（新高考）2021届高三大题优练4 阅读理解 议论文 学生版.docx

阅读理解（议论文）大题优练4优选例题【例题】While the arts cant stop the COVID-19 virus or the social unrest we see in the world today, they can give us insight into the choices we make when moving through crises and chaos. The arts invite everyone to think in new ways.We often experience works of art as something that's pleasing to our senses without a full understanding of the creative effort. Great art often shows us contradictions and crises, and we can learn a great deal from their resolutions(解决). Through our understanding of art, we can gain a deeper understanding of how we might overcome our own challenges. In understanding extremes of contrast, we can see the beauty in art with themes that are not simply pleasing for their magnificent features or qualities.Beethoven offers a wonderful example of moving artfully through crises and chaos. He composed his Symphony No. 9 as his hearing loss became more and more pronounced. The opening of the symphony seems to come out of nowhere, from near silence in the opening to a full expression of what many consider to be the joy of freedom and universal brotherhood with Schillers Ode to joy(欢乐颂). Beethoven appears to have created a work of art that not only freed him from his personal struggles, but one that also speaks to the joy of living together in peace and harmony.Have a dialogue between the two opposing parts and you will find that they always start out fighting each other until we come to an appreciation of differencea oneness of the two opposing forces. The arts offer many lessons that can help us gain the knowledge we need to move more confidently in today s competitive and uncertain environment. An openness to arts-based solutions will give you more control over your future.1What value does art have beyond pleasing people's senses?AIt brings people inner peace.BIt contributes to problem-solving.CIt reduces the possibility of crises.DIt deepens understanding of music.2What can we learn about Beethoven's Symphony No. 9?AIt celebrates freedom and unity.BIt aims to show crises and chaos.CIt opens with Schiller's Ode to Joy.DIt is unfinished due to his hearing loss.3What is the author's suggestion on dealing with conflicting forces?ALeaving things as they are.BMaking a choice between them.CSeparating them from each other.DEngaging them in a conversation.4Which of the following can be the best title for the text?AHow COVID-19 changes artBEssentials of Symphony No. 9CMoving artfully through crisesDJoy in the eyes of Beethoven【答案】1.B 2.A 3.D 4.C【解析】本文是一篇议论文。文章主要介绍了在疫情影响下的世界背景中，艺术为我们提供了应对危机和冲突的创造性思路。1细节理解题。根据文章第二段第二句Great art often shows us contradictions and crises, and we can learn a great deal from their resolutions.(伟大的艺术作品向我们展示冲突与危机，我们能从它们的解决中获得启示。)可知，理解艺术有助于现实中问题的解决。故选B。2细节理解题。根据文章第三段第三句The opening of the symphony seems to come out of nowhere, from near silence in the opening to a full expression of what many consider to be the joy of freedom and universal brotherhood with Schillers Ode to joy.(这首交响曲的开头似乎毫无来由，从几乎寂静的开头，许多人认为是对自由的喜悦和全世界兄弟般情谊的欢乐颂的充分表达。) 可知，贝多芬的第九交响曲歌颂的主题是自由与团结。故选A。3推理判断题。根据文章第四段第一句Have a dialogue between the two opposing parts and you will find that they always start out fighting each other until we come to an appreciation of differencea oneness of the two opposing forces.(如果你让对立的这两个部分进行对话，你就会发现它们总是从一开始就互相争斗，直到我们对它们之间的差异有了一个正确的认识这两个对立的力量是一体的。)可推断，作者对于处理冲突各方的建议是让各方进行对话、交流。故选D。4主旨大意题。根据第一段While the arts can' t stop the COVID-19 virus or the social unrest we see in the world today, they can give us insight into the choices we make when moving through crises and chaos. The arts invite everyone to think in new ways.（虽然艺术无法阻止COVID-19病毒或我们今天在世界上看到的社会动荡，但它们可以让我们了解我们在应对危机和混乱时所做的选择。艺术邀请每个人以新的方式思考。）结合全文内容可知，文章主要介绍的是理解艺术对于应对现实危机与冲突的启示。所以“Moving artfully through crises(艺术地通过危机)”作为文章标题最为合适。故选C。模拟优练（一）Ive recently found myself wondering if I could do without Google Maps. It is, I think, the only app on my phone Id really miss were I to swap my smartphone for a “dumb” one that handles only calls and text messages.Why am I thinking about this? Its because every time I try to read a book, I end up picking up my phone instead. I keep interrupting my own train of thought in order to do something that I dont consciously want to do.This is not accidental. Developers have become even more unashamed in their attempts to keep us hooked on our smartphones. Some of them speak in the language of addiction and behavioural psychology, though most prefer the term “persuasive tech”. In itself, persuasive tech is not a new idea an academic named BJ Fogg has been running classes from a “persuasive tech lab” at Stanford since the late 1990s. But as smartphone ownership has rocketed and social-media sites have been born, persuasive tech has vastly expanded its reach.One company, Dopamine Labs named for the chemical released in the reward center of the brain offers a service to tech businesses wanting to “keep users engaged”. Founder Ramsay Brown tells me he wants people to understand that “their thoughts and feelings are on the table as things that can be controlled and designed”. He thinks there should be more conversation around the persuasive power of the technologies being used. “We believe everyone has a right to cognitive liberty, and to build the kind of mind they want to live in,” he says.The poster child of the resistance movement against addictive apps is former Google “design ethicist” Tristan Harris. He thinks the power to change the system lies not with app developers but with the hardware providers. In 2014, Harris founded “Time Well Spent”, a group that campaigns for more moral design practices among developers.Any tech business that relies on advertising profits is motivated to hold its users online for as long as possible, Harris says. This means apps are specifically designed to keep us in them. Apple, on the other hand, wants to sell phones but doesnt have a profit stream so tightly connected to the amount of time its customers spend online. Harris hopes that companies like Apple could use their influence to encourage more morally designed apps.While I wait for Apple to sort this out, I find myself longing for something called a “Light Phone”, a credit-card-sized handset that does absolutely nothing but make and receive calls. Price tag? $150. Seems expensive. But the companys website is very persuasive.5According to the author, what makes us so glued to our smartphones？APeople's inborn behaviours.BApp developers intentionCUser-friendly appsDHardware providers6What does Dopamine Labs's founder believe?ATech businesses have gone too far in controlling users mindsBPersuasive technologies are dangerous to users cognitive liberty.CThe persuasive power of the technologies deserves more attentionDEveryone can live the life they desire by using persuasive technologies.7Which of the following best explains the underlined words “The poster child” in paragraph 5?AThe advertiserBThe advocateCThe opponentDThe founder8What can be a suitable title for the text?ADo we have a right to cognitive liberty?BWhat have persuasive tech done to us?CWhy a dumb phone is a smart move?DHow smartphones shape our minds?（二）We have to make certain our limited money is well spent. But what should we spend our money on? A 20-year study conducted by Dr. Gilovich, a professor at Cormell University, reached a powerful and straightforward conclusion: don't spend your money on things.The trouble with things is that the happiness they provide peters out. We get used to new possessions, and what once seemed exciting quickly becomes the norm. We keep raising the bar and always look for an even better one. Possessions, by their nature, cause comparisons. We buy a new car and are thrilled with it until a friend buys a better oneand there's always someone with a better one. Most of us usually assume that the happiness we get from buying something will last as long as the thing itself. It seems intuitive(直觉的) that investing in something we can see, hear, and touch on a permanent basis delivers the best value. But it's not the case at all.Gilovich has found that experiences deliver more-lasting happiness than things. Experiences become a part of our identity. Everyone's experience is unique. We are not our possessions, but we are the accumulation of everything we've seen, the things we've done, and the places we've been to. “Our experiences are a bigger part of ourselves than our material goods,” said Gilovich. “You can really like your material stuff. You can even think that part of your identity is connected to those things, but they remain separate from you. In contrast, your experiences really are part of you. We are the sum total of our experiences.”Besides, we don't compare experiences in the same way that we compare things. It's hard to quantify the relative value of any two experiences, which makes them that much more enjoyable. And expectation of an experience causes excitement and enjoyment, while expectation of obtaining a possession causes impatience. Experiences are enjoyable from the very first moments of planning, all the way through to the memories you keep forever. The temporary happiness achieved by buying things can be regarded as “puddles(水坑) of pleasure.” In other words, that kind of happiness evaporates(蒸发) quickly and leaves us wanting more. Things may last longer than experiences, but the memories that remain are what matter most.9The underlined phrase “peters out” can be replaced by_.Adies awayBis too littleCis not realDcosts too much10What does Gilovich think of experiences?AExperiences deliver less-lasting happiness than things.BExperiences can exist in our memory forever.COur experiences take up all parts of ourselves.DOur experiences are what separate us from others.11What can be inferred from the passage ?AExperiences can be compared with each otherBExpecting an experience increases our feeling of anxietyCPeople are more likely to be impatient when buying thingsDSpiritual wealth is the most valuable for us12Which is the main idea of the passage?AHow can we gain happiness with money?BHow can we make happiness last long?CWhy should we spend money on experiences instead of things?DWhy do experiences achieve permanent happiness than things?（三）It's common knowledge that the woman in Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting seems to look back at observers, following them with her eyes no matter where they stand in the room. But this common knowledge turns out wrong.A new study finds that the woman in the painting is actually looking out at an angle thats 15. 4 degrees off to the observer's right-well outside of the range that people normally believe when they think someone is looking right at them. In other words, said the study author, Horstmann,“Shes not looking at you.” This is somewhat ironic, because the entire phenomenon of a person's gaze(凝视) in a photograph or painting seeming to follow the viewer is called the "Mona Lisa effect". That effect is absolutely real, Horstmann said. If a person is illustrated or photographed looking straight ahead, even people viewing the portrait from an angle will feel they are being looked at. As long as the angle of the person's gaze is no more than about 5 degrees off to either side, the Mona Lisa effect occurs.Horstmann and his co-author were studying this effect for its application in the creation of artificial-intelligence avatars (虚拟头像) when Horstmann took a long look at the “Mona Lisa” and realized she wasn't looking at him. To make sure it wasn't just him, the researchers asked 24 people to view images of the “Mona Lisa" on a computer screen. They set a ruler between the viewer and the screen and asked the participants to note which number on the ruler intersected Mona Lisas gaze. To calculate the angle of Mona Lisas gaze as she looked at the viewer, they moved the ruler farther from or closer to the screen during the study. Consistently, the researchers found, participants judged that the woman in the “Mona Lisa” portrait was not looking straight at them, but slightly off to their right.So why do people repeat the belief that her eyes seem to follow the viewer? Horstmann isnt sure. Its possible, he said, that people have the desire to be looked at, so they think the woman is looking straight at them. Or maybe the people who first coined the term “Mona Lisa effect” just thought it was a cool name.13What is generally believed about the woman in the painting “Mona Lisa”?AShe attracts the viewers to look back.BShe seems mysterious because of her eyes.CShe fixes her eyes on the back of the viewers.DShe looks at the viewers wherever they stand.14What gaze range in a painting will cause the Mona Lisa effect?ABCD15Why was the experiment involving 24 people conducted?ATo confirm Horstmann's belief.BTo create artificial-intelligence avatars.CTo calculate the angle of Mona Lisas gaze.DTo explain how the Mona Lisa effect can be applied.16What can we learn from the text?AHorstmann thinks its cool to coin the term "Mona Lisa effect”BThe Mona Lisa effect contributes to the creation of artificial intelligence.CFeeling being gazed at by Mona Lisa may be caused by the desire for attentionDThe position of the ruler in the experiment will influence the viewers' judgment（四）Getting stuck with gifts we do not want is no small problem. In a survey across 14 countries in Europe, meanwhile, 1 in 7 said they were unhappy with what they received for Christmas, yet more than half simply kept the gifts.Why cant more gifts be passed along to people who appreciate them? People in a study published in the Journal of Consumer Behaviour, for instance, used such words as guilty, lazy, thoughtless and disrespectful in describing their feelings about regifting. Popular culture casts it as taboo (禁忌), as well.However, our research with Francis J. Flynn, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Universitys Graduate School of Business, suggests the shame associated with regifting is largely unwarranted. Indeed, our research consistently tells us that people overestimate the negative consequences.We asked people to imagine themselves as a “giver,” who gives someone a gift card and later learned it had been regifted. The general attitude of the original givers was: “Its your gift, do what you want with it.” Next, we asked givers to compare regifting a supposed wristwatch with throwing it in the trash. For the original givers, regifting the watch was a much less offensive act than trashing it.Finally, we invited to our lab at Stanford people who had recently received presents, and divided the pe