专题限时检测(十八) 阅读理解B篇专练(一)
(共4篇，限时28分钟)
A
(2019·无锡一模)“The world feels anxious and divided, and Facebook has a lot of work to do — whether it's protecting our community from abuse and hate, defending against interference by nation states, or making sure that time spent on Facebook is well spent，”Zuckerberg wrote on Facebook in January.
If the tech firm succeeded, Facebook would end 2018 on a much better path.But the cracks in Zuckerberg's social media empire only grew as scandals (丑闻) about data misuse, security and even Facebook's leadership piled up.
The social network has faced criticism many times since launching 14 years ago, but the public uproar reached new heights in 2018.Facebook's missteps, even as it tried to fix its problems, were yet another reminder of what happens when a company grows rapidly with little oversight (监管)．They also set the stage for another showdown between the tech powerhouse and lawmakers who have their own ideas on how to manage a platform used by 2.3 billion people every month.
“I think there's just a general growing consensus from both parties in Congress that selfpolicing is not going to work，” Democratic senator Mark Warner of Virginia said in an interview.Facebook pointed to a series of notes Zuckerberg published this year outlining what the tech firm has done to combat (战斗，争论) election meddling (好干预的), as well as hate speech, misinformation and other offensive content.The social network pulled down more than 1.5 billion fake accounts, launched a database of political ads and announced the creation of a Supreme Courtlike independent body to oversee content appeals.
But in many ways, Zuckerberg fell short of his New Year's resolution (决议)．UN investigators said Facebook played a role in spreading hate speech that fueled ethnic cleansing (清洗) in Myanmar.Media outlets found loopholes (漏洞) and errors in Facebook's political ads database.Users questioned whether they should delete Facebook after learning that Cambridge Analytica, a UK political consulting firm with ties to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, gathered data on as many as 87 million Facebook users without their permission.
In short, Facebook's problems ballooned out of the company's control. “They created a platform where sharing was mindlessly easy and interacting with each other required almost no forethought at all，” said Woodrow Hertzog, a law
and computer science professor at Northeastern University.“As a result, there was massive sharing, including leaking of personal information that put lots of people at risk.”
语篇解读：本文主要介绍了Facebook在发展的过程中，由于缺少监管，出现了一些令公司自己无法控制的问题。 1．What can be inferred about Facebook from the passage? A．It is a platform where people can easily share well-selected information. B．It is a social network that has faced criticism because of data misuses from Zuckerberg.
C．It is a social network which grows rapidly without enough management from the government.
D．It is a popular app that 2.3 billion people use for information and communication every day.
解析：选C 细节理解题。根据第三段第二句“Facebook's missteps, even as it tried to fix its problems, were yet another reminder of what happens when a company grows rapidly with little oversight(监管)．”可知，Facebook在其迅速发展的过程中并没有受到足够的监管。
2．The underlined word “uproar” in Paragraph 3 has the similar meaning to “________”．
A．crack C．disagreement
B．criticism D．argument
解析：选B 词义猜测题。找回原句 “The social network has faced criticism many times since launching 14 years ago, but the public uproar reached new heights in 2018.”可知uproar和criticism同义。
3．What is the best title of this passage? A．A tough challenge for Facebook B．Zuckerberg's new year resolution C．Criticism of Facebook for misusing D．A dark future for Facebook
解析：选A 标题归纳题。文章一开始第一句“The world feels anxious and divided, and Facebook has a lot of work to do ... ”，就指出Facebook面临着很多的问题，倒数第二段“In short, Facebook's problems ballooned out of the company's control.”又强调了Facebook的问题已经膨胀到公司无法控制的程度。本文是属于首尾呼应型的，所以选A作为文章的标题比较适合。
B
(2019·南通一模)Statistics often sounds like a dry subject, but sometimes it's necessary to take a statistics course to get the correct answer to this problem.Take the following case for example: a football scout (球探) hears of a player who has powered his team to a good winloss record.His coaches think he's one of the most talented players they've seen.But the scout is unimpressed by the one practice game he sees him in; he tells his manager it's not worth trying to recruit (录用) the player.
Most sports fans would think that was a pretty foolish decision, right? Athletic performance is much too variable to base an important judgment on such a small sample.But consider this problem: an employer gets an application from a junior executive (主管人员) with an excellent college record and strong references from his current employer.The employer interviews the applicant and is unimpressed.The employer tells his colleagues that it's not worthwhile recruiting him.
Most people regard this as a reasonable sort of decision.But it isn't.Countless studies show that the unstructured 30-minute interview is virtually worthless as a predictor of longterm performance by any criteria that have been examined.
In both cases, predictions based on references — school reports, prior performance, letters of recommendation — give a 65－75% chance of choosing the better of the two.
Why do we get the athletic problem right and the employment problem wrong? Because in the case of the job, unlike for athletic performance, we haven't seen hundreds of candidates in interviews of a particular type and seen how well performance in the interview corresponds to ultimate(最终的) performance in the setting we're concerned about.We haven't seen that the guy who looks like a fool in the interview turns out to be clever on the job and the guy who does well in the interview turns out to be average.The only way to see that the interview isn't going to be worth much is to be able to apply the“law of large numbers”，which assists the recognition that an interview represents a very small sample of behaviour.
The bottom line: there's safety in numbers.The more recommendations a person has, the more positive the outcome is likely to be for the employer.Consider the job interview: it's not only a tiny sample, it's not even a sample of job behaviour but of something else entirely.Psychological theory and data show that we are incapable of treating the interview data as little more than unreliable gossip.It's
2020高考英语二轮复习 专题限时检测(十八)阅读理解B篇专练(一)
