高考经典阅读理解03——高考阅读中的那些“效应”（全国通用）—2027跟着经典英语高考试题备高考

专题03高考经典阅读理解 ——高考阅读中的那些“效应” 目 录 真题·命题感知 1 进阶·题型剖析 7 拔高·模拟演练 10 真题·命题感知 一、高考经典阅读理解——高考阅读中的那些“效应” 经典1：（2024年1月浙江高考真题）--棉花糖效应 The Stanford marshmallow (棉花糖) test was originally conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel in the late 1960s. Children aged four to six at a nursery school were placed in a room. A single sugary treat, selected by the child, was placed on a table. Each child was told if they waited for 15 minutes before eating the treat, they would be given a second treat. Then they were left alone in the room. Follow-up studies with the children later in life showed a connection between an ability to wait long enough to obtain a second treat and various forms of success. As adults we face a version of the marshmallow test every day. We’ re not tempted (诱惑) by sugary treats, but by our computers, phones, and tablets — all the devices that connect us to the global delivery system for various types of information that do to us what marshmallows do to preschoolers. We are tempted by sugary treats because our ancestors lived in a calorie-poor world, and our brains developed a response mechanism to these treats that reflected their value — a feeling of reward and satisfaction. But as we’ve reshaped the world around us, dramatically reducing the cost and effort involved in obtaining calories, we still have the same brains we had thousands of years ago, and this mismatch is at the heart of why so many of us struggle to resist tempting foods that we know we shouldn’t eat. A similar process is at work in our response to information. Our formative environment as a species was information-poor, so our brains developed a mechanism that prized new information. But global connectivity has greatly changed our information environment. We are now ceaselessly bombarded (轰炸) with new information. Therefore, just as we need to be more thoughtful about our caloric consumption, we also need to be more thoughtful about our information consumption, resisting the temptation of the mental “junk food” in order to manage our time most effectively. 32．What did the children need to do to get a second treat in Mischel’s test? A．Take an examination alone. B．Show respect for the researchers. C．Share their treats with others. D．Delay eating for fifteen minutes. 33．According to paragraph 3, there is a mismatch between ___________. A．the calorie-poor world and our good appetites B．the shortage of sugar and our nutritional needs C．the rich food supply and our unchanged brains D．the tempting foods and our efforts to keep fit 34．What does the author suggest readers do? A．Absorb new information readily. B．Be selective information consumers. C．Use diverse information sources. D．Protect the information environment. 35．Which of the following is the best title for the text? A．Eat Less, Read More B．The Bitter Truth about Early Humans C．The Later, the Better D．The Marshmallow Test for Grownups 经典2：（2023·新高考I卷）--群体智慧效应 （2023·新高考I卷）D On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate. This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down. But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals. In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together.” Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous. 12. What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly about? A. The methods of estimation. B. The underlying logic of the effect. C. The causes of people’s errors. D. The design of Galton’s experiment. 13. Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if ________. A. the crowds were relatively small B. there were occasional underestimates C. individuals did not communicate D. estimates were not fully independent 14. What did the follow-up study focus on? A. The size of the groups. B. The dominant members. C. The discussion process. D. The individual estimates. 15. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies? A. Unclear. B. Dismissive. C. Doubtful. D. Approving. 2.为什么高考中社会、心理理论类是重要的命题情境 社会、心理类理论要求我们要加强英语思维的能力，考生无法直接从文章找到答案，需要从基本的文本出发，根据理论概念的介绍、实验的产生过程以及在实践的应用，来获取文章的大意、文章观点之间的逻辑关系，进而对问题做出正确的选择。它极大地考查了考生分析问题、解决问题的能力。因此，这类文章是高考命题的重要素材，是选拔优生的巅峰之作。 进阶·题型剖析 文体结构特点： 结构清晰逻辑强 理论或实验介绍—理论产生的过程或实验过程——结论讨论、意义运用 结论讨论、意义运用 理论产生的过程或实验过程 理论或实验介绍 备考建议 熟悉文体结构与常见考点 1.把握介绍或阐述的主体。 通过文章第一段迅速找出说明文介绍或阐述的事物。英语文章，尤其是说明文，最大的特点就是开门见山，作者会在文章开篇就把要介绍的事物或表达的观点铺平直叙出来。 2. 关注每一段的段首句。 关注每一段的段首句，确认段落的主旨大意。就像文章的开篇段落告诉读者文章的主旨大意一样，第一段落的第一句话通常也起到同样的作用。 3.关注每一段的段尾句。 前两项策略已经被大多数考生广泛应用在阅读中。但除了关注篇首段落和段首句子之外，也不能忽视段尾句。一个段落由三个部分组成：topic sentence（主旨句），supporting details （支撑细节），和concluding sentence（总结句）。在段落结尾，作者会用不同的表达方式重申主旨句，但从篇章整体来看，在每个段落结尾出现的句子还起到承上启下的作用，作者会借助这个句子引出下文。 拔高·模拟演练 1.（2027·浙江宁波市镇海中学开学考）城市热岛效应 Cities are 1-3℃ hotter than surrounding rural areas, a phenomenon called the urban heat island effect. This heat threatens human safety, causing heat exhaustion and even death during extremely hot spells. Urban trees act as natural air conditioners through ground shading and the release of water from leaves, yet their cooling power is distributed unevenly across the globe. Researchers analyzed temperature and tree cover data of nearly 9,000 global cities housing 3.6 billion residents, comparing real urban environments with an imagined situation without any trees. Unlike previous satellite studies measuring overheated building and road surfaces, this research centered on air temperature that directly reflects people’s real experience of heat. The outcome exceeded expectations: trees nearly halve urban heat island warming, cooling most cities by 0.5-1.5℃ and effectively relieving heat pressure for over 200 million people. Cooling effects differ greatly — dry hot cities show obvious temperature differences between leafy and bare lands, while mild temperate (温带的) cities enjoy gentler, more consistent cooling. However, a city’s trees are not spread evenly. They’re often concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods and suburban areas. Cities in cooler or more humid (湿润的) climates tend to have more. There’s a strong link with wealth. In the United States, lower-income areas average 15% fewer trees than wealthier areas — and are 1.5℃ hotter. This means vulnerable populations who need free cooling from trees the most are often the least likely to receive it. Though low-cost and beneficial to air quality and mental health, trees alone cannot fix urban overheating. Current urban trees only reduce 10% of predicted heat rise under moderate (适度的) climate conditions, and ambitious tree planting can merely raise this proportion to 20%. Therefore, cities must combine targeted tree planting in heat-baked neighborhoods with reflective building materials, green roofs and well-designed airflow plans. All local cooling strategies still depend on deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global climate change and secure comfortable living spaces for future urban residents. 1．How is the new research different from earlier studies? A．It covers more global cities. B．It focuses on building surfaces. C．It tracks actual air temperature. D．It models a treeless environment. 2．What can we learn about tree cooling effects from paragraph 2? A．They change with climate types. B．They match the predicted heat rise. C．They average a 1.5℃ drop globally. D．They work best in low-income cities. 3．What does the underlined word “vulnerable” in paragraph 3 probably mean? A．Permanent. B．Uneducated. C．Disadvantaged. D．Urbanized. 4．What does the writer suggest to deal with urban overheating effectively? A．Stopping greenhouse gas release. B．Focusing on low-cost roof projects. C．Adopting multiple measures together. D．Expanding living spaces for the youth. 2.（2027·河南南阳市豫南名校联考）“知识的诅咒”一心理学效应 You ask your wife to pick a local restaurant and pick up some take-out one evening. Then, while logging in to a Zoom meeting, you also ask your mom to buy some wine on her way home. While they follow through on your requests, you are left astonished and annoyed: How is it that they could pick a restaurant that was involved in a health scandal (丑闻) last month? And why would they choose a type of wine you hate? The husband above has been caught by a psychological effect known as the curse (诅咒) of knowledge. It’s a simple but destructive effect: once we know something, it’s very difficult to imagine not knowing it, or to take the perspective of someone who doesn’t. The effect was first put forward by Elizabeth Newton, a Ph.D．candidate at Stanford, in 1990. Newton arranged an experiment in which one person, a tapper (敲击者), was asked to tap out the melody (旋律) of a popular song, while another person, the listener, was asked to identify it. The tappers assumed that their listeners would correctly identify about 50% of their melodies; they were amazed to learn that the listeners only got about one out of 40 songs correct. To the tappers, their melodies sounded perfectly clear and obvious, but the listeners heard no music and no instrumentation in their heads, who only heard noise of a finger tapping on a table. As I noted in a post about the Dunning-Kruger effect last year, people who aren’t well-informed are quite likely to feel confident in their opinions, because they don’t know enough to question their own unearned confidence. Similarly, we often make an unrecognized assumption: someone can read our minds or form opinions based on information we haven’t shared. This assumption often leads us to feel we’ve clearly expressed our wants and needs even when we haven’t. 1．Why is the husband shocked and angry? A．His requests were refused. B．He preferred sweet wines. C．His wife purchased unnecessary items. D．He disagreed with his family’s options. 2．What is a feature of the curse of knowledge? A．It overstates people’s innovation. B．It causes people to ignore advice. C．It blinds people to others’ ignorance. D．It stops people from sharing opinions. 3．What can be inferred from Elizabeth Newton’s experiment? A．Tappers succeeded in controlling the speed. B．Tappers failed to consider listeners’ actuality. C．Listeners with hearing loss had bad perception. D．Listeners fond of pop music hated instruments. 4．How can we remove the curse of knowledge? A．By detailing our thoughts. B．By figuring out our needs. C．By listening to diverse ideas. D．By showing the action steps. 3.Zeigarnik效应 Your own experience of revising for exams might tell you that sessions of uninterrupted concentration can help you to better remember key pieces of information. Indeed, many students will engage in intensive revision just before a test — in the belief that essential subject facts and figures will be memorized ready for exam day. However, this commonly held wisdom has been contradicted by an observation made in a psychological study. Now known as the Zeigarnik effect, it was found that interruption during a task that requires focus can in fact improve a person’s ability to remember it afterwards. The psychologist Bluma Zeigarmik observed the effect of interruption on memory processing in 1927. In the experiment, she asked each participant to complete a series of separate tasks, such as solving a puzzle or assembling a flat-pack box. During around half of the assignments, participants were subtly interrupted by the experiment supervisor, while during the remaining tasks, they were allowed time to complete them uninterrupted. Following the experiment, Zeigarnik interviewed each participant, asking them to recall details of each task that they had attempted. Zeigarnik’s initial findings revealed that participants were able to recall details of interrupted tasks around 90% better than those who had been able to complete undisturbed. These results suggest that a desire to complete a task can cause it to be retained in a person’s memory until it has been completed, and that the finality of its completion enables the process of forgetting it to take place. One way of employing the Zeigarnik effect when attempting to memorize a detailed piece of information, such as a long phone number, or when revising a subject, might be to avoid trying to remember it in its entirety in one sitting. Take a look at the information, familiarize yourself with it, then “interrupt yourself” — look away from where it is written for a few moments and think of something else, before returning a few more times to remember chunks of the number. Finally, piece these chunks together and attempt to recall the number in its entirety. 1．What does the underlined phrase “this commonly held wisdom” in paragraph 2 refer to? A．Remembering essential subject facts guarantees success in exams. B．Interruption on memory processing generates unexpected results. C．Uninterrupted concentration contributes to effective revision. D．Revision with full concentration boosts long-term memory. 2．How did Zeigarnik measure the effect of interruption on participants’ memory? A．By conducting brain scans. B．By rating participants’ memory. C．By enquiring about task details. D．By observing physical reactions. 3．Which strategy should be used to avoid forgetting when revising a subject? A．Repeated writing and recalling. B．Entire remembering in one sitting. C．Rapid memorization without breaks. D．Breaks in review and repeating in chunks. 4．What is the passage mainly about? A．The origin of the Zeigarnik Effect. B．The discovery of the Zeigarnik Effect. C．The evaluation of the Zeigarnik Effect. D．The application of the Zeigarnik Effect. 4.本·富兰克林效应 Here’s a quick quiz. Person A does a favor for you. Person B asks you to do a favor for him. Who do you tend to like more? Surprisingly, the answer is Person B．This quirk (怪癖) of human nature is known as the Ben Franklin Effect. Benjamin Franklin came across the phenomenon in 1736 when serving as a clerk to the Pennsylvania Assembly. A powerful member didn’t care for Franklin and threatened to make life miserable for him. What to do? Instead of winning him over with sweet talk, Franklin asked if he could borrow a rare and valuable book the man owned. This request altered the man’s attitude and paved the way for their friendship. Franklin’s takeaway: “He that has once done you a kindness will be ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.” Several studies have confirmed this. But how can we explain the Ben Franklin Effect? Some psychologists refer to cognitive dissonance (失调). It’s difficult to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. It makes us uncomfortable. We resolve this tension by changing our mind. “I don’t like Joe, but I am doing him a favor,” we might think. “So maybe I do like him.” While cognitive dissonance explains a lot, it alone doesn’t explain the Ben Franklin Effect. One 2015 study found that it was, rather, the affiliative (亲和的) motive that the requests convey. That is, we humans want to maintain good relations with other humans, and one way to achieve this is by doing favors for others. This explains a lot about altruistic behavior. We like being useful and, by extension, we like those who give us the opportunity to do so. It’s in our genes. Yet there is much we still don’t know about the Ben Franklin Effect. Does it apply equally across cultures? Is there a point beyond which asking a favor makes you less, not more likable? Asking to borrow a book is one thing; asking to borrow a car is another. 1．Why does the author mention Benjamin Franklin’s experience? A．To illustrate a dilemma in making choices. B．To suggest a way of striking up friendships. C．To stress the importance of strategic requests. D．To introduce the origin of the Ben Franklin Effect. 2．What is a reason for people’s tendency to like those asking for favors? A．Reducing the tension caused by social contact. B．Increasing the chance of getting help in return. C．Avoiding the discomfort from conflicting thoughts. D．Establishing a cooperative community of shared trust. 3．What does the underlined word “altruistic” probably mean in paragraph 4? A．Selfless. B．Impolite. C．Aggressive. D．Responsible. 4．What does the author think of the Ben Franklin Effect? A．It makes little sense. B．It applies to most cultures. C．It has situational limitations. D．It has great practical significance. 5.“IKEA效应” The IKEA effect, named after Swedish furniture giant, describes how people tend to value an object more if they make or assemble (组装) it themselves. More broadly, the IKEA effect tells how we tend to like things more if we’ve spent effort to create them. It goes without saying that we like to feel like we know what we’re doing; that we are capable of handling the tasks that are given to us and of dealing with barriers as they come up. In fact, our perceived self-efficacy — that is, our beliefs about our own abilities to perform well and take control of our lives—is an important component of our overall mental health. Research has provided good evidence that this self-efficacy can boost a role in the IKEA effect. In one experiment, researchers started out by giving participants four math problems to solve. One group got very easy problems (e.g. “How likely is it that a fair coin that is thrown once will come up heads?”), while the other received very difficult ones (e.g. “You have four coins. Three of the coins are normal, but one of them has heads on both sides. You pick a coin at random without looking. The coin you pick has heads on one side. What are the odds that if you turn the coin over, the other side will be tails?”). The goal of this part of the experiment was to control people’s sense of competence: the group that got the hard problems was likely to feel stressed out and incapable, while the easy problem group didn’t have their confidence shaken at all. After the math problems, participants were shown a picture of a bookcase from IKEA and asked whether they would prefer to buy it pre-assembled or to build it themselves. The results showed that people who had had their sense of competence challenged were more likely to say they’d prefer to assemble the bookcase on their own. In other words, feeling like we’re incapable of something increases our desire to prove ourselves and appear competent, leading us to overstate the value of things we have made. 1. What does the IKEA effect focus on? A. How to assemble furniture from IKEA. B. How Swedish furniture is made. C. How people like things they create. D. How to increase self-efficacy. 2. Why did the researchers give participants different math problems? A. To interpret their reactions. B. To affect their sense of confidence. C. To check their intelligence. D. To make the experiment funnier. 3. What does the text suggest about the IKEA effect? A. It only works for the assembly of furniture. B. It makes people undervalue everything they create. C. It has no influence on people’s purchasing decisions. D. It shows people’s psychological needs to feel competent. 4. How does the author support the topic of the text? A. By presenting an experiment. B. By giving some definitions. C. By listing different opinions. D. By sharing personal experiences. 6.马太效应 Yes, having a big name in science will help get your paper published, a new study confirms. Involving hundreds of researchers reviewing an economics paper, the study found that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance when the paper was associated with a famous author compared to a lesser-known one. The Matthew effect, a term coined in 1968 to describe this prejudice, has been a topic of concern among scientists for years. However, previous efforts to document this prejudice had limitations such as small sample sizes or lack of randomization. To address these issues, a team from the University of Innsbruck conducted an extensive study. The team sent emails to about 3,300 researchers, inviting them to review an economics paper for a real journal. The paper had two authors: Vernon Smith, a Nobel Prize winner, and Sabiou Inoua, one of Smith’s former Ph. D．students. The potential reviewers received one of three descriptions of the paper: one mentioning only Smith, another mentioning only Inoua, and a third with no author mentioned. Of the researchers who agreed to review the paper, Smith’s fame influenced their responses. When given only Smith’s name, 38.5% accepted the invitation to review, while the figures were 30.7% for those given no name and 28.5% for those given only Inoua’s name. To further avoid prejudice, the team randomly assigned the 313 reviewers who initially received no author’s name to review one of three papers: one credited to Smith alone, another to Inoua alone,and a third with no authors listed. Reviewers rated the paper credited to Smith the highest, praising its inclusion of new information and data-supported conclusions. The version with no authors received recommendations for acceptance from 24% of reviewers, more than double the percentage for the version credited only to Inoua. The team warned against evaluating identical work differently based on the author’s identity and suggested that double-blind reviews may reduce the prejudice. However, this approach may not be effective as reviewers can often identify authors through preprints or conference presentations. 1．What does the term “the Matthew effect” refer to according to this passage? A．A topic of public concern. B．A preference in publication. C．A document describing coins. D．A way to get papers accepted. 2．Why did the team from the University of Innsbruck carry out the extensive study? A．To review an economics paper. B．To find fault with prior studies. C．To further investigate an effect. D．To study how to release papers. 3．What are presented in paragraphs 3 and 4? A．Data reception and release. B．Paper description and scores. C．Research methods and findings. D．Authors’ identities and responses. 4．What does the team suggest to reduce the prejudice? A．Revising the review method. B．Reading the online preprint. C．Assessing different works. D．Adding new information. 7.“霍克蛾效应” When Elinor Lobel was 16, a “smart” insulin (胰岛素) pump was attached to her body. Powered by AI, it tracks her glucose levels and administers the right dose of insulin at the right time to keep her healthy. It is one of the new ways that data and AI can help improve lives. Books that criticize the dark side of data are plentiful. They generally suggest there is much more to fear than fete in the algorithmic(算法的)age. But the intellectual tide may be turning. One of the most persuasive supporters of a more balanced view is Elinor Lobel’s mother, Orly, a law professor. In The Equality Machine she acknowledges AI’s capacity to produce harmful results. But she shows how, in the right hands, it can also be used to fight inequality and discrimination. A principle of privacy rules is “minimization”: collect and keep as little information as possible, especially in areas such as race and gender. Ms Lobel flips the script, showing how in hiring, pay and the legal system, knowing such characteristics leads to fairer outcomes. Ms Lobel’s call to use more, not less, personal information challenges data-privacy orthodoxy(正统观念). But she insists that “tracking differences is key to detecting unfairness.” She advocates g loosening of privacy rules to provide more transparency(透明)over algorithmic decisions. The problems with algorithmic formulae(公式) are tackled in depth in Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson of the School of Economics. These statistical models are the backbone of big data and AL. Yet a perfect model will always be beyond reach. “All models are wrong,” runs a wise saying. “Some are useful.” Ms Thompson focuses on a challenge she calls the Hawkmoth Effect. In the better known Butterfly Effect, a serviceable model, Vin the prediction of climate change, becomes less reliable over time because of the complexity of what it is simulating(模拟), or because of inaccuracies in the original data. In the Hawkmoth Effect, by contrast, the model itself is flawed; it might fail to take full account of the interplay between humidity, wind and temperature. The author calls on data geeks to improve their solutions to real-world issues, not merely refine their formulae—in other words, to escape from model land. “We do not need to have the best possible answer,” she writes, “only a reasonable one.” Both these books exhibit a healthy realism about data, algorithms and their limitations. Both recognize that making progress involves accepting limitations, whether in law or coding. As Ms Lobel puts it: “It’s always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” 1．Ms Lobel intends to convey that A．minimisation is a good privacy rule to go by B．algorithms are currently challenged by data privacy C．employing more personal data should be encouraged D．identifying algorithms’ problems leads to better outcomes 2．What can we learn about “Hawkmoth Effect”? A．It develops from Butterfly Effect. B．It emphasizes accuracy of original data. C．It enjoys popularity in climate research field. D．It is mentioned to show the model can be faulty. 3．Which of the following does the writer probably agree? A．Using algorithms to detect differences is hard. B．The application of data and algorithms is limited. C．The reliability of data should be attached importance to. D．Improving algorithms involves accepting its imperfection. 4．Which would be the best title for this passage? A．The Algorithm’s Prospect B．The Algorithm’s Mercy C．The Algorithm’s Complexity D．The Algorithm’s Recognition 8.反弹效应 Most people in the Netherlands are convinced that their consumption patterns affect the environment. Many of them are looking for ways to reduce their footprint. However, the reality is more complicated, according to a research by Leiden PhD candidate Levon Amatuni, who studied car sharing and the reuse of phones. He used his background in computer science and mathematics to model and measure the benefits of such practices. His research shows users of car-sharing platforms reduce their impact by only 3 to 18 percent — much less than 51 or 37 percent claimed in previous research. This is caused by so-called “rebound effects”, which are rarely accounted for by companies or even researchers. For example, shared vehicles are replaced with new models more frequently than private cars. Additionally, the introduction of sharing schemes (方案) can encourage people to drive when they would have otherwise taken public transport. These rebound effects turn out to be highly influential. Amatuni also found users of sharing platforms don’t significantly reduce their driving. “And if they do, they often take buses and trains, which aren’t emission-free,” he says. While public transport is usually a better option, its impact is not negligible. So, this data must be included to make an accurate assessment. Similarly, Amatuni discovered that a second-hand phone only offsets (抵消) about one-third of a new phone’s production. Rebound effects are the cause. If people couldn’t sell their old devices, they would use them for longer. In other words, reuse both extends the lifetime of a device — by giving it a new owner — but also shortens it, as people tend to sell their newly bought devices sooner. Amatuni doesn’t want people to conclude taking small steps towards sustainability is pointless. “Our intentions are still what’s most important,” he says, “but meanwhile, people need to realise there’re no easy fixes.” He recommends prioritising overall consumption reduction rather than continuing current habits while trying to make them more efficient. 1．What is the focus of Amatuni’s research? A．The ways of reducing people’s footprint. B．The benefits of car sharing and phone reuse. C．The damage of public transport to the environment. D．The knowledge of computer science and mathematics. 2．What does the underlined word “negligible” in paragraph 3 mean? A．Small. B．Permanent. C．Direct. D．Immediate. 3．Which of the following represents a phone rebound effect? A．Buying new phones often. B．Keeping old phones in use. C．Taking care of new phones. D．Selling used phones cheaply. 4．What is Amatuni’s suggestion on promoting sustainability? A．Stop eco-friendly habits. B．Increase production efficiency. C．Reduce total resource use. D．Seek easy solutions to eco-crisis. 4 / 6 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $ 专题03高考经典阅读理解 ——高考阅读中的那些“效应” 目 录 真题·命题感知 1 进阶·题型剖析 7 拔高·模拟演练 10 真题·命题感知 一、高考经典阅读理解——高考阅读中的那些“效应” 经典1：（2024年1月浙江高考真题）--棉花糖效应 The Stanford marshmallow (棉花糖) test was originally conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel in the late 1960s. Children aged four to six at a nursery school were placed in a room. A single sugary treat, selected by the child, was placed on a table. Each child was told if they waited for 15 minutes before eating the treat, they would be given a second treat. Then they were left alone in the room. Follow-up studies with the children later in life showed a connection between an ability to wait long enough to obtain a second treat and various forms of success. 介绍棉花糖实验，引出棉花糖效应。 As adults we face a version of the marshmallow test every day. We’ re not tempted (诱惑) by sugary treats, but by our computers, phones, and tablets — all the devices that connect us to the global delivery system for various types of information that do to us what marshmallows do to preschoolers. 引申到成年人，在信息化时代我们作为成年人每天都在面对棉花糖测试，信息轰炸让我们摄入了太多精神“垃圾食品” We are tempted by sugary treats because our ancestors lived in a calorie-poor world, and our brains developed a response mechanism to these treats that reflected their value — a feeling of reward and satisfaction. But as we’ve reshaped the world around us, dramatically reducing the cost and effort involved in obtaining calories, we still have the same brains we had thousands of years ago, and this mismatch is at the heart of why so many of us struggle to resist tempting foods that we know we shouldn’t eat. 棉花糖效应的机理分析 我们容易被甜食诱惑，是因为我们的祖先生活在热量匮乏的环境中，而我们的大脑已进化出一种对这类食物的反应机制——这种机制反映了这些食物的价值，即一种奖赏感与满足感。然而，随着我们重塑周遭环境，极大降低了获取热量所需的成本与精力，我们依然保留着数千年前与生俱来的大脑结构；这种不匹配，正是众多人在明知不应食用时仍难以抗拒诱人食物之根源所在。 A similar process is at work in our response to information. Our formative environment as a species was information-poor, so our brains developed a mechanism that prized new information. But global connectivity has greatly changed our information environment. We are now ceaselessly bombarded (轰炸) with new information. Therefore, just as we need to be more thoughtful about our caloric consumption, we also need to be more thoughtful about our information consumption, resisting the temptation of the mental “junk food” in order to manage our time most effectively.引申：我们对信息的反应也是如此 作为物种，我们早期的生存环境信息匮乏，因此我们的大脑演化出了一套能够优先接纳新信息的机制。但全球互联性已极大地改变了我们的信息环境。我们如今正不断遭受新信息冲击。因此，正如我们需要更加审慎地控制热量摄入一样，我们也应当更加审慎地对待信息摄入，抵制精神层面的“垃圾食品”诱惑，从而更高效地管理自己的时间。 32．What did the children need to do to get a second treat in Mischel’s test? A．Take an examination alone. B．Show respect for the researchers. C．Share their treats with others. D．Delay eating for fifteen minutes. 33．According to paragraph 3, there is a mismatch between ___________. A．the calorie-poor world and our good appetites B．the shortage of sugar and our nutritional needs C．the rich food supply and our unchanged brains D．the tempting foods and our efforts to keep fit 34．What does the author suggest readers do? A．Absorb new information readily. B．Be selective information consumers. C．Use diverse information sources. D．Protect the information environment. 35．Which of the following is the best title for the text? A．Eat Less, Read More B．The Bitter Truth about Early Humans C．The Later, the Better D．The Marshmallow Test for Grownups 【答案】32．D 33．C 34．B 35．D 【解析】这是一篇说明文。在信息化时代我们作为成年人每天都在面对棉花糖测试，信息轰炸让我们摄入了太多精神“垃圾食品”，文章对此进行了介绍。 32．细节理解题。根据第一段第四句“Each child was told if they waited for 15 minutes before eating the treat, they would be given a second treat.(每个孩子都被告知，如果他们在吃之前等待15分钟，他们将得到第二次奖励。)”可知，在米歇尔的测试中，孩子们需要在吃之前等待15分钟才能得到第二次奖励。故选D。 33．细节理解题。根据第三段最后一句“But as we’ve reshaped the world around us, dramatically reducing the cost and effort involved in obtaining calories, we still have the same brains we had thousands of years ago, and this mismatch is at the heart of why so many of us struggle to resist tempting foods that we know we shouldn’t eat.(但是，当我们重塑了我们周围的世界，大大减少了获取卡路里的成本和努力时，我们的大脑仍然和几千年前一样，这种不匹配是我们这么多人努力抵抗我们知道不应该吃的诱人食物的核心原因。)”可知，根据第三段可知，丰富的食物供应和我们不曾改变的大脑之间存在不匹配。故选C。 34．细节理解题。根据最后一段最后一句“Therefore, just as we need to be more thoughtful about our caloric consumption, we also need to be more thoughtful about our information consumption, resisting the temptation of the mental “junk food” in order to manage our time most effectively.(因此，就像我们需要更仔细地考虑我们的热量消耗一样，我们也需要更仔细地考虑我们的信息消耗，抵制精神“垃圾食品”的诱惑，以便最有效地管理我们的时间。)”可知，作者建议读者做有选择性的信息消费者。故选B。 35．主旨大意题。根据第二段“As adults we face a version of the marshmallow test every day. We’ re not tempted (诱惑) by sugary treats, but by our computers, phones, and tablets — all the devices that connect us to the global delivery system for various types of information that do to us what marshmallows do to preschoolers.(作为成年人，我们每天都要面对棉花糖测试。诱惑我们的不是甜食，而是我们的电脑、手机和平板电脑——所有这些将我们与全球信息传递系统连接起来的设备，它们对我们的作用就像棉花糖对学龄前儿童的作用一样。)”可知，文章主要是讲在信息化时代我们作为成年人每天都在面对棉花糖测试，信息轰炸让我们摄入了太多精神“垃圾食品”。故选D。 经典2：（2023·新高考I卷）--群体智慧效应 （2023·新高考I卷）D On March 7, 1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate. This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down. But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals. In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together.” Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous. 12. What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly about? A. The methods of estimation. B. The underlying logic of the effect. C. The causes of people’s errors. D. The design of Galton’s experiment. 13. Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if ________. A. the crowds were relatively small B. there were occasional underestimates C. individuals did not communicate D. estimates were not fully independent 14. What did the follow-up study focus on? A. The size of the groups. B. The dominant members. C. The discussion process. D. The individual estimates. 15. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies? A. Unclear. B. Dismissive. C. Doubtful. D. Approving. 【答案】12. B 13. D 14. C 15. D 【解析】本文是说明文。没有人是一座孤岛，文章陈述了“群体智慧”效应。实验表明，在某些情况下大量独立估计的平均值可能是相当准确的。 12. B主旨大意题。根据第二段内容“This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and come to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.(这种效应利用了这样一个事实，即当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人常常会高估，或者低估。当这些误差中有足够多的误差被平均在一起时，它们会相互抵消，从而产生更准确的估计。如果相似的人倾向于犯同样的错误，那么他们的错误不会相互抵消。从更专业的角度来说，群众的智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。如果由于任何原因，人们的错误变得相关或依赖，估计的准确性就会下降。)”可知，本段阐述了人们所犯的错误不总是相同的，各不相同的误差平均在一起，相互抵消就会产生更准确的估计，讨论了独立估计的平均如何由于误差的消除而导致更准确的预测。因此本段主要解释了“群体智慧”效应这一现象的基本逻辑。故选B。 13. D细节理解题。根据第二段的“In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent.(从更专业的角度来说，群众的智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。)”和第三段的“The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.(这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步划分为允许进行讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比同等数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，从四个五人讨论组的估计中获得的平均值明显比从20个独立个体获得的平均值更准确。)”可知，人们在没有独立的情况下，分成更小群体，平均值是更准确的，说明即使在估计数字并非完全独立的情况下，准确率提高也是可以做到的。故选D。 14. C推理判断题。根据第四段的“In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? ( 在一项针对100名大学生的后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中的实际行为。他们是否倾向于选择那些对自己的估计最有信心的人？他们追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人吗？)”可知，在后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中实际做了什么。结合两个问题，因此可知后续研究的重点是小组内的讨论过程。故选C。 15. D推理判断题。根据最后一段内容“Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.(尽管Navajas领导的研究有局限性，仍存在许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。)”可知，作者认为虽然Navajas领导的研究有局限性也存在许多问题，但对小组讨论和决策的潜在影响巨大。因此推断作者对于Navajas的研究表示一定的赞许和支持。故选D。 2.为什么高考中社会、心理理论类是重要的命题情境 社会、心理类理论要求我们要加强英语思维的能力，考生无法直接从文章找到答案，需要从基本的文本出发，根据理论概念的介绍、实验的产生过程以及在实践的应用，来获取文章的大意、文章观点之间的逻辑关系，进而对问题做出正确的选择。它极大地考查了考生分析问题、解决问题的能力。因此，这类文章是高考命题的重要素材，是选拔优生的巅峰之作。 进阶·题型剖析 文体结构特点： 结构清晰逻辑强 理论或实验介绍—理论产生的过程或实验过程——结论讨论、意义运用 结论讨论、意义运用 理论产生的过程或实验过程 理论或实验介绍 备考建议 熟悉文体结构与常见考点 1.把握介绍或阐述的主体。 通过文章第一段迅速找出说明文介绍或阐述的事物。英语文章，尤其是说明文，最大的特点就是开门见山，作者会在文章开篇就把要介绍的事物或表达的观点铺平直叙出来。 2. 关注每一段的段首句。 关注每一段的段首句，确认段落的主旨大意。就像文章的开篇段落告诉读者文章的主旨大意一样，第一段落的第一句话通常也起到同样的作用。 3.关注每一段的段尾句。 前两项策略已经被大多数考生广泛应用在阅读中。但除了关注篇首段落和段首句子之外，也不能忽视段尾句。一个段落由三个部分组成：topic sentence（主旨句），supporting details （支撑细节），和concluding sentence（总结句）。在段落结尾，作者会用不同的表达方式重申主旨句，但从篇章整体来看，在每个段落结尾出现的句子还起到承上启下的作用，作者会借助这个句子引出下文。 拔高·模拟演练 1.（2027·浙江宁波市镇海中学开学考）城市热岛效应 Cities are 1-3℃ hotter than surrounding rural areas, a phenomenon called the urban heat island effect. This heat threatens human safety, causing heat exhaustion and even death during extremely hot spells. Urban trees act as natural air conditioners through ground shading and the release of water from leaves, yet their cooling power is distributed unevenly across the globe. Researchers analyzed temperature and tree cover data of nearly 9,000 global cities housing 3.6 billion residents, comparing real urban environments with an imagined situation without any trees. Unlike previous satellite studies measuring overheated building and road surfaces, this research centered on air temperature that directly reflects people’s real experience of heat. The outcome exceeded expectations: trees nearly halve urban heat island warming, cooling most cities by 0.5-1.5℃ and effectively relieving heat pressure for over 200 million people. Cooling effects differ greatly — dry hot cities show obvious temperature differences between leafy and bare lands, while mild temperate (温带的) cities enjoy gentler, more consistent cooling. However, a city’s trees are not spread evenly. They’re often concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods and suburban areas. Cities in cooler or more humid (湿润的) climates tend to have more. There’s a strong link with wealth. In the United States, lower-income areas average 15% fewer trees than wealthier areas — and are 1.5℃ hotter. This means vulnerable populations who need free cooling from trees the most are often the least likely to receive it. Though low-cost and beneficial to air quality and mental health, trees alone cannot fix urban overheating. Current urban trees only reduce 10% of predicted heat rise under moderate (适度的) climate conditions, and ambitious tree planting can merely raise this proportion to 20%. Therefore, cities must combine targeted tree planting in heat-baked neighborhoods with reflective building materials, green roofs and well-designed airflow plans. All local cooling strategies still depend on deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global climate change and secure comfortable living spaces for future urban residents. 1．How is the new research different from earlier studies? A．It covers more global cities. B．It focuses on building surfaces. C．It tracks actual air temperature. D．It models a treeless environment. 2．What can we learn about tree cooling effects from paragraph 2? A．They change with climate types. B．They match the predicted heat rise. C．They average a 1.5℃ drop globally. D．They work best in low-income cities. 3．What does the underlined word “vulnerable” in paragraph 3 probably mean? A．Permanent. B．Uneducated. C．Disadvantaged. D．Urbanized. 4．What does the writer suggest to deal with urban overheating effectively? A．Stopping greenhouse gas release. B．Focusing on low-cost roof projects. C．Adopting multiple measures together. D．Expanding living spaces for the youth. 【答案】1．C 2．A 3．C 4．C 【解析】本文围绕城市热岛效应这一现象展开，介绍了全球城市树木降温效果的相关最新研究，剖析了树木降温能力在不同区域分布不均的现实问题，最终指出仅靠树木无法彻底解决城市过热难题，需要结合多种适配的本地降温方案与温室气体减排行动，共同为城市居民打造宜居的生活空间。 1．细节理解题。根据第二段“Unlike previous satellite studies measuring overheated building and road surfaces, this research centered on air temperature that directly reflects people’s real experience of heat.(与此前针对过热建筑和路面的卫星研究不同，这项研究聚焦于直接反映人们真实受热体验的气温)”可知，这项新研究和早期研究的区别在于它追踪的是实际的空气温度，而非建筑和路面表面温度。 2．推理判断题。根据第二段“Cooling effects differ greatly — dry hot cities show obvious temperature differences between leafy and bare lands, while mild temperate (温带的) cities enjoy gentler, more consistent cooling.(降温效果差异巨大：干热城市的绿化区域与裸地之间温差明显，而温和的温带城市则能获得更温和、更稳定的降温效果)”可推知，树木的降温效果会随着气候类型的不同发生变化。 3．词句猜测题。根据第三段“In the United States, lower-income areas average 15% fewer trees than wealthier areas — and are 1.5℃ hotter. This means vulnerable populations who need free cooling from trees the most are often the least likely to receive it.(在美国，低收入区域的树木平均比富裕区域少15%，气温高出1.5℃。这意味着最需要树木提供的免费降温效果的vulnerable群体，往往最无法获得这类资源)”可知，这里vulnerable populations与lower-income对应，描述的是处于不利处境、缺少资源保障的群体，对应“Disadvantaged(弱势的、处境不利的)”的含义。 4．推理判断题。根据第四段“Therefore, cities must combine targeted tree planting in heat-baked neighborhoods with reflective building materials, green roofs and well-designed airflow plans. All local cooling strategies still depend on deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global climate change and secure comfortable living spaces for future urban residents.(因此，城市必须将在高温社区针对性植树的举措，与反光建筑材料、绿色屋顶以及精心设计的通风方案相结合。所有本地降温策略仍然依赖于温室气体的深度减排，以减缓全球气候变化，并为未来的城市居民提供舒适的生活空间)”可知，作者认为城市必须把针对性种树和反光建材、绿色屋顶、通风规划等手段结合，同时还要减少温室气体排放，由此可推测，作者建议同时采用多种措施协同推进。 2.（2027·河南南阳市豫南名校联考）“知识的诅咒”一心理学效应 You ask your wife to pick a local restaurant and pick up some take-out one evening. Then, while logging in to a Zoom meeting, you also ask your mom to buy some wine on her way home. While they follow through on your requests, you are left astonished and annoyed: How is it that they could pick a restaurant that was involved in a health scandal (丑闻) last month? And why would they choose a type of wine you hate? The husband above has been caught by a psychological effect known as the curse (诅咒) of knowledge. It’s a simple but destructive effect: once we know something, it’s very difficult to imagine not knowing it, or to take the perspective of someone who doesn’t. The effect was first put forward by Elizabeth Newton, a Ph.D．candidate at Stanford, in 1990. Newton arranged an experiment in which one person, a tapper (敲击者), was asked to tap out the melody (旋律) of a popular song, while another person, the listener, was asked to identify it. The tappers assumed that their listeners would correctly identify about 50% of their melodies; they were amazed to learn that the listeners only got about one out of 40 songs correct. To the tappers, their melodies sounded perfectly clear and obvious, but the listeners heard no music and no instrumentation in their heads, who only heard noise of a finger tapping on a table. As I noted in a post about the Dunning-Kruger effect last year, people who aren’t well-informed are quite likely to feel confident in their opinions, because they don’t know enough to question their own unearned confidence. Similarly, we often make an unrecognized assumption: someone can read our minds or form opinions based on information we haven’t shared. This assumption often leads us to feel we’ve clearly expressed our wants and needs even when we haven’t. 1．Why is the husband shocked and angry? A．His requests were refused. B．He preferred sweet wines. C．His wife purchased unnecessary items. D．He disagreed with his family’s options. 2．What is a feature of the curse of knowledge? A．It overstates people’s innovation. B．It causes people to ignore advice. C．It blinds people to others’ ignorance. D．It stops people from sharing opinions. 3．What can be inferred from Elizabeth Newton’s experiment? A．Tappers succeeded in controlling the speed. B．Tappers failed to consider listeners’ actuality. C．Listeners with hearing loss had bad perception. D．Listeners fond of pop music hated instruments. 4．How can we remove the curse of knowledge? A．By detailing our thoughts. B．By figuring out our needs. C．By listening to diverse ideas. D．By showing the action steps. 【答案】1．D 2．C 3．B 4．A 【解析】本文介绍了“知识的诅咒”这一心理学效应。 1．细节理解题。根据第一段“While they follow through on your requests, you are left astonished and annoyed: How is it that they could pick a restaurant that was involved in a health scandal (丑闻) last month? And why would they choose a type of wine you hate?(尽管她们按照你的要求完成任务，你却感到惊讶和恼怒：她们怎么会选一家上个月卷入健康丑闻的餐厅？为什么她们会选一款你讨厌的葡萄酒？)”可知，丈夫生气是因为家人选择的餐厅和葡萄酒都不符合他的偏好，他不认可家人的选择。 2．细节理解题。根据第二段“It’s a simple but destructive effect: once we know something, it’s very difficult to imagine not knowing it, or to take the perspective of someone who doesn’t.(这是一种简单却极具破坏性的效应：一旦我们知道了某件事，就很难想象不知道这件事，也很难站在不知道这件事的人的角度思考)”可知，知识的诅咒会让人们无法感知他人的未知状态，也就是让人们对他人的无知视而不见。 3．推理判断题。根据第三段“The tappers assumed that their listeners would correctly identify about 50% of their melodies; they were amazed to learn that the listeners only got about one out of 40 songs correct. To the tappers, their melodies sounded perfectly clear and obvious, but the listeners heard no music and no instrumentation in their heads, who only heard noise of a finger tapping on a table.(敲击者认为听众能正确识别大约50%的旋律；当他们得知听众在40首歌里只能对大约1首时，他们非常惊讶。对敲击者来说，他们的旋律听起来非常清晰明了，但听众脑子里听不到音乐和乐器伴奏，只能听到手指敲击桌子的噪音)”可知，敲击者已经知道歌曲旋律，就默认听众也能像自己一样分辨出旋律，完全没有考虑到听众只听到手指敲击桌子的声音却根本不知道原旋律这一实际情况。 4．推理判断题。根据最后一段“Similarly, we often make an unrecognized assumption: someone can read our minds or form opinions based on information we haven’t shared. This assumption often leads us to feel we’ve clearly expressed our wants and needs even when we haven’t.(类似地，我们经常会做出一个未被认识的假设：别人能根据我们没有分享过的信息读懂我们的心思或形成观点。这种假设常常会让我们以为自己已经清楚表达了我们的愿望和需求，即便实际上我们并没有)”可知，知识的诅咒本质源于我们没有把自己知道的信息完整传递给他人，因此消除知识诅咒的方法就是详细完整地表达出我们的想法。 3.Zeigarnik效应 Your own experience of revising for exams might tell you that sessions of uninterrupted concentration can help you to better remember key pieces of information. Indeed, many students will engage in intensive revision just before a test — in the belief that essential subject facts and figures will be memorized ready for exam day. However, this commonly held wisdom has been contradicted by an observation made in a psychological study. Now known as the Zeigarnik effect, it was found that interruption during a task that requires focus can in fact improve a person’s ability to remember it afterwards. The psychologist Bluma Zeigarmik observed the effect of interruption on memory processing in 1927. In the experiment, she asked each participant to complete a series of separate tasks, such as solving a puzzle or assembling a flat-pack box. During around half of the assignments, participants were subtly interrupted by the experiment supervisor, while during the remaining tasks, they were allowed time to complete them uninterrupted. Following the experiment, Zeigarnik interviewed each participant, asking them to recall details of each task that they had attempted. Zeigarnik’s initial findings revealed that participants were able to recall details of interrupted tasks around 90% better than those who had been able to complete undisturbed. These results suggest that a desire to complete a task can cause it to be retained in a person’s memory until it has been completed, and that the finality of its completion enables the process of forgetting it to take place. One way of employing the Zeigarnik effect when attempting to memorize a detailed piece of information, such as a long phone number, or when revising a subject, might be to avoid trying to remember it in its entirety in one sitting. Take a look at the information, familiarize yourself with it, then “interrupt yourself” — look away from where it is written for a few moments and think of something else, before returning a few more times to remember chunks of the number. Finally, piece these chunks together and attempt to recall the number in its entirety. 1．What does the underlined phrase “this commonly held wisdom” in paragraph 2 refer to? A．Remembering essential subject facts guarantees success in exams. B．Interruption on memory processing generates unexpected results. C．Uninterrupted concentration contributes to effective revision. D．Revision with full concentration boosts long-term memory. 2．How did Zeigarnik measure the effect of interruption on participants’ memory? A．By conducting brain scans. B．By rating participants’ memory. C．By enquiring about task details. D．By observing physical reactions. 3．Which strategy should be used to avoid forgetting when revising a subject? A．Repeated writing and recalling. B．Entire remembering in one sitting. C．Rapid memorization without breaks. D．Breaks in review and repeating in chunks. 4．What is the passage mainly about? A．The origin of the Zeigarnik Effect. B．The discovery of the Zeigarnik Effect. C．The evaluation of the Zeigarnik Effect. D．The application of the Zeigarnik Effect. 【答案】1．C 2．C 3．D 4．B 【解析】本文是一篇说明文。文章主要介绍了心理学家Bluma Zeigarnik在1927年观察到的中断对记忆处理的影响，并将其命名为Zeigarnik效应。文章详细解释了这一效应的发现过程、实验结果以及在实际记忆中的应用。 1．词句猜测题。根据文章第一段中“Your own experience of revising for exams might tell you that sessions of uninterrupted concentration can help you to better remember key pieces of information. (你自己复习考试的经验可能会告诉你，不间断的集中注意力可以帮助你更好地记住关键信息。)”以及第二段首句“However, this commonly held wisdom has been contradicted by an observation made in a psychological study.(然而，this commonly held wisdom却被一项心理学研究的观察结果所反驳)”中的“this commonly held wisdom”指的就是前文中提到的“不间断的专注有助于有效复习”的观点。因此，选项C“Uninterrupted concentration contributes to effective revision(不间断的专注有助于有效复习)”符合题意。故选C。 2．细节理解题。根据文章第三段中“Following the experiment, Zeigarnik interviewed each participant, asking them to recall details of each task that they had attempted.(实验结束后，Zeigarnik采访了每位参与者，要求他们回忆自己尝试过的每项任务的细节。)”可知，Zeigarnik通过询问参与者任务的细节来衡量中断对参与者记忆的影响。因此，选项C“By enquiring about task details(通过询问任务细节)”符合题意。故选C。 3．细节理解题。文章第五段提到“One way of employing the Zeigarnik effect when attempting to memorize a detailed piece of information, such as a long phone number, or when revising a subject, might be to avoid trying to remember it in its entirety in one sitting. Take a look at the information, familiarize yourself with it, then ‘interrupt yourself’ — look away from where it is written for a few moments and think of something else, before returning a few more times to remember chunks of the number. Finally, piece these chunks together and attempt to recall the number in its entirety.(在尝试记忆一个详细的信息（如一个长电话号码）或复习一个科目时，运用Zeigarnik效应的一种方法可能是避免一次性全部记住。看一下信息，熟悉一下，然后“打断自己”——把目光从所写的东西上移开一会儿，去想别的事情，然后再回来几次记住数字的几个部分。最后，把这些部分拼凑起来，试着完整地回忆这个数字)”可知，为了避免在复习一个科目时忘记，应该使用在复习中穿插休息，然后分块重复的策略。因此，选项D“Breaks in review and repeating in chunks(在复习中穿插休息并分块重复)”符合题意。故选D。 4．主旨大意题。根据第二段中“Now known as the Zeigarnik effect, it was found that interruption during a task that requires focus can in fact improve a person’s ability to remember it afterwards.( 现在被称为Zeigarnik效应的研究发现，在需要集中注意力的任务中被打断实际上可以提高一个人事后的记忆能力。)”以及通读全文可知，文章主要介绍了心理学家Bluma Zeigarnik在1927年观察到的中断对记忆处理的影响，并将其命名为Zeigarnik效应。文章详细解释了这一效应的发现过程、实验结果以及在实际记忆中的应用。因此，文章的主要内容是关于Zeigarnik效应的发现。选项B“The discovery of the Zeigarnik Effect(Zeigarnik效应的发现)”概括文章主旨。故选B。 4.本·富兰克林效应 Here’s a quick quiz. Person A does a favor for you. Person B asks you to do a favor for him. Who do you tend to like more? Surprisingly, the answer is Person B．This quirk (怪癖) of human nature is known as the Ben Franklin Effect. Benjamin Franklin came across the phenomenon in 1736 when serving as a clerk to the Pennsylvania Assembly. A powerful member didn’t care for Franklin and threatened to make life miserable for him. What to do? Instead of winning him over with sweet talk, Franklin asked if he could borrow a rare and valuable book the man owned. This request altered the man’s attitude and paved the way for their friendship. Franklin’s takeaway: “He that has once done you a kindness will be ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.” Several studies have confirmed this. But how can we explain the Ben Franklin Effect? Some psychologists refer to cognitive dissonance (失调). It’s difficult to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. It makes us uncomfortable. We resolve this tension by changing our mind. “I don’t like Joe, but I am doing him a favor,” we might think. “So maybe I do like him.” While cognitive dissonance explains a lot, it alone doesn’t explain the Ben Franklin Effect. One 2015 study found that it was, rather, the affiliative (亲和的) motive that the requests convey. That is, we humans want to maintain good relations with other humans, and one way to achieve this is by doing favors for others. This explains a lot about altruistic behavior. We like being useful and, by extension, we like those who give us the opportunity to do so. It’s in our genes. Yet there is much we still don’t know about the Ben Franklin Effect. Does it apply equally across cultures? Is there a point beyond which asking a favor makes you less, not more likable? Asking to borrow a book is one thing; asking to borrow a car is another. 1．Why does the author mention Benjamin Franklin’s experience? A．To illustrate a dilemma in making choices. B．To suggest a way of striking up friendships. C．To stress the importance of strategic requests. D．To introduce the origin of the Ben Franklin Effect. 2．What is a reason for people’s tendency to like those asking for favors? A．Reducing the tension caused by social contact. B．Increasing the chance of getting help in return. C．Avoiding the discomfort from conflicting thoughts. D．Establishing a cooperative community of shared trust. 3．What does the underlined word “altruistic” probably mean in paragraph 4? A．Selfless. B．Impolite. C．Aggressive. D．Responsible. 4．What does the author think of the Ben Franklin Effect? A．It makes little sense. B．It applies to most cultures. C．It has situational limitations. D．It has great practical significance. 【文章大意】本文是一篇说明文。文章介绍了本·富兰克林效应。 1．D推理判断题。根据文章第一段中的“Surprisingly, the answer is Person B. This quirk (怪癖) of human nature is known as the Ben Franklin Effect.(令人惊讶的是，答案是B型这种人性的怪癖被称为本·富兰克林效应。)”和第二段的“Benjamin Franklin came across the phenomenon in 1736 when serving as a clerk to the Pennsylvania Assembly. A powerful member didn’t care for Franklin and threatened to make life miserable for him. What to do? Instead of winning him over with sweet talk, Franklin asked if he could borrow a rare and valuable book the man owned. This request altered the man’s attitude and paved the way for their friendship. Franklin’s takeaway: “He that has once done you a kindness will be ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.”(本杰明·富兰克林(Benjamin Franklin)在1736年担任宾夕法尼亚州议会书记员时遇到了这种现象。一个有权有势的成员不喜欢富兰克林，并威胁要让他的生活很痛苦。该怎么办？富兰克林没有用甜言蜜语来说服他，而是问他是否可以借他拥有的一本珍贵的书。这个请求改变了男人的态度，为他们的友谊铺平了道路。富兰克林的结论是：“曾经善待过你的人，会比你所善待的人更愿意为你做另一件事。”)”可推断，作者提到本杰明·富兰克林的经历为了介绍“本杰明·富兰克林效应”的起源。故选D。 2．C细节理解题。根据文章第三段中的“Some psychologists refer to cognitive dissonance (失调). It’s difficult to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. It makes us uncomfortable.(一些心理学家称之为认知失调。同时持有两种相互矛盾的思想是很难的。这让我们感到不舒服。)” 可知，人们倾向于喜欢寻求帮助的人是因为认知失调，即避免持有矛盾的想法带来的不适。故选C。 3．A词句猜测题。根据划线词前文“One 2015 study found that it was, rather, the affiliative (亲和的) motive that the requests convey. That is, we humans want to maintain good relations with other humans, and one way to achieve this is by doing favors for others.(2015年的一项研究发现，更确切地说，这是请求所传达的亲和动机。也就是说，我们人类希望与他人保持良好的关系，而实现这一目标的一种方式就是帮助他人。)”以及下文“We like being useful and, by extension, we like those who give us the opportunity to do so. It’s in our genes.(我们喜欢成为有用的人，推而广之，我们喜欢那些给我们这样做机会的人。这是我们的基因。)”可推断，划线词所在句说明人类希望通过帮助他人来保持良好的关系，这解释了无私的行为，因此推断画线词与selfless“无私的”意思相近。故选A。 4．D推理判断题。根据文章最后一段中的“Yet there is much we still don’t know about the Ben Franklin Effect. Does it apply equally across cultures? Is there a point beyond which asking a favor makes you less, not more likable? Asking to borrow a book is one thing; asking to borrow a car is another.(然而，我们对本·富兰克林效应还有很多不了解的地方。它在不同文化中都适用吗？有没有一个点，超过了这个点，请求别人帮忙会让你更不讨人喜欢，而不是更讨人喜欢？借书是一回事；向别人借车是另一回事。)”可知，作者认为本·富兰克林效应有情境限制。故选C。 5.“IKEA效应” The IKEA effect, named after Swedish furniture giant, describes how people tend to value an object more if they make or assemble (组装) it themselves. More broadly, the IKEA effect tells how we tend to like things more if we’ve spent effort to create them. It goes without saying that we like to feel like we know what we’re doing; that we are capable of handling the tasks that are given to us and of dealing with barriers as they come up. In fact, our perceived self-efficacy — that is, our beliefs about our own abilities to perform well and take control of our lives—is an important component of our overall mental health. Research has provided good evidence that this self-efficacy can boost a role in the IKEA effect. In one experiment, researchers started out by giving participants four math problems to solve. One group got very easy problems (e.g. “How likely is it that a fair coin that is thrown once will come up heads?”), while the other received very difficult ones (e.g. “You have four coins. Three of the coins are normal, but one of them has heads on both sides. You pick a coin at random without looking. The coin you pick has heads on one side. What are the odds that if you turn the coin over, the other side will be tails?”). The goal of this part of the experiment was to control people’s sense of competence: the group that got the hard problems was likely to feel stressed out and incapable, while the easy problem group didn’t have their confidence shaken at all. After the math problems, participants were shown a picture of a bookcase from IKEA and asked whether they would prefer to buy it pre-assembled or to build it themselves. The results showed that people who had had their sense of competence challenged were more likely to say they’d prefer to assemble the bookcase on their own. In other words, feeling like we’re incapable of something increases our desire to prove ourselves and appear competent, leading us to overstate the value of things we have made. 1. What does the IKEA effect focus on? A. How to assemble furniture from IKEA. B. How Swedish furniture is made. C. How people like things they create. D. How to increase self-efficacy. 2. Why did the researchers give participants different math problems? A. To interpret their reactions. B. To affect their sense of confidence. C. To check their intelligence. D. To make the experiment funnier. 3. What does the text suggest about the IKEA effect? A. It only works for the assembly of furniture. B. It makes people undervalue everything they create. C. It has no influence on people’s purchasing decisions. D. It shows people’s psychological needs to feel competent. 4. How does the author support the topic of the text? A. By presenting an experiment. B. By giving some definitions. C. By listing different opinions. D. By sharing personal experiences. 【文章大意】本文是一篇说明文。文章主要讲述了“IKEA效应”，即人们倾向于更加重视自己制作或组装的东西，以及这种倾向背后的心理学原理。 1. C细节理解题。根据文章第一段中的“The IKEA effect, named after Swedish furniture giant, describes how people tend to value an object more if they make or assemble (组装) it themselves.(宜家效应以瑞典家具巨头宜家命名，它描述了人们如何倾向于更重视自己制作或组装的物品。)”可知，宜家效应关注的是人们如何对自己创造的东西的喜爱。故选C。 2. B推理判断题。根据文章第三段中的“The goal of this part of the experiment was to control people’s sense of competence(这部分实验的目的是控制人们的能力感)”可知，给参与者不同的数学问题是为了影响他们的自信心。故选B。 3. D推理判断题。根据文章第三段中的“Research has provided good evidence that this self-efficacy can boost a role in the IKEA effect.(研究提供了充分的证据表明，这种自我效能感可以促进宜家效应。)”及第四段“In other words, feeling like we’re incapable of something increases our desire to prove ourselves and appear competent, leading us to overstate the value of things we have made.(换句话说，感觉自己无能为力会增加我们证明自己和表现出能力的欲望，导致我们夸大自己所做的事情的价值。)”可推断，宜家效应表明人有一种感觉自己有能力的心理需求。故选D。 4. A推理判断题。根据文章第三段中的“In one experiment, researchers started out by giving participants four math problems to solve. One group got very easy problems (e.g. “How likely is it that a fair coin that is thrown once will come up heads?”), while the other received very difficult ones (e.g. “You have four coins. Three of the coins are normal, but one of them has heads on both sides. You pick a coin at random without looking. The coin you pick has heads on one side. What are the odds that if you turn the coin over, the other side will be tails?”).(在一项实验中，研究人员首先让参与者解决四个数学问题。一组的问题非常简单（例如，“投掷一次公平硬币，正面朝上的可能性有多大？”），而另一组的问题则非常困难（例如，“你有四枚硬币。其中三枚硬币是正常的，但其中一枚两面都是正面。你在不看的情况下随机取出一枚硬币。你捡到的硬币一面是正面。如果你把硬币翻转过来，反面是反面的概率是多少？”）。)”可知，作者通过展示一个实验来支持文章的主题，故选A。 6.马太效应 Yes, having a big name in science will help get your paper published, a new study confirms. Involving hundreds of researchers reviewing an economics paper, the study found that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance when the paper was associated with a famous author compared to a lesser-known one. The Matthew effect, a term coined in 1968 to describe this prejudice, has been a topic of concern among scientists for years. However, previous efforts to document this prejudice had limitations such as small sample sizes or lack of randomization. To address these issues, a team from the University of Innsbruck conducted an extensive study. The team sent emails to about 3,300 researchers, inviting them to review an economics paper for a real journal. The paper had two authors: Vernon Smith, a Nobel Prize winner, and Sabiou Inoua, one of Smith’s former Ph. D．students. The potential reviewers received one of three descriptions of the paper: one mentioning only Smith, another mentioning only Inoua, and a third with no author mentioned. Of the researchers who agreed to review the paper, Smith’s fame influenced their responses. When given only Smith’s name, 38.5% accepted the invitation to review, while the figures were 30.7% for those given no name and 28.5% for those given only Inoua’s name. To further avoid prejudice, the team randomly assigned the 313 reviewers who initially received no author’s name to review one of three papers: one credited to Smith alone, another to Inoua alone,and a third with no authors listed. Reviewers rated the paper credited to Smith the highest, praising its inclusion of new information and data-supported conclusions. The version with no authors received recommendations for acceptance from 24% of reviewers, more than double the percentage for the version credited only to Inoua. The team warned against evaluating identical work differently based on the author’s identity and suggested that double-blind reviews may reduce the prejudice. However, this approach may not be effective as reviewers can often identify authors through preprints or conference presentations. 1．What does the term “the Matthew effect” refer to according to this passage? A．A topic of public concern. B．A preference in publication. C．A document describing coins. D．A way to get papers accepted. 2．Why did the team from the University of Innsbruck carry out the extensive study? A．To review an economics paper. B．To find fault with prior studies. C．To further investigate an effect. D．To study how to release papers. 3．What are presented in paragraphs 3 and 4? A．Data reception and release. B．Paper description and scores. C．Research methods and findings. D．Authors’ identities and responses. 4．What does the team suggest to reduce the prejudice? A．Revising the review method. B．Reading the online preprint. C．Assessing different works. D．Adding new information. 【答案】1．B 2．C 3．C 4．A 【解析】本文是一篇科普说明文。文章主要介绍了科学界中马太效应的一个实证研究，该效应描述了在科学研究中对著名作者存在的偏见，以及这种偏见对论文发表机会的影响并提出了减少这种偏见的可能方法。 1．推理判断题。根据文章第二段“The Matthew effect, a term coined in 1968 to describe this prejudice, has been a topic of concern among scientists for years. However, previous efforts to document this prejudice had limitations such as small sample sizes or lack of randomization. To address these issues, a team from the University of Innsbruck conducted an extensive study. (马太效应是1968年创造的一个术语，用来描述这种偏见，多年来一直是科学家们关注的话题。然而，先前记录这种偏见的努力存在局限性，例如样本量小或缺乏随机化。为了解决这些问题，来自因斯布鲁克大学的一个团队进行了一项广泛的研究。)”可知，“马太效应”被描述为“对著名作者的偏见”和“基于作者身份对相同作品的不同评价”。它用来描述审稿人在接受与著名作者相关的论文时，相比于鲜为人知的作者，所表现出的偏见。这清楚地表明，它指的是出版过程中的偏好或偏见。故选B。 2．推理判断题。根据文章第二段“The Matthew effect, a term coined in 1968 to describe this prejudice, has been a topic of concern among scientists for years. However, previous efforts to document this prejudice had limitations such as small sample sizes or lack of randomization. To address these issues, a team from the University of Innsbruck conducted an extensive study. (马太效应是1968年创造的一个术语，用来描述这种偏见，多年来一直是科学家们关注的话题。然而，先前记录这种偏见的努力存在局限性，例如样本量小或缺乏随机化。为了解决这些问题，来自因斯布鲁克大学的一个团队进行了一项广泛的研究。)”可知，该团队进行了一项广泛的研究是为了深入调查这一效应，而不是简单地回顾一篇经济学论文、找先前研究的错误或研究如何发布论文。故选C。 3．主旨大意题。根据文章第三段“The team sent emails to about 3,300 researchers, inviting them to review an economics paper for a real journal .(该团队向大约3300名研究人员发送了电子邮件，邀请他们为一份真正的期刊审阅一篇经济学论文。)”、第四段“To further avoid prejudice, the team randomly assigned the 313 reviewers who initially received no author’s name to review one of three papers: one credited to Smith alone, another to Inoua alone, and a third with no authors listed. (为了进一步避免偏见，研究小组随机分配了313名最初没有收到作者姓名的审稿人，让他们分别审查三篇论文中的一篇：一篇是Smith一个人的论文，另一篇是Inoua一个人的论文，还有一篇没有作者的论文。)”可知，在这两段中，首先介绍了研究团队使用的实验方法，即他们模拟了经济学领域论文的同行评审过程，并详细说明了实验的具体步骤。接着，在第4段中，他们呈现了研究的发现，即论文的作者身份确实对审稿人的评分有显著影响，这进一步验证了“马太效应”的存在。因此，这两段主要介绍了研究方法和发现。故选C。 4．细节理解题。根据文章最后一段“The team warned against evaluating identical work differently based on the author’s identity and suggested that double-blind reviews may reduce the prejudice. However, this approach may not be effective as reviewers can often identify authors through preprints or conference presentations. (该团队警告说，不要根据作者的身份对相同的作品进行不同的评估，并建议双盲评审可能会减少偏见。然而，这种方法可能并不有效，因为审稿人通常可以通过预印本或会议演讲来识别作者。)”可知，研究人员认为减少偏见的唯一方法是修改评审方法。因此，团队建议的是修订评审方法以减少偏见。故选A。 7.“霍克蛾效应” When Elinor Lobel was 16, a “smart” insulin (胰岛素) pump was attached to her body. Powered by AI, it tracks her glucose levels and administers the right dose of insulin at the right time to keep her healthy. It is one of the new ways that data and AI can help improve lives. Books that criticize the dark side of data are plentiful. They generally suggest there is much more to fear than fete in the algorithmic(算法的)age. But the intellectual tide may be turning. One of the most persuasive supporters of a more balanced view is Elinor Lobel’s mother, Orly, a law professor. In The Equality Machine she acknowledges AI’s capacity to produce harmful results. But she shows how, in the right hands, it can also be used to fight inequality and discrimination. A principle of privacy rules is “minimization”: collect and keep as little information as possible, especially in areas such as race and gender. Ms Lobel flips the script, showing how in hiring, pay and the legal system, knowing such characteristics leads to fairer outcomes. Ms Lobel’s call to use more, not less, personal information challenges data-privacy orthodoxy(正统观念). But she insists that “tracking differences is key to detecting unfairness.” She advocates g loosening of privacy rules to provide more transparency(透明)over algorithmic decisions. The problems with algorithmic formulae(公式) are tackled in depth in Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson of the School of Economics. These statistical models are the backbone of big data and AL. Yet a perfect model will always be beyond reach. “All models are wrong,” runs a wise saying. “Some are useful.” Ms Thompson focuses on a challenge she calls the Hawkmoth Effect. In the better known Butterfly Effect, a serviceable model, Vin the prediction of climate change, becomes less reliable over time because of the complexity of what it is simulating(模拟), or because of inaccuracies in the original data. In the Hawkmoth Effect, by contrast, the model itself is flawed; it might fail to take full account of the interplay between humidity, wind and temperature. The author calls on data geeks to improve their solutions to real-world issues, not merely refine their formulae—in other words, to escape from model land. “We do not need to have the best possible answer,” she writes, “only a reasonable one.” Both these books exhibit a healthy realism about data, algorithms and their limitations. Both recognize that making progress involves accepting limitations, whether in law or coding. As Ms Lobel puts it: “It’s always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” 1．Ms Lobel intends to convey that A．minimisation is a good privacy rule to go by B．algorithms are currently challenged by data privacy C．employing more personal data should be encouraged D．identifying algorithms’ problems leads to better outcomes 2．What can we learn about “Hawkmoth Effect”? A．It develops from Butterfly Effect. B．It emphasizes accuracy of original data. C．It enjoys popularity in climate research field. D．It is mentioned to show the model can be faulty. 3．Which of the following does the writer probably agree? A．Using algorithms to detect differences is hard. B．The application of data and algorithms is limited. C．The reliability of data should be attached importance to. D．Improving algorithms involves accepting its imperfection. 4．Which would be the best title for this passage? A．The Algorithm’s Prospect B．The Algorithm’s Mercy C．The Algorithm’s Complexity D．The Algorithm’s Recognition 【答案】1．C 2．D 3．D 4．B 【解析】本文是一篇说明文。文章主要介绍了在这个数据时代，人们总是对算法存有恐惧，但是科学家们却持有不同的观点。 1．推理判断题。根据文章第五段“Ms Lobel’s call to use more, not less, personal information challenges data-privacy orthodoxy(正统观念). But she insists that “tracking differences is key to detecting unfairness.” She advocates g loosening of privacy rules to provide more transparency(透明)over algorithmic decisions.( Lobel女士呼吁更多而不是更少地使用个人信息，这挑战了数据隐私的正统观念。但她坚持认为，“追踪差异是发现不公平的关键。”她主张放松隐私规则，为算法决策提供更多的透明度。)”可知，她想表达的是鼓励更多地使用个人信息。故选C。 2．细节理解题。根据文章第七段“Ms Thompson focuses on a challenge she calls the Hawkmoth Effect. In the better known Butterfly Effect, a serviceable model, Vin the prediction of climate change, becomes less reliable over time because of the complexity of what it is simulating(模拟), or because of inaccuracies in the original data. In the Hawkmoth Effect, by contrast, the model itself is flawed; it might fail to take full account of the interplay between humidity, wind and temperature.(汤普森女士专注于一个她称之为“霍克蛾效应”的挑战。在更广为人知的蝴蝶效应中，一个可用的气候变化预测模型随着时间的推移变得不那么可靠，因为它所模拟的内容很复杂，或者因为原始数据不准确。相比之下，在“霍克蛾效应”中，模型本身就有缺陷；它可能没有充分考虑到湿度、风和温度之间的相互作用。)”可知，文中提到“霍克蛾效应”是为了表明模型本身是有缺陷的。故选D。 3．细节理解题。根据文章最后一段“Both these books exhibit a healthy realism about data, algorithms and their limitations. Both recognize that making progress involves accepting limitations, whether in law or coding.(这两本书都展示了关于数据、算法及其局限性的健康现实主义。双方都认识到，取得进步需要接受限制，无论是在法律上还是在编码上。)”可知，两人都赞同想要改进算法就得接受其不完美的方面。故选D。 4．主旨大意题。根据文章第二段“Books that criticize the dark side of data are plentiful. They generally suggest there is much more to fear than fete in the algorithmic(算法的)age. (批评数据阴暗面的书籍比比皆是。他们普遍认为，在算法时代，恐惧远比狂欢更可怕。)”可知，人们对于算法还是带有恐惧心理；而根据第三段“But the intellectual tide may be turning. One of the most persuasive supporters of a more balanced view is Elinor Lobel’s mother, Orly, a law professor. In The Equality Machine she acknowledges AI’s capacity to produce harmful results. But she shows how, in the right hands, it can also be used to fight inequality and discrimination.(但思想潮流可能正在转变。更平衡的观点最有说服力的支持者之一是埃莉诺·洛贝尔的母亲Orly，她是一名法学教授。在《平等机器》一书中，她承认人工智能有能力产生有害的结果。但她展示了它在正确的人手中如何用来对抗不平等和歧视。)”可知，文章主要介绍的是算法给人类带来的好的一面。所以“The Algorithm’s Mercy(算法的仁慈)”作为文章标题最为合适。故选B。 8.反弹效应 Most people in the Netherlands are convinced that their consumption patterns affect the environment. Many of them are looking for ways to reduce their footprint. However, the reality is more complicated, according to a research by Leiden PhD candidate Levon Amatuni, who studied car sharing and the reuse of phones. He used his background in computer science and mathematics to model and measure the benefits of such practices. His research shows users of car-sharing platforms reduce their impact by only 3 to 18 percent — much less than 51 or 37 percent claimed in previous research. This is caused by so-called “rebound effects”, which are rarely accounted for by companies or even researchers. For example, shared vehicles are replaced with new models more frequently than private cars. Additionally, the introduction of sharing schemes (方案) can encourage people to drive when they would have otherwise taken public transport. These rebound effects turn out to be highly influential. Amatuni also found users of sharing platforms don’t significantly reduce their driving. “And if they do, they often take buses and trains, which aren’t emission-free,” he says. While public transport is usually a better option, its impact is not negligible. So, this data must be included to make an accurate assessment. Similarly, Amatuni discovered that a second-hand phone only offsets (抵消) about one-third of a new phone’s production. Rebound effects are the cause. If people couldn’t sell their old devices, they would use them for longer. In other words, reuse both extends the lifetime of a device — by giving it a new owner — but also shortens it, as people tend to sell their newly bought devices sooner. Amatuni doesn’t want people to conclude taking small steps towards sustainability is pointless. “Our intentions are still what’s most important,” he says, “but meanwhile, people need to realise there’re no easy fixes.” He recommends prioritising overall consumption reduction rather than continuing current habits while trying to make them more efficient. 1．What is the focus of Amatuni’s research? A．The ways of reducing people’s footprint. B．The benefits of car sharing and phone reuse. C．The damage of public transport to the environment. D．The knowledge of computer science and mathematics. 2．What does the underlined word “negligible” in paragraph 3 mean? A．Small. B．Permanent. C．Direct. D．Immediate. 3．Which of the following represents a phone rebound effect? A．Buying new phones often. B．Keeping old phones in use. C．Taking care of new phones. D．Selling used phones cheaply. 4．What is Amatuni’s suggestion on promoting sustainability? A．Stop eco-friendly habits. B．Increase production efficiency. C．Reduce total resource use. D．Seek easy solutions to eco-crisis. 【答案】1．B 2．A 3．A 4．C 【解析】本文是一篇说明文。主要讲述的是莱顿大学博士生Levon Amatuni对汽车共享和手机再利用的研究，揭示了这些环保行为的实际效益远低于预期，并探讨了背后复杂的“反弹效应”及其对环境影响的真实情况。 1．细节理解题。根据第二段“His research shows users of car-sharing platforms reduce their impact by only 3 to 18 percent—much less than 51 or 37 percent claimed in previous research. This is caused by so-called “rebound effects”, which are rarely accounted for by companies or even researchers.(他的研究表明，汽车共享平台的用户只减少了3%到18%的影响，远低于之前研究中声称的51%或37%。这是由所谓的“反弹效应”造成的，企业甚至研究人员都很少考虑到这一点。)”可知，Amatuni的研究重点是汽车共享和手机重复使用的好处。故选B。 2．词句猜测题。根据第三段“they often take buses and trains, which aren’t emission-free(他们经常乘坐公共汽车和火车，这些都不是零排放的)”和“this data must be included to make an accurate assessment(为了做出准确的评估，必须包括这些数据)”可知，公共交通的影响并不是微不足道的，negligible的意思是“微不足道的”，和small意思相近。故选A。 3．细节理解题。根据第四段“Similarly, Amatuni discovered that a second-hand phone only offsets (抵消) about one-third of a new phone’s production. Rebound effects are the cause. If people couldn’t sell their old devices, they would use them for longer.(同样，Amatuni发现，二手手机只抵消了新手机产量的三分之一左右。反弹效应是原因。如果人们不能卖掉他们的旧设备，他们就会使用更长时间。)”可知，经常买新手机代表了手机的反弹效应。故选A。 4．细节理解题。根据最后一段“He recommends prioritising overall consumption reduction rather than continuing current habits while trying to make them more efficient.(他建议优先考虑整体减少消费，而不是继续目前的习惯，同时试图提高效率。)”可知，Amatuni对促进可持续发展的建议是减少总资源使用。故选C。 4 / 6 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 学科网（北京）股份有限公司 $