考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（四百一十）

本文提供考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練，以下為具體內容

1、This year marks exactly two centuries since the publication of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley. Even before the invention of the electric light bulb, the author produced a remarkable work of speculative fiction that would foreshadow many ethical questions to be raised by technologies yet to come.Today the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) raises fundamental questions: “What is intelligence, identify, or consciousness? What makes humans humans?” What is being called artificial general intelligence, machines that would imitate the way humans think, continues to evade scientists. Yet humans remain fascinated by the idea of robots that would look, move, and respond like humans, similar to those recently depicted on popular sci-fi TV series such as “West world” and “Humans”.“Just how people think is still far too complex to be understood, let alone reproduced,” says David Eagleman, a Stanford University neuroscientist. “We are just in a situation where there are no good theories explaining what consciousnesss actually is and how you could ever build a machine to get there.” But that doesn’t mean crucial ethical issues involving AI aren't at hand. The coming use of autonomous vehicles, for example, poses thorny ethical questions. Human drivers sometimes must make split-second decisions. Their reactions may be a complex combination of instant reflexes, input from past driving experiences, and what their eyes and ears tell them in that moment. AI “vision” today is not nearly as sophisticated as that of humans. And to anticipate every imaginable driving situation is a difficult programming problem.Whenever decisions are based on masses of data, “you quickly get into a lot of ethical questions,” notes Tan Kiat How, chief executive of a Singapore-based agency that is helping the government develop a voluntary code for the ethical use of AI. Along with Singapore, other governments and mega-corporations are beginning to establish their own guidelines. Britain is setting up a data ethics center. India released its AI ethics strategy this spring.On June 7 Google pledged not to “design or deploy AI” that would cause “overall harm,” or to develop AI-directed weapons or use AI for surveillance that would violate international norms. It also pledged not to deploy AI whose use would violate international laws or human rights.While the statement is vague, it represents one starting point. So does the idea that decisions made by AI systems should be explainable, transparent, and fair. To put it another way: How can we make sure that the thinking of intelligent machines reflects humanity's highest values? Only then will they be useful servants and not Frankenstein's out-of-control monster.

 1.Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein is mentioned because it（  ）.2.In David Eagleman's opinion, our current knowledge of consciousness（  ）.3.The solution to the ethical issues brought by autonomous vehicles（  ）.4.The author's attitude toward Google's pledge is one of（  ）.5.Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

問題1

A、fascinates AI scientists all over the world

B、has remained popular for as long as 200 years

C、involves some concerns raised by AI today

D、has sparked serious ethical controversies

問題2

A、helps explain artificial intelligence

B、can be misleading to robot making

C、inspires popular sci-fi TV series

D、is too limited for us to reproduce it

問題3

A、can hardly ever be found

B、is still beyond our capacity

C、causes little public concern

D、has aroused much curiosity

問題4

A、affirmation

B、skepticism

C、contempt

D、respect

問題5

A、AI's Future: In the Hands of Tech Giants

B、Frankenstein, the Novel Predicting the Age of AI

C、The Conscience of AI: Complex But Inevitable

D、AI Shall Be Killers Once Out of Control

2、Seven years ago, a group of female scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced a piece of research which showed that senior women professors in the institute’s school of science had lower salaries and received fewer resources for research than their male counterparts did. Discrimination against female scientists has cropped up elsewhere. One study conducted in Sweden, of all places—showed that female medical-research scientists had to be twice as good as men in order to win research grants. These pieces of work, though, were relatively small-scale. Now, a much larger study has found that discrimination plays a role in the pay gap between male and female scientists at British universities.Sara Connolly, a researcher at the University of East Anglia’s school of economics, has been analyzing the results of a survey of over 7,000 scientists and she has just presented her findings at this year’s meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Norwich. She found that the average pay gap between male and female academics working in science, engineering and Technology is around f 1,500 a year.That is not, of course, irrefutable proof of discrimination. An alternative hypothesis is that the courses of men’s and women’s lives mean the gap is caused by something else; women taking “career breaks” to have children, for example, and thus rising more slowly through the hierarchy. Unfortunately for that idea, Dr. Connolly found that men are also likely to earn more within any given grade of the hierarchy. Male professors, for example, earn over £4,000 a year more than female ones.To prove the point beyond doubt, Dr. Connolly worked out how much of the overall pay differential was explained by differences such as seniority, experience and age, and how much was unexplained, and therefore suggestive of discrimination. Explicable differences amounted to 77% of the overall pay gap between the sexes. That still left a substantial 23% gap in pay, which Dr. Connolly attributes to discrimination.Besides pay, her study also looked at the “glass-ceiling” effect—namely that at all stages of a woman’s career she is less likely than her male colleagues to be promoted. Between postdoctoral and lecturer level, men are more likely to be promoted than women are, by a factor of between 1.04 and 2.45. Such differences are bigger at higher grades, with the hardest move of all being for a woman to settle into a professorial chair.Of course, it might be that, at each grade, men do more work than women, to make themselves more eligible for promotion. But that explanation, too, seems to be wrong. Different from the previous studies, Dr. Connolly’s compared the experience of scientists in universities with that of those in other sorts of laboratory. It turns out that female academic researchers face more barriers to promotion, and have a wider gap between their pay and that of their male counterparts, than do their sisters in industry or research institutes independent of universities. In other words, private enterprise delivers more equality than the supposedly egalitarian world of academia does.

1.The phrase “crop up” in the first paragraph most probably means____2.Which of the followings can be attributed to Dr. Connolly’s study?3.According to the text, the author places interpretation on____4.In contrast to Dr. Connolly’s study, the previous ones failed to____5.Which of followings could be the best title for the text?

問題1

A、thrive.

B、plant.

C、elevate.

D、happen.

問題2

A、Pay discrimination between male and female scientists.

B、Fewer research resources for women scientists.

C、The super qualities possessed by male scientists.

D、The role of analyzing the results of a survey.

問題3

A、a humor.

B、a adage.

C、a term.

D、a motto.

問題4

A、compare the pay between male and female scientists.

B、make a comparison between the experience of scientists in others kinds of laboratory and that of those in universities.

C、contrast the degree of efforts between male and female scientists in their endeavors.

D、make the supposedly egalitarian world of academia deliver more equality.

問題5

A、Avoid the discrimination.

B、Free to Flutter.

C、The Hardest Move.

D、Mind the Gap.

3、alter 

A、v. 增加；加添；加；補充說

B、v. （使）改變，更改，改動；修改（衣服使更合身）

C、n. 癮君子；對……入迷的人；v. 使沉溺；使上癮；使自己沾染（某些惡習）

D、n. 加；加法；增加物；添加物；增加；添加

4、 Text 3 Enlightening, challenging, stimulating, fun. These were some of the words that Nature readers used to describe their experience of art-science collaborations in a series of articles on partnerships between artists and researchers. Nearly 40% of the roughly 350 people who responded to an accompanying poll said, they had collaborated with artists; and almost all said they would consider doing so in future. Such an encouraging results is not surprising. Scientists are increasingly seeking out visual artists to help them communicate their work to new audiences. “Artists help scientists reach a broader audience and make emotional connections that enhance learning.” One respondent said. One example of how artists and scientists have together rocked the scenes came last month when the Sydney Symphony Orchestra performed a reworked version of Antonio Vivaldi's The Four Seasons. They reimagined the 300- year-old score by injecting the latest climate prediction data for each season-provided by Monash University's Climate Change Communication Research Hub. The performance was a creative call to action ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, UK. But a genuine partnership must be a two-way street. Fewer artist than scientists responded to the Nature poll, however, several respondents noted that artists do not simply assist scientists with their communication requirements. Nor should their work be considered only as an object of study. The alliances are most valuable when scientists and artists have a shared stake in a project, are able to jointly design it and can critique each other's work. Such an approach can both prompt new research as well as result in powerful art. More than half a century' ago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened its Center for Advanced Visual Studies (CAVS) to explore the role of technology in culture. The founders deliberately focused their projects around light-hance the "visual studies" in the name. Light was a something that both artists and scientists had an interest in, and therefore could form the basis of collaboration. As science and technology progressed, and divided into more sub-disciplines, the centre was simultaneously looking to a time when leading researchers could also be artists, writers and poets, and vice versa. Nature's poll findings suggest that this trend is as strong as ever, but, to make a collaboration work, both sides need to invest time, and embrace surprise and challenge. The reach of art-science tie-ups needs to go beyond the necessary purpose of research communication, and participants. Artists and scientists alike are immersed in discovery' and invention, and challenge and critique are core to both, too.

1、According to paragraph 1, art-science collaborations have________.2、The reworked version of The Four Seasons is mentioned to show that________.3、Some artists seem to worry about in the art-science partnership________.4、What does the author say about CAVS?5、In the last paragraph, the author holds that art-science collaborations________.

問題1

A、caught the attention of critics.

B、received favorable responses.

C、promoted academic publishing.

D、sparked heated public disputes.

問題2

A、art can offer audiences easy access to science.

B、science can help with the expression of emotions.

C、public participation in science has a promising future.

D、art is effective in facilitating scientific innovations.

問題3

A、their role may be underestimated.

B、their reputation may be impaired.

C、their creativity may be inhibited.

D、their work may be misguided.

問題4

A、It was headed alternately by artists and scientists.

B、It exemplified valuable art-science alliances.

C、Its projects aimed at advancing visual studies.

D、Its founders sought to raise the status of artists.

問題5

A、are likely to go beyond public expectations.

B、will intensify interdisciplinary competition.

C、should do more than communicating science.

D、are becoming more popular than before.

5、 In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.    Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.    Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.    Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.    In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”

1、According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its ____2、It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires ____3、Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it ____4、Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that ____5、Which of the following would be the best title of the test?

問題1

A、uncertainty and complexity.

B、misconception and deceptiveness.

C、logicality and objectivity.

D、systematicness and regularity.

問題2

A、strict inspection.

B、shared efforts.

C、individual wisdom.

D、persistent innovation.

問題3

A、has attracted the attention of the general public.

B、has been examined by the scientific community.

C、has received recognition from editors and reviewers.

D、has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.

問題4

A、scientific claims will survive challenges.

B、discoveries today inspire future research.

C、efforts to make discoveries are justified.

D、scientific work calls for a critical mind.

問題5

A、Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

B、Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

C、Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

D、Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.