英语高考阅读关于人与科学

Ⅰ 2020年高考英语北京卷 - 阅读理解D

Certain forms of AI are indeed becoming ubiquitous. For example, algorithms 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.
某些形式的AI （人工智能）确实正变得无处不在。例如，金融市场上进行大量交易的算法，出现在城市街道上的自动驾驶汽车，智能手机将一种语言翻译成另一种语言。这些系统有时比我们人类更快、更敏锐。但到目前为止，这些只适用于系统所设计的特定任务，一些AI开发者正在期待改变。

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 (A GI). In some respects, today's powerful computing machines already make our brains look weak. A GI 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 A GI, 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.”
当代一些AI先驱希望从今天的“弱”或“窄”的AI世界中走出来，创造“强”或“全”的AI，也就是通常所说的A GI（人工通用智能）。在某些方面，今天强大的计算机已经让我们的大脑看起来很弱。A GI的支持者认为A GI可以24小时为我们工作，利用所有可用的数据，可以为许多问题提供解决方案。DM是一家专注于A GI开发的公司，有着“解决智能问题”的雄心。“如果我们成功了，”他们的任务声明写道，“我们相信这将是有史以来最重要、最广泛有益的科学进步之一。”

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 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."
自AI诞生之初，想象力的发展速度已经超过了你的想象。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……它将远远超过人类的所有智能活动，无论多么聪明。”古德接着表示，“第一台超智能机器”可能是“人类需要创造的最后一项发明”。

Fears about the appearance of bad, powerful, man-made intelligent machines have been reinforced 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. Instead, I agree with Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, who believes that the heaviest risks from A GI 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.
人们对于出现强大而又邪恶的人造智能机器的担忧已经加剧，例如，玛丽·雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦》科幻小说和《终结者》系列电影。但如果最终证明AI 是我们的垮台，它就不太可能掌握在这样的人形形态手中，而这些形态具有明显的人类动机，比如敌对行为。相反，我同意牛津大学哲学家尼克·博斯特罗姆的观点，他认为，A GI带来的最大风险不是来自于反对人类的决定，而是来自于不惜牺牲一切代价执着地追求既定目标。

The promise and danger of true A GI 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 A GI any time soon, if ever.
真正的A GI的前景和危险都是巨大的，但是今天所有关于这些可能性的激动人心的讨论都是以我们能够建立这些系统为前提。而且，在与许多世界上最重要的AI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A GI，如果有的话。

Ⅱ 2020年高考英语全国卷2 - 阅读理解C

When you were trying to figure out what to buy for the environmentalist on your holiday list, fur probably didn’t cross your mind. But some ecologists and fashion enthusiast are trying to bring back the market for fur made from nutria.
当你想给环保人士的假日购物清单增加些什么时，你可能不会想到皮毛。但是一些生态学家和时尚发烧友们正试图恢复海狸鼠皮毛的市场。

Unusual fashion shows in New Orleans and Brooklyn have showcased nutria fur made into clothes in different styles. “It sounds crazy to talk about guilt-free fur – unless you understand that the nutria are destroying vast wetlands every year,” says Cree McCree, project director of Righteous Fur.
新奥尔良和布鲁克林的不同寻常时装秀展示了海狸鼠皮毛制成的不同风格的服装。“谈论没有罪恶感的皮毛听起来很疯狂——除非你知道海狸鼠每年都在破坏大片湿地，”Righteous Fur（正义皮毛）项目总监克里·麦克里说。

Scientists in Louisiana were so concerned that they decided to pay hunters $5 a tail. Some of the fur ends up in the fashion shows like the one in Brooklyn last month.
路易斯安那州的科学家非常担心，他们决定付给猎人每尾5美元。一些皮毛最终出现在时装秀上，比如上个月布鲁克林的时装秀。

Nutria were brought there from Argentina by fur farmers and let go into the wild. “The ecosystem down there can’t handle this non-native species. It’s destroying the environment. It’s them or us,” says Michael Massimi, an expert in this field.
海狸鼠是皮毛农场主从阿根廷带到这里并放生的。“那里的生态系统无法应对这种非本土物种，它正在破坏环境”，这一领域的专家迈克尔·马西米说。

The fur trade kept nutria in check for decades, but when the market for nutria collapsed in the late 1980s, the cat-sized animals multiplied like crazy.
几十年来，皮毛贸易一直控制着海狸鼠数量，但是20世纪80年代末海狸鼠市场崩溃后，这些猫一样大小的动物疯狂繁殖。

Biologist Edmond Mouton runs the nutria control program for Louisiana. He says it’s not easy to convince people that people that nutria fur is green, but he has no doubt about it. Hunters bring in more than 300,000 nutria tails a year, so part of Mouton’s job these days is trying to promote fur.
生物学家埃德蒙·莫顿负责路易斯安那州的海狸鼠控制。他说要让人们相信海狸鼠皮是绿色的并不容易，但他对此毫无疑问。猎人们每年带来超过30万条海狸鼠尾巴，所以莫顿现在的部分工作就是推广皮毛。

Then there’s Righteous Fur and its unusual fashions. Model Paige Morgan says,“To give people a guilt-free option that they can wear without someone throwing paint on them – I think that’s going to be a massive thing, at least here in New York.” Designer Jennifer Anderson admits it took her a while to come around to the opinion that using nutria fur for her creations is morally acceptable. She’s trying to come up with a label to attach to nutria fashions to show it is eco-friendly.
还有Righteous Fur和它不同寻常的时尚。模特佩奇·摩根说，“给人们一个没有罪恶感的选择，让他们可以穿着，而不用被人往身上泼油漆——我认为这将是一件大事，至少在纽约是这样。”设计师詹妮弗·安德森承认，她花了一段时间才意识到，用海狸鼠皮制作作品在道德上是可以接受的。她正尝试给海狸鼠时尚贴上环保标签。

Ⅲ 2021高考英语全国乙卷阅读理解D篇优劣辨析

2021年普通高等学校招生全国统一考试D篇

原文链接：

https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-you-can-focus-in-a-coffee-shop-but-not-in-your-open-office

2021全国乙卷D篇文本

During an interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still think about often. Annoyed by the level of distraction(干扰) in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street —so I can focus. "His comment struck me as strange. After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout (布局). But I recently came across a study that shows why his approach works.

The researchers examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking. They were randomly divided into four groups and exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50 decibels(分贝),70 decibels, and 85decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant; however,the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop-significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small, this may suggest that our creative thinking does not differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise.

But since the results at 70 decibels were significant, the study also suggests that the right level of background noise—not too loud and not total silence—may actually improve one’s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may interrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander, without making it impossible to focus. This kind of"distracted focus"appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.

So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The problem may be that, in our offices, we can't stop ourselves from getting drawn into others’ conversations while we’re trying to focus. Indeed, the researchers found that face-to-face interactions and conversations affect the creative process, and yet a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.

32. Why does the interviewer prefer a coworking space?

A. It helps him concentrate.

B. It blocks out background noise.

C. It has a pleasant atmosphere.

D. It encourages face-to-face interactions.

33. Which level of background noise may promote creative thinking ability?

A. Total silence.

B. 50 decibels.

C. 70 decibels.

D. 85 decibels.

34. What makes an open office unwelcome to many people?

A. Personal privacy unprotected.

B. Limited working space.

C. Restrictions on group discussion.

D. Constant interruptions.

35.What can we infer about the author from the text?

A. He's a news reporter. B. He’s on office manager.

C. He's a professional designer. D. He's a published writer.

答案：ACDD

解读：

文章大意：办公环境“噪音”对环境当中的“人的大脑”的影响。“带入式”噪音和“非带入式噪音”是有差别的。文本词数：394。

本文本因为对原文进行了大量的删减。所以可以看出删除部分包含以文章main idea为核心的相关research, 也就是缺少了连贯的科学研究过程的阐述，且以作者第一人称来叙述，研究并非作者亲自参与，所以文章style属于叙事体，高考当中的文本体裁趋近界定为nonfiction范畴的类科普说明文（事实上是缺少科普文所应该具备的要素的）。

文章当中有一个关键信息词汇coworking space。

拓展信息：

联合办公（共享办公）是一种为降低办公室租赁成本的办公模式，来自不同公司的个人在联合办公空间中共同工作，在特别设计和安排的办公空间中共享办公环境，彼此独立完成各自项目。同样的，其应该具有以下四个要素：轻服务——免费提供公共办公空间、网络、茶水、打印、安保服务等够灵活——即租即用，租期灵活，领包入住分割式——一个办公场地被划分为许多小块，按照自身需求寻找相应共享式——来自不同公司的个人共享一个办公环境，更加强调空间与人之间的连接。国内的联合办公行业，各品牌已经开始有自己较为明晰对的定位和细分客群， 优客工场和氪空间拥有现如今国内最大的空间数量以及经营面积，主张便捷高效的办公理念，在引入多元化投资机构的同时，已逐步完成了自身生态圈体系的搭建。

2.1第一段当中During an interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still think about often. Annoyed by the level of distraction(干扰) in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street —so I can focus. "His comment struck me as strange. After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout (布局). But I recently came across a study that shows why his approach works.

本段命题人对原文有一定的改编，首句起到一个引入主题的作用，但对文章整体核心信息并没有密切的关联性，所以篇章首句并非都是文本信息具有main idea 有提示作用的关键句（如很多文本解读所述）。整体看，第一段内容属于中式思维改编，具有一定的跳跃性，但整体信息可以理解。第一段最后两句的转折从信息摄入角度看，因信息不足显得牵强。此处，命题人命制了第一题：

32. Why does the interviewer prefer a coworking space?

A. It helps him concentrate.

B. It blocks out background noise.

C. It has a pleasant atmosphere.

D. It encourages face-to-face interactions.

其实本题的信息提示点遍布全文。只要读懂全文，回答这个问题就比较容易。但是仅仅从第一段信息来看，试题的答案的文本信息支持是不足的。而本文当中如本题题干提示题境的the interviewer的选择仅仅在第一段中提到，因此判断其相关性很牵强。作为考试题答案选择A。第一段最后一句是一个过渡句，引起下文提到的研究。但是命题人改编删减后，下文提到的研究所表述的内容和原文的核心信息发生了偏离，同时“开放办公环境”和“联合/共享区域办公”的差异性没有体现出来。使得文章主体信息发生了偏离。但是不影响做题。

2.2文本第二段：The researchers examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking. They were randomly divided into four groups and exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50 decibels(分贝),70 decibels, and 85decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant; however,the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop-significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small, this may suggest that our creative thinking does not differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise.

但在70分贝噪音环境中（和咖啡厅里的噪音水平非常接近）的那一组在创造性思维测试中的表现是远超过其它组的表现的。此外，我们的创造性思维水平在完全安静的环境中和在85分贝的背景噪音环境中其实并没有多大差别。此处阐述研究发现人们工作环境的噪音分贝对人们创造性思维的影响。信息直观陈述。下一题：33. Which level of background noise may promote creative thinking ability?

Total silence. B. 50 decibels. C. 70 decibels. D. 85 decibels. 因为题干信息提示非常具体—— promote creative thinking ability，回读文章however,the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop-significantly outperformed the other groups.既可以选择答案为C。此处，从做题角度需要考生读懂几个关键数字（分贝）相关联的信息。上句是一个复杂巨，把破折号部分去掉，理解outperform基本就可以理解此处信息点，选择正确答案。

2.3 文本第三段和第四段

But since the results at 70 decibels were significant, the study also suggests that the right level of background noise—not too loud and not total silence—may actually improve one’s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may interrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander, without making it impossible to focus. This kind of"distracted focus"appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.

So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The problem may be that, in our offices, we can't stop ourselves from getting drawn into others’ conversations while we’re trying to focus. Indeed, the researchers found that face-to-face interactions and conversations affect the creative process, and yet a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.

这两段信息也是经过命题人以自己的思维模式删减改编的。整体上已经偏离了原文所要传递的科学规范的逻辑思路和信息。变成了命题人自己的thoughts。所以从文章精准信息传递上比较欠缺严谨性。第三段所表达的内容基本属于相关研究结果。属于对“开放式办公环境”噪音影响思维的一个研究作证，但并非是“开放式”办公环境思维能力受干扰的直接相关因素。直接因素是：熟悉环境下人们交谈等内容对听者所引发的代入感才是真正的“干扰”。此处命题：

34. What makes an open office unwelcome to many people?

A. Personal privacy unprotected.

B. Limited working space.

C. Restrictions on group discussion.

D. Constant interruptions.

题干提示下的四个备选答案ABC三个选项在文中基本没有出现相关信息。只有D可以被选为正确答案。此题的问题在于背离真实科学信息而设立的情境。那么这种阅读理解以及阅读理解考查就是虚假的理解测评。

35.What can we infer about the author from the text?

A. He's a news reporter. B. He’s on office manager.

C. He's a professional designer. D. He's a published writer.

最后一个题目设置的比较头重脚轻，需要回到文章首句。基本就可以选择答案了。这个题目从测试目标看效果不太理想。

总结：本文内容特色提及了关于“人脑对于噪音”的影响反应。属于科普知识。但是文章语境涉及的是办公环境，是学生所不熟悉的信息。与学生生活学习相关性不大。同时，此类研究并非学术界主流话题研究，非热点话题。文章经过删减改变后信息传递发生了本质变化，违背了传递真实信息的原则，也就是，读者摄取的可能是不真实的信息。这是本文文本所变现的问题。本篇高考阅读理解难度从考场答题角度来说属于中等或中等偏下。题目设置以及干扰项并非很完整。

A few years ago, ring a media interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still ponder often. Ranting about the level of distraction in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street — so I can focus.”

While I fully support the backlash against open offices, the comment struck me as odd. After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout.

But I recently came across a series of studies examining the effect of sound on the brain that reveals why his strategy works.

From previous research, we know that workers’ primary problem with open or cubicle-filled offices is the unwanted noise.

But new research shows that it may not be the sound itself that distracts us…it may be who is making it. In fact, some level of office banter in the background might actually benefit our ability to do creative tasks, provided we don’t get drawn into the conversation. Instead of total silence, the ideal work environment for creative work has a little bit of background noise. That’s why you might focus really well in a noisy coffee shop, but barely be able to concentrate in a noisy office.

One study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, found that the right level of ambient noise triggers our minds to think more creatively. The researchers, led by Ravi Mehta of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking.

Participants were randomized into four groups and everyone was asked to complete a Remote Associates Test (a commonly used measurement that judges creative thinking by asking test-takers to find the relationship between a series of words that, as first glance, appear unrelated). Depending on the group, participants were exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50 decibels, 70 decibels, and 85 decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant; however, the participants in the 70 decibels group (those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop) significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small, this may suggest that our creative thinking doesn’t differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise — the equivalent of a loud garbage disposal or a quiet motorcycle. Since none of us presumably want to work next to a garbage disposal or motorcycle, I found this surprising.

But since the results at 70 decibels were significant, the study also suggests that the right level of background noise — not too loud and not total silence — may actually boost one’s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may disrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander, without making it impossible to focus. This type of “distracted focus” appears to be the optimal state for working on creative tasks. As the authors write, “Getting into a relatively noisy environment may trigger the brain to think abstractly, and thus generate creative ideas.”

In another study, researchers used frontal lobe electroencephalographic (EEG) machines to study the brain waves of participants as they completed tests of creativity while exposed to various sound environments. The researchers found statistically significant changes in creativity scores and a connection between those scores and certain brain waves. As in the previous study, a certain level of white noise proved the ideal background sound for creative tasks.

So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The quiet chatter of colleagues and the gentle thrum of the HVAC should help us focus. The problem may be that, in our offices, we can’t stop ourselves from getting drawn into others’ conversations or from being interrupted while we’re trying to focus. Indeed, the EEG researchers found that face-to-face interactions, conversations, and other disruptions negatively affect the creative process. By contrast, a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of ambient noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.

Taken together, the lesson here is that the ideal space for focused work is not about freedom from noise, but about freedom from interruption. Finding a space you can hide away in, regardless of how noisy it is, may be the best strategy for making sure you get the important work done.

原文翻译：

相信很多人都有这样的感受：在很吵的咖啡厅能够非常专注地工作，但在开放式的办公室却很难做到专注。究竟为什么会出现这种现象呢？研究表明，适当水平的环境噪音能激发我们的思维进行更有创造性地思考。让我们在工作中分心的可能并不是噪音本身，而是是谁制造的这些声音。在开放式的办公室，我们通常无法阻止自己被其他人的谈话内容所吸引和带入，或是当我们想集中注意力时却经常被其他人打断和打扰。适合专注工作的理想工作环境并不是没有一点噪音的安静环境，而是一种不会受到他人打断和干扰的环境。

几年前，有一位媒体记者朋友针对我刚出版的一本新书对我做了一次专访，专访期间，这位媒体记者说的一段让我至今都经常思考的话。他说，他所在的开放式办公环境的噪音让他非常容易分心，对此他已经忍无可忍，于是他在公司办公楼街对面的一个联合办公空间办了一个会员，他在那里能更加专注地工作。

开放式的办公环境的各种噪音容易让人分心，对于这一点我非常认同，也深有体会。但是这位记者朋友说到的联合办公空间能够让他更加专注地工作，这一点却让我很难理解。毕竟联合办公空间通常采用的也是开放式的办公布局。

但是最近当我看了一系列研究声音对大脑的影响方面的文章后，我才开始理解为什么我的那位媒体朋友为了能专注地工作而选择在联合办公空间工作而不愿在自己的开放式办公室工作。

根据之前的研究，我们知道，开放式办公环境让大家最头疼的一个问题就是有各种大家不想听到的噪音。

但是最新的研究发现，让我们在工作中分心的可能并不是声音本身，而是是谁制造的这些声音。实际上，适度的办公室幽默和闲言笑语对我们完成一些创造性的工作是有帮助的，只要我们自己不被这种闲言笑语带进去就行。适合创造性工作的理想工作环境其实并不是那种一点噪音都没有的绝对安静的环境，而是有那种有适度水平的背景噪音的环境。这也是为什么你能够在一个有点吵的咖啡厅里专注工作，而在一个嘈杂的办公室里却很难集中精力工作。

《消费者研究周刊》发布的一份研究报告显示，适当水平的环境噪音能激发我们的思维进行更有创造性地思考。伊利诺伊大学香槟分校的Ravi Mehta教授带领一些研究人员做了这样一项研究：研究了不同水平的噪音是如何影响那些正在进行创造性思维测试的研究对象的。

研究对象被随机分为四组，每个人都被要求完成一项远距离联想测试（注：研究创造力问题的一种测验方法。通常，提供几个相隔较远的词组，猜测它们共同的关联词。如，“盐 、 深 、 沫”，它的关联词是“海”。创造性思考是将联想得来的元素重新整合的过程。新结合的元素相互之间联想的距离越远，这个思维的过程或问题的解决就更有创造力。有创造力的人的联想不同于一般人。有创造力的人他们有广泛的联想，一个元素可以与许多其他元素连接；而一般人的元素连接则比较少）。以组为单位，我们会为研究对象在测试过程中设置不同水平的噪音，从完全的静音到50分贝、70分贝和85分贝的噪音。大部分分组之间的差异其实并不是太大，但在70分贝噪音环境中（和咖啡厅里的噪音水平非常接近）的那一组在创造性思维测试中的表现是远超过其它组的表现的。此外，我们的创造性思维水平在完全安静的环境中和在85分贝的背景噪音环境中其实并没有多大差别。

因为在70分贝的噪音环境中的那一组的研究对象在创造性思维测试中的表现明显好于其它组，因此研究认为，恰当水平的背景噪音（噪音不是太大，也不太过安静）实际上是有助于提高一个人的创造性思维能力的。恰当水平的背景噪音可能会打乱我们正常的思维模式，使我们的想象力得以漫游，但又不至于会让我们无法集中注意力。这种“分心式的专注”能够让我们以最佳状态完成创造性任务。正如作者所写的的那样：“在一个相对嘈杂的环境中可能会刺激我们的大脑进行更加抽象性地思考，从而产生创造性的想法。”

在另一项研究中，当研究对象在不同水平的噪音环境下完成创造性思维测试的时候，研究人员使用额叶脑电图（EEG）机器来研究研究对象的脑电波。研究人员发现，研究对象的创造性思维的表现分数在不同噪音环境下的变化是非常大的，同时还发现这个分数与特定的脑电波是有紧密联系的。和此前的研究结果一样，一定水平的白噪音环境是完成创造性任务的理想环境。

所以问题来了：为什么我们中的大部分人都讨厌在开放式的办公室里办公呢？同事们之间小声安静的交谈和空调系统制造的柔和声音应该是能帮助我们集中注意力的。但问题是，在我们所处的开放式办公室里，我们通常无法阻止自己被其他人的谈话内容所吸引和带入，或是当我们想集中注意力时却经常被其他人打断和打扰。事实上，脑电图研究人员发现，面对面的交流、交谈和其他干扰会对人们的创造性工作过程产生负面影响。相比之下，联合办公空间或咖啡馆提供了一定程度的陌生环境噪音，同时也能让自己免受他人的打扰，不会有人在你努力集中注意力工作的时候走过来打断你、干扰你。

总的来说，我们通过上述这些研究成果学到的是：适合专注工作的理想工作环境并不是没有一点噪音都没有的决定安静的环境，而是一种不会受到他人打断和干扰的环境。因此，找到一个你可以沉浸进去专注工作的环境，不管这个环境有多嘈杂，这才是确保你能完成重要工作的最佳策略。

日记本

相关推荐

Tranquil

阅读 58

You exist only in what you do

阅读 48

茶余饭后

阅读 57

创新类畅销书《如何杀死一头独角兽 How To Kill a Unicorn》（英文节选）I

阅读 45

环境教育质性研究的不同类型、操作案例、使用情境

阅读 316

Ⅳ 求：2009重庆高考卷英语阅读理解E的翻译

最近的一项研究表明，尽管人们对科学持普遍乐观态度，但同时也表明人们普遍担心它可能“失控”。这个想法很危险。
科学可以是为善的力量，也可以是邪恶的力量。科学可以应用于这两者中的任何方面，这要靠我们的抉择而定。我们作出的决定，无论是个人的还是集体的，都将决定科学的归宿。但此处确有危险。科学发展如此之快，且受到商业的影响如此之强烈，我们很可能相信，无论我们做出什么决定，都几乎无济于事。与其力争采取可能的最好策略，我们有可能退后而无所作为。
有些人走得甚至更远。他们说，尽管道德和法律所不容，任何科学上可能做到事，在某个地方，在某个时候，终究都会被做出来。他们相信科学最终会失去控制。这种信念也是危险的，因为它加剧了无望的情绪，打消了他们努力来建设一个更安全世界的念头。
在我们的这个相互联系的世界里，科学界内部以及关于科学界缺乏共识，可能导致对科学的应用失去控制。如果不能达成共识，本世纪对科学加以“控制”的挑战将是非常严峻的。以克隆人为例。尽管科学家们就其对传统道德价值观可能产生的巨大影响达成了普遍的共识，但有一些国家仍然继续进行研究并发展相关的技术。最终的后果难以预料。
因此，关于如何应用科学的讨论应该扩展至远超科学团体以外之处。只有通过满怀希望的人们的共同努力，我们才能完全安全地抵制科学的滥用，将来科学才能更好地为人类服务。

Ⅳ 高考英语阅读理解答案

高考英语阅读理解答案

新的高中英语教学大纲明确规定："侧重提高阅读能力"。纵观近几年的高考英语试题，我们不难看出，阅读理解能力是高考考查的重点，自始至终占着主导地位，并且有逐年增加的趋势。可以毫不夸张地说，做好阅读理解题，是获得高考英语高分的关键!

第一篇：

Since the 1970s, scientists have been searching for ways to link the brain with computers. Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology could help people with disabilities send commands to machines.

Recently, two researchers, Jose Millan and Michele Tavella from the Federal Polytechnic School in Lausanne, Switzerland, demonstrated (展示) a small robotic wheelchair directed by a person's thoughts.

In the laboratory, Tavella operated the wheelchair just by thinking about moving his left or right hand. He could even talk as he watched the vehicle and guided it with his thoughts.

“Our brain has billions of nerve cells. These send signals through the spinal cord (脊髓) to the muscles to give us the ability to move. But spinal cord injuries or other conditions can prevent these weak electrical signals from reaching the muscles.” Tavella says. “Our system allows disabled people to communicate with external world and also to control devices.”

The researchers designed a special cap for the user. This head cover picks up the signals from the scalp (头皮) and sends them to a computer. The computer interprets the signals and commands the motorized wheelchair. The wheelchair also has two cameras that identify objects in its path. They help the computer react to commands from the brain.

Prof. Millan, the team leader, says scientists keep improving the computer software that interprets brain signals and turns them into simple commands. “The practical possibilities that BCI technology offers to disabled people can be grouped in two categories: communication, and controlling devices. One example is this wheelchair.”

He says his team has set two goals. One is testing with real patients, so as to prove that this is a technology they can benefit from. And the other is to guarantee that they can use the technology over long periods of time.

1.BCI is a technology that can ________.

A. help to update computer systems

B. link the human brain with computers

C. help the disabled to recover

D. control a person's thoughts

2.How did Tavella operate the wheelchair in the laboratory?

A. By controlling his muscles.

B. By talking to the machine.

C. By moving his hand.

D. By using his mind.

3.Which of the following shows the path of the signals described in Paragraph 5?

A. scalp→computer→cap→wheelchair

B. computer→cap→scalp→wheelchair

C. scalp→cap→computer→wheelchair

D. cap→computer→scalp→wheelchair

4.The team will test with real patients to ________.

A. make profits from them

B. prove the technology useful to them

C. make them live longer

D. learn about their physical condition

5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

A. Switzerland, the BCI Research Center

B. New Findings About How the Human Brain Works

C. BCI Could Mean More Freedom for the Disabled

D. Robotic Vehicles Could Help to Cure Brain Injuries

第二篇：

Homestay provides English language students with the opportunity to speak English outside the classroom and the experience of being part of a British home.

What to Expect

The host will provide accommodation and meals.Rooms will be cleaned and bedcovers changed at least once a week.You will be given the house key and the host is there to offer help and advice as well as to take an interest in your physical and mental health.

Accommodation Zones

Homestays are located in London mainly in Zones 2, 3 and 4 of the transport system.Most hosts do not live in the town centre as much of central London is commercial and not residential(居住的) .Zones 3 and 4 often offer larger accommodation in a less crowded area.It is very convenient to travel in London by Underground.

Meal Plans Available

◇Continental Breakfast

◇Breakfast and Dinner

◇Breakfast, Packed Lunch and Dinner

It's important to note that few English families still provide a traditional cooked breakfast.Your accommodation includes Continental Breakfast which normally consists of fruit juice，cereal (谷物类食品), bread and tea or coffee.Cheese, fruit and cold meat are not normally part of a Continental Breakfast in England.Dinners usually consist of meat or fish with vegetables followed by dessert, fruit and coffee.

Friends

If you wish to invite a friend over to visit, you must first ask your host's permission.You have no right to entertain friends in a family home as some families feel it is an invasion of their privacy.

SelfCatering Accommodation in Private Homes

Accommodation on a room-only basis includes shared kitchen and bathroom facilities and often a main living room.This kind of accommodation offers an independent lifestyle and is more suitable for the long-stay student.However, it does not provide the same family atmosphere as an ordinary homestay and may not benefit those who need to practise English at home quite as much.

1.The passage is probably written for ________.

A.hosts willing to receive foreign students

B.foreigners hoping to build British culture

C.travellers planning to visit families in London

D.English learners applying to live in English homes

2.Which of the following will the host provide?

A.Room cleaning.

B.Medical care.

C.Free transport.

D.Physical training.

3.What can be inferred from Paragraph 3?

A.Zone 4 is more crowded than Zone 2.

B.The business centre of London is in Zone 1.

C.Hosts dislike travelling to the city centre.

D.Accommodation in the city centre is not provided.

4.According to the passage, what does Continental Breakfast include?

A.Dessert and coffee.

B.Fruit and vegetables.

C.Bread and fruit juice.

D.Cereal and cold meat.

5.Why do some people choose self-catering accommodation?

A.To experience a warmer family atmosphere.

B.To enrich their knowledge of English.

C.To entertain friends as they like.

D.To enjoy much more freedom.

>>>>>>答案与解析<<<<<<

第一篇：

1.B细节理解题。根据第一段可知，自20世纪70年代以来，科学家一直寻找途径能将人脑与电脑相连。BCI技术能帮助残疾人向机器发送指令。故此处B项正确。而C项只是部分正确，虽然能帮助残疾人，但却不能帮他们康复。

2.D细节理解题。根据第三段可知Tavella只是思考动他的左右手就能操作这个轮椅。甚至当他观察这台机器时就能进行交流，也能用他的思想指导机器人工作。因此机器人是在人脑的思想支配下进行工作的。故D项正确。

3.C细节理解题。根据第五段可知，首先研究人员为用户设计一种特殊的帽子，它会捕捉头皮发出的信号并将其传给电脑。电脑将这些信号进行分析翻译，给监控下的机器人轮椅发出指令。机器人轮椅装有两部摄像头能识别信号路径中的物体，从而帮助电脑对人脑的指令作出反应。故此处C项正确。

4.B推理判断题。根据最后一段第二句“One is testing with real patients, so as to prove that this is a technology they can benefit from”可知，在患者身上进行实验是他们团队工作的一个目标，旨在证明这项技术对他们有益。故正确答案选B项。

5.C主旨大意题。本文为科技说明文，开篇点题。介绍科学家研究的这项新技术BCI，对残疾人大有裨益。故正确答案为C项。

第二篇：

1.D主旨大意题。由第一段第一句可知，Homestay为学习英语的学生提供在课堂外说英语的机会和成为英国家庭成员的体验。再结合文章的内容可推知这篇文章不是为愿意接受英国学生的主人写的，也不是为那些希望建设英国文化的外国人以及计划参观伦敦家庭的参观者写的。大概是为那些申请在英国人家中居住的英语学习者写的。

2.A细节理解题。由第二段第二句可知A项的叙述符合题意。主人能够提供的东西主要在第二段进行论述，该段并没有告诉读者主人将为入住者提供医疗护理、免费交通和身体训练。

3.B推理判断题。由第三段倒数第二句可知Zone 3和Zone 4不像Zone 2那么拥挤，由此排除A项;第二句只说明人们不喜欢居住在市中心，并没有说人们不去市中心，由此排除C项;本段只是提到市中心拥挤，并没有说到居住在市中心的'家庭不为学生提供食宿，由此排除D项。

4.C细节理解题。由第四段中的Continental Breakfast which normally consists of fruit juice，cereal，bread and tea or coffee可知，A项、B项和D项的叙述是错误，只有C项中的Bread and fruit juice是里面的内容。故选C项。

5.D细节理解题。由最后一段第二句中的This kind of accommodation offers an independent lifestyle可知Self-Catering Accommodation 能够为住宿者提供更多的自由，这与D项的叙述一致。A项、B项和C项的内容均没有在最后一段提及，故排除。

;

Ⅵ 2019年高考英语全国卷2 - 阅读理解D

Bacteria are an annoying problem for astronauts. The microorganisms from our bodies grow uncontrollably on surfaces of the International Space Station, so astronauts spend hours cleaning them up each week. How is NASA overcoming this very tiny big problem? It’s turning to a bunch of high school kids. But not just any kids. It is depending on NASA HUNCH high school classrooms, like the one science teachers Gene Gordon and Donna Himmelberg lead at Fairport High School in Fairport, New York.
对宇航员来说，细菌是个烦人的问题。来自我们身体的微生物在国际空间站的表面不受控制地生长，所以宇航员每周要花数小时来清理它们。NASA是如何克服这个非常细微的大问题的？现在轮到一群高中生了，但不是所有高中生，这取决于NASA HUNCH高中课程，比如纽约州费尔波特市费尔波特高中的科学教师吉恩·戈登和唐娜·哈姆伯格。

HUNCH is designed to connect high school classrooms with NASA engineers. For the past two years, Gordon’s students have been studying ways to kill bacteria in zero gravity, and they think they’re close to a solution. “We don’t give the students any breaks. They have to do it just like NASA engineers,” says Florence Gold, a project manager.
HUNCH目的是将高中课程与NASA工程师连接。在过去的两年里，戈登的学生们一直在研究如何在零重力下杀死细菌，他们认为已经接近解决方案。项目经理弗洛伦斯·戈尔德说：“我们不给学生任何休息时间，他们必须像NASA的工程师一样去做”。

“There are no tests,” Gordon says. “There is no graded homework. There almost are no grades, other than ‘Are you working towards your goal?’ Basically, it’s ‘I’ve got to proce this proct and then, at the end of year, present it to NASA.’ Engineers come and really do an in-person review, and...it’s not a very nice thing at times. It’s a hard business review of your proct.”
戈登说：“没有考试，没有评分作业。除了‘你正在朝着你的目标努力吗？’之外，几乎没有评分。基本上，它是‘我必须生产这个产品，然后在年底前提交给NASA’。工程师们亲自来做审查，然后……有时这并不好，对你的产品进行商业审查很难。”

Gordon says the HUNCH program has an impact on college admissions and practical life skills. “These kids are so absorbed in their studies that I just sit back. I don’t teach.” And that annoying bacteria? Gordon says his students are emailing daily with NASA engineers about the problem, readying a workable solution to test in space.
戈登说HUNCH 项目对大学入学和实际生活技能有影响。“这些孩子全神贯注于学习，我只是在那坐着，我不教他们。”那讨厌的细菌呢？戈登说，他的学生每天都在给NASA的工程师发邮件，讨论这个问题，准备一个可行的解决方案，在太空进行测试。

Ⅶ 英语作文科学与人文区别

科学与人文区别
科学是探究客观事实的，内容不以人的意志转移。而人文所研究的东西如经济哲学等，很大层面上是取决于人的。因而两者内涵有很大区别，但内在联系也是有的。科学是探索事物的规律，可以比喻为“造车”；人文是给人应用科学一个方向，是“开车”。科学不能解决方向问题，原子能研究出来，可以发电，也可以用于战争破坏。这便是价值观问题；同理，人文不能直接解决科技问题。科学与人文的结合便能产生最佳效应，推动社会和事物前进。

科学与人文的关系，在中国古代里早有精辟论述：格物、致知、诚意、正心、修身、齐家、治国、平天下。前面两要素是讲科学，“格物”即研究客观世界，“致知”即认识客观世界；中间三要素“诚意、正心、修身”，讲的是做人，人文精神；后面三要素：“齐家、治国、平天下”，讲的是通过科学与人文的结合，达到的目的。

The difference between science and Humanities
Science is to explore objective facts, and its content is not transferred by human will. What humanity studies, such as economic philosophy, largely depends on people. Therefore, there are great differences between the two connotations, but there are also internal connections. Science is to explore the laws of things, which can be compared to "making cars"; humanities is to give people a direction of Applied Science, which is "driving". Science can't solve the problem of direction. When atomic energy is developed, it can generate electricity or be used for war destruction. This is the problem of values. Similarly, humanity can not directly solve the problem of science and technology. The combination of science and humanities can proce the best effect and promote the progress of society and things.

In ancient China, the relationship between science and humanity has long been incisively discussed: To study things, to know, to be sincere, to correct one's mind, to cultivate one's morality, to regulate one's family, to govern the country, and to pacify the world. The first two elements are about science, the second one is about studying the objective world, and the third one is about sincerity, integrity and self-cultivation. The last three elements are about regulating the family, governing the country and pacifying the world. They are about the purpose achieved through the combination of science and humanity.