专题03 阅读理解议论文（7年汇编）（北京专用）2020-2026年高考英语真题分类汇编

**基本信息** 汇编2020-2026年北京高考英语议论文阅读真题及模拟题，聚焦科技思辨、社会心理等辩证议题，训练推理判断等高阶思维，适配高考命题规律。 **题型特征** |题型|题量/分值|知识覆盖|命题特色| |----|-----------|----------|----------| |阅读理解单选题|每篇4题|推理判断（占比过半）、主旨大意、词义猜测|以2026年“Disruptor”话题、2024年模拟假说等科技前沿素材创设情境，问题设计梯度分明，如2021年时间定义议题考查作者态度与逻辑推导，强化文本深层思辨能力|

专题03 阅读理解议论文 7年真题1年模拟 考点 北京考情（2020-2026） 命题规律 说明文 北京高考议论文固定为 D 篇压轴阅读，单篇 4 道单选，词数稳定 400—490 词，是整套阅读难度最高篇目。选材集中前沿科技思辨、社会心理、哲学思考三类话题，覆盖 AI 伦理、认知观念、科技利弊等辩证议题。题型弱化基础细节，推理判断为主力题型，搭配主旨、词义猜测，极少单纯细节题。文本逻辑层次多，转折、对比句密集，侧重考查高阶思辨，区分度极强。 命题重逻辑思辨，几乎全部依托论点、论据、论证设题，题文顺序不完全对应。推理题占比过半，侧重判断作者态度、论证目的；主旨题极易设置片面分论点干扰项。选项陷阱固定：过度绝对、主观常识脑补、混淆正反观点。文章多用驳论结构，先抛出大众普遍观点再反驳，高频考查转折词后的核心论点，强调依托原文推导，禁止脱离文本主观判断。 （2026·北京·高考真题）The 21st century has created a whole range of new types of professionals that we have never had before — or if not quite new, at least newly repackaged. The world has always had influential people, for instance, but only now do we have “Influencer”. Similarly, the corporate world has certainly known its fair share of disruption, yet it is only in the last couple of decades that the “Disruptor” has become a recognisable figure in the way we talk about big business. In an earlier era, the Disruptor would have been called an Innovator. Yet while an Innovator creates something new, the Disruptor is defined as much by what they destroy as by what they create. The Disruptor forces change; the clean-up is somebody else’s problem. It’s an attitude best summed up as “Move fast and break things.” Back in 1929, G. K. Chesterton identified the core problem with moving fast and breaking things through a thought experiment. Imagine there is a fence along a road. Suppose it’s been there a long time, and was put there for some purpose. But that purpose is lost over time. To us, now, the fence seems to be nothing but an impediment. Why not remove it? When faced with such a fence, Chesterton thinks the fact that we can’t see the point of the fence is why we should not tear it down. Some fences keep foxes out of henhouses, for instance. If you think you can do without the fence because you’ve never seen a fox, consider if the existence of the fence is precisely why you’ve never seen one. Importantly, Chesterton is not saying that things can never be reformed. His is a preventive principle rather than an outright prohibition. We could rephrase it like this: understand the wisdom in past decisions before you reject them. If we’re too impetuous, we can end up tearing out things we don’t yet realise we rely upon. But uncritical devotion to the “way things are done” can also deny us the possibility of better days. What is required, then, is not the fearlessness of the Disruptor, but the humility (谦卑) to stop and ask questions and to know that our own perspective is neither unique nor comprehensive. Disruption can be a force for good. It can also just leave a big mess. We need the ability to work out which messes are worth avoiding — because however impressively fast you move, some things can’t be easily unbroken. 1．Regarding Chesterton’s principle, the author is _____________. A．supportive B．doubtful C．conflicted D．disappointed 2．What does the word “impetuous” underlined in Paragraph 5 most probably mean? A．Short-sighted. B．Narrow-minded. C．Hot-headed. D．Old-fashioned. 3．What can we infer from this passage about the Disruptor? A．They may clear up other people’s mess. B．They are in favour of the preventive principle. C．They preserve more traditions than they break. D．They may create more problems than they solve. 4．What does the author intend to tell us? A．Humility should be a driving force for human progress. B．Innovation should move forward the wheel of tradition. C．Reform should draw from the wellspring of past wisdom. D．Disruption should be given priority in social development. 【答案】1．A 2．C 3．D 4．C 【导语】文章介绍了商业领域“颠覆者”这一新角色，借助Chesterton的栅栏思想实验，论述盲目颠覆的弊端，提出变革前应当先理解过往经验蕴含的智慧，倡导以谦卑心态理性创新。 1．推理判断题。根据第五段“Importantly, Chesterton is not saying that things can never be reformed. His is a preventive principle rather than an outright prohibition.(重要的是，Chesterton并不是说事物永远不能改革。他提出的是一种预防性原则，而非彻底禁止变革。)”以及第六段“What is required, then, is not the fearlessness of the Disruptor, but the humility (谦卑) to stop and ask questions and to know that our own perspective is neither unique nor comprehensive.(因此，我们需要的不是颠覆者的无所畏惧，而是停下来思考发问的谦卑之心，明白我们自身的看法既非独一无二，也并非面面俱到。)”可知，作者赞同Chesterton提出的原则。 2．词句猜测题。根据第五段“If we’re too impetuous, we can end up tearing out things we don’t yet realise we rely upon.(如果我们太过impetuous，最终可能毁掉那些我们尚且没有意识到、却十分依赖的事物。)”可知，如果行事过于冲动草率，我们会毁掉那些自己尚未意识到、却十分依赖的事物，划线词“impetuous”表示“冲动的，鲁莽的”，与C选项“Hot-headed(冲动莽撞的)”含义一致。 3．推理判断题。根据第二段“The Disruptor forces change; the clean-up is somebody else’s problem.(颠覆者强行推动变革，收拾残局却是别人的事。)”以及第六段“Disruption can be a force for good. It can also just leave a big mess.(颠覆或许能产生积极作用，但也可能只留下一堆烂摊子。)”可知，颠覆者只管打破现状，后续烂摊子交由别人处理，很可能制造出比解决掉的更多问题。 4．推理判断题。根据第五段“We could rephrase it like this: understand the wisdom in past decisions before you reject them.(我们可以这样概括：在否定过往决策之前，先领会其中蕴含的智慧。)”可知，全文核心观点是进行改革前，先要挖掘、借鉴过去决策中的智慧。 （2024·北京·高考真题）The notion that we live in someone else’s video game is irresistible to many. Searching the term “simulation hypothesis” (模拟假说) returns numerous results that debate whether the universe is a computer simulation — a concept that some scientists actually take seriously. Unfortunately, this is not a scientific question. We will probably never know whether it’s true. We can, instead, use this idea to advance scientific knowledge. The 18th-century philosopher Kant argued that the universe ultimately consists of things-in-themselves that are unknowable. While he held the notion that objective reality exists, he said our mind plays a necessary role in structuring and shaping our perceptions. Modern sciences have revealed that our perceptual experience of the world is the result of many stages of processing by sensory systems and cognitive (认知的) functions in the brain. No one knows exactly what happens within this black box. If empirical (实证的) experience fails to reveal reality, reasoning won’t reveal reality either since it relies on concepts and words that are contingent on our social, cultural and psychological histories. Again, a black box. So, if we accept that the universe is unknowable, we also accept we will never know if we live in a computer simulation. And then, we can shift our inquiry from “Is the universe a computer simulation? ” to “Can we model the universe as a computer simulation? ” Modelling reality is what we do. To facilitate our comprehension of the world, we build models based on conceptual metaphors (隐喻) that are familiar to us. In Newton’s era, we imagined the universe as a clock. In Einstein’s, we uncovered the standard model of particle (粒子) physics. Now that we are in the information age, we have new concepts such as the computer, information processing, virtual reality, and simulation. Unsurprisingly, these new concepts inspire us to build new models of the universe. Models are not the reality, however. There is no point in arguing if the universe is a clock, a set of particles or an output of computation. All these models are tools to deal with the unknown and to make discoveries. And the more tools we have, the more effective and insightful we can become. It can be imagined that comparable to the process of building previous scientific models, developing the “computer simulation” metaphor-based model will also be a hugely rewarding exercise. 1．What does the author intend to do by challenging a hypothesis? A．Make an assumption. B．Illustrate an argument. C．Give a suggestion. D．Justify a comparison. 2．What does the phrase “contingent on” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A．Accepted by. B．Determined by. C．Awakened by. D．Discovered by. 3．As for Kant’s argument, the author is _________. A．appreciative B．doubtful C．unconcerned D．disapproving 4．It is implied in this passage that we should _________. A．compare the current models with the previous ones B．continue exploring the classical models in history C．stop arguing whether the universe is a simulation D．turn simulations of the universe into realities up. 【答案】1．C 2．B 3．A 4．C 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了哲学家对于宇宙的认知和信息时代下的作者对于宇宙争论的看法。 1．推理判断题。根据第一段“Searching the term “simulation hypothesis” (模拟假说) returns numerous results that debate whether the universe is a computer simulation —— a concept that some scientists actually take seriously. Unfortunately, this is not a scientific question. We will probably never know whether it’s true. We can, instead, use this idea to advance scientific knowledge.(搜索“模拟假说”这一术语会得到许多关于宇宙是否是计算机模拟的争论结果——一些科学家实际上认真对待这个概念。不幸的是，这不是一个科学问题。我们可能永远都不知道这是不是真的。相反，我们可以利用这个想法来推进科学知识)”可知，作者对于模拟假说提出质疑，是为了提出自己的建议，建议使用这一想法来推进科学知识。故选C项。 2．词句猜测题。根据第二段“If empirical (实证的) experience fails to reveal reality, reasoning won’t reveal reality either since it relies on concepts and words that are contingent on our social, cultural and psychological histories. Again, a black box.(如果经验不能揭示现实，推理也不会揭示现实，因为它依赖于contingent on我们的社会、文化和心理历史的概念和词语)”可知，句中that引导限制性定语从句，指代先行词concepts and words，且结合常识，概念和词语取决于我们的社会、文化和心理历史，推测划线短语表示“取决于”，与determined by意义相近。故选B项。 3．推理判断题。根据第二段“The 18th-century philosopher Kant argued that the universe ultimately consists of things-in-themselves that are unknowable. While he held the notion that objective reality exists, he said our mind plays a necessary role in structuring and shaping our perceptions. (18世纪的哲学家康德认为，宇宙最终由不可知的事物本身组成。虽然他认为客观现实是存在的，但他说，我们的大脑在构建和塑造我们的感知方面发挥着必要的作用)”以及第三段“So, if we accept that the universe is unknowable, we also accept we will never know if we live in a computer simulation.(因此，如果我们接受宇宙是不可知的，我们也接受我们永远不会知道我们是否生活在计算机模拟中)”可知，作者引用康德的观点，并在客观陈述后利用该观点来构建自己的论述，由此可知，作者对康德的论点持欣赏的态度。故选A项。 4．推理判断题。根据第四段“There is no point in arguing if the universe is a clock, a set of particles or an output of computation. All these models are tools to deal with the unknown and to make discoveries. And the more tools we have, the more effective and insightful we can become. (争论宇宙是否是一个时钟、一组粒子还是计算输出的产物是没有意义的。所有这些模型都是处理未知事物和发现事物的工具。我们拥有的工具越多，我们就能变得越有效、越有洞察力)”以及第五段“It can be imagined that comparable to the process of building previous scientific models, developing the “computer simulation” metaphor-based model will also be a hugely rewarding exercise.(可以想象，与之前构建科学模型的过程相比，开发基于“计算机模拟”隐喻的模型也将是一项非常有益的工作)”可知，作者认为争论宇宙是否是虚拟的，这是没有意义的，我们应该停止争论宇宙是否为模拟，而应该着手于将其作为一个模型来探索和理解，这样会更有助于科学的进步。故选C项。 【点睛】 （2022·北京·高考真题）Quantum ( 量子 ) computers have been on my mind a lot lately. A friend has been sending me articles on how quantum computers might help solve some of the biggest challenges we face as humans. I’ve also had exchanges with two quantum-computing experts. One is computer scientist Chris Johnson who I see as someone who helps keep the field honest. The other is physicist Philip Taylor. For decades, quantum computing has been little more than a laboratory curiosity. Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us “cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction.” This is the sort of hype ( 炒作 ) that annoys Johnson. He worries that researchers are making promises they can’t keep. “What’s new,” Johnson wrote, “is that millions of dollars are now potentially available to quantum computing researchers.” As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work’s potential. If researchers can’t keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. Lots of other technologies have gone through stages of excitement. But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because “‘quantum’ stands for something cool you shouldn’t be able to understand.” And that brings me back to Taylor, who suggested that I read his book Q for Quantum. After I read the book, Taylor patiently answered my questions about it. He also answered my questions about PyQuantum, the firm he co-founded in 2016. Taylor shares Johnson’s concerns about hype, but he says those concerns do not apply to PyQuantum. The company, he says, is closer than any other firm “by a very large margin ( 幅度 )” to building a “useful” quantum computer, one that “solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise.” He adds, “People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others.” Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition “by a wide margin”, as Taylor claims? I don’t know. I’m certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers. But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson. 1．Regarding Johnson’s concerns, the author feels ________. A．sympathetic B．unconcerned C．doubtful D．excited 2．What leads to Taylor’s optimism about quantum computing? A．His dominance in physics. B．The competition in the field. C．His confidence in PyQuantum. D．The investment of tech companies. 3．What does the underlined word “prone” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Open. B．Cool. C．Useful. D．Resistant. 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．Is Johnson More Competent Than Taylor? B．Is Quantum Computing Redefining Technology? C．Will Quantum Computers Ever Come into Being? D．Will Quantum Computing Ever Live Up to Its Hype? 【答案】1．A 2．C 3．A 4．D 【导语】本文是一篇议论文。主要论述了“量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？”，计算机科学家克里斯·约翰逊和物理学家菲利普·泰勒分别阐明了自己的观点。 1．推理判断题。根据第三自然段“As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work’s potential. If researchers can’t keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. （随着量子计算吸引了更多的关注和资金，研究人员可能会误导投资者、记者、公众，最糟糕的是，他们自己的工作潜力。约翰逊警告说，如果研究人员不能兑现承诺，兴奋可能会让位于怀疑、失望和愤怒）”根据最后一段“ But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson.”（但我相信泰勒，就像我相信约翰逊一样）可知，关于约翰逊的担忧，作者是支持的。A. sympathetic同情的，赞同的；B. unconcerned不关心的；C. doubtful怀疑的；D. excited激动的。故选A。 2．细节理解题。根据倒数第二段“The company, he says, is closer than any other firm “by a very large margin ( 幅度 )” to building a “useful” quantum computer, one that “solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise.” He adds, “People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others.”（ 他说，这家公司比其他任何公司都“在很大程度上”接近于制造出“有用的”量子计算机，它“解决了一个有影响力的问题，否则我们无法解决这个问题”。他补充说:“人们自然会不相信我的观点，但我已经花了很多时间来定量地比较我们与他人的做法）”可知，泰勒对量子计算的乐观来源于他对PyQuantum的信心。故选C。 3．词义猜测题。根据第三自然段“But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because “‘quantum’ stands for something cool you shouldn’t be able to understand.”（ 但约翰逊表明，量子计算的某些方面使得它特别 prone被炒作，可能是因为“量子”代表了一些你不应该理解的酷东西。”）”可知，本句中含有一个原因状语从句，因为““量子”代表了一些你不应该理解的酷东西”，所以它特别容易被炒作。故prone意为“易于……的”。A. Open.开放的；易受损害的；B. Cool. 酷的；C. Useful. 有用的；D. Resistant. 有抵抗力的。故选A。 4．主旨大意题。根据第二自然段“Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us “cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction. This is the sort of hype ( 炒作 ) that annoys Johnson.”（ 现在，大型科技公司和许多小型公司都在量子计算领域进行了投资。据《商业周刊》报道，量子机器可以帮助我们“治愈癌症，甚至采取措施将气候变化转向相反的方向。这种炒作让约翰逊感到恼火。”）”以及最后一段“Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition “by a wide margin”, as Taylor claims? I don’t know. I’m certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers.（PyQuantum真的能像泰勒所说的那样“以巨大的优势”领先所有竞争对手吗？我不知道。我当然不会建议我的朋友或其他人投资量子计算机。但我信任泰勒，就像我信任约翰逊一样。）”可知，本文主要论述了“量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？”，计算机科学家克里斯·约翰逊和物理学家菲利普·泰勒分别阐明了自己的观点。所以短文的最佳标题为“量子计算真的会像它的宣传那样成功吗？”。故选D。 （2021·北京·高考真题）Early fifth-century philosopher St．Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him．Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it．Today's state-of-the-art atomic（原子的） clocks have proven Einstein right．Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking． Forget about time as an absolute．What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy,we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．What if our definition of time reflected that？ Recently，I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that's connected to circumstances on our planet，conditions that might change as a result of global warming．We're now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers，which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes．We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect． The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics．It's a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame（时间框架），and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones．Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet．Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies． Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars，early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena．In pre-Classical Greece，for instance，people“corrected”official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season．Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness． When St．Augustine admitted his inability to define time， he highlighted one of time 's most noticeable qualities：Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context．Any timekeeping system is valid，and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose． 1．What is the main idea of Paragraph 1？ A．Timekeeping is increasingly related to nature． B．Everyone can define time on their own terms． C．The qualities of time vary with how you measure it． D．Time is a major concern of philosophers and scientists． 2．The author raises three questions in Paragraph 2 mainly to________． A．present an assumption B．evaluate an argument C．highlight an experiment D．introduce an approach 3．What can we learn from this passage？ A．Those who do not go on river time will live an imbalanced life． B．New ways of measuring time can help to control Earth systems． C．Atomic time will get ahead of river time if the rivers run slower． D．Modern technology may help to shape the rivers’ temporal frame． 4．What can we infer from this passage？ A．It is crucial to improve the definition of time． B．A fixed frame will make time meaningless． C．We should live in harmony with nature． D．History is a mirror reflecting reality． 【答案】1．B 2．D 3．C 4．C 【分析】本文是议论文。文章通过讨论时间的定义，讲述了人们应该和大自然和谐相处，保护环境。 1．主旨大意题。根据第一段最后一句“Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking．(即使是先进的物理学也不能决定性地告诉我们时间是什么，因为答案取决于你要问的问题)”以及上文列举的哲学家St．Augustine和爱因斯坦对于时间的定义可推断，第一段主要讲述每个人都可以用自己的话来定义时间。故选B项。 2．推理判断题。根据第二段的“We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．(我们越来越意识到，我们不能只是用工程学来控制地球系统，意识到，如果我们希望保持平衡，我们就需要调节我们的行动。)”进而提出问题“What if our definition of time reflected that？(如果时间的定义反映那些会怎么样呢)”，结合前两个问题“What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy, we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？(如果我们不考虑天文学方面的时间，而是将时间与生态学联系起来呢？如果我们允许环境条件来设定人类生活的节奏呢)”可推断，第二段提出的三个问题是为了介绍方法。故选D项。 3．细节理解题。根据第三段的“We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect．（如果水道继续以目前的速度流动，我们对它进行了编程，匹配了一个原子时间。如果河流在未来的平均运行速度更快，时间就会超过标准时间。如果它们的运行速度较慢，你就会看到相反的效果。）”可知，如果河流运行速度得较慢，原子时间将超过河流时间。故选C项。 4．推理判断题。根据第二段的“We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．(我们越来越意识到，我们不能只是用工程学来控制地球系统，意识到，如果我们希望保持平衡，我们就需要调节我们的行动。)”和倒数第二段的“Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness(时间与环境的暂时联系对它们的生存至关重要。同样，河流时间和我们正在开发的其他时间保护系统也可能会鼓励人们提高环境意识)”可推断，从这篇文章中我们知道我们应该与自然和谐共处，保护环境。故选C。 （2020·北京·高考真题）Certain forms of AI are indeed becoming ubiquitous. For example, algorithms (算法) carry out huge volumes of trading on our financial markets, self-driving cars are appearing on city streets, and our smartphones are translating from one language into another. These systems are sometimes faster and more perceptive than we humans are. But so far that is only true for the specific tasks for which the systems have been designed. That is something that some AI developers are now eager to change. Some of today’s AI pioneers want to move on from today’s world of “weak” or “narrow” AI, to create “strong” or “full” AI, or what is often called artificial general intelligence (AGI). In some respects, today’s powerful computing machines already make our brains look weak. AGI could, its advocates say, work for us around the clock, and drawing on all available data, could suggest solutions to many problems. DM, a company focused on the development of AGI, has an ambition to “solve intelligence”. “If we’re successful,” their mission statement reads, “we believe this will be one of the most important and widely beneficial scientific advances ever made.” Since the early days of AI, imagination has outpaced what is possible or even probable. In 1965, an imaginative mathematician called Irving Good predicted the eventual creation of an “ultra-intelligent machine…that can far surpass all the intellectual (智力的) activities of any man, however clever.” Good went on to suggest that “the first ultra-intelligent machine” could be “the last invention that man need ever make.” Fears about the appearance of bad, powerful, man-made intelligent machines have been reinforced (强化) by many works of fiction — Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Terminator film series, for example. But if AI does eventually prove to be our downfall, it is unlikely to be at the hands of human-shaped forms like these, with recognisably human motivations such as aggression (敌对行为). Instead, I agree with Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, who believes that the heaviest risks from AGI do not come from a decision to turn against mankind but rather from a dogged pursuit of set objectives at the expense of everything else. The promise and danger of true AGI are great. But all of today’s excited discussion about these possibilities presupposes the fact that we will be able to build these systems. And, having spoken to many of the world’s foremost AI researchers, I believe there is good reason to doubt that we will see AGI any time soon, if ever. 1．What does the underlined word “ubiquitous” in Paragraph I probably mean? A．Enormous in quantity. B．Changeable daily. C．Stable in quality. D．Present everywhere. 2．What could AGI do for us, according to its supporters? A．Help to tackle problems. B．Make brains more active. C．Benefit ambitious people. D．Set up powerful databases. 3．As for Irving Good’s opinion on ultra-intelligent machines, the author is ____________. A．supportive B．disapproving C．fearful D．uncertain 4．What can be inferred about AGI from the passage? A．It may be only a dream. B．It will come into being soon. C．It will be controlled by humans. D．It may be more dangerous than ever. 【答案】1．D 2．A 3．B 4．A 【分析】这是一篇议论文。文章主要就通用人工智能(AGI)实现的可能性进行了论述。 1．词义猜测题。根据划线词所在句后面的For example, algorithms (算法) carry out huge volumes of trading on our financial markets, self-driving cars are appearing on city streets, and our smartphones are translating from one language into another(例如，算法在我们的金融市场上进行大量交易，自动驾驶汽车出现在城市街道上，我们的智能手机正在从一种语言翻译成另一种语言)可知，人工智能在我们生活中用处十分广泛。由此推知，划线词所在句意为“某些形式的人工智能确实正在变得无处不在”，即划线词与D选项“Present everywhere.(在任何地方存在)”意思接近。故选D项。 2．细节理解题。根据第二段AGI could, its advocates say, work for us around the clock, and drawing on all available data, could suggest solutions to many problems(AGI的倡导者说，AGI可以24小时为我们工作，并利用所有可用的数据，可以提出许多问题的解决方案)可知，AGI(通用人工智能)的倡导者认为，AGI(通用人工智能)可以提出许多问题的解决方案，帮助我们解决问题。因此，A选项“Help to tackle problems(帮助解决问题)”符合题意。故选A项。 3．推理判断题。根据第三段Since the early days of AI, imagination has outpaced what is possible or even probable. In 1965, an imaginative mathematician called Irving Good predicted the eventual creation of an “ultra-intelligent machine…that can far surpass all the intellectual (智力的) activities of any man, however clever.”(自从人工智能的早期，想象力已经超过了可能。1965年，一位富有想象力的数学家欧文·古德预言，最终将创造出一台“超智能机器……它将远远超过任何一个人的智力活动，无论他有多聪明。”)可知，作者认为Irving Good对“超智能机器”的想象力超出了实现的可能，作者并不赞成他的观点，因此B项“disapproving(不赞成)”符合题意。故选B项。 4．推理判断题。根据文章最后一句And, having spoken to many of the world's foremost AI researchers, I believe there is good reason to doubt that we will see A GI any time soon, if ever. (而且，在与世界上许多顶尖的人工智能研究人员交谈后，我相信有充分的理由怀疑我们是否会很快看到AGI)可推断出，通用人工智能（AGI）或许只是一个梦想，A选项“It may be only a dream(它也许仅仅是一个梦想)”符合题意。故选择A项。 （2026·北京大兴·三模）The Servant (1963) is an unforgettable film that ruthlessly explores the relationship between a cunning valet (Dirk Bogarde) and his weak-willed master (James Fox). The valet exploits his master’s weaknesses until their roles are reversed: by the end, the master humbly serves the valet. Yet today, it’s hard not to think of another troubled relationship — the one between workers and their smartphones. Smart devices can be empowering. They provide instant access to a vast amount of information. They allow people to work from home instead of squeezing into crowded trains with strangers. This is especially helpful for parents who need flexible hours. Smartphones and tablets also improve efficiency by letting people use spare moments that would otherwise be wasted, such as while queuing for coffee. But for most people the servant has become the master. Not long ago only doctors were on call all the time. Now everybody is. Bosses think nothing of invading their employees’ free time. Work invades the home far more than domestic chores invade the office. Otherwise—some people check their smartphones obsessively, even during pre-dinner drinks, and send e-emails first thing in the morning and last thing at night. This is partly because smartphones are addictive. Smartphones provide relentless stimuli, stimulus interspersed with rewards. Whenever you check the glowing rectangle, there is a fair chance you will see a message from a client, a herogram from your boss or at least an e-mail from a stranger offering you $1m if you share your bank details with him. Hyperconnectivity exaggerates some of the most destabilizing trends in the modern workplace: the decline of certainty and the general cult of flexibility. Smartphones make it easier for managers to change their minds at the last moment: for example, to e-mail a minion at 11 pm to tell him he must fly to Pittsburgh tomorrow. Employees find it ever harder to distinguish between “on-time” and “off-time” — and indeed between real work and make-work. Executives are lumbered with two overlapping workdays: a formal one full of meetings and an informal one spent trying to keep up with the torrent of e-mails and messages. How can we reap the benefits of connectivity without becoming its slaves? One solution is digital dieting. Just as the abundance of junk food means that people have to be more disciplined about their eating habits, so the abundance of junk information means they have to be more disciplined about their browsing habits. Banning browsing before breakfast can reintroduce a little bit of civilization. Banning texting at weekends or, say, on Thursdays, can really show the iPhone who is boss. In “Sleeping with Your Smartphone”, Leslie Perlow argues that for most people the only way to break the 24/7 habit is to act collectively rather than individually. She tells the story of how one of the world’s most hard-working organizations, the Boston Consulting Group, learned to manage hyperconnectivity better. The firm introduced rules about when people were expected to be offline, and encouraged them to work together to make this possible. It eventually forced people to work more productively while reducing burnout. 1．In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by ______. A．posing a contrast B．justifying reversed roles C．making a comparison D．explaining a film named “servant” 2．According to paragraph 5, which of the following is a consequence of hyperconnectivity in the workplace? A．Employees have fewer meetings during the formal workday. B．Managers find it harder to change plans at the last minute. C．Workers can clearly separate “on-time” from “off-time”. D．Executives face meetings and constant messages. 3．What solutions to hyperconnectivity does the author present? A．Banning browsing and texting. B．Individual digital dieting and collective action with shared offline rules. C．Acting collectively and forcing people to work more productively. D．Working more productively and reducing burnout. 4．Which of the following is the best title for the text? A．When Smartphones Become the Master of Humans. B．Advantages and Disadvantages of Smart Devices. C．How to Break Away From Hyperconnectivity. D．The Film The Servant and Its Social Influence. 【答案】1．C 2．D 3．B 4．A 【导语】文章以经典电影《仆人》中主仆身份颠倒的情节作类比，讨论了“智能手机从工具变为掌控人的“主人””这一现象。 1．推理判断题。根据第一段“The valet exploits his master’s weaknesses until their roles are reversed: by the end, the master humbly serves the valet. Yet today, it’s hard not to think of another troubled relationship — the one between workers and their smartphones. (仆人利用主人的弱点，最终二人身份彻底颠倒：到最后，反倒变成主人卑微地侍奉仆人。而如今，人们难免联想到另一种失衡的关系 —— 人与智能手机之间的关系。)”可知，电影里主仆身份颠倒，而如今人和手机也形成了类似的失衡关系。由此可知，作者在首段通过进行类比来引出话题。 2．细节理解题。根据第五段“Executives are lumbered with two overlapping workdays: a formal one full of meetings and an informal one spent trying to keep up with the torrent of e-mails and messages.(高管们如今要应付两段重叠的工作时段：一段是充斥着各类会议的正式工作时间，另一段则是忙着处理海量邮件和消息的非正式时间。)”可知，根据第五段，全天候联网给职场带来的后果是高管既要参加会议，还要应对海量消息。 3．细节理解题。根据第六段“One solution is digital dieting.(一个解决办法便是数字节食。)”和最后一段“In “Sleeping with Your Smartphone”, Leslie Perlow argues that for most people the only way to break the 24/7 habit is to act collectively rather than individually…. The firm introduced rules about when people were expected to be offline, and encouraged them to work together to make this possible.(莱斯利・珀洛在《与手机同眠》一书中提出，对大多数人而言，想要摆脱全天候在线的状态，唯有依靠集体行动，而非单打独斗。……这家公司制定了员工离线休息的相关规定，并鼓励大家协作配合，落实这项制度。)”可知，作者提出了个人数字节食和集体执行离线规则等办法来应对过度联网。 4．主旨大意题。根据第一段“Yet today, it’s hard not to think of another troubled relationship — the one between workers and their smartphones. (而如今，人们难免联想到另一种失衡的关系 ——人与智能手机之间的关系。)”可知，文章主要讨论了手机从工具变成掌控人的“主人”这一现象，由此可知，A项“当智能手机成为人类的主宰”是适合的标题。 （2026·北京朝阳·模拟预测）On warm summer evenings, the groundhog who lives beneath my deck likes to look across the field. As I watch, I sometimes wonder what is on her mind while she surveys her domain. The simple explanation is that she is watching for predators. But is that all there is to it? Might she also enjoy the sight of grasses swaying (摇曳) in the breeze? Might she even find them beautiful? We are comfortable describing these animals as having self-awareness, language-like communication, and even culture, but we hesitate to say they have a sense of beauty. Some scientists have come to think otherwise. They see our capacity to appreciate beauty as part of a shared evolutionary inheritance. But if a capacity for beauty is widespread, what about stimuli that are considered beautiful? Richard Prum, an evolutionary biologist, suggests that beauty demands “prolonged social and sensory engagement”. That engagement may have clear evolutionary benefits: an animal that hangs around on a flowering tree’s loveliness might have a better chance of remembering its location when fruiting season comes. To Prum, animals can only take aesthetic pleasure in those entities with which they have co-evolved: for example, bumblebees and the pinks of wild roses. After countless generations of evaluation and choice, those stimuli are now entrained in their brains. Though this is an untested proposition, it’s easy to imagine how aesthetic tastes could evolve for any stimuli that are relevant to an animal’s survival. Should my groundhog neighbour enjoy beauty in a field’s swaying grasses she might have a better chance of spotting an approaching fox. Such commonalities do not mean that we are alone in our unique about human concepts of beauty. Marcos Nadal, a cognitive psychologist, suggests that we are alone in our capacity to intellectualise beauty, creating definitions and abstractions that in turn shape our evaluations. Yet to me these distinctions are less meaningful than what we might share. Prum sees nature through a perspective of aesthetic co-evolution. This awareness adds a new dimension to conservation. “When we preserve nature,” says Prum, “we are preserving worlds in which other aesthetic pleasures can thrive.” We can also set our imaginations free to guess what other creatures find beautiful. What visual delights might birds find in the landscapes over which they fly? What could a sea turtle tell us about the elegance of nearshore currents? It’s all too easy to label wild animal life as violent and fearful, and to assume that their thoughts are dominated by calculations of survival. We don’t think so much about the pleasures they take, the moments of lightness, and it cheers me up to consider that just as I find satisfaction in the sight of grasses swaying in an evening breeze, so might a groundhog. 1．Why does the author mention the groundhog in the Paragraph 1? A．To explain an image. B．To express concerns. C．To share a phenomenon. D．To present an argument. 2．What does the word “entities” underlined in Paragraph 2 most probably mean? A．Realities. B．Majorities. C．Beings. D．Settings. 3．As for Prum’s argument, the author is ______. A．appreciative B．doubtful C．unconcerned D．disapproving 4．Which would be the best title for this passage? A．Why Do We Share Evolutionary Inheritance with Animals? B．What if Animals Find Beauty in the World just like We Do? C．What’s the Point of Confirm Animals Have Aesthetic Tastes? D．How Can a Sense of Beauty Contribute to Animals’ Survival? 【答案】1．D 2．C 3．A 4．B 【导语】文章主要探讨了动物是否具有审美能力的问题，作者通过观察土拨鼠引出话题，并介绍了科学家关于动物审美进化的观点。 1．推理判断题。根据第一段中“On warm summer evenings, the groundhog who lives beneath my deck likes to look across the field. As I watch, I sometimes wonder what is on her mind while she surveys her domain. The simple explanation is that she is watching for predators. But is that all there is to it? Might she also enjoy the sight of grasses swaying (摇曳) in the breeze? Might she even find them beautiful?We are comfortable describing these animals as having self-awareness, language-like communication, and even culture, but we hesitate to say they have a sense of beauty. (在温暖的夏夜，住在我家露台下的那只土拨鼠喜欢眺望田野。我看着她，有时会好奇她在巡视自己的领地时，心里在想些什么。简单的解释是，她在警惕捕食者。但仅此而已吗？她是否也会欣赏草地在微风中摇曳的景象？她甚至会觉得它们很美吗？我们很乐意描述这些动物具有自我意识、类似语言的交流能力，甚至文化，但我们却犹豫是否承认它们具有美感)”以及后文对动物是否具有审美能力的探讨可知，作者提到土拨鼠是为了引出一个论点——动物是否具有审美能力。 2．词句猜测题。根据第二段中“To Prum, animals can only take aesthetic pleasure in those entities with which they have co-evolved: for example, bumblebees and the pinks of wild roses. (对Prum来说，动物只能从它们共同进化过的entities中获得审美乐趣：例如，大黄蜂和野玫瑰的粉红色花朵)”可知，划线词entities后用‌举例的“bumblebees(大黄蜂)”和“pinks of wild roses(野玫瑰的粉红色花朵)”都是有生命的存在。结合“co-evolved(共同进化)”的语境，entities指的是与动物共同进化的‌“生命体”。 3．推理判断题。根据第三段中“Though this is an untested proposition, it’s easy to imagine how aesthetic tastes could evolve for any stimuli that are relevant to an animal’s survival. (虽然这是一个未经检验的命题，但很容易想象出对于与动物生存相关的任何刺激，审美品味是如何进化的)”以及第四段中“Yet to me these distinctions are less meaningful than what we might share. Prum sees nature through a perspective of aesthetic co-evolution. This awareness adds a new dimension to conservation. (然而，对我来说，这些区别不如我们可能共享的东西有意义。Prum通过审美共同进化的视角来看待自然。这种意识为保护增添了新的维度)”可知，作者对Prum的观点持欣赏态度。 4．主旨大意题。通读全文，结合第一段“We are comfortable describing these animals as having self-awareness, language-like communication, and even culture, but we hesitate to say they have a sense of beauty. (我们很乐意描述这些动物具有自我意识、类似语言的交流能力，甚至文化，但我们却犹豫是否承认它们具有美感)”以及最后一段“It’s all too easy to label wild animal life as violent and fearful... and it cheers me up to consider that just as I find satisfaction in the sight of grasses swaying in an evening breeze, so might a groundhog. (我们很容易把野生动物的生活贴上暴力和可怕的标签……让我感到振奋的是，正如我在晚风中看到草叶摇曳感到满足一样，土拨鼠可能也是如此)”可知，文章开篇通过土拨鼠的例子引出问题——动物是否具有审美能力，随后介绍了科学家关于动物审美进化的观点，并在最后一段表达了作者对动物也能像人类一样欣赏自然之美的期待。故B项“What if Animals Find Beauty in the World just like We Do? (如果动物像我们一样在世界上发现美呢？)”能概括文章内容，最适合做文章标题。 （2026·北京丰台·二模）What time is it? It’s such a basic question and provokes me to take a look at time in the context of both humans and artificial intelligence. Simply put, AI operates inside the now, the perpetual present. Yet humans construct meaning across time. This “temporal divide” creates a key distinction, if not a conflict, that’s worthy of a deeper look. Typically, we evaluate artificial intelligence by capability, which includes things like speed, accuracy, fluency, and even scale. But my take is that this perspective misses something that is both critical and deeply human. Humans build meaning through continuity, and this includes memory, revision, anticipation, and the lived accumulation of experience. AI does not. For us, meaning is shaped across duration. We don’t form understanding from isolated frames. We learn from many moments that inform and reshape each other. The reliability of our beliefs depends on that slow integration. It’s how understanding matures into something stable, or perhaps better said, human. AI collapses time into immediacy. Each output stands alone without reference to what came before and without responsibility toward what may follow. This is why AI can be so persuasive, as it produces coherence (连贯性) without the weight of history behind it. A recent study that examined reasoning tasks illustrates this rather clearly. AI assistance led participants to perform slightly better, but to feel dramatically more improved than they actually were. This illusion emerges because instant coherence (tech) feels like internal mastery (human). Anyone who has used AI to summarise a concept has felt this. It happens when you read a smooth, confident explanation and suddenly believe you now “understand” it without any of the internal struggle that produces true understanding. The mind confuses the appearance of cognition with the acquisition of cognition. And the key distinction is that AI shortens the distance between exposure and confidence, not between exposure and wisdom. I think this matters because humans may begin adapting to the temporal logic of machines. If present-tense coherence becomes more rewarding than the slower accumulation of meaning, we could begin to trade our temporal cognition for the immediacy AI offers. The risk is not replacement, but more of a dissociation from the very structure of meaning-making that defines the human mind. The real question, as I have relentlessly asked, is not whether AI will think like we do. The question is whether we will continue to think like ourselves. To defend the narrative arc is far from a poetic gesture. It’s an essential cognitive practice. For me, it means tolerating slower understanding when speed is seductive. It means returning to the longer thread of experience when instant fluency tempts us. It means remembering that wisdom requires the friction of time. And that’s something we all should consider. Meaning is temporal. Story is temporal. Identity is temporal. AI does not live there. We do. 1．What does the “temporal divide” in paragraph 1 refer to? A．A distinction in evaluating AI’s competences. B．A gap between present living and past reflection. C．A difference in how humans and AI make meaning. D．A divide in time management between humans and AI. 2．As for the result of the study examining reasoning skills, the author feels _______. A．worried B．surprised C．doubtful D．sympathetic 3．How does the author mainly develop the passage? A．By raising questions and solving them one by one. B．By citing studies and evaluating their limitations. C．By presenting a study and drawing a conclusion. D．By introducing a concept and making contrasts. 4．What can we learn from the passage? A．Exposure+Confidence=Mastery B．Coherence+Immediacy=Logic C．Duration+Friction=Wisdom D．Speed+Fluency=Insight 【答案】1．C 2．A 3．D 4．C 【导语】文章对比人类与人工智能的时间认知差异，指出AI即时性特点的弊端，警示人类坚守自身时间性认知与智慧。 1．词句猜测题。根据第一段中的“Simply put, AI operates inside the now, the perpetual present. Yet humans construct meaning across time. This “temporal divide” creates a key distinction, if not a conflict, that’s worthy of a deeper look.(简单来说，人工智能运作于当下、永恒的此刻。而人类跨越时间构建意义。这种“temporal divide”形成了一种值得深入探究的关键区别，甚至可以说是冲突)”以及第二段“Humans build meaning through continuity... AI does not.(人类通过延续性构建意义……而人工智能不能)”可知，“temporal divide”指人类和人工智能构建意义的方式不同。 2．推理判断题。根据第六段“I think this matters because humans may begin adapting to the temporal logic of machines... we could begin to trade our temporal cognition for the immediacy AI offers. The risk is not replacement, but more of a dissociation from the very structure of meaning-making that defines the human mind.(我认为这很重要，因为人类可能会开始适应机器的时间逻辑……我们可能会用自身的时间认知换取人工智能提供的即时性。风险不在于被取代，而在于逐渐脱离定义人类思维的意义构建体系)”可知，作者对这项研究反映出的现象感到担忧。 3．推理判断题。根据第一段中的“Simply put, AI operates inside the now, the perpetual present. Yet humans construct meaning across time. This “temporal divide” creates a key distinction, if not a conflict, that’s worthy of a deeper look.(简单来说，人工智能运作于当下、永恒的此刻。而人类跨越时间构建意义。这种“时间差异”形成了一种值得深入探究的关键区别，甚至可以说是冲突)”以及后文多处对比人类依靠时间延续构建意义、人工智能将时间压缩为即时反应的不同模式可知，文章先引出时间差异这一概念，再通过对比人与人工智能的思维特点展开论述。 4．细节理解题。根据最后一段“It means tolerating slower understanding when speed is seductive. It means returning to the longer thread of experience when instant fluency tempts us. It means remembering that wisdom requires the friction of time.(这意味着在速度极具诱惑时，包容缓慢的理解；在即时流畅性诱惑我们时，回归更长的经验脉络；我们要记住，智慧需要时间的磨砺)”可知，时长积累与时间磨砺方能造就智慧，即Duration+Friction=Wisdom。 （2026·北京海淀·三模）Human identity is a captivating and intricate subject, and the emergence of digital platforms has significantly transformed the way the average person defines themselves. A few decades ago, identity was largely linked to intrinsic traits and one’s role within a community; today it is increasingly entangled with what we consume, especially online. With the widespread availability of diverse media, literature, and learning opportunities, the self is no longer shaped only by lived experience but also by visible symbols—clothes, aesthetics, and cultural preferences that can be displayed and recognized. Identity becomes something curated and performed, constructed through choices that signal belonging. This transformation is closely tied to consumer culture. Modern marketing does not merely promote products; it promotes personas. A particular combination of clothing, habits, and attitudes is associated with a particular “type” of person, allowing individuals to role-play identities they aspire to embody. Although the notion that products shape identity was articulated by Edward Bernays in the 1920s, digital culture accelerates and intensifies this process. The paradox is clear: while individuals seek to distinguish themselves from the crowd, they often do so by adopting carefully orchestrated trends that categorize them through consumption. As labels grow more specialized in an effort to capture the “unique facets” of personality, they risk reducing individuals to marketable types rather than revealing genuine complexity. At the same time, the structure of online life reshapes community. In the past, people were surrounded by others who held contrasting viewpoints, and disagreement did not necessarily erode social bonds. Today, specialized online spaces often function as echo chambers, where ideas are rarely challenged and identity is reinforced through similarity. This diminishes meaningful dialogue and weakens the broader sense of communal belonging. When identity depends heavily on external validation — recognition, visibility, and symbolic alignment — it becomes fragile and easily influenced by shifting trends. Underlying these changes is a deeper tension between human relational needs and the logic of consumerism. People possess an innate tendency to form emotional attachments and to seek recognition as individuals rather than as categories. Yet in a world driven by competition and self-presentation, the self is increasingly treated as something to be optimized, displayed, and evaluated. When identity is interpreted through the language of the market, relationships risk appearing transactional, and personal worth is measured in terms of visibility and appeal. Digital culture therefore produces a dual effect. It expands the possibilities for self-expression by offering access to diverse ideas and communities, but it also narrows the self by encouraging individuals to package their identities into recognizable, consumable forms. The central challenge is not the existence of online identity itself, but the tendency to substitute curated images for lived experience. A more grounded sense of self requires moving beyond ready-made labels toward reflection, responsibility, and genuine engagement with others—recovering identity as something lived rather than merely displayed. 1．What does the underlined word “curated” in Para. 1 most probably mean? A．Randomly assembled. B．Strictly classified. C．Selectively organized. D．Passively received. 2．What can be inferred about identity in online spaces? A．It is reinforced by similarity. B．It is strengthened by disagreement. C．It is grounded in lived interaction. D．It is independent of recognition. 3．As for digital self-presentation, the author is __________. A．approving B．skeptical C．appreciative D．unconcerned 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．The Narratives of Social Masks B．The Illusion of Online Closeness C．Identity in the Age of Connectivity D．The Performance of Selves in Public 【答案】1．C 2．A 3．B 4．C 【导语】文章主要说明了数字平台改变人们自我界定方式，身份依托消费打造呈现。网络圈层固化认知，消费主义弱化真实自我。网络拓宽表达空间，也局限自我，人们应脱离标签，回归真实生活构建本心身份。 1．词句猜测题。根据划线词后文“constructed through choices that signal belonging(通过表明归属感的选择来构建)”可知，身份靠选择归类归属感，是挑选构建而成。故划线词意思是“有选择地组织”。 2．推理判断题。根据第三段“Today, specialized online spaces often function as echo chambers, where ideas are rarely challenged and identity is reinforced through similarity.(如今，各类专属网络空间常常充当信息回音室。在这类空间中，观点很少受到质疑，个人身份认同也因观念趋同而不断被强化)”可知，网络空间中的身份是由相似性所强化的。 3．细节理解题。根据文章最后一段“Digital culture therefore produces a dual effect. It expands the possibilities for self-expression by offering access to diverse ideas and communities, but it also narrows the self by encouraging individuals to package their identities into recognizable, consumable forms. The central challenge is not the existence of online identity itself, but the tendency to substitute curated images for lived experience. A more grounded sense of self requires moving beyond ready-made labels toward reflection, responsibility, and genuine engagement with others—recovering identity as something lived rather than merely displayed. (因此，数字文化产生了双重效应。它一方面通过让人们接触多元思想与社群，拓展了自我表达的可能性；另一方面又促使人们将自身身份包装成可识别、可被消费的形式，从而限制了自我的发展。核心问题并非网络身份本身的存在，而是人们倾向于用精心打造的虚拟形象替代真实的生活体验。想要建立更踏实的自我认知，就需要跳出现成的标签，学会反思、承担责任，并与他人真诚互动 —— 让身份回归为亲身经历的产物，而非仅仅用来展示的符号。)”可推知，作者对数字自我展示这种方式存在质疑。 4．主旨大意题。根据第一段“Human identity is a captivating and intricate subject, and the emergence of digital platforms has significantly transformed the way the average person defines themselves.(人的身份是一个极具吸引力且复杂多变的话题，而数字平台的出现则极大地改变了普通人自我定义的方式)”结合文章主要说明了数字平台改变人们自我界定方式，身份依托消费打造呈现。网络圈层固化认知，消费主义弱化真实自我。网络拓宽表达空间，也局限自我，人们应脱离标签，回归真实生活构建本心身份。可知，C选项“连接时代的身份问题”最符合文章标题。 （2026·北京昌平·二模）When was the last time you raced against an unforgiving clock? Perhaps you skipped breakfast, shelled out for a taxi or missed time with your family. Many of us have become slaves to time, with huge portions of our day spent chasing appointments and deadlines. But what is this thing we’re trying to beat? We tend to imagine time as constant and non-negotiable, ticking by somewhere out in the world, impossible to slow or stop. Yet an emerging scientific picture is that such “clock time” isn’t a physical phenomenon. It’s a mathematical tool useful for coordinating our interactions, but with no independent existence of its own. As with other key innovations, such as money, we can no longer get by without it. But disproving the myth of the clock can help us to focus on how life really progresses. Psychologists have identified the rise of “time famine”, where the more efficient and productive we try to be, the more precisely we measure time, and the more we try to pack into our busy schedules, the less time we actually feel we have. This has a big impact on quality of life: people experiencing time famine are less likely to do things they enjoy, or help each other. Time is puzzling in other ways, too. We have no sensory organs for detecting it, nor any dedicated brain areas for tracking it. Our experience of time can vary hugely: minutes drag if we’re bored; hours race if we’re excited. And in certain circumstances, our sense of time can even go in circles, break apart or stop altogether. Take Lara, who suffers from a condition called motion blindness. When she pours tea, the liquid appears as a frozen column in the air, before suddenly overflowing the cup. Rather than being mere mistakes, these effects reflect something deeper: the role we all play in creating our own time. Because even scientists don’t find any moving river of time: most believe there’s no physical flow of events beyond our perception, no moment of “happening” or “becoming” in which the future slips into the past. Time, then, is less a universal truth than a feature of how we interact with the world. What we’re left with, when we release ourselves from the cosmic clock, is “lived time”: our personal, flexible experience of change. This gives us a different way of thinking about how our lives progress, probably releasing us from the constant beat of the clock. Lived time is different from clock time because it isn’t defined by a numerical counter chopping moments into seconds. It’s a creative process that’s vital not just for our sense of time but of who we are. To tackle time famine, remind yourself that the clock is a tool, not a master. In contrast to clock time, lived time expands and grows richer the more we focus on being present. Instead of something we chase and never catch, it’s a flow that connects us with each other. 1．Which situation best illustrates “time famine”? A．A busy mother has no time to help her neighbors. B．An artist spends hours painting without noticing time. C．A manager who plans every minute always feels behind. D．A professional with a packed schedule feels productive. 2．What does the author mainly do in Paragraph 4? A．Challenge a theory. B．Reshape a perspective. C．Present an assumption. D．Analyze a phenomenon. 3．What can be inferred about “lived time” from the passage? A．It unfolds through experience not calculation. B．It replaces clock time in our daily schedules. C．More time measurement enriches lived time. D．It is too flexible to be planned or structured. 4．What does the author intend to tell us about time? A．How fast time flows depends on emotion. B．Time is a universal truth independent of us. C．Time demands engagement over obedience. D．Working more efficiently solves time famine. 【答案】1．C 2．B 3．A 4．C 【导语】本文主要探讨的是时间的本质，区分了“钟表时间”与“生活时间”的概念，并呼吁人们摆脱对钟表时间的盲目服从。 1．推理判断题。根据第三段“Psychologists have identified the rise of “time famine”, where the more efficient and productive we try to be, the more precisely we measure time, and the more we try to pack into our busy schedules, the less time we actually feel we have.  (心理学家发现了“时间饥荒”的兴起：我们越是试图高效和富有成效，越是精确地测量时间，越是试图把更多事情塞进繁忙的日程，我们实际感受到的时间就越少。)”可知，一位经理精确规划每一分钟却总是感到落后，最能体现“时间饥荒”——越是精确管理时间，越感到时间不够用。 2．推理判断题。第四段“Time is puzzling in other ways, too. We have no sensory organs for detecting it, nor any dedicated brain areas for tracking it. Our experience of time can vary hugely: minutes drag if we’re bored; hours race if we’re excited. And in certain circumstances, our sense of time can even go in circles, break apart or stop altogether. (时间在其他方面也很令人困惑。我们没有感知时间的感官器官，也没有专门追踪时间的大脑区域。我们对时间的体验可能差异巨大：无聊时分钟拖沓；兴奋时小时飞逝。在某些情况下，我们的时间感甚至会循环、破碎或完全停止。)”以及随后以Lara为例说明运动盲症患者的异常时间感知可知，本段主要分析时间感知这一现象的多种表现，最后作者指出“Rather than being mere mistakes, these effects reflect something deeper: the role we all play in creating our own time.(这些影响不仅仅是错误，而是反映了更深层次的东西：我们在创造自己的时间中所扮演的角色。)”，由此可推出，作者通过举例推翻了大众原本认为“时间客观恒定”的固有看法，重塑了人们对时间本质的认知。 3．推理判断题。根据第六段“Lived time is different from clock time because it isn’t defined by a numerical counter chopping moments into seconds. It’s a creative process that’s vital not just for our sense of time but of who we are. (生活时间与钟表时间不同，因为它不是由将时刻切割成秒的数字计数器定义的。它是一个创造性的过程，不仅对我们的时间感至关重要，对我们是谁也至关重要。)”可知，生活时间是通过体验展开而非计算定义的。 4．推理判断题。根据最后一段“To tackle time famine, remind yourself that the clock is a tool, not a master. In contrast to clock time, lived time expands and grows richer the more we focus on being present. (要应对时间饥荒，提醒自己钟表是工具，不是主人。与钟表时间相反，生活时间随着我们越专注于当下而越扩展、越丰富。)”可知，作者认为时间需要的是投入和参与，而非盲目服从。 （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. 1．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. 2．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. 3．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】1．A 2．A 3．D 【导语】文章指出 AI 时代静态固定知识已失效，传统分科教育不合时宜，作者推崇跨学科融合的学习工作室新模式，主张教育重在培养人的认知自主与应对未知的思维能力。 1．细节理解题。根据第五段“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.(工作室并非由单一学科所定义，而是由一个足够复杂的问题所决定，这个问题需要运用多种方法来解决。设想一个以衰老生物学为主题的工作室。细胞机制、统计建模、长寿的道德问题以及人口变化的社会影响等都会汇聚在一个共同的认知空间中。在这种环境中，学生们不会像在传统课堂中那样从一个教室转到另一个教室，而是会在不同的认知环境中穿梭。科学、数学、人文以及计算不再是彼此相邻却互不相干的分支学科，而是相互依存、用以理解共同问题的方式)”可知，多个领域的交叉点是学习工作室的核心功能。 2．细节理解题。根据倒数第二段“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.(更具说服力的观点是“认知主权”这一概念。它指的是在面对信息过载和各种说服性技术的情况下，仍能保持自己对理解的主导权的能力)”可知，教育应当致力于培养独立思考的能力。 3．推理判断题。根据第四段“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.(然而，教育仍然主要是在这种固定框架的背景下进行的。学科被划分开来，仿佛世界就是按照学科的界限呈现出来的。掌握程度的评估也仿佛是通过记忆来衡量理解程度的。这就是“学习工作室”这一理念不再仅仅是一个教育实验的意义所在)”结合文章指出 AI 时代静态固定知识已失效，传统分科教育不合时宜，作者推崇跨学科融合的学习工作室新模式，主张教育重在培养人的认知自主与应对未知的思维能力。可知，作者主要推广一种新的模式。 （2026·北京东城·二模）A few years ago, I wrote a piece in which I declared that biography, if not quite dead, was in very poor condition. I was concerned that for far too long, it had been criticized that biographies were poorly written and just listed facts from birth to death. I even hesitated before telling people I was a biographer: it felt tantamount to admitting that I was a journalist incapable of original thought. But it turns out to be otherwise. It was more that I hadn’t been looking for it hard enough or in quite the right places. Last weekend, the University of East Anglia hosted a conference at which the masters of biography took its pulse and gave the encouraging conclusion. What has happened, these experts explained, is that biography has changed its shape. This shift has come from a growing sense that biography as it used to be done was not getting us close to the experience it was trying to describe. We all know that life isn’t actually comprised of a stately march through the decades in which loose ends, false trails and those periods where nothing much happens are tidied away out of sight. Mostly our lives feel shapeless, coming into focus only when a particular occasion makes us feel, for a few minutes at least, fully ourselves. To better reveal the authentic, unscripted nature of a life, one new approach to biography employs the presenting of something small to tell a bigger story. Frances Wilson demonstrated how effective this can be in How to Survive the Titanic. She focuses on the moment when J Bruce Ismay, the ship’s owner, jumped into a lifeboat meant for women and children, vividly charting a story about one man’s lost honour. Another approach is to organise your story around objects that carried a particular emotional charge for the person you are writing about. In The Real Jane Austen, for instance, biographer Paula Byrne pulls out an East Indian shawl (披肩) and a carringe that figured in both Austen’s personal experience and her fiction, and tells a new story around them. Other biographers have realised that their subject’s non-eventful schooling or the long holidays by the sea can be cut down to a few short paragraphs so they can spend more time on the bits that matter. These new ways of telling lives are not entirely driven by intellectual concerns. The pressures are commercial, too. People also have shorter attention spans, which means that those doorstop biographies of 400 pages can start to seem like an approaching threat rather than a delicious promise. But more and more interesting books are being published which deal with the lives of others. They may not announce themselves as “biographies”, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t. 1．What does the word “tantamount” underlined in Paragraph 1 most probably mean? A．Superior. B．Similar. C．Unusual. D．Obvious. 2．Why does the author share his ideas on life in Paragraph 2? A．To assess its significance to biography. B．To justify the emerging trend in biography. C．To emphasize the value of modern biography. D．To argue for the authenticity of conventional biography. 3．As for the new approaches, the author would agree that ________. A．they could be more engaging B．they involve subjective descriptions C．they might be easier for writers to handle D．they help commercialize the publishing industry 4．What is the passage mainly about? A．What biography is all about. B．Whether biography should mirror life. C．Why biography is anything but in decline. D．Who defines the literary status of biography. 【答案】1．B 2．B 3．A 4．C 【导语】文章主要讨论了传记非但没有衰落，反而以全新形式焕发活力。 1．词句猜测题。根据上文“I was concerned that for far too long, it had been criticized that biographies were poorly written and just listed facts from birth to death. (我一直忧心的是，长期以来，传记饱受诟病：文笔粗糙乏味，仅仅是把人物从出生到离世的生平事实罗列堆砌而已。)”可知，过去传记饱受批评，文笔差、只会罗列事实。作者身为传记作家，觉得这份职业等同于没有独立思想的记者，是不光彩的。由此可知，tantamount意为“等同的；相当的”，与similar（相似的）含义接近。 2．推理判断题。根据第二段“This shift has come from a growing sense that biography as it used to be done was not getting us close to the experience it was trying to describe. We all know that life isn’t actually comprised of a stately march through the decades in which loose ends, false trails and those periods where nothing much happens are tidied away out of sight. Mostly our lives feel shapeless, coming into focus only when a particular occasion makes us feel, for a few minutes at least, fully ourselves.(这种转变源于一种日渐强烈的共识：传统的传记写作方式，无法让我们真正贴近它想要描摹的人生本真体验。我们都清楚，人生本就不是按部就班、庄重有序地走过数十年岁月；那些未了的心事、走岔的弯路，还有那些平淡无奇、乏善可陈的时光，本就不该被刻意修饰、隐匿抹去。大多数时候，我们的人生本就毫无章法、随性散漫，唯有在某些特定时刻，我们才能在短短片刻里，寻回完整的自我、看清本心。)”可知，第二段作者提出观点：真实的人生并不是规整有序的，而是杂乱无章、充满琐碎空白、没有条理的。传统传记强行美化、规整人生，脱离现实。作者阐述对人生的理解，是为了解释传记转型的原因，为新型传记写法提供合理性依据。 3．推理判断题。根据最后一段“People also have shorter attention spans, which means that those doorstop biographies of 400 pages can start to seem like an approaching threat rather than a delicious promise. But more and more interesting books are being published which deal with the lives of others.”（现在人们的注意力持续时间更短，这意味着那些厚达数百页的传统长篇传记开始更像一种负担，而非吸引人的阅读享受。但是采用新方法的传记越来越多有趣的作品被出版）可知，现代人注意力变短，厚重的传统传记让人望而却步，而采用新手法的传记作品越来越有趣。由此可推知，作者认为新手法更吸引人。 4．主旨大意题。根据第一段“A few years ago, I wrote a piece in which I declared that biography, if not quite dead, was in very poor condition.(几年前，我曾写过一篇文章，在文中我直言：传记文学就算没有彻底消亡，也早已江河日下、处境堪忧。)”和第二段“But it turns out to be otherwise. It was more that I hadn’t been looking for it hard enough or in quite the right places. Last weekend, the University of East Anglia hosted a conference at which the masters of biography took its pulse and gave the encouraging conclusion.(但事实却并非如此。更多是我当初寻找得不够用心，或是找错了方向。上周末，东英吉利大学举办了一场研讨会，传记文学界的名家齐聚于此，研判行业现状，并给出了令人振奋的结论。)”和全文内容可知，全文围绕传记没有衰落、反而焕新展开。 （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. 1．Regarding AI companionship, the author is mainly ________. A．negative B．supportive C．balanced D．uncertain 2．What does the word “sycophantic” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Praising. B．Watchful. C．Caring. D．Critical. 3．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. 4．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】1．C 2．A 3．D 4．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。 1．推理判断题。根据原文第二段“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。)”可知，作者认识到人工智能陪伴的风险与益处并存，持客观平衡的态度。 2．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”。 3．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。 4．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。 （2026·北京通州·一模）A colt (小雄马) named Journalism competed in the recent Preakness Stakes. He broke out well enough, but was trapped on the rail (栏杆) near the far turn as the race began to burn. The fastest ones surged (猛冲) forward and people moved their eyes from him. But he waited, holding back, hunting for space with patience. Then something shifted. There was no sudden change of speed, only a patient unfolding. Near the quarter pole, Journalism took a hard bump, hitting another horse, and then somehow slipped through the chaos. Finding daylight at last, he made up five lengths in seconds, surged down the track, and caught the leader to win by a half-length. It was a reminder that patience isn’t weakness and that some victories are earned not by charging to the front but by knowing exactly when to move. In an era wound tight with urgency, Journalism suggests a different way to succeed: Be quieter, more patient, no less powerful. For too long, our society has been running at Silicon Valley tempo — move quicker, scale faster, break through, or get left behind. It’s the rhythm we’ve absorbed: endless speed-up. On social media, everyone’s just been promoted; everyone is more disciplined than you; someone’s just run a marathon — while you are still looking for a sock. The feed keeps racing. No time to rest. Always forward. Faster. Some horses are trained to match the world that made them — break fast, seize the lead, and hang on. But Journalism settles, watches, and waits. With endurance and intelligence, he understands the rhythm of a race and how to hold his wind until it matters most. Maybe Journalism sees something we don’t. While we pursue trends, he runs with nature. While we rush, he reads the track. He reminds us there’s still strength in patience and power in knowing not just how to move, but when. We scroll, we sprint (全速奔跑), we strain to keep up. We measure our days in steps, alerts, and updates, rewarded for urgency and punished for pause. And at every stage, one wonders if it’s already too late. Some people peak early; we all remember those who seemed to have it all figured out at 17 years old. But time has a way of revealing what matters. Some of us come from behind. That’s the quiet truth in Journalism’s race. 1．What can we learn about the “Silicon Valley tempo” ? A．It encourages patience. B．It emphasizes the fast pace. C．It ignores the outcomes. D．It discourages self-discipline. 2．What can be inferred about Journalism’s victory? A．Patience and timing secure its success. B．Success is the result of overnight efforts. C．The fastest horse will always win in the end. D．Horses breaking out fast are likely to be the first. 3．The author tells the story of Journalism to ______. A．give a suggestion. B．make an assumption. C．justify a comparison. D．illustrate an argument. 4．What is the passage mainly about? A．How our culture values urgency. B．How a horse can be trained to win. C．How sticking to one’s own pace matters. D．How people keep their advantages for long. 【答案】1．B 2．A 3．D 4．C 【导语】本文介绍了一匹名叫Journalism的小雄马凭借耐心与精准时机反超夺冠的故事，批判了当下社会一味追求快速的 “硅谷节奏”，论证了坚持自身节奏、保持耐心、把握时机比盲目求快更能带来成功的观点。 1．推理判断题。根据第四段中的“For too long, our society has been running at Silicon Valley tempo — move quicker, scale faster, break through, or get left behind.(长久以来，我们的社会一直以硅谷节奏运转——行动更快、扩张更快、强行突破，否则就会被抛下)”可知，Silicon Valley tempo强调快节奏。 2．推理判断题。根据首段中的“But he waited, holding back, hunting for space with patience.(但它耐心等待，克制自己，耐心寻找突围空间)”和第三段中的“It was a reminder that patience isn’t weakness and that some victories are earned not by charging to the front but by knowing exactly when to move.(这提醒我们：耐心不是弱点，有些胜利不是靠冲在前头，而是靠精准把握行动时机)”可推知，耐心和对时机的把握成就了Journalism的胜利。 3．推理判断题。根据第三段中的“It was a reminder that patience isn’t weakness and that some victories are earned not by charging to the front but by knowing exactly when to move. In an era wound tight with urgency, Journalism suggests a different way to succeed: Be quieter, more patient, no less powerful.(这时刻提醒着人们：耐心并非软弱，有些胜利并非靠一味冲锋在前赢得，而是源于精准把握行动的时机。 在一个被紧迫感紧紧裹挟的时代，Journalism昭示了另一种成功之道：保持沉静、多一份耐心，力量丝毫不减。)”可知，作者讲述这匹马的故事是为了阐明一个论点：耐心与把握时机比盲目求快更能带来成功。 4．主旨大意题。第三段中的“Journalism suggests a different way to succeed: Be quieter, more patient, no less powerful.(Journalism 指明了另一种成功方式：更沉静、更有耐心，同样强大)”是主旨句。本文以赛马为喻，对比浮躁求快的社会风气，旨在强调坚守自己的节奏、保持耐心至关重要。 （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。 试卷第1页，共3页 / 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题03 阅读理解议论文 7年真题1年模拟 考点 北京考情（2020-2026） 命题规律 说明文 北京高考议论文固定为 D 篇压轴阅读，单篇 4 道单选，词数稳定 400—490 词，是整套阅读难度最高篇目。选材集中前沿科技思辨、社会心理、哲学思考三类话题，覆盖 AI 伦理、认知观念、科技利弊等辩证议题。题型弱化基础细节，推理判断为主力题型，搭配主旨、词义猜测，极少单纯细节题。文本逻辑层次多，转折、对比句密集，侧重考查高阶思辨，区分度极强。 命题重逻辑思辨，几乎全部依托论点、论据、论证设题，题文顺序不完全对应。推理题占比过半，侧重判断作者态度、论证目的；主旨题极易设置片面分论点干扰项。选项陷阱固定：过度绝对、主观常识脑补、混淆正反观点。文章多用驳论结构，先抛出大众普遍观点再反驳，高频考查转折词后的核心论点，强调依托原文推导，禁止脱离文本主观判断。 （2026·北京·高考真题）The 21st century has created a whole range of new types of professionals that we have never had before — or if not quite new, at least newly repackaged. The world has always had influential people, for instance, but only now do we have “Influencer”. Similarly, the corporate world has certainly known its fair share of disruption, yet it is only in the last couple of decades that the “Disruptor” has become a recognisable figure in the way we talk about big business. In an earlier era, the Disruptor would have been called an Innovator. Yet while an Innovator creates something new, the Disruptor is defined as much by what they destroy as by what they create. The Disruptor forces change; the clean-up is somebody else’s problem. It’s an attitude best summed up as “Move fast and break things.” Back in 1929, G. K. Chesterton identified the core problem with moving fast and breaking things through a thought experiment. Imagine there is a fence along a road. Suppose it’s been there a long time, and was put there for some purpose. But that purpose is lost over time. To us, now, the fence seems to be nothing but an impediment. Why not remove it? When faced with such a fence, Chesterton thinks the fact that we can’t see the point of the fence is why we should not tear it down. Some fences keep foxes out of henhouses, for instance. If you think you can do without the fence because you’ve never seen a fox, consider if the existence of the fence is precisely why you’ve never seen one. Importantly, Chesterton is not saying that things can never be reformed. His is a preventive principle rather than an outright prohibition. We could rephrase it like this: understand the wisdom in past decisions before you reject them. If we’re too impetuous, we can end up tearing out things we don’t yet realise we rely upon. But uncritical devotion to the “way things are done” can also deny us the possibility of better days. What is required, then, is not the fearlessness of the Disruptor, but the humility (谦卑) to stop and ask questions and to know that our own perspective is neither unique nor comprehensive. Disruption can be a force for good. It can also just leave a big mess. We need the ability to work out which messes are worth avoiding — because however impressively fast you move, some things can’t be easily unbroken. 1．Regarding Chesterton’s principle, the author is _____________. A．supportive B．doubtful C．conflicted D．disappointed 2．What does the word “impetuous” underlined in Paragraph 5 most probably mean? A．Short-sighted. B．Narrow-minded. C．Hot-headed. D．Old-fashioned. 3．What can we infer from this passage about the Disruptor? A．They may clear up other people’s mess. B．They are in favour of the preventive principle. C．They preserve more traditions than they break. D．They may create more problems than they solve. 4．What does the author intend to tell us? A．Humility should be a driving force for human progress. B．Innovation should move forward the wheel of tradition. C．Reform should draw from the wellspring of past wisdom. D．Disruption should be given priority in social development. （2024·北京·高考真题）The notion that we live in someone else’s video game is irresistible to many. Searching the term “simulation hypothesis” (模拟假说) returns numerous results that debate whether the universe is a computer simulation — a concept that some scientists actually take seriously. Unfortunately, this is not a scientific question. We will probably never know whether it’s true. We can, instead, use this idea to advance scientific knowledge. The 18th-century philosopher Kant argued that the universe ultimately consists of things-in-themselves that are unknowable. While he held the notion that objective reality exists, he said our mind plays a necessary role in structuring and shaping our perceptions. Modern sciences have revealed that our perceptual experience of the world is the result of many stages of processing by sensory systems and cognitive (认知的) functions in the brain. No one knows exactly what happens within this black box. If empirical (实证的) experience fails to reveal reality, reasoning won’t reveal reality either since it relies on concepts and words that are contingent on our social, cultural and psychological histories. Again, a black box. So, if we accept that the universe is unknowable, we also accept we will never know if we live in a computer simulation. And then, we can shift our inquiry from “Is the universe a computer simulation? ” to “Can we model the universe as a computer simulation? ” Modelling reality is what we do. To facilitate our comprehension of the world, we build models based on conceptual metaphors (隐喻) that are familiar to us. In Newton’s era, we imagined the universe as a clock. In Einstein’s, we uncovered the standard model of particle (粒子) physics. Now that we are in the information age, we have new concepts such as the computer, information processing, virtual reality, and simulation. Unsurprisingly, these new concepts inspire us to build new models of the universe. Models are not the reality, however. There is no point in arguing if the universe is a clock, a set of particles or an output of computation. All these models are tools to deal with the unknown and to make discoveries. And the more tools we have, the more effective and insightful we can become. It can be imagined that comparable to the process of building previous scientific models, developing the “computer simulation” metaphor-based model will also be a hugely rewarding exercise. 1．What does the author intend to do by challenging a hypothesis? A．Make an assumption. B．Illustrate an argument. C．Give a suggestion. D．Justify a comparison. 2．What does the phrase “contingent on” underlined in Paragraph 2 probably mean? A．Accepted by. B．Determined by. C．Awakened by. D．Discovered by. 3．As for Kant’s argument, the author is _________. A．appreciative B．doubtful C．unconcerned D．disapproving 4．It is implied in this passage that we should _________. A．compare the current models with the previous ones B．continue exploring the classical models in history C．stop arguing whether the universe is a simulation D．turn simulations of the universe into realities up. （2022·北京·高考真题）Quantum ( 量子 ) computers have been on my mind a lot lately. A friend has been sending me articles on how quantum computers might help solve some of the biggest challenges we face as humans. I’ve also had exchanges with two quantum-computing experts. One is computer scientist Chris Johnson who I see as someone who helps keep the field honest. The other is physicist Philip Taylor. For decades, quantum computing has been little more than a laboratory curiosity. Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us “cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction.” This is the sort of hype ( 炒作 ) that annoys Johnson. He worries that researchers are making promises they can’t keep. “What’s new,” Johnson wrote, “is that millions of dollars are now potentially available to quantum computing researchers.” As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work’s potential. If researchers can’t keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. Lots of other technologies have gone through stages of excitement. But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because “‘quantum’ stands for something cool you shouldn’t be able to understand.” And that brings me back to Taylor, who suggested that I read his book Q for Quantum. After I read the book, Taylor patiently answered my questions about it. He also answered my questions about PyQuantum, the firm he co-founded in 2016. Taylor shares Johnson’s concerns about hype, but he says those concerns do not apply to PyQuantum. The company, he says, is closer than any other firm “by a very large margin ( 幅度 )” to building a “useful” quantum computer, one that “solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise.” He adds, “People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others.” Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition “by a wide margin”, as Taylor claims? I don’t know. I’m certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers. But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson. 1．Regarding Johnson’s concerns, the author feels ________. A．sympathetic B．unconcerned C．doubtful D．excited 2．What leads to Taylor’s optimism about quantum computing? A．His dominance in physics. B．The competition in the field. C．His confidence in PyQuantum. D．The investment of tech companies. 3．What does the underlined word “prone” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Open. B．Cool. C．Useful. D．Resistant. 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．Is Johnson More Competent Than Taylor? B．Is Quantum Computing Redefining Technology? C．Will Quantum Computers Ever Come into Being? D．Will Quantum Computing Ever Live Up to Its Hype? （2021·北京·高考真题）Early fifth-century philosopher St．Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him．Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it．Today's state-of-the-art atomic（原子的） clocks have proven Einstein right．Even advanced physics can't decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you're asking． Forget about time as an absolute．What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy,we related time to ecology？What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo（节奏） of human life？We're increasingly aware of the fact that we can't control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate（调节）our actions if we hope to live in balance．What if our definition of time reflected that？ Recently，I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that's connected to circumstances on our planet，conditions that might change as a result of global warming．We're now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers，which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes．We've programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you'll see the opposite effect． The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics．It's a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame（时间框架），and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones．Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet．Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies． Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars，early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena．In pre-Classical Greece，for instance，people“corrected”official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season．Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we're developing may encourage environmental awareness． When St．Augustine admitted his inability to define time， he highlighted one of time 's most noticeable qualities：Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context．Any timekeeping system is valid，and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose． 1．What is the main idea of Paragraph 1？ A．Timekeeping is increasingly related to nature． B．Everyone can define time on their own terms． C．The qualities of time vary with how you measure it． D．Time is a major concern of philosophers and scientists． 2．The author raises three questions in Paragraph 2 mainly to________． A．present an assumption B．evaluate an argument C．highlight an experiment D．introduce an approach 3．What can we learn from this passage？ A．Those who do not go on river time will live an imbalanced life． B．New ways of measuring time can help to control Earth systems． C．Atomic time will get ahead of river time if the rivers run slower． D．Modern technology may help to shape the rivers’ temporal frame． 4．What can we infer from this passage？ A．It is crucial to improve the definition of time． B．A fixed frame will make time meaningless． C．We should live in harmony with nature． D．History is a mirror reflecting reality． （2020·北京·高考真题）Certain forms of AI are indeed becoming ubiquitous. For example, algorithms (算法) carry out huge volumes of trading on our financial markets, self-driving cars are appearing on city streets, and our smartphones are translating from one language into another. These systems are sometimes faster and more perceptive than we humans are. But so far that is only true for the specific tasks for which the systems have been designed. That is something that some AI developers are now eager to change. Some of today’s AI pioneers want to move on from today’s world of “weak” or “narrow” AI, to create “strong” or “full” AI, or what is often called artificial general intelligence (AGI). In some respects, today’s powerful computing machines already make our brains look weak. AGI could, its advocates say, work for us around the clock, and drawing on all available data, could suggest solutions to many problems. DM, a company focused on the development of AGI, has an ambition to “solve intelligence”. “If we’re successful,” their mission statement reads, “we believe this will be one of the most important and widely beneficial scientific advances ever made.” Since the early days of AI, imagination has outpaced what is possible or even probable. In 1965, an imaginative mathematician called Irving Good predicted the eventual creation of an “ultra-intelligent machine…that can far surpass all the intellectual (智力的) activities of any man, however clever.” Good went on to suggest that “the first ultra-intelligent machine” could be “the last invention that man need ever make.” Fears about the appearance of bad, powerful, man-made intelligent machines have been reinforced (强化) by many works of fiction — Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Terminator film series, for example. But if AI does eventually prove to be our downfall, it is unlikely to be at the hands of human-shaped forms like these, with recognisably human motivations such as aggression (敌对行为). Instead, I agree with Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, who believes that the heaviest risks from AGI do not come from a decision to turn against mankind but rather from a dogged pursuit of set objectives at the expense of everything else. The promise and danger of true AGI are great. But all of today’s excited discussion about these possibilities presupposes the fact that we will be able to build these systems. And, having spoken to many of the world’s foremost AI researchers, I believe there is good reason to doubt that we will see AGI any time soon, if ever. 1．What does the underlined word “ubiquitous” in Paragraph I probably mean? A．Enormous in quantity. B．Changeable daily. C．Stable in quality. D．Present everywhere. 2．What could AGI do for us, according to its supporters? A．Help to tackle problems. B．Make brains more active. C．Benefit ambitious people. D．Set up powerful databases. 3．As for Irving Good’s opinion on ultra-intelligent machines, the author is ____________. A．supportive B．disapproving C．fearful D．uncertain 4．What can be inferred about AGI from the passage? A．It may be only a dream. B．It will come into being soon. C．It will be controlled by humans. D．It may be more dangerous than ever. （2026·北京大兴·三模）The Servant (1963) is an unforgettable film that ruthlessly explores the relationship between a cunning valet (Dirk Bogarde) and his weak-willed master (James Fox). The valet exploits his master’s weaknesses until their roles are reversed: by the end, the master humbly serves the valet. Yet today, it’s hard not to think of another troubled relationship — the one between workers and their smartphones. Smart devices can be empowering. They provide instant access to a vast amount of information. They allow people to work from home instead of squeezing into crowded trains with strangers. This is especially helpful for parents who need flexible hours. Smartphones and tablets also improve efficiency by letting people use spare moments that would otherwise be wasted, such as while queuing for coffee. But for most people the servant has become the master. Not long ago only doctors were on call all the time. Now everybody is. Bosses think nothing of invading their employees’ free time. Work invades the home far more than domestic chores invade the office. Otherwise—some people check their smartphones obsessively, even during pre-dinner drinks, and send e-emails first thing in the morning and last thing at night. This is partly because smartphones are addictive. Smartphones provide relentless stimuli, stimulus interspersed with rewards. Whenever you check the glowing rectangle, there is a fair chance you will see a message from a client, a herogram from your boss or at least an e-mail from a stranger offering you $1m if you share your bank details with him. Hyperconnectivity exaggerates some of the most destabilizing trends in the modern workplace: the decline of certainty and the general cult of flexibility. Smartphones make it easier for managers to change their minds at the last moment: for example, to e-mail a minion at 11 pm to tell him he must fly to Pittsburgh tomorrow. Employees find it ever harder to distinguish between “on-time” and “off-time” — and indeed between real work and make-work. Executives are lumbered with two overlapping workdays: a formal one full of meetings and an informal one spent trying to keep up with the torrent of e-mails and messages. How can we reap the benefits of connectivity without becoming its slaves? One solution is digital dieting. Just as the abundance of junk food means that people have to be more disciplined about their eating habits, so the abundance of junk information means they have to be more disciplined about their browsing habits. Banning browsing before breakfast can reintroduce a little bit of civilization. Banning texting at weekends or, say, on Thursdays, can really show the iPhone who is boss. In “Sleeping with Your Smartphone”, Leslie Perlow argues that for most people the only way to break the 24/7 habit is to act collectively rather than individually. She tells the story of how one of the world’s most hard-working organizations, the Boston Consulting Group, learned to manage hyperconnectivity better. The firm introduced rules about when people were expected to be offline, and encouraged them to work together to make this possible. It eventually forced people to work more productively while reducing burnout. 1．In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by ______. A．posing a contrast B．justifying reversed roles C．making a comparison D．explaining a film named “servant” 2．According to paragraph 5, which of the following is a consequence of hyperconnectivity in the workplace? A．Employees have fewer meetings during the formal workday. B．Managers find it harder to change plans at the last minute. C．Workers can clearly separate “on-time” from “off-time”. D．Executives face meetings and constant messages. 3．What solutions to hyperconnectivity does the author present? A．Banning browsing and texting. B．Individual digital dieting and collective action with shared offline rules. C．Acting collectively and forcing people to work more productively. D．Working more productively and reducing burnout. 4．Which of the following is the best title for the text? A．When Smartphones Become the Master of Humans. B．Advantages and Disadvantages of Smart Devices. C．How to Break Away From Hyperconnectivity. D．The Film The Servant and Its Social Influence. （2026·北京朝阳·模拟预测）On warm summer evenings, the groundhog who lives beneath my deck likes to look across the field. As I watch, I sometimes wonder what is on her mind while she surveys her domain. The simple explanation is that she is watching for predators. But is that all there is to it? Might she also enjoy the sight of grasses swaying (摇曳) in the breeze? Might she even find them beautiful? We are comfortable describing these animals as having self-awareness, language-like communication, and even culture, but we hesitate to say they have a sense of beauty. Some scientists have come to think otherwise. They see our capacity to appreciate beauty as part of a shared evolutionary inheritance. But if a capacity for beauty is widespread, what about stimuli that are considered beautiful? Richard Prum, an evolutionary biologist, suggests that beauty demands “prolonged social and sensory engagement”. That engagement may have clear evolutionary benefits: an animal that hangs around on a flowering tree’s loveliness might have a better chance of remembering its location when fruiting season comes. To Prum, animals can only take aesthetic pleasure in those entities with which they have co-evolved: for example, bumblebees and the pinks of wild roses. After countless generations of evaluation and choice, those stimuli are now entrained in their brains. Though this is an untested proposition, it’s easy to imagine how aesthetic tastes could evolve for any stimuli that are relevant to an animal’s survival. Should my groundhog neighbour enjoy beauty in a field’s swaying grasses she might have a better chance of spotting an approaching fox. Such commonalities do not mean that we are alone in our unique about human concepts of beauty. Marcos Nadal, a cognitive psychologist, suggests that we are alone in our capacity to intellectualise beauty, creating definitions and abstractions that in turn shape our evaluations. Yet to me these distinctions are less meaningful than what we might share. Prum sees nature through a perspective of aesthetic co-evolution. This awareness adds a new dimension to conservation. “When we preserve nature,” says Prum, “we are preserving worlds in which other aesthetic pleasures can thrive.” We can also set our imaginations free to guess what other creatures find beautiful. What visual delights might birds find in the landscapes over which they fly? What could a sea turtle tell us about the elegance of nearshore currents? It’s all too easy to label wild animal life as violent and fearful, and to assume that their thoughts are dominated by calculations of survival. We don’t think so much about the pleasures they take, the moments of lightness, and it cheers me up to consider that just as I find satisfaction in the sight of grasses swaying in an evening breeze, so might a groundhog. 1．Why does the author mention the groundhog in the Paragraph 1? A．To explain an image. B．To express concerns. C．To share a phenomenon. D．To present an argument. 2．What does the word “entities” underlined in Paragraph 2 most probably mean? A．Realities. B．Majorities. C．Beings. D．Settings. 3．As for Prum’s argument, the author is ______. A．appreciative B．doubtful C．unconcerned D．disapproving 4．Which would be the best title for this passage? A．Why Do We Share Evolutionary Inheritance with Animals? B．What if Animals Find Beauty in the World just like We Do? C．What’s the Point of Confirm Animals Have Aesthetic Tastes? D．How Can a Sense of Beauty Contribute to Animals’ Survival? （2026·北京丰台·二模）What time is it? It’s such a basic question and provokes me to take a look at time in the context of both humans and artificial intelligence. Simply put, AI operates inside the now, the perpetual present. Yet humans construct meaning across time. This “temporal divide” creates a key distinction, if not a conflict, that’s worthy of a deeper look. Typically, we evaluate artificial intelligence by capability, which includes things like speed, accuracy, fluency, and even scale. But my take is that this perspective misses something that is both critical and deeply human. Humans build meaning through continuity, and this includes memory, revision, anticipation, and the lived accumulation of experience. AI does not. For us, meaning is shaped across duration. We don’t form understanding from isolated frames. We learn from many moments that inform and reshape each other. The reliability of our beliefs depends on that slow integration. It’s how understanding matures into something stable, or perhaps better said, human. AI collapses time into immediacy. Each output stands alone without reference to what came before and without responsibility toward what may follow. This is why AI can be so persuasive, as it produces coherence (连贯性) without the weight of history behind it. A recent study that examined reasoning tasks illustrates this rather clearly. AI assistance led participants to perform slightly better, but to feel dramatically more improved than they actually were. This illusion emerges because instant coherence (tech) feels like internal mastery (human). Anyone who has used AI to summarise a concept has felt this. It happens when you read a smooth, confident explanation and suddenly believe you now “understand” it without any of the internal struggle that produces true understanding. The mind confuses the appearance of cognition with the acquisition of cognition. And the key distinction is that AI shortens the distance between exposure and confidence, not between exposure and wisdom. I think this matters because humans may begin adapting to the temporal logic of machines. If present-tense coherence becomes more rewarding than the slower accumulation of meaning, we could begin to trade our temporal cognition for the immediacy AI offers. The risk is not replacement, but more of a dissociation from the very structure of meaning-making that defines the human mind. The real question, as I have relentlessly asked, is not whether AI will think like we do. The question is whether we will continue to think like ourselves. To defend the narrative arc is far from a poetic gesture. It’s an essential cognitive practice. For me, it means tolerating slower understanding when speed is seductive. It means returning to the longer thread of experience when instant fluency tempts us. It means remembering that wisdom requires the friction of time. And that’s something we all should consider. Meaning is temporal. Story is temporal. Identity is temporal. AI does not live there. We do. 1．What does the “temporal divide” in paragraph 1 refer to? A．A distinction in evaluating AI’s competences. B．A gap between present living and past reflection. C．A difference in how humans and AI make meaning. D．A divide in time management between humans and AI. 2．As for the result of the study examining reasoning skills, the author feels _______. A．worried B．surprised C．doubtful D．sympathetic 3．How does the author mainly develop the passage? A．By raising questions and solving them one by one. B．By citing studies and evaluating their limitations. C．By presenting a study and drawing a conclusion. D．By introducing a concept and making contrasts. 4．What can we learn from the passage? A．Exposure+Confidence=Mastery B．Coherence+Immediacy=Logic C．Duration+Friction=Wisdom D．Speed+Fluency=Insight （2026·北京海淀·三模）Human identity is a captivating and intricate subject, and the emergence of digital platforms has significantly transformed the way the average person defines themselves. A few decades ago, identity was largely linked to intrinsic traits and one’s role within a community; today it is increasingly entangled with what we consume, especially online. With the widespread availability of diverse media, literature, and learning opportunities, the self is no longer shaped only by lived experience but also by visible symbols—clothes, aesthetics, and cultural preferences that can be displayed and recognized. Identity becomes something curated and performed, constructed through choices that signal belonging. This transformation is closely tied to consumer culture. Modern marketing does not merely promote products; it promotes personas. A particular combination of clothing, habits, and attitudes is associated with a particular “type” of person, allowing individuals to role-play identities they aspire to embody. Although the notion that products shape identity was articulated by Edward Bernays in the 1920s, digital culture accelerates and intensifies this process. The paradox is clear: while individuals seek to distinguish themselves from the crowd, they often do so by adopting carefully orchestrated trends that categorize them through consumption. As labels grow more specialized in an effort to capture the “unique facets” of personality, they risk reducing individuals to marketable types rather than revealing genuine complexity. At the same time, the structure of online life reshapes community. In the past, people were surrounded by others who held contrasting viewpoints, and disagreement did not necessarily erode social bonds. Today, specialized online spaces often function as echo chambers, where ideas are rarely challenged and identity is reinforced through similarity. This diminishes meaningful dialogue and weakens the broader sense of communal belonging. When identity depends heavily on external validation — recognition, visibility, and symbolic alignment — it becomes fragile and easily influenced by shifting trends. Underlying these changes is a deeper tension between human relational needs and the logic of consumerism. People possess an innate tendency to form emotional attachments and to seek recognition as individuals rather than as categories. Yet in a world driven by competition and self-presentation, the self is increasingly treated as something to be optimized, displayed, and evaluated. When identity is interpreted through the language of the market, relationships risk appearing transactional, and personal worth is measured in terms of visibility and appeal. Digital culture therefore produces a dual effect. It expands the possibilities for self-expression by offering access to diverse ideas and communities, but it also narrows the self by encouraging individuals to package their identities into recognizable, consumable forms. The central challenge is not the existence of online identity itself, but the tendency to substitute curated images for lived experience. A more grounded sense of self requires moving beyond ready-made labels toward reflection, responsibility, and genuine engagement with others—recovering identity as something lived rather than merely displayed. 1．What does the underlined word “curated” in Para. 1 most probably mean? A．Randomly assembled. B．Strictly classified. C．Selectively organized. D．Passively received. 2．What can be inferred about identity in online spaces? A．It is reinforced by similarity. B．It is strengthened by disagreement. C．It is grounded in lived interaction. D．It is independent of recognition. 3．As for digital self-presentation, the author is __________. A．approving B．skeptical C．appreciative D．unconcerned 4．Which would be the best title for the passage? A．The Narratives of Social Masks B．The Illusion of Online Closeness C．Identity in the Age of Connectivity D．The Performance of Selves in Public （2026·北京昌平·二模）When was the last time you raced against an unforgiving clock? Perhaps you skipped breakfast, shelled out for a taxi or missed time with your family. Many of us have become slaves to time, with huge portions of our day spent chasing appointments and deadlines. But what is this thing we’re trying to beat? We tend to imagine time as constant and non-negotiable, ticking by somewhere out in the world, impossible to slow or stop. Yet an emerging scientific picture is that such “clock time” isn’t a physical phenomenon. It’s a mathematical tool useful for coordinating our interactions, but with no independent existence of its own. As with other key innovations, such as money, we can no longer get by without it. But disproving the myth of the clock can help us to focus on how life really progresses. Psychologists have identified the rise of “time famine”, where the more efficient and productive we try to be, the more precisely we measure time, and the more we try to pack into our busy schedules, the less time we actually feel we have. This has a big impact on quality of life: people experiencing time famine are less likely to do things they enjoy, or help each other. Time is puzzling in other ways, too. We have no sensory organs for detecting it, nor any dedicated brain areas for tracking it. Our experience of time can vary hugely: minutes drag if we’re bored; hours race if we’re excited. And in certain circumstances, our sense of time can even go in circles, break apart or stop altogether. Take Lara, who suffers from a condition called motion blindness. When she pours tea, the liquid appears as a frozen column in the air, before suddenly overflowing the cup. Rather than being mere mistakes, these effects reflect something deeper: the role we all play in creating our own time. Because even scientists don’t find any moving river of time: most believe there’s no physical flow of events beyond our perception, no moment of “happening” or “becoming” in which the future slips into the past. Time, then, is less a universal truth than a feature of how we interact with the world. What we’re left with, when we release ourselves from the cosmic clock, is “lived time”: our personal, flexible experience of change. This gives us a different way of thinking about how our lives progress, probably releasing us from the constant beat of the clock. Lived time is different from clock time because it isn’t defined by a numerical counter chopping moments into seconds. It’s a creative process that’s vital not just for our sense of time but of who we are. To tackle time famine, remind yourself that the clock is a tool, not a master. In contrast to clock time, lived time expands and grows richer the more we focus on being present. Instead of something we chase and never catch, it’s a flow that connects us with each other. 1．Which situation best illustrates “time famine”? A．A busy mother has no time to help her neighbors. B．An artist spends hours painting without noticing time. C．A manager who plans every minute always feels behind. D．A professional with a packed schedule feels productive. 2．What does the author mainly do in Paragraph 4? A．Challenge a theory. B．Reshape a perspective. C．Present an assumption. D．Analyze a phenomenon. 3．What can be inferred about “lived time” from the passage? A．It unfolds through experience not calculation. B．It replaces clock time in our daily schedules. C．More time measurement enriches lived time. D．It is too flexible to be planned or structured. 4．What does the author intend to tell us about time? A．How fast time flows depends on emotion. B．Time is a universal truth independent of us. C．Time demands engagement over obedience. D．Working more efficiently solves time famine. （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. 1．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. 2．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. 3．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. （2026·北京东城·二模）A few years ago, I wrote a piece in which I declared that biography, if not quite dead, was in very poor condition. I was concerned that for far too long, it had been criticized that biographies were poorly written and just listed facts from birth to death. I even hesitated before telling people I was a biographer: it felt tantamount to admitting that I was a journalist incapable of original thought. But it turns out to be otherwise. It was more that I hadn’t been looking for it hard enough or in quite the right places. Last weekend, the University of East Anglia hosted a conference at which the masters of biography took its pulse and gave the encouraging conclusion. What has happened, these experts explained, is that biography has changed its shape. This shift has come from a growing sense that biography as it used to be done was not getting us close to the experience it was trying to describe. We all know that life isn’t actually comprised of a stately march through the decades in which loose ends, false trails and those periods where nothing much happens are tidied away out of sight. Mostly our lives feel shapeless, coming into focus only when a particular occasion makes us feel, for a few minutes at least, fully ourselves. To better reveal the authentic, unscripted nature of a life, one new approach to biography employs the presenting of something small to tell a bigger story. Frances Wilson demonstrated how effective this can be in How to Survive the Titanic. She focuses on the moment when J Bruce Ismay, the ship’s owner, jumped into a lifeboat meant for women and children, vividly charting a story about one man’s lost honour. Another approach is to organise your story around objects that carried a particular emotional charge for the person you are writing about. In The Real Jane Austen, for instance, biographer Paula Byrne pulls out an East Indian shawl (披肩) and a carringe that figured in both Austen’s personal experience and her fiction, and tells a new story around them. Other biographers have realised that their subject’s non-eventful schooling or the long holidays by the sea can be cut down to a few short paragraphs so they can spend more time on the bits that matter. These new ways of telling lives are not entirely driven by intellectual concerns. The pressures are commercial, too. People also have shorter attention spans, which means that those doorstop biographies of 400 pages can start to seem like an approaching threat rather than a delicious promise. But more and more interesting books are being published which deal with the lives of others. They may not announce themselves as “biographies”, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t. 1．What does the word “tantamount” underlined in Paragraph 1 most probably mean? A．Superior. B．Similar. C．Unusual. D．Obvious. 2．Why does the author share his ideas on life in Paragraph 2? A．To assess its significance to biography. B．To justify the emerging trend in biography. C．To emphasize the value of modern biography. D．To argue for the authenticity of conventional biography. 3．As for the new approaches, the author would agree that ________. A．they could be more engaging B．they involve subjective descriptions C．they might be easier for writers to handle D．they help commercialize the publishing industry 4．What is the passage mainly about? A．What biography is all about. B．Whether biography should mirror life. C．Why biography is anything but in decline. D．Who defines the literary status of biography. （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. 1．Regarding AI companionship, the author is mainly ________. A．negative B．supportive C．balanced D．uncertain 2．What does the word “sycophantic” underlined in Paragraph 3 most probably mean? A．Praising. B．Watchful. C．Caring. D．Critical. 3．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. 4．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? （2026·北京通州·一模）A colt (小雄马) named Journalism competed in the recent Preakness Stakes. He broke out well enough, but was trapped on the rail (栏杆) near the far turn as the race began to burn. The fastest ones surged (猛冲) forward and people moved their eyes from him. But he waited, holding back, hunting for space with patience. Then something shifted. There was no sudden change of speed, only a patient unfolding. Near the quarter pole, Journalism took a hard bump, hitting another horse, and then somehow slipped through the chaos. Finding daylight at last, he made up five lengths in seconds, surged down the track, and caught the leader to win by a half-length. It was a reminder that patience isn’t weakness and that some victories are earned not by charging to the front but by knowing exactly when to move. In an era wound tight with urgency, Journalism suggests a different way to succeed: Be quieter, more patient, no less powerful. For too long, our society has been running at Silicon Valley tempo — move quicker, scale faster, break through, or get left behind. It’s the rhythm we’ve absorbed: endless speed-up. On social media, everyone’s just been promoted; everyone is more disciplined than you; someone’s just run a marathon — while you are still looking for a sock. The feed keeps racing. No time to rest. Always forward. Faster. Some horses are trained to match the world that made them — break fast, seize the lead, and hang on. But Journalism settles, watches, and waits. With endurance and intelligence, he understands the rhythm of a race and how to hold his wind until it matters most. Maybe Journalism sees something we don’t. While we pursue trends, he runs with nature. While we rush, he reads the track. He reminds us there’s still strength in patience and power in knowing not just how to move, but when. We scroll, we sprint (全速奔跑), we strain to keep up. We measure our days in steps, alerts, and updates, rewarded for urgency and punished for pause. And at every stage, one wonders if it’s already too late. Some people peak early; we all remember those who seemed to have it all figured out at 17 years old. But time has a way of revealing what matters. Some of us come from behind. That’s the quiet truth in Journalism’s race. 1．What can we learn about the “Silicon Valley tempo” ? A．It encourages patience. B．It emphasizes the fast pace. C．It ignores the outcomes. D．It discourages self-discipline. 2．What can be inferred about Journalism’s victory? A．Patience and timing secure its success. B．Success is the result of overnight efforts. C．The fastest horse will always win in the end. D．Horses breaking out fast are likely to be the first. 3．The author tells the story of Journalism to ______. A．give a suggestion. B．make an assumption. C．justify a comparison. D．illustrate an argument. 4．What is the passage mainly about? A．How our culture values urgency. B．How a horse can be trained to win. C．How sticking to one’s own pace matters. D．How people keep their advantages for long. （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. 试卷第1页，共3页 / 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题03 阅读理解议论文 7年真题1年模拟 参考答案 2026・北京・高考真题：1.A 2.C 3.D 4.C 2024・北京・高考真题：1.C 2.B 3.A 4.C 2022・北京・高考真题：1.A 2.C 3.A 4.D 2021・北京・高考真题：1.B 2.D 3.C 4.C 2020・北京・高考真题：1.D 2.A 3.B 4.A 2026・北京大兴・三模：1.C 2.D 3.B 4.A 2026・北京朝阳・模拟预测：1.D 2.C 3.A 4.B 2026・北京丰台・二模：1.C 2.A 3.D 4.C 2026・北京海淀・三模：1.C 2.A 3.B 4.C 2026・北京昌平・二模：1.C 2.B 3.A 4.C 2026・北京西城・二模：1.A 2.A 3.D 2026・北京东城・二模：1.B 2.B 3.A 4.C 2026・北京石景山・二模：1.C 2.A 3.D 4.B 2026・北京通州・一模：1.B 2.A 3.D 4.C 2026・北京海淀・一模：1.D 2.B 3.A 4.B 试卷第1页，共3页 / 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $