-old Luo Wei, who has no hands. Luo Wei was born without hands due to a rare congenital condition. For most of his childhood, he believed that drawing — his deepest passion — was forever out of reach. “I used to watch other kids hold pencils,” he told reporters. “I thought art was a door locked to me.” But at age 12, during a walk in a park, he noticed a dandelion. On impulse, he picked it, dipped the hollow stem into a puddle of rainwater, and drew a line on a fallen leaf. The line was shaky but real. “That was the moment I knew I could paint,” he said. Over the next four years, Luo Wei practiced tirelessly. He developed a technique: holding the dandelion stem between his wrists, controlling pressure through subtle movements of his arms and shoulders. He experimented with different stems — thicker ones for bold strokes, thinner ones for details. He mixed his own paints from crushed flowers, tea leaves, and vegetable skins, rejecting chemical pigments that irritated his skin. His breakthrough came in early 2025, when a video of him painting a sunset using a dandelion went viral on Chinese social media. Within weeks, a local art teacher offered to mentor him for free. By August, he had completed a series of 20 works depicting his neighborhood — narrow alleyways, old teahouses, street vendors — scenes that captured the fading soul of old Chengdu. The September exhibition sold out within three days. Collectors praised his “unpretentious honesty” and “a quality of line that no trained hand could reproduce.” But Luo Wei remains focused on his mission. “I’m not trying to prove anything,” he said. “I just want to show that creativity finds a way. A dandelion is not a brush. But with enough heart, it becomes one.” In March 2026, Luo Wei’s work was featured in China Youth Art Review, and he was invited to hold a solo exhibition in Shanghai this summer. When asked about his future, he smiled: “I’m working on a series about birds in flight. Dandelion stems are light — just like feathers.” 4. What first gave Luo Wei the idea that he could paint? A. Watching other children draw with pencils. B. A video he saw of a disabled artist online. C. Drawing a line with a dandelion stem on a leaf. D. A teacher’s encouragement at school. 5. How did Luo Wei create his own paints? A. He bought them from a local art store. B. He used only commercial eco-friendly inks. C. He mixed natural materials like flowers and tea leaves. D. He received donations from chemical companies. 6. What can be inferred from the collectors’ comments? A. Luo Wei’s work is considered technically perfect. B. His paintings lack artistic value due to his disability. C. His unique style is valued for its natural honesty. D. Only disabled artists can create such works. 7. What is the best description of Luo Wei’s attitude toward his disability? A. Bitter and resentful. B. Determined and creative. C. Dependent on others for recognition. D. Indifferent and resigned. C The Surprising Link Between Handwriting and Brain Development As digital devices have become ubiquitous in classrooms, the practice of handwriting — especially cursive — has steadily declined. Many educators argue that teaching handwriting is a waste of time, given that students will spend their lives typing on keyboards. However, a growing body of neuroscience research suggests that dropping handwriting may come at a greater cost than previously understood. In December 2025, a team at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology published a groundbreaking study comparing brain activity in children who wrote by hand versus those who typed. Using high-density EEG to monitor neural activity, they found that handwriting activated far more extensive and interconnected brain networks than typing. Specifically, handwriting engaged regions associated with memory encoding, language processing, and motor planning — including the hippocampus and the inferior frontal gyrus. Typing, by contrast, produced relatively sparse and isolated patterns of activation. Why the difference? The researchers explain that handwriting requires precise, varied finger movements that continuously change direction and pressure. These complex motor actions send rich sensory feedback to the brain, reinforcing the neural pathways involved in letter recognition and spelling. Typing, on the other hand, involves repetitive, identical keystrokes for each letter, providing far less sensory variety. The implications for learning are significant. In a follow-up experiment, the same researchers asked a group of 60 university students to learn a new set of symbols — representing fictional letters — either by handwriting or typing. After one week, the handwriting group recalled the symbols with 40% higher accuracy and could more easily identify them when presented in different fonts. “Handwriting creates a deeper, more durable memory trace,” said Dr. Karsten Larsen, lead author. “It’s not just about motor memory. It’s about how the brain builds meaning.” Critics, however, point out that the study does not prove that handwriting causes better learning outcomes in real classroom settings. Typing has clear advantages in speed, legibility, and editability. Moreover, not all students have the fine motor skills required for neat handwriting — and forcing them to write by hand could be counterproductive. The authors acknowledge these concerns. They do not advocate for banning keyboards. Instead, they suggest a balanced approach: teaching handwriting in early grades when fine motor skills are developing, and gradually introducing typing as a complementary tool. “The goal is not to turn back the clock,” said Larsen. “The goal is to understand what the brain loses — and what it gains — with each tool we choose.” 8. What did the Norwegian study find about handwriting compared to typing? A. Handwriting activates fewer brain regions. B. Handwriting engages more extensive neural networks. C. Typing improves memory more effectively than handwriting. D. Both activities produce identical brain activation patterns. 9. What does the underlined word “sparse” in paragraph 2 most likely mean? A. Dense and connected. B. Thin and scattered. C. Strong and active. D. Simple and repetitive. 10. What is the main idea of paragraph 4? A. Handwriting helps learners remember new symbols better. B. Typing is faster and more efficient for taking notes. C. Researchers need more evidence from real classrooms. D. Handwriting requires fine motor skills that not all students have. 11. What is the author’s overall conclusion about handwriting instruction? A. Schools should completely replace handwriting with typing. B. A balanced approach with both handwriting and typing is best. C. Handwriting should only be taught to students with strong motor skills. D. The benefits of typing outweigh any advantages of handwriting. D The Myth of the Meritocracy Trap In early 2026, sociologist Dr. Yu Wei of Peking University published a provocative book titled The Meritocracy Trap: How Believing in Fairness Makes Us Unfair. The central argument has sparked intense debate in educational and political circles: meritocracy — the idea that success is determined solely by talent and effort — is not only false but actively harmful to social mobility. Meritocracy, Dr. Yu argues, serves as a powerful justification for inequality. When people believe that positions and rewards are distributed based on merit, they tend to view the wealthy as deserving and the poor as undeserving. This belief, known as the “just-world hypothesis,” reduces empathy for those who struggle and increases tolerance for vast economic disparities. In a meritocratic framework, failure is seen as a personal moral failing rather than the result of structural barriers. The book draws on longitudinal data from 5,000 Chinese students tracked from primary school through university graduation. The findings are striking. Students from wealthy families were three times more likely to attend elite universities than equally talented students from low-income families — not because they worked harder, but because they had access to better tutoring, quieter study environments, and parents with more educational capital. Yet when asked, 78% of the wealthy students attributed their success to “hard work alone.” Dr. Yu does not deny the importance of effort. “Hard work matters,” she writes. “But it is neither the only nor the most important factor. Family background, geographic location, school quality, and sheer luck play enormous roles. Pretending otherwise does not level the playing field; it just makes the game seem fair when it isn’t.” The policy implications are uncomfortable. If success is partly a lottery, how should society respond? Dr. Yu proposes three concrete reforms: first, universal early-childhood intervention programs to reduce the achievement gap before school begins; second, anonymized admissions processes to remove unconscious bias; third, a “luck tax” — modest redistributive policies that acknowledge the role of chance in outcomes. Critics have been swift. Some argue that focusing on structural barriers risks undermining personal responsibility. Others contend that Dr. Yu’s proposals amount to socialism in disguise. Yet her response is measured: “Acknowledging luck is not an excuse for laziness. It is an invitation to humility. And humility is the first step toward real fairness — fairness that doesn’t just reward winners but lifts up those who started behind.” The debate is far from settled. What is clear, however, is that Dr. Yu has challenged a core assumption of modern society. As one reviewer put it: “Whether you agree with her or not, you can no longer talk about success without reckoning with the myth of meritocracy.” 12. What is the main argument of Dr. Yu’s book? A. Meritocracy is a fair and effective system. B. Believing in meritocracy can increase social inequality. C. Hard work is the only factor that determines success. D. Wealthy families do not deserve their success. 13. What does the “just-world hypothesis” refer to in paragraph 2? A. The belief that the world is naturally unfair. B. The tendency to see outcomes as deserved. C. The idea that luck determines everything. D. The rejection of all social policies. 14. What is Dr. Yu’s attitude toward the role of effort in success? A. Effort is completely irrelevant. B. Effort matters, but it is not the only factor. C. Effort is more important than family background. D. Effort should be the sole criterion for admission. 15. What is the author’s purpose in writing this passage? A. To summarize Dr. Yu’s arguments and the debate she has sparked. B. To criticize Dr. Yu’s proposals as unrealistic socialism. C. To prove that meritocracy works perfectly in China. D. To explain how to become successful through hard work. 1 / 7 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $