语法和词汇是阅读的基础，但是并不是说你语法非常好，词汇量非常大，阅读英文文章就没有问题。所以我们在复习的时候要有意识地提升阅读能力，尤其要令你的阅读能力契合于考研英语要求。下文是小编为你精心编辑整理的考研英一阅读真题，希望对你有所帮助，更多内容，请点击相关栏目查看，谢谢!

考研英一阅读真题1

Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's nNational Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both nsides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) ncompanies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very ngreat, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech ngiants. It Is against that background that the information commissioner, nElizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital ntrust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million npatients In 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little naccount of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.

DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further narrangements- and there may be many-between the NHS and DeepMind will be ncarefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked nof patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about ninformed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this ncase and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame non the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind nmerely “processed" it. But this distinction misses the point that it is nprocessing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data nvalue.

The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data nthat our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an nindividual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the nsurveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only nwhen it is compared with the data of countless millions more.

The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels nslightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not nenough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and nsave lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which ndeveloped them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the nscale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has ndone. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may nturn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to navoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.

31.Wha is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind ?

[A] It caused conflicts among tech giants.

[B] It failed to pay due attention to patient’s rights.

[C] It fell short of the latter's expectations

[D] It put both sides into a dangerous situation.

32. The NHS trust responded to Denham's verdict with

[A] empty promises.

[B] tough resistance.

[C] necessary adjustments.

[D] sincere apologies.

33.The author argues in Paragraph 2 that

[A] privacy protection must be secured at all costs.

[B] leaking patients' data is worse than selling it.

[C] making profits from patients' data is illegal.

[D] the value of data comes from the processing of it

34.According to the last paragraph, the real worry arising from this deal nis

[A] the vicious rivalry among big pharmas.

[B] the ineffective enforcement of privacy law.

[C] the uncontrolled use of new software.

[D] the monopoly of big data by tech giants.

35.The author's attitude toward the application of AI to healthcare is

[A] ambiguous.

[B] cautious.

[C] appreciative.

[D] contemptuous.

考研英一阅读真题2

The journal Science is adding an extra source at Peer-review process, neditor-in-chief Marcia McNott announced today. The Follows similar efforts from nother journals, after widespread concern that Mistakes in data analysis are ncontributing to the Published research findings.

"Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our njournal,"writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical nAssociation, the Journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of nreviewing Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the Journal's neditors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer The nSBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these

Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt nsaid,"The creation of the'statistics board'was motivated by concerns broadly nwith the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and nis part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research nwe publish."

Giovanni Parmigiani，a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public nHealth, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to "play nprimarily on advisory role." He agreed to join because he "found the foresight nbehind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a nlasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science nitself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want nto model their approach after Science."

John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the npolicy is "a most welcome step forward"and "long overdue,""Most journals are nweak in statistical review，and this damages the quality of what they publish. I nthink that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review nis more essential than expert review,"he says. But he noted that biomedical njournals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American nMedical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical nreview.

Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but nstatistical errors are alarmingly common in published research，according to nDavid Vaux，a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he nwrote in 2012，but journals should also take a tougher line，"engaging reviewers nwho are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process."Vaux says nthat Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit，but a nweakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify'the npapers that need scrutiny'in the first place."

31. It can be learned from Paragraph I that

[A] Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.

[B]journals are strengthening their statistical checks.

[C]few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.

[D]lack of data analysis is common in research projects.

32. The phrase "flagged up "(Para.2)is the closest in meaning to

[A]found.

[B]revised.

[C]marked

[D]stored

33. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE nmay

[A]pose a threat to all its peers

[B]meet with strong opposition

[C]increase Science's circulation.

[D]set an example for other journals

34. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now

A. adds to researchers' worklosd.

B. diminishes the role of reviewers.

C. has room for further improvement.

D. is to fail in the foreseeable future.

35. Which of the following is the best title of the text?

A. Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers

B. Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect

C. Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors' Desks

D. Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science

考研英一阅读真题3

Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation nof the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to pandemic flu to nclimate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little nfuture to look forward to.

But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species nhave endured for millions of years - so why shouldn't we? Take a broader look at nour species' place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an nexcellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years n(see "100,000 AD: Living in the deep future"). Look up Homo sapiens in the nIUCN's "Red List" of threatened species, and you will read: "Listed as Least nConcern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently nincreasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population ndecline."

So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and norganisations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the nLong Now Foundation, based in San Francisco, has created a forum where thinkers nand scientists are invited to project the implications of their ideas over very nlong timescales. Its flagship project is a mechanical clock, buried deep inside na mountain in Texas, that is designed to still be marking time thousands of nyears hence.

Then there are scientists who are giving serious consideration to the idea nthat we should recognise a new geological era: the Anthropocene. They, too, are npulling the camera right back and asking what humanity's impact will be on the nplanet - in the context of stratigraphic time.

Perhaps perversely, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales nthan about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today's ntechnology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it's nperhaps best left to science-fiction writers and futurologists to explore the nmany possibilities we can envisage. That's one reason why we have launched Arc, na new publication dedicated to the near future.

But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say nwith considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future: nwe have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of nthe planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the nsituations in which our descendants will find themselves.

This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more nlikely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy: while our nspecies may flourish, a great many individuals may not. But we are now nknowledgeable enough to mitigate many of the risks that threatened the existence nof earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come. Thinking about our nplace in deep time is a good way to focus on the challenges that confront us ntoday, and to make a future worth living in.

31. Our vision of the future used to be inspired by

[A] our desire for ares of fulfillment

[B] our faith in science and teched

[C] our awareness of potential risks

[D] our bdief in equal opportunity

32. The IUCN“Rod List”suggest that human beings on

[A] a sustained species

[B] the word’s deminant power

[C] a threat to the environment

[D] a misplaced race

33. Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 5?

[A] Arc helps limit the scope of futurological studies.

[B] Technology offers solutions to social problem.

[C] The interest in science fiction is on the rise.

[D] Our Immediate future is hard to conceive.

34. To ensure the future of mankind, it is crucial to

[A] explore our planet’s abundant resources.

[B] adopt an optimistic view of the world.

[C] draw on our experience from the past.

[D] curb our ambition to reshape history.

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

[A] Uncertainty about Our Future

[B] Evolution of the Human Species

[C] The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind.

[D] Science, Technology and Humanity.