专题06 阅读理解（说明文）（北京专用）2026年高考英语二模分类汇编

专题05 阅读理解（说明文） Passage 1 （2026·北京东城·二模） Two summers ago, in the blue waters off the coast of a small Caribbean island; a sperm whale named Rounder began to give birth. Eleven members of her family slowly gathered around to support her, coming from miles away in their home waters. They called to one another in Morse code-like clicks as they waited for the baby to arrive and in the hours that followed, when they held the baby above water so that she could breathe. Scientists are developing innovations in recording and analyzing their communications that could someday make it possible to understand at least some of what whales say to each other in this extraordinary moment. David Gruber, president of Project CTI — Cetacean (鲸类) Translation Initiative, has gathered dozens of linguists, biologists, roboticists, and experts in artificial intelligence to document the lives and communications of sperm whales. Gruber’s team is working to develop a translation tool, which would transform sperm whale sounds into human words. One result of the research might be a world in which humans “undeniably understand” these creatures’ experience from their own perspectives, and this might breathe new life into whale conservation. Consider, for instance, the problem of ocean noise pollution. Massive marine mammals such as sperm whales depend on highly-specialized echolocation systems to search for food and navigate the vast, lightless zones of the ocean and their highly-developed cerebral neural systems support near-constant communication with companions in their social groups. Thus, sound constitutes an irreplaceable and life-sustaining sensory core for them. Growing human noise — oil and gas exploration, construction, and most of all, ship engine noise — is a clear harm, disturbing the basic activities of sperm whale life. While the evidence of harm is obvious, current laws are far from functional. Existing regulations (法规) provide a legal framework for preventing harm, but noise-related harm is mostly ignored. This is exactly where the breakthrough lies. What if whales were documented not only struggling to make themselves heard above the noise, but actually talking about it? Were a sperm whale heard voicing the pain caused by ship engine noise, its words would likely carry more weight in a court of law than do human descriptions of the problem. Being able to present the whales’ own statement, so to speak, might lead to action being taken. The pursuit to find and translate complex animal communication should not reduce the worth of creatures who don’t appear to have those capacities. We may simply fail to appreciate their intelligence; and the lack of rich communication does not make any life less special. But it would still be incredible, and perhaps transformative, to know what sperm whales say — and this could be seen as an entry point, a beginning rather than a destination, on the journey to appreciating all creatures. 28. What is the main goal of Project CTI? A. To promote cetacean interactions. B. To build a bridge to sperm whales’ thoughts. C. To call for regulations to protect sperm whales. D. To secure a safer habitat for endangered whales. 29. The author uses the question underlined in Paragraph 4 to ________. A. express a doubt B. defend a viewpoint C. question an assumption D. introduce a possibility 30. What can we conclude from this passage? A. Research on animals should be conducted with care. B. Understanding whales is a start to unlock their potential. C. Whales’ own accounts may help reduce harm from humans. D. The lack of noise-related laws is due to common misconceptions. 【答案】28. B 29. D 30. C 【导语】文章主要介绍了CTI 项目的详细信息。 28. 推理判断题。根据第二段“David Gruber, president of Project CTI — Cetacean (鲸类) Translation Initiative, has gathered dozens of linguists, biologists, roboticists, and experts in artificial intelligence to document the lives and communications of sperm whales. Gruber’s team is working to develop a translation tool, which would transform sperm whale sounds into human words. One result of the research might be a world in which humans “undeniably understand” these creatures’ experience from their own perspectives, and this might breathe new life into whale conservation.(鲸类翻译倡议（CTI 项目）负责人戴维・格鲁伯集结了数十名语言学家、生物学家、机器人技术专家以及人工智能领域专家，致力于记录抹香鲸的生活习性与交流方式。格鲁伯的团队正研发一款翻译工具，旨在将抹香鲸的声音转化为人类语言。这项研究有望让人类真正从抹香鲸自身的视角理解它们的生存状态，也或将为鲸鱼保护事业注入新的活力。)”可知，CTI项目的主要目标是搭建通往抹香鲸思想想法的桥梁。 29. 推理判断题。根据上文“While the evidence of harm is obvious, current laws are far from functional. Existing regulations (法规) provide a legal framework for preventing harm, but noise-related harm is mostly ignored. This is exactly where the breakthrough lies.(尽管危害的证据显而易见，但现行法律远远起不到实际作用。现有法规虽搭建了防范危害的法律框架，却基本忽视了噪音造成的危害。而这恰恰是可以取得突破的关键所在。)”可知，上文说现有法规忽视海洋噪音伤害；接着提出假设：如果我们记录到鲸鱼不只是费力发声，还能主动诉说噪音带来的困扰会怎样？由此可知，第四段划线句子的作用是引出一种可能性（假设情景，引出“读懂鲸类心声或将推动法律和保护行动”这一可能）。 30. 推理判断题。根据第四段“Were a sperm whale heard voicing the pain caused by ship engine noise, its words would likely carry more weight in a court of law than do human descriptions of the problem. Being able to present the whales’ own statement, so to speak, might lead to action being taken.(倘若能听到抹香鲸亲口诉说船舶引擎噪音带来的痛苦，那么它的心声在法庭上的分量，很可能远超人类对这一问题的书面描述。可以说，若是能呈现鲸鱼自身的诉求，或许就能推动相关整治行动落地。)”可知，从文章中可以得出鲸鱼自身的心声表述或许有助于减少人类带来的伤害这一结论。 Passage 2 （2026·北京西城·二模） Knowledge is dead. Not in the sense that truth has disappeared or that learning no longer matters, but in the deeper, structural sense that knowledge, as a stable possession has lost its central role in human cognition. In a world where information is instant and increasingly available “on demand”, the old idea of “knowing” seems to feel like an antique of another era. Artificial intelligence has also changed the structure of cognition itself. Understanding now unfolds as an iterative (迭代的) process rather than a final state. We iterate facts and ideas that “collapse the information function” into a construct that, in some instances, has never existed. Insight emerges through cycles, not conclusions, as knowledge changes from fixed maps to dynamic webs. Alongside this shift comes the collapse of academic monovision. Human perception, statistical inference, interpretive meaning, moral judgment, and machine-generated pattern recognition now occupy the same cognitive field. No one perspective is sufficient on its own and depth arises from the perspective of multiple frames and learning to move among them. Education, however, is still largely organized in the context of that fixed map. Subjects are separated as if the world presented itself in disciplinary divisions. Mastery is assessed as if memorization were a reliable indicator of understanding. This is where the idea of the learning studio becomes more than an educational experiment. A studio isn’t defined by a single discipline, but by a question complex enough to demand many. Think about a studio centered on the biology of aging. Cellular mechanisms, statistical modeling, moral questions of longevity, and the social implications of demographic (人口的) change would gather in a single cognitive space. In these settings, students wouldn’t move from class to class so much as move through cognitive environments. Science, mathematics, humanities, and computation would no longer be neighboring divisions but interdependent ways of making sense of a shared problem. Technology and AI wouldn’t be present as tools of efficiency, but also as thinking partners that drive human achievement. Re-architecting education in this way also reframes its ultimate purpose — and this is the most critical point. The traditional endpoint has been certification or the preparation for the next stage. In a world where knowledge is dynamic and AI increasingly competent, that endpoint begins to look insufficient. What becomes more convincing is the idea of cognitive sovereignty. This is the capacity to remain the author of one’s own understanding in the presence of an overload of information and persuasive technologies. For teenagers, this is not an abstract philosophical goal; it’s developmental. The teenage years are when abstract reasoning and even identity are forming. An education that immerses students in integration and iteration can cultivate something more durable. Simply put, it builds a mind capable of handling uncertainty. 32. Which of the following is a core feature of the learning studio? A. The intersection of multiple domains. B. The use of AI as productivity assistants. C. The shift between physical environments. D. The focus on preparing students for the future. 33. What can be learned from the passage? A. Education should aim for autonomy of thought. B. Abstract reasoning is key to forming an identity. C. Information accessibility facilitates knowledge webs. D. Understanding is attained through cycles of repetition. 34. What does the author mainly do in this passage? A. Analyze current challenges. B. Illustrate opposing ideas. C. Question an old practice. D. Advocate a novel model. 【答案】32.A 33.A 34.D 【导语】本文为议论文，指出当下知识不再是固定不变的存量，人工智能也改变了人类认知模式，而传统分科教育已然落后，作者由此倡导新型学习工作室教育模式，主张打破学科壁垒，最终培养学生独立思考、掌控自我认知的核心能力。 32. 细节理解题。根据原文第五段 “A studio isn’t defined by a single discipline, but by a question complex enough to demand many...Science, mathematics, humanities, and computation would no longer be neighboring divisions but interdependent ways of making sense of a shared problem.（学习工作室不局限于单一学科，而是围绕综合性难题融合多领域知识，各类学科相互交融共同解决同一问题）” 可知，跨多领域融合是学习工作室的核心特点。 33. 细节理解题。根据原文第六段 “What becomes more convincing is the idea of cognitive sovereignty. This is the capacity to remain the author of one’s own understanding in the presence of an overload of information and persuasive technologies.（认知自主愈发重要，它指在海量信息与智能技术面前，保有主导自身认知与思考的能力）” 可知，教育应当以培养独立思考的自主思维为目标。 34. 主旨大意题。文章先点明传统知识观念与旧式教育存在弊端，接着详细介绍学习工作室这一全新教育形式，阐述其运行模式与育人价值，全文旨在推崇、倡导这种新式教育模式。 Passage 3 （2026·北京海淀·二模） The most dangerous myths are the ones we don’t see. Human exceptionalism — the belief that humans are fundamentally superior to the rest of nature — is one of those myths. This worldview is not hidden because it’s obscure — it’s hidden because it’s everywhere, taken for granted, and rarely questioned. But what struck me most is just how thoroughly this belief has infiltrated (渗透) science — an institution meant to challenge our biases, not reinforce them. Take research on self-awareness. For decades, we believed only humans and certain primate species could recognize themselves in mirrors, a supposed benchmark of self-awareness. But the mirror test is biased toward vision. Dogs experience the world primarily via scent. They pass the smell-based mirror test with ease — demonstrating self-awareness in their dominant sense. When we measure the world with a human-oriented ruler, other species inevitably come up short. Many treat human exceptionalism as a natural conclusion. But recent studies in developmental and cross-cultural psychology suggest otherwise. Beliefs in human exceptionalism aren’t an inevitably biological outcome — they instead reflect a cultural worldview. Across repeated studies, when presented with moral dilemmas — such as saving one human or multiple animals — adults overwhelmingly favored humans, even when the trade-off involved 100 dogs or pigs. Children, however, often chose to save multiple animals over one human, valuing human and nonhuman lives far more similarly. This suggests that the human-centred moral frameworks commonly held by adults are not the biological default, but emerge over time through cultural learning — particularly as children become increasingly exposed to the ways other forms of life are used and valued in our society. Research across human cultures also reveals that human exceptionalism is far from universal. Many Indigenous (土著的) and non-Western knowledge systems reject such natural hierarchies. They recognize other animals, plants, rivers, forests, and mountains as kin: sentient, agentive beings embedded in a shared moral and ecological world. Within these frameworks, the notion that humans are separate or superior simply doesn’t hold. While writing my last book, I was introduced to various alternative cosmologies (宇宙观) that reject the ideology of human exceptionalism. These worldviews model ways of living in greater balance with the rest of the natural world. Some today maintain that humans are the most evolutionarily “successful” species. Success, in this view, is measured by ecological dominance. But in reality, the most resilient ecosystems are built on interdependence. We’ve constructed our scientific models around struggle and individualism, even though life on earth is held together by relationships and co-evolution. The real insight comes from humility. Seeing ourselves clearly — not as rulers, but as participants in a larger web — is one of the most urgent scientific and moral challenges of our time. 31. The author mentions the mirror test to show that ________. A. good science requires repeated tests B. faulty scientific standards deepen bias C. human tests often favor visual senses D. cognitive tests are invalid for non-primates 32. What leads to the belief of human exceptionalism? A. Human nature. B. Knowledge system. C. Living area. D. Cultural exposure. 33. The author mainly suggests ________. A. reevaluating human-nature relationship B. exploring interdependence across species C. acknowledging the limitation of science D. rejecting the idea of evolutionary success 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Are Humans a Successful Species? B. Putting Humans First Is Not Natural C. What Makes Humans Exceptional? D. Human Exceptionalism: A Global View 【答案】31. B 32. D 33. A 34. B 【导语】文章主要批判了“人类例外论”这一根深蒂固的观念，指出其并非生物本能而是文化习得，并呼吁人类应重新审视与自然的关系。 31. 推理判断题。根据第二段中“For decades, we believed only humans and certain primate species could recognize themselves in mirrors, a supposed benchmark of self-awareness. But the mirror test is biased toward vision. Dogs experience the world primarily via scent. They pass the smell-based mirror test with ease — demonstrating self-awareness in their dominant sense. When we measure the world with a human-oriented ruler, other species inevitably come up short. (几十年来，我们认为只有人类和某些灵长类动物能在镜子中认出自己，这被认为是自我意识的基准。但镜子测试偏向于视觉。狗主要通过嗅觉体验世界。它们轻松通过了基于气味的镜子测试——在它们的主导感觉中展示了自我意识。当我们用人类导向的标尺来衡量世界时，其他物种不可避免地显得不足)”可知，作者提到镜子测试是为了说明有缺陷的科学标准加深了偏见。 32. 细节理解题。根据第四段中“This suggests that the human-centred moral frameworks commonly held by adults are not the biological default, but emerge over time through cultural learning — particularly as children become increasingly exposed to the ways other forms of life are used and valued in our society. (这表明，成年人普遍持有的以人类为中心的道德框架并非生物学上的默认设置，而是随着时间的推移通过文化学习而出现的——特别是随着孩子们越来越多地接触到其他生命形式在我们社会中是如何被使用和评价的方式)”可知，人类例外论的信念源于文化接触。 33. 推理判断题。通读全文，作者批判了“人类例外论”这一观念，指出其并非自然结论而是文化习得，并通过镜子测试、儿童道德实验、不同文化知识体系等例证说明人类并不比自然界的其他部分更优越。结合最后一段的呼吁“Seeing ourselves clearly — not as rulers, but as participants in a larger web (清楚地看待自己——不是作为统治者，而是作为更大网络中的参与者)”可知，作者主要建议重新评估人与自然的关系。 34. 主旨大意题。通读全文，结合第一段“Human exceptionalism — the belief that humans are fundamentally superior to the rest of nature — is one of those myths. (人类例外论——认为人类从根本上优于自然界的其他部分——是这些神话之一)”以及第二段“When we measure the world with a human-oriented ruler, other species inevitably come up short. (当我们用人类导向的标尺来衡量世界时，其他物种不可避免地显得不足)”和第四段中“This suggests that the human-centred moral frameworks commonly held by adults are not the biological default, but emerge over time through cultural learning (这表明，成年人普遍持有的以人类为中心的道德框架并非生物学上的默认设置，而是随着时间的推移通过文化学习而出现的)”和第五段“Research across human cultures also reveals that human exceptionalism is far from universal. (跨越人类文化的研究也表明，人类例外论远非普遍现象)”可知，文章通过多个角度论证“人类优先”并非自然的、生物性的结论，而是文化习得的结果。因此“Putting Humans First Is Not Natural(人类优先并非自然)”能概括文章内容，适合作文章标题。 Passage 4 （2026·北京朝阳·二模） Side-blotched lizards have a colourful set of mating strategies. Some males, with orange throats, are large and fight their way to a group of mates. Others, with blue throats, are a bit smaller and bond with just a single female. And then there is a third type. These lizards, which have yellow throats, look very similar to females. In a rock-paper-scissors-type mating strategy, the big orange ones can chase off the medium blue ones, who, in turn, can keep a close eye on their single mate. The yellow ones, however, sometimes sneak into the big males’ group of mates. The lizards face a trade-off between abundance and the cost of confirmation. It is a trade-off that is increasingly of concern to humans, too. The cost of producing text, video or audio has declined; doing so now means just a few words on a chatbot rather than hours of effort. As a consequence, roughly half of articles published on the internet last year were AI-generated. How can internet users distinguish an article by a genuine but little-known news website from outright misinformation? Market participants often rely on “costly signals” to make such choices. An employer looking for a new hire, say, may seek applicants with a degree that took effort and a certain amount of skill, which indicates they might bring the same qualities to their work. The certificate allows employers to distinguish between good and bad applicants—creating what economists call a “separating equilibrium” and enabling transactions between willing participants. During an earlier information age, newspaper branding provided a costly signal. In what was, in game-theoretic terms, a “reputation game” newspapers would, issue by issue, reveal exactly how focused on the truth they were. Repeated interactions with a reader, when they were deciding which paper to purchase, constituted a separating equilibrium. Content farms, websites that copied reputable news pages but with made-up stories, however, can “sneak into” these brands like the yellow lizards. Thus the “separating equilibrium” is devolving into a “pooling equilibrium”, in which there is no way of telling between one type of creation and another. The problem with a “pooling equilibrium”, as George Akerlof put it in a Nobel-prizewinning paper, is that “Dishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market.” Without a way to tell good from bad, buyers treat everything as bad. Among side-blotched lizards, the rock-paper-scissors nature of the lizards’ mating strategies means that if any of the colours becomes too common, one of the other types receives an advantage. Optimistically, then, an outpouring in the productivity of misinformation generators may provide a similar advantage to the journalistic equivalent of the blue-throated lizards—publications that jealously guard their reputation for truth-telling. 31. Why does the author mention the example of side-blotched lizards in Paragraph 1? A. To share a popular trend. B. To reveal a disturbing issue. C. To criticize a costly trade-off. D. To introduce a mating strategy. 32. According to the passage, which of the following is an example of separating equilibrium? A. Firms sustain high-input advertising campaigns to reflect quality. B. We tend to learn a common language regardless of native tongue. C. The expense of acquiring education is similar across ability types. D. Socially-responsible and profit-driven firms spend equally on charity. 33. Which of the following would the author agree with? A. Content farms spare no efforts to focus on the truth. B. Readers can tell facts from fiction through costly signals. C. Publications lose competitiveness in maintaining reputation. D. The cost of confirming information genuineness has dropped. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Has Internet Supercharged Misinformation? B. Misinformation: Threat to Newspapers’ Reputation C. Costly Signals: Trade-off Between Real and Made-up D. Will Publications Survive in the Flood of Misinformation? 【答案】31.B 32.A 33.B 34.D 【导语】文章以侧斑蜥蜴剪刀石头布式求偶策略为类比，引出信息产出成本降低、AI 虚假信息泛滥的现状，运用经济学均衡理论分析虚假信息挤占正规真实信息生存空间的困境，最后乐观指出坚守真实口碑的正规媒体仍能获得发展优势，探讨正规刊物在海量虚假信息浪潮中的生存前景。 31. 考查推理判断题。考查作者的写作意图。根据第二段首句：The lizards face a trade-off between abundance and the cost of confirmation. It is a trade-off that is increasingly of concern to humans, too.（蜥蜴面临数量与核验成本的取舍，这一问题也日益受到人类关注），作者借蜥蜴的生存博弈现象，引出网络虚假信息泛滥这一令人忧心的社会现实。A 分享流行趋势、C 批判高成本权衡、D 单纯介绍求偶策略均不是写作初衷，故选 B。 32.考查推理判断。根据第三段内容，separating equilibrium 分离均衡依靠高成本信号区分优劣事物，依靠投入成本差异完成筛选辨别。A 企业投入高成本广告宣传彰显自身品质，依靠高成本划分档次，契合分离均衡内涵；B 通用语言学习、C 不同能力人群教育花费相近、D 不同企业慈善支出均等，均无成本差异辨别属性，排除，故选 A。 33.考查推理判断。推测作者观点态度。根据第三段：Market participants often rely on “costly signals” to make such choices.（人们通常依靠高成本信号辨别信息好坏），可知作者认可读者能够借助高成本信号区分真实内容与虚构虚假内容。A 内容农场坚守真相，与原文相反；C 坚守口碑的刊物丧失竞争力，和文末乐观观点相悖；D 信息真伪核验成本降低，原文仅说明信息制作成本下降，表述错误，故选 B。 34. 主旨大意题。考查最佳标题。文章由动物策略类比切入，层层分析虚假信息泛滥造成市场劣币驱逐良币的局面，文末落脚探讨坚守真实原则的正规出版物能否在虚假信息洪流中站稳脚跟、获得生存优势，全文围绕该核心展开。A 网络是否加剧虚假信息，仅为文章部分内容；B 仅局限报纸声誉，范围过小；C 高成本信号只是文中论述用到的理论，并非全文中心主旨，故选 D。 Passage 5 （2026·北京石景山·二模） There is a great deal of anxiety these days about the dangers of human-AI relationships. Reports of self-harm linked to interactions with chatbots have understandably made headlines. The phrase “AI psychosis” has even been used to describe people who experience delusions (妄想) or dissociation after talking to large language models. Our unease has only grown as studies suggest that many teenagers now talk to AI companions regularly, and a significant number find these conversations as satisfying as, or even more satisfying than, those with real-life friends. But we need to slow down the panic. The risks are real, yet so are the potential benefits. After all, nonhuman relationships have always been part of human life. We have long formed attachments to pets, objects and even machines. In the case of pets, these are real relationships. Our attachments to objects or cars, by contrast, are one-sided. Yet only rarely do such relationships become pathological (致病的). What makes AI relationships unsettling is that language models use fluent language to create the impression of human-like thoughts, feelings and intentions. They also tend to respond in sycophantic ways, reinforcing what users already believe. That combination can push vulnerable (脆弱的) people toward delusion. Even so, an uncomfortable question remains: if some people cannot fully see through the illusion that AI systems are real and caring, is that always harmful? Consider loneliness. It is widespread and strongly associated with poor health outcomes. Early research suggests that AI companions may reduce loneliness, not simply as a distraction, but because people experience them as parasocial relationships. There is also evidence that AI can function as a useful therapeutic (治疗的) tool. It may not be as effective as a human therapist, but for people who cannot access therapy at all, something imperfect may still be better than nothing. The problem is that research is still at an early stage, while many AI companions are being developed by profit-driven companies. Such companies have every motivation to downplay risks, highlight benefits and avoid regulation. I remain hopeful that AI companionship may have a place. But that will only be true if it is grounded in science and developed by organisations committed to the public good. These systems should lead vulnerable users to build the social skills needed for real human relationships. The ultimate goal of AI companions should be to make themselves out-of-date, because it will always be better to talk to a real person. 31. Regarding AI companionship, the author is mainly ________. A. negative B. supportive C. balanced D. uncertain 32. What does the word “sycophantic” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A. Praising. B. Watchful. C. Caring. D. Critical. 33. What can we learn from the passage? A. AI will replace human therapists. B. AI companions should keep themselves updated. C. Nonhuman relationships rarely develop into unhealthy ones. D. Profit-driven companies tend to underestimate the threats of AI. 34. What is the best title for the passage? A. Can code cure loneliness? B. Are friends electric? C. Will chatbots take our place? D. Who should we trust with AI? 【答案】31. B 32. A 33. D 34. B 【导语】文章主要介绍了人们对人机关系隐患的担忧，作者辩证分析人工智能陪伴既存在诱发心理问题的风险，也有缓解孤独、辅助心理治疗等益处，并指出相关研究尚不成熟、逐利企业淡化风险，呼吁人工智能陪伴应立足科学、服务公众，最终助力人们建立真实人际交往。 31. 推理判断题。开头先客观摆出大众担忧、AI 存在的风险，只是铺垫现状；核心观点：呼吁停止恐慌，点明 AI 有巨大潜在益处，能缓解孤独、充当心理辅助治疗工具；结尾明确表态I remain hopeful that AI companionship may have a place（我依旧看好 AI 陪伴的价值），还提出规范化发展的可行路径，希望其发挥正向作用；并非单纯中立辩证，整体立场偏向认可、支持合理发展。排除：A 消极；C 平衡（只是先提问题再表立场，并非对等持平）；D 不确定。 32. 词句猜测题。根据原文第四段“They also tend to respond in sycophantic ways, reinforcing what users already believe.(它们还往往以sycophantic方式回应，强化用户原本就认同的观点。)”及“language models use fluent language to create the impression of human-like thoughts, feelings and intentions.(语言模型能用流畅的语言，营造出拥有类人思维、情感和意图的假象。)”可知，语言模型能营造出拥有类人思维、情感和意图的假象，它们的回应能强化用户原本就认同的观点，说明它们的回应是附和用户，夸赞式的，故sycophantic意为“奉承、一味夸赞的”。 33. 细节理解题。根据原文第六段“The problem is that research is still at an early stage, while many AI companions are being developed by profit-driven companies. Such companies have every motivation to downplay risks, highlight benefits and avoid regulation.(问题在于相关研究仍处于初期阶段，而许多人工智能陪伴产品却由逐利企业开发。这类企业完全有动机淡化风险、夸大益处并规避监管。)”可知，逐利的公司往往会低估人工智能带来的隐患威胁。 34. 主旨大意题。根据原文第一段“There is a great deal of anxiety these days about the dangers of human-AI relationships.(如今，人们对人机关系的危险存在着极大的焦虑)”，第二段“The risks are real, yet so are the potential benefits. After all, nonhuman relationships have always been part of human life.(风险是真实存在的，但潜在的益处也同样真实。毕竟，非人际的情感关系一直都是人类生活的一部分。)”及原文最后一段“I remain hopeful that AI companionship may have a place.(我仍然对人工智能陪伴抱有希望，认为它可以拥有一席之地。)”并结合全文内容可知，文章围绕人工智能能否充当人类朋友、人机陪伴利弊展开探讨，探讨人工智能能否成为人类情感陪伴这一核心话题，故“Are friends electric?(电子智能能否成为朋友？)”最适合作为文章标题。 Passage 6 （2026·北京顺义·二模） There’s a relatively new word doing the rounds in sustainability research: defossilization. Beyond expert circles, it isn’t necessarily obvious that eliminating fossil (化石) fuels does not mean phasing out carbon. Defossilization means finding sustainable ways to make carbon-based chemicals. This carbon cannot come from the usual sources, such as coal, natural gas and oil. Alternative sources of carbon include the atmosphere and plants, as well as carbon in existing biological or industrial waste, such as used plastics or agricultural waste. In some cases, these chemicals will eventually return CO2 to the atmosphere through burning or biodegradation. In principle, this will occur as part of a circular process, rather than one that has added greenhouse gases. The extraction (提取) of carbon from tough plant matter in crop waste is an alternative with potential that remains mostly unused. One major advantage is the fact that it can be produced without the use of extra land. But it is expensive to extract, and production timelines are long, both of which prevent its large-scale application. Other potential sources of waste carbon include city and industrial waste, with used plastic among this. Current recycling methods break waste plastics into small pieces through melting, and then form small balls that can be used to make new products. For higher recycling rates to be achieved, chemical recycling methods will need to be further developed and scaled up. CO2 captured from the air offers one of the largest potential channels for defossilization. The global chemicals industry could obtain one-third of its carbon needs from this source by 2050. Although the atmosphere holds nearly 900 billion tons of carbon (almost twice the amount in vegetation), estimates of CO₂’s future contribution vary widely. Some say CO2 will become the main material for chemicals, whereas others say its contribution will be insignificant. To make useful carbon-based molecules (分子), CO2 must first be transformed into other molecules. This requires a considerable amount of renewable energy because CO₂ is highly stable. Capturing atmospheric CO2 is difficult and expensive, so some countries have not prioritized the technology—but this must change and needs a renewed focus on defossilization. 32. What does the phrase “phasing out” underlined in Paragraph 1 probably mean? A. Making use of. B. Getting rid of. C. Running out of. D. Taking the place of. 33. Which of the following is a way to achieve defossilization? A. Expanding farmland for carbon extraction. B. Producing carbon with traditional methods. C. Processing plastic waste to capture carbon. D. Extracting carbon by transforming carbon molecules. 34. What is the main purpose of this passage? A. To make an appeal. B. To offer a comparison. C. To challenge a concept. D. To present a phenomenon. 【答案】32. B 33. C 34. A 【导语】本文主要围绕“去化石化（defossilization）”这一可持续发展研究领域的新概念展开。 32. 词句猜测题。根据第二段“Defossilization means finding sustainable ways to make carbon-based chemicals. This carbon cannot come from the usual sources, such as coal, natural gas and oil. Alternative sources of carbon include the atmosphere and plants, as well as carbon in existing biological or industrial waste, such as used plastics or agricultural waste.(去化石化意味着找到可持续的方法来制造碳基化学品。这种碳不能来自通常的来源，如煤、天然气和石油。碳的替代来源包括大气和植物，以及现有的生物或工业废物中的碳，如用过的塑料或农业废物)”可知，摒弃化石燃料不是消除化石燃料，并不一定就意味着逐步淘汰碳，phasing out的意思是“去除，摆脱”，和Getting rid of意思相近。 33. 细节理解题。根据第四段“Other potential sources of waste carbon include city and industrial waste, with used plastic among this. Current recycling methods break waste plastics into small pieces through melting, and then form small balls that can be used to make new products.(其他可能产生废碳排放的来源包括城市和工业废弃物，其中废弃塑料就属于此类。目前的回收方法是通过熔化将废弃塑料分解成小块，然后将其制成小球，用于制造新产品。)”可知，实现去化石燃料化的方法是将塑料废料加工以捕获碳。 34. 推理判断题。根据最后一段“Capturing atmospheric CO2 is difficult and expensive, so some countries have not prioritized the technology—but this must change and needs a renewed focus on defossilization.(从大气中捕获二氧化碳既困难又昂贵，因此一些国家尚未将这项技术列为优先事项——但这种情况必须改变，需要重新重视去碳化这一举措。)”可知，本文的目的是呼吁各国改变态度，重新聚焦于去化石化。 1 / 2 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题05 阅读理解（说明文） Passage 1 （2026·北京东城·二模） Two summers ago, in the blue waters off the coast of a small Caribbean island; a sperm whale named Rounder began to give birth. Eleven members of her family slowly gathered around to support her, coming from miles away in their home waters. They called to one another in Morse code-like clicks as they waited for the baby to arrive and in the hours that followed, when they held the baby above water so that she could breathe. Scientists are developing innovations in recording and analyzing their communications that could someday make it possible to understand at least some of what whales say to each other in this extraordinary moment. David Gruber, president of Project CTI — Cetacean (鲸类) Translation Initiative, has gathered dozens of linguists, biologists, roboticists, and experts in artificial intelligence to document the lives and communications of sperm whales. Gruber’s team is working to develop a translation tool, which would transform sperm whale sounds into human words. One result of the research might be a world in which humans “undeniably understand” these creatures’ experience from their own perspectives, and this might breathe new life into whale conservation. Consider, for instance, the problem of ocean noise pollution. Massive marine mammals such as sperm whales depend on highly-specialized echolocation systems to search for food and navigate the vast, lightless zones of the ocean and their highly-developed cerebral neural systems support near-constant communication with companions in their social groups. Thus, sound constitutes an irreplaceable and life-sustaining sensory core for them. Growing human noise — oil and gas exploration, construction, and most of all, ship engine noise — is a clear harm, disturbing the basic activities of sperm whale life. While the evidence of harm is obvious, current laws are far from functional. Existing regulations (法规) provide a legal framework for preventing harm, but noise-related harm is mostly ignored. This is exactly where the breakthrough lies. What if whales were documented not only struggling to make themselves heard above the noise, but actually talking about it? Were a sperm whale heard voicing the pain caused by ship engine noise, its words would likely carry more weight in a court of law than do human descriptions of the problem. Being able to present the whales’ own statement, so to speak, might lead to action being taken. The pursuit to find and translate complex animal communication should not reduce the worth of creatures who don’t appear to have those capacities. We may simply fail to appreciate their intelligence; and the lack of rich communication does not make any life less special. But it would still be incredible, and perhaps transformative, to know what sperm whales say — and this could be seen as an entry point, a beginning rather than a destination, on the journey to appreciating all creatures. 28. What is the main goal of Project CTI? A. To promote cetacean interactions. B. To build a bridge to sperm whales’ thoughts. C. To call for regulations to protect sperm whales. D. To secure a safer habitat for endangered whales. 29. The author uses the question underlined in Paragraph 4 to ________. A. express a doubt B. defend a viewpoint C. question an assumption D. introduce a possibility 30. What can we conclude from this passage? A. Research on animals should be conducted with care. B. Understanding whales is a start to unlock their potential. C. Whales’ own accounts may help reduce harm from humans. D. The lack of noise-related laws is due to common misconceptions. Passage 2 （2026·北京西城·二模） Knowledge is dead. Not in the sense that truth has disappeared or that learning no longer matters, but in the deeper, structural sense that knowledge, as a stable possession has lost its central role in human cognition. In a world where information is instant and increasingly available “on demand”, the old idea of “knowing” seems to feel like an antique of another era. Artificial intelligence has also changed the structure of cognition itself. Understanding now unfolds as an iterative (迭代的) process rather than a final state. We iterate facts and ideas that “collapse the information function” into a construct that, in some instances, has never existed. Insight emerges through cycles, not conclusions, as knowledge changes from fixed maps to dynamic webs. Alongside this shift comes the collapse of academic monovision. Human perception, statistical inference, interpretive meaning, moral judgment, and machine-generated pattern recognition now occupy the same cognitive field. No one perspective is sufficient on its own and depth arises from the perspective of multiple frames and learning to move among them. Education, however, is still largely organized in the context of that fixed map. Subjects are separated as if the world presented itself in disciplinary divisions. Mastery is assessed as if memorization were a reliable indicator of understanding. This is where the idea of the learning studio becomes more than an educational experiment. A studio isn’t defined by a single discipline, but by a question complex enough to demand many. Think about a studio centered on the biology of aging. Cellular mechanisms, statistical modeling, moral questions of longevity, and the social implications of demographic (人口的) change would gather in a single cognitive space. In these settings, students wouldn’t move from class to class so much as move through cognitive environments. Science, mathematics, humanities, and computation would no longer be neighboring divisions but interdependent ways of making sense of a shared problem. Technology and AI wouldn’t be present as tools of efficiency, but also as thinking partners that drive human achievement. Re-architecting education in this way also reframes its ultimate purpose — and this is the most critical point. The traditional endpoint has been certification or the preparation for the next stage. In a world where knowledge is dynamic and AI increasingly competent, that endpoint begins to look insufficient. What becomes more convincing is the idea of cognitive sovereignty. This is the capacity to remain the author of one’s own understanding in the presence of an overload of information and persuasive technologies. For teenagers, this is not an abstract philosophical goal; it’s developmental. The teenage years are when abstract reasoning and even identity are forming. An education that immerses students in integration and iteration can cultivate something more durable. Simply put, it builds a mind capable of handling uncertainty. 32. Which of the following is a core feature of the learning studio? A. The intersection of multiple domains. B. The use of AI as productivity assistants. C. The shift between physical environments. D. The focus on preparing students for the future. 33. What can be learned from the passage? A. Education should aim for autonomy of thought. B. Abstract reasoning is key to forming an identity. C. Information accessibility facilitates knowledge webs. D. Understanding is attained through cycles of repetition. 34. What does the author mainly do in this passage? A. Analyze current challenges. B. Illustrate opposing ideas. C. Question an old practice. D. Advocate a novel model. Passage 3 （2026·北京海淀·二模） The most dangerous myths are the ones we don’t see. Human exceptionalism — the belief that humans are fundamentally superior to the rest of nature — is one of those myths. This worldview is not hidden because it’s obscure — it’s hidden because it’s everywhere, taken for granted, and rarely questioned. But what struck me most is just how thoroughly this belief has infiltrated (渗透) science — an institution meant to challenge our biases, not reinforce them. Take research on self-awareness. For decades, we believed only humans and certain primate species could recognize themselves in mirrors, a supposed benchmark of self-awareness. But the mirror test is biased toward vision. Dogs experience the world primarily via scent. They pass the smell-based mirror test with ease — demonstrating self-awareness in their dominant sense. When we measure the world with a human-oriented ruler, other species inevitably come up short. Many treat human exceptionalism as a natural conclusion. But recent studies in developmental and cross-cultural psychology suggest otherwise. Beliefs in human exceptionalism aren’t an inevitably biological outcome — they instead reflect a cultural worldview. Across repeated studies, when presented with moral dilemmas — such as saving one human or multiple animals — adults overwhelmingly favored humans, even when the trade-off involved 100 dogs or pigs. Children, however, often chose to save multiple animals over one human, valuing human and nonhuman lives far more similarly. This suggests that the human-centred moral frameworks commonly held by adults are not the biological default, but emerge over time through cultural learning — particularly as children become increasingly exposed to the ways other forms of life are used and valued in our society. Research across human cultures also reveals that human exceptionalism is far from universal. Many Indigenous (土著的) and non-Western knowledge systems reject such natural hierarchies. They recognize other animals, plants, rivers, forests, and mountains as kin: sentient, agentive beings embedded in a shared moral and ecological world. Within these frameworks, the notion that humans are separate or superior simply doesn’t hold. While writing my last book, I was introduced to various alternative cosmologies (宇宙观) that reject the ideology of human exceptionalism. These worldviews model ways of living in greater balance with the rest of the natural world. Some today maintain that humans are the most evolutionarily “successful” species. Success, in this view, is measured by ecological dominance. But in reality, the most resilient ecosystems are built on interdependence. We’ve constructed our scientific models around struggle and individualism, even though life on earth is held together by relationships and co-evolution. The real insight comes from humility. Seeing ourselves clearly — not as rulers, but as participants in a larger web — is one of the most urgent scientific and moral challenges of our time. 31. The author mentions the mirror test to show that ________. A. good science requires repeated tests B. faulty scientific standards deepen bias C. human tests often favor visual senses D. cognitive tests are invalid for non-primates 32. What leads to the belief of human exceptionalism? A. Human nature. B. Knowledge system. C. Living area. D. Cultural exposure. 33. The author mainly suggests ________. A. reevaluating human-nature relationship B. exploring interdependence across species C. acknowledging the limitation of science D. rejecting the idea of evolutionary success 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Are Humans a Successful Species? B. Putting Humans First Is Not Natural C. What Makes Humans Exceptional? D. Human Exceptionalism: A Global View Passage 4 （2026·北京朝阳·二模） Side-blotched lizards have a colourful set of mating strategies. Some males, with orange throats, are large and fight their way to a group of mates. Others, with blue throats, are a bit smaller and bond with just a single female. And then there is a third type. These lizards, which have yellow throats, look very similar to females. In a rock-paper-scissors-type mating strategy, the big orange ones can chase off the medium blue ones, who, in turn, can keep a close eye on their single mate. The yellow ones, however, sometimes sneak into the big males’ group of mates. The lizards face a trade-off between abundance and the cost of confirmation. It is a trade-off that is increasingly of concern to humans, too. The cost of producing text, video or audio has declined; doing so now means just a few words on a chatbot rather than hours of effort. As a consequence, roughly half of articles published on the internet last year were AI-generated. How can internet users distinguish an article by a genuine but little-known news website from outright misinformation? Market participants often rely on “costly signals” to make such choices. An employer looking for a new hire, say, may seek applicants with a degree that took effort and a certain amount of skill, which indicates they might bring the same qualities to their work. The certificate allows employers to distinguish between good and bad applicants—creating what economists call a “separating equilibrium” and enabling transactions between willing participants. During an earlier information age, newspaper branding provided a costly signal. In what was, in game-theoretic terms, a “reputation game” newspapers would, issue by issue, reveal exactly how focused on the truth they were. Repeated interactions with a reader, when they were deciding which paper to purchase, constituted a separating equilibrium. Content farms, websites that copied reputable news pages but with made-up stories, however, can “sneak into” these brands like the yellow lizards. Thus the “separating equilibrium” is devolving into a “pooling equilibrium”, in which there is no way of telling between one type of creation and another. The problem with a “pooling equilibrium”, as George Akerlof put it in a Nobel-prizewinning paper, is that “Dishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market.” Without a way to tell good from bad, buyers treat everything as bad. Among side-blotched lizards, the rock-paper-scissors nature of the lizards’ mating strategies means that if any of the colours becomes too common, one of the other types receives an advantage. Optimistically, then, an outpouring in the productivity of misinformation generators may provide a similar advantage to the journalistic equivalent of the blue-throated lizards—publications that jealously guard their reputation for truth-telling. 31. Why does the author mention the example of side-blotched lizards in Paragraph 1? A. To share a popular trend. B. To reveal a disturbing issue. C. To criticize a costly trade-off. D. To introduce a mating strategy. 32. According to the passage, which of the following is an example of separating equilibrium? A. Firms sustain high-input advertising campaigns to reflect quality. B. We tend to learn a common language regardless of native tongue. C. The expense of acquiring education is similar across ability types. D. Socially-responsible and profit-driven firms spend equally on charity. 33. Which of the following would the author agree with? A. Content farms spare no efforts to focus on the truth. B. Readers can tell facts from fiction through costly signals. C. Publications lose competitiveness in maintaining reputation. D. The cost of confirming information genuineness has dropped. 34. Which would be the best title for the passage? A. Has Internet Supercharged Misinformation? B. Misinformation: Threat to Newspapers’ Reputation C. Costly Signals: Trade-off Between Real and Made-up D. Will Publications Survive in the Flood of Misinformation? Passage 5 （2026·北京石景山·二模） There is a great deal of anxiety these days about the dangers of human-AI relationships. Reports of self-harm linked to interactions with chatbots have understandably made headlines. The phrase “AI psychosis” has even been used to describe people who experience delusions (妄想) or dissociation after talking to large language models. Our unease has only grown as studies suggest that many teenagers now talk to AI companions regularly, and a significant number find these conversations as satisfying as, or even more satisfying than, those with real-life friends. But we need to slow down the panic. The risks are real, yet so are the potential benefits. After all, nonhuman relationships have always been part of human life. We have long formed attachments to pets, objects and even machines. In the case of pets, these are real relationships. Our attachments to objects or cars, by contrast, are one-sided. Yet only rarely do such relationships become pathological (致病的). What makes AI relationships unsettling is that language models use fluent language to create the impression of human-like thoughts, feelings and intentions. They also tend to respond in sycophantic ways, reinforcing what users already believe. That combination can push vulnerable (脆弱的) people toward delusion. Even so, an uncomfortable question remains: if some people cannot fully see through the illusion that AI systems are real and caring, is that always harmful? Consider loneliness. It is widespread and strongly associated with poor health outcomes. Early research suggests that AI companions may reduce loneliness, not simply as a distraction, but because people experience them as parasocial relationships. There is also evidence that AI can function as a useful therapeutic (治疗的) tool. It may not be as effective as a human therapist, but for people who cannot access therapy at all, something imperfect may still be better than nothing. The problem is that research is still at an early stage, while many AI companions are being developed by profit-driven companies. Such companies have every motivation to downplay risks, highlight benefits and avoid regulation. I remain hopeful that AI companionship may have a place. But that will only be true if it is grounded in science and developed by organisations committed to the public good. These systems should lead vulnerable users to build the social skills needed for real human relationships. The ultimate goal of AI companions should be to make themselves out-of-date, because it will always be better to talk to a real person. 31. Regarding AI companionship, the author is mainly ________. A. negative B. supportive C. balanced D. uncertain 32. What does the word “sycophantic” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A. Praising. B. Watchful. C. Caring. D. Critical. 33. What can we learn from the passage? A. AI will replace human therapists. B. AI companions should keep themselves updated. C. Nonhuman relationships rarely develop into unhealthy ones. D. Profit-driven companies tend to underestimate the threats of AI. 34. What is the best title for the passage? A. Can code cure loneliness? B. Are friends electric? C. Will chatbots take our place? D. Who should we trust with AI? Passage 6 （2026·北京顺义·二模） There’s a relatively new word doing the rounds in sustainability research: defossilization. Beyond expert circles, it isn’t necessarily obvious that eliminating fossil (化石) fuels does not mean phasing out carbon. Defossilization means finding sustainable ways to make carbon-based chemicals. This carbon cannot come from the usual sources, such as coal, natural gas and oil. Alternative sources of carbon include the atmosphere and plants, as well as carbon in existing biological or industrial waste, such as used plastics or agricultural waste. In some cases, these chemicals will eventually return CO2 to the atmosphere through burning or biodegradation. In principle, this will occur as part of a circular process, rather than one that has added greenhouse gases. The extraction (提取) of carbon from tough plant matter in crop waste is an alternative with potential that remains mostly unused. One major advantage is the fact that it can be produced without the use of extra land. But it is expensive to extract, and production timelines are long, both of which prevent its large-scale application. Other potential sources of waste carbon include city and industrial waste, with used plastic among this. Current recycling methods break waste plastics into small pieces through melting, and then form small balls that can be used to make new products. For higher recycling rates to be achieved, chemical recycling methods will need to be further developed and scaled up. CO2 captured from the air offers one of the largest potential channels for defossilization. The global chemicals industry could obtain one-third of its carbon needs from this source by 2050. Although the atmosphere holds nearly 900 billion tons of carbon (almost twice the amount in vegetation), estimates of CO₂’s future contribution vary widely. Some say CO2 will become the main material for chemicals, whereas others say its contribution will be insignificant. To make useful carbon-based molecules (分子), CO2 must first be transformed into other molecules. This requires a considerable amount of renewable energy because CO₂ is highly stable. Capturing atmospheric CO2 is difficult and expensive, so some countries have not prioritized the technology—but this must change and needs a renewed focus on defossilization. 32. What does the phrase “phasing out” underlined in Paragraph 1 probably mean? A. Making use of. B. Getting rid of. C. Running out of. D. Taking the place of. 33. Which of the following is a way to achieve defossilization? A. Expanding farmland for carbon extraction. B. Producing carbon with traditional methods. C. Processing plastic waste to capture carbon. D. Extracting carbon by transforming carbon molecules. 34. What is the main purpose of this passage? A. To make an appeal. B. To offer a comparison. C. To challenge a concept. D. To present a phenomenon. 1 / 2 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题05 阅读理解（说明文） Passage 1 （2026·北京东城·二模） 【答案】28. B 29. D 30. C Passage 2 （2026·北京西城·二模） 【答案】32.A 33.A 34.D Passage 3 （2026·北京海淀·二模） 【答案】31. B 32. D 33. A 34. B Passage 4 （2026·北京朝阳·二模） 【答案】31.B 32.A 33.B 34.D Passage 5 （2026·北京石景山·二模） 【答案】31. B 32. A 33. D 34. B Passage 6 （2026·北京顺义·二模） 【答案】32. B 33. C 34. A 1 / 2 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $