6.12 考研英语阅读模拟试题【难度8.0】阅读

Section II Reading Comprehension 

Part A 

Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. 

Text 4

A 2025 study in iScience found that pleasure reading fell 40 percent from 2003 to 2023. Another national report showed that the share of 13-year-olds reading for fun almost every day had dropped to 14 percent, the lowest level since 1984. The diagnoses keep coming: screens, shrinking attention spans, and a culture losing its appetite for books. And nearly every prescription is addressed to individuals: read more, put your phone down, try harder.

As the chief librarian at the New York Public Library, I’ve seen this decline up close. To be sure, finding more effective ways to teach children to read is part of the solution. But teaching people to read and building a world where they can do so are distinct problems. Throwing our phones in the lake can’t bring about that world, but designing the conditions for reading will.

In the 19th century, America began to build a national network of free public libraries touching nearly every community. Then, almost overnight, Google could answer any question, and Amazon could deliver any book. Who needed a building full of them? Instead of disappearing, libraries remained indispensable, just not primarily for reading. In community after community, local libraries filled society’s gaps by offering computer classes, voter registration, and social services. It was important work that came with little new funding. Consequently, the first thing to get financially squeezed was the books.

Then came a harder truth: Libraries themselves were throwing up barriers to reading. In 2019, the Chicago Public Library found that its overdue fine policy had created a two-tiered system. In the city’s lower-income South District, one-third of cardholders were barred from borrowing because they owed fines. On the more affluent North District, that share dropped to roughly one-sixth. A few dollars could lock an 8-year-old out of the library. That October, Chicago eliminated fines for overdue materials. Three weeks later, returns of overdue books were up 240 percent. From 2019 to 2021, major library systems across the country followed suit and went late-fee-free.

When the Covid pandemic closed library doors, we assumed reading would simply move online. For wealthier communities with home broadband, it did. For communities with slower or no internet service, it didn’t. Only when libraries reopened, allowing people to walk in and physically pull a book off a shelf, did the numbers start recovering. Furthermore, when libraries proactively reinvested in expanding digital access, the gains were massive. When the New York Public Library temporarily offered unlimited digital access to a popular novel series, bypassing the usual months-long waitlist, 40,000 people downloaded the books in three weeks.

Other countries have gone further in structural support. Denmark recently announced a plan to eliminate its book tax, citing the reading crisis. Argentina exempts books from tax, alongside bread and medicine. Several European nations introduced cultural vouchers for young adults, with the vast majority of the funds subsequently spent on books.

America did not build its library system by accident. From Benjamin Franklin to Andrew Carnegie, the foundational belief was that a free country requires citizens who can think and reason. A democracy needs its people to read, and it is society’s job to make that possible—for the same reason we have public water systems and the electric grid.

The reading crisis is real. But we don’t need new technological inventions to build a reading culture. Exempt books from sales taxes. Invest in library collections to reduce waitlists. Open nonprofit and hybrid bookstores. Build on models that already work, like integrating reading spaces into laundromats, transit systems, and barbershops. Every time someone deliberately designs the conditions for reading, people read.

36. The author mentions the "diagnoses" and "prescriptions" in Paragraph 1 to highlight that ________.[A] the fundamental causes of the reading decline have been scientifically misidentified[B] current approaches to the reading crisis inappropriately place the burden on individuals[C] the excessive reliance on screens has irreversibly damaged adolescents' attention spans[D] educators have failed to develop more effective methods to teach children to read

37. According to Paragraph 3, why did public libraries experience a financial squeeze on their book collections?[A] They struggled to compete with the sheer convenience of Google and Amazon.[B] They deliberately abandoned their traditional role to pursue modern technology.[C] They were forced to shoulder diverse social responsibilities without adequate budgetary increases.[D] They lost their relevance as community centers in the face of rapid urbanization.

38. The example of the Chicago Public Library (Paragraph 4) demonstrates that ________.[A] eliminating financial penalties effectively restores equitable access to literature[B] overdue fines disproportionately benefited affluent neighborhoods in the North District[C] digital lending has rendered traditional late-fee policies completely obsolete[D] low-income families generally lack the intrinsic motivation to return borrowed books

39. The author’s discussion of the Covid pandemic in Paragraph 5 suggests that ________.[A] online reading platforms have permanently bridged the educational gap between communities[B] physical library spaces remain indispensable for populations lacking robust digital infrastructure[C] the pandemic accelerated the inevitable transition from physical books to e-readers[D] wealthy communities eventually lost interest in digital reading once physical libraries reopened

40. Which of the following best represents the author's proposed solution to the reading crisis?[A] Reinstating the historical funding models established by Andrew Carnegie.[B] Developing revolutionary digital applications to engage the younger generation.[C] Cultivating a societal architecture that intrinsically supports and facilitates reading.[D] Relying primarily on the free market to sustain independent and hybrid bookstores.

附注：根据历年考研英语真题阅读题源外刊等，摘选最新文章，模拟仿真出题。

参考答案见以下。

Quick look: BCABC

36.【正确答案】B【解析】题型：推理判断题定位： 第一段末尾“The diagnoses keep coming: screens, shrinking attention spans... And nearly every prescription is addressed to individuals: read more, put your phone down, try harder.”及第二段第二句“But teaching people to read and building a world where they can do so are distinct problems.”分析： 作者列举了当下对阅读危机的“诊断（屏幕、注意力下降）”和“处方（放下手机、更努力地读）”。随后作者在第二段指出，这并不能解决问题，真正的解法是“建设一个环境（building a world / designing the conditions）”。这说明作者认为把锅甩给个人去“try harder”是找错了方向。选项 B“目前应对阅读危机的方法不恰当地将重担推给了个人（inappropriately place the burden on individuals）”是对作者这一批判态度的完美抽象提炼。干扰项：[A] 导致阅读量下降的根本原因在科学上被误判了（概念偷换，作者并不否认屏幕和注意力是原因/diagnoses，作者批判的是应对的“手段/prescription”错了）；[C] 过度依赖屏幕已经不可逆转地损害了青少年的注意力（软绝对词诱捕，“不可逆转/irreversibly”过于绝对，且这并非作者引用这些诊断的目的）；[D] 教育工作者未能开发出更有效的方法来教儿童阅读（偏离重心，第二段说教人阅读只是“部分解决方案”，作者真正强调的是“构建阅读环境”）。

37.【正确答案】C【解析】题型：因果细节题定位： 第三段第四、五、六句“In community after community, local libraries filled society’s gaps by offering computer classes, voter registration, and social services. It was important work that came with little new funding. Consequently, the first thing to get financially squeezed was the books.”分析： 原文清晰地勾勒了因果链：图书馆填补了社会空白，承担了大量社会服务（filled society's gaps by offering...），但这些工作几乎“没有带来新的资金（little new funding）”。因此，购书经费被挤压。选项 C“它们被迫承担多样化的社会责任，却没有获得足够的预算增加（shoulder diverse social responsibilities without adequate budgetary increases）”是极其精准的同义替换。干扰项：[A] 它们努力与谷歌和亚马逊的绝对便利性竞争（张冠李戴，谷歌和亚马逊确实冲击了图书馆“作为找答案的地位”，但这并非导致“购书预算被挤压”的直接原因）；[B] 它们故意放弃其传统角色以追求现代技术（态度与事实双错，图书馆是“填补社会空白”，属于被迫或自愿承担责任，而非“故意放弃传统”）；[D] 面对快速的城市化，它们失去了作为社区中心的现实意义（事实相反，原文恰恰说它们通过提供社会服务“保持了不可或缺的地位/remained indispensable”）。

38.【正确答案】A【解析】题型：例证推断题定位： 第四段“...In the city’s lower-income South District, one-third of cardholders were barred from borrowing because they owed fines... That October, Chicago eliminated fines for overdue materials. Three weeks later, returns of overdue books were up 240 percent.”分析： 芝加哥的例子展示了：逾期罚款原本导致大量低收入人群被“挡在门外（locked out）”，而一旦“取消罚款（eliminated fines）”，不仅归还率飙升，人们也重新获得了阅读机会。选项 A“消除财务惩罚能有效地恢复平等获取文学作品的机会（eliminating financial penalties effectively restores equitable access to literature）”是对这一现象社会学意义的高度概括。干扰项：[B] 逾期罚款不成比例地使北部富裕社区受益（偷换概念，罚款并未使富人“受益”，只是对穷人的“限制”更大）；[C] 数字借阅已经使传统的滞纳金政策完全过时（无中生有，本段讨论的是实体书和借书证的罚款，并未提及数字借阅）；[D] 低收入家庭通常缺乏归还借阅书籍的内在动力（恶意揣测/事实相反，取消罚款后归还率上升240%，说明他们并非缺乏动力，而是被罚款构成的制度障碍所阻挡）。

39.【正确答案】B【解析】题型：细节推断题定位： 第五段前四句“When the Covid pandemic closed library doors... For wealthier communities with home broadband, it did [move online]. For communities with slower or no internet service, it didn’t. Only when libraries reopened... did the numbers start recovering.”分析： 原文指出，疫情期间图书馆关闭时，数字阅读只在富裕社区实现了。对于网络不好的弱势社区，只有当实体图书馆“重新开放，人们能走进去亲手从书架上拿下书（physically pull a book off a shelf）”时，阅读量才开始恢复。这说明实体空间对这些群体无可替代。选项 B“对于缺乏完善数字基础设施的人群，物理图书馆空间仍然是不可或缺的（remain indispensable for populations lacking robust digital infrastructure）”完美转述了这一深刻的社会学观察。干扰项：[A] 在线阅读平台已经永久性地弥合了社区之间的教育差距（事实相反，原文恰恰说明了数字鸿沟的存在）；[C] 疫情加速了从纸质书到电子阅读器的不可避免的过渡（程度篡改与偏离主旨，这或许是部分事实，但作者引用疫情的例子是为了强调“实体图书馆对弱势群体的必要性”）；[D] 一旦实体图书馆重新开放，富裕社区最终对数字阅读失去了兴趣（无中生有，原文未探讨富人重新开放后的反应）。

40.【正确答案】C【解析】题型：主旨结论题定位： 第二段末句“designing the conditions for reading will”以及最后一段“But we don’t need new technological inventions to build a reading culture. Exempt books from sales taxes. Invest in library collections... Build on models that already work, like integrating reading spaces into laundromats... Every time someone deliberately designs the conditions for reading, people read.”分析： 文章的核心观点首尾呼应：解决阅读危机靠的不是个人的努力，也不是技术的新发明，而是要在国家政策（免税）、公共资金（图书馆投资）和日常空间（洗衣店、理发店）层面，建立一个支撑阅读的系统。选项 C“培养一种在本质上支持和促进阅读的社会架构（Cultivating a societal architecture that intrinsically supports and facilitates reading）”使用了极具概括力的“societal architecture（社会架构）”，完美涵盖了政策、资金和空间设计的总和。干扰项：[A] 恢复安德鲁·卡内基建立的历史融资模式（以偏概全，这只是第七段引述的一个历史背景事实）；[B] 开发革命性的数字应用程序以吸引年轻一代（直接反驳，最后一段首句明言“we don't need new technological inventions”）；[D] 主要依靠自由市场来维持独立和混合书店（事实相反，原文虽精简了内容，但在考研长线逻辑中，免税、投资等显然都是“政府/社会干预”，而非依赖自由市场）。

【词汇注释】

【长难句】

In community after community, local libraries filled society’s gaps by offering computer classes, voter registration, and social services. It was important work that came with little new funding. Consequently, the first thing to get financially squeezed was the books.

拆解：第一句主干是 local libraries filled society's gaps（当地图书馆填补了社会的空白），通过 by offering... 介词短语说明了具体方式。

第二句是一个带有定语从句的句子：work 后面的 that came with little new funding 指出这些新承担的社会服务并没有带来新的资金。

第三句引出因果结论（Consequently）：既然活儿多了钱没多，那么在财务上“第一个被挤压的（the first thing to get financially squeezed）”就是书籍。

句意： 在一个又一个社区，当地图书馆通过提供电脑课程、选民登记和社会服务填补了社会的空白。这是一项重要工作，但几乎没有获得新的资金支持。因此，在财务上最先受到挤压的就是书籍采购。

【结构分析】

历史与当下的评论文章。逻辑脉络如下：

1. 破立结合（Para 1-2）：引出阅读量暴跌的危机，指出当前社会把责任推给“个人（个人的手机、个人的专注力）”是错误的，真正的解法在于“设计阅读的环境（designing the conditions for reading）”。

2. 历史与现实的错位（Para 3-4）：图书馆在互联网冲击下转型承担了大量社会服务，导致“购书预算被挤压”。更严重的是，图书馆的“逾期罚款”制度反而成了穷人阅读的物理障碍（随后芝加哥取消罚款证明了移除障碍的有效性）。

3. 数字鸿沟与投资回报（Para 5）：疫情揭示了数字阅读并不能替代实体图书馆对弱势群体的价值；同时，一旦增加投资（如取消电子书排队），阅读量就会暴增。

4. 国际视野与历史溯源（Para 6-7）：列举欧洲国家的免税与文化券政策，并追溯美国建国初期建立图书馆的初衷（民主需要阅读）。

5. 总结呼吁（Para 8）：重申核心观点：不需要新技术，而是需要免税、投资、政策倾斜以及将书籍融入日常空间，去“人为设计阅读的条件”。

【参考译文】

2025年发表在《iScience》杂志上的一项研究发现，从2003年到2023年，出于纯粹乐趣的阅读下降了40%。另一份国家报告显示，几乎每天都为了消遣而阅读的13岁青少年的比例已降至14%，这是自1984年以来的最低水平。各种诊断结论接踵而至：屏幕的诱惑、不断缩短的注意力持续时间，以及一个正在失去对书籍胃口的文化。而且几乎所有的“处方”都把矛头对准了个人：多读点书，放下你的手机，再努力一把。

作为纽约公共图书馆的首席馆长，我近距离目睹了这种衰退。不可否认，寻找更有效的方法来教儿童阅读确实是解决方案的一部分。但教人阅读和“建立一个让他们能够阅读的世界”是截然不同的两个问题。把我们的手机扔进湖里并不能带来这样一个世界，但“设计阅读的条件”却可以。

在19世纪，美国开始建立一个触及几乎每个社区的免费公共图书馆国家网络。然后，几乎在一夜之间，谷歌能够回答任何问题，亚马逊能够送达任何一本书。谁还需要一栋装满这些东西的大楼呢？然而，图书馆并没有消失，它们依然是不可或缺的——只是其主要功能不再是阅读。在一个又一个社区，当地图书馆通过提供电脑课程、选民登记和社会服务填补了社会的空白。这是一项重要工作，但几乎没有获得新的资金支持。因此，在财务上最先受到挤压的就是书籍采购。

接着，一个更残酷的真相浮出水面：图书馆本身正在制造阅读障碍。2019年，芝加哥公共图书馆发现其逾期罚款政策制造了一个“双轨制”系统。在该市低收入的南区，三分之一的持卡人因为欠下罚款而被禁止借书。而在较富裕的北区，这个比例下降到了大约六分之一。区区几美元就能把一个8岁的孩子锁在图书馆门外。那年10月，芝加哥取消了逾期资料的罚款。三周后，逾期图书的归还率飙升了240%。从2019年到2021年，全美各地的主要图书馆系统纷纷效仿，实行了免滞纳金政策。

当新冠疫情关上了图书馆的大门时，我们想当然地认为阅读会直接转移到线上。对于拥有家庭宽带的富裕社区来说，确实如此。但对于网络服务较慢或根本没有网络的社区来说，情况并非如此。只有当图书馆重新开放，允许人们走进去并亲手从书架上拿下一本书时，这些群体的阅读数据才开始恢复。此外，当图书馆主动进行再投资以扩大数字阅读的获取途径时，收益是巨大的。当纽约公共图书馆暂时对一部流行小说系列提供无限的数字访问权限，从而绕过了通常长达数月的等候名单时，短短三周内就有4万人下载了这些书。

其他国家在结构性支持方面走得更远。丹麦最近以阅读危机为由，宣布了一项取消图书税的计划。阿根廷将书籍与面包、药品一样免予征税。几个欧洲国家为年轻人推出了文化消费券，而这些资金的绝大部分随后都被用于购买书籍。

美国图书馆系统的建立绝非偶然。从本杰明·富兰克林到安德鲁·卡内基，他们的基本信念是，一个自由的国家需要能够思考和推理的公民。民主制度需要其人民进行阅读，而让这成为可能，是整个社会的责任——这就如同我们必须拥有公共供水系统和电网是同一个道理。

阅读危机是真实存在的。但我们不需要新的技术发明来建立一种阅读文化。像免除处方药税一样免除书籍的销售税。投资扩充图书馆馆藏以减少漫长的借阅排队。开设非营利性和混合型书店。在那些已经被证明有效的模式上继续建设，比如将阅读空间整合到自助洗衣店、交通系统和理发店中。每当有人刻意去设计阅读的条件时，人们自然就会去阅读。

附注：