Section C: Reading Comprehension
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.
Since American idol star Taryn Southern started composing music with AI in 2017, musicians all over the world have begun wondering about the implications of AI and modern technology where music production is concerned. Using AI in the creation of music is perceived by some as a helpful tool and by others as almost “the beginning of the end”.
In Taryn’s case, AI software enabled her to communicate melodies and chords that she didn’t know how to put together herself. The end product was therefore a collaborative effort, rather than a piece entirely produced by technology. Taryn’s story has a distinctly positive feel that highlights the advantages of using AI in music production. It can serve as a source of inspiration, and as an ideal jumping-off point should a musician be hit with writer’s block (文思枯竭).
Contrary to seeing AI as a tool, some musicians consider it to be hugely detrimental to the music scene. At the moment, because such technology is still so young, the music it’s producing is not necessarily what we want to hear. In short, it’s not of great quality. Those who have produced their own music, or even fans of authentic, artistic music, will also argue that a computer could never emulate the work (and human touch) of a true musician.
Music has been an integral part of the story of humans for ages; in fact, the first known piece of music is believed to be around 3,400 years old. Songs have long been used as a means of communicating messages and folk stories, covering everything from societal ethics to world history. Since many people see music as such an inherently human expression, it is often considered too precious to impart to technology. The thought of a computer generating a “random” piece of music that hasn’t been painstakingly created by an artist is almost seen as sacrilegious (亵渎神圣的).
Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, it seems likely that the use of AI in music production will only become more frequent. Our modern world is preoccupied with technological advancements. Instead of shying away from the idea of this bleak future, the best approach to take is one of optimism and curiosity. While there are always bound to be stubborn old-school musicians who refuse to use tech, music producers should consider AI as something to be embraced. AI music software is still very much in its infancy, but with more investors interested in the development and outcomes of such technology, and considering the rapid growth rate of other tech advances in recent years, it’s only a matter of time before AI-produced music is seen as the new norm.
46. How do some musicians perceive using AI in creating music?
47. What does Taryn Southern’s story illustrate?
48. Why are some musicians opposed to the use of AI in creating music?
49. Why do many people think music is too precious to impart to AI technology?
50. What does the author think of the future of AI music?
Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.
A few weeks ago, a well-meaning professor tried to explain the physiological process behind viruses and the human body in a tweet and was immediately criticized for a mistake in his information. He then issued an apology and deleted his erroneous tweet.
Communicating science beyond the academic bubble is necessary to augmenting public understanding of health and environmental issues and helping individuals make well-informed personal decisions.
However, scientists who engage in science communication must acknowledge that even in their area, their expertise is deep but narrow. They need to recognize the constraints in their own knowledge. That is not to suggest that they only write or present on their own research, but rather, that they consult with an expert if the topic is outside of their discipline. Fact-checking with a scientist who works in the specialty will prevent the unintentional spread of misinformation, and the process of doing so may yield tiny pieces of interesting new information that can be incorporated.
Some have argued that the public is not educated enough to understand scientific information, especially for any complex phenomena, but this is absurd. Science instruction can be found at all levels of public education with most secondary schools offering classes on biology, physics, and chemistry. If anything, social media has shown that the public craves knowledge based on a solid scientific foundation. Even the public discourse that follows most scientific articles shows that online readers can understand even the most baffling of scientific principles.
It is equally imperative to emphasize that being an expert on a topic does not automatically make a scholar qualified to communicate it to a nonscientific audience. A number of scientists recently have been offering public-aimed explanations of scientific phenomena. Even though they have appropriate credentials, they often do very little in the way of explaining. One biologist shared an intricate analogy involving a library, books, paper, a recipe, ingredients, and a cake to explain the process behind vaccines. Any explanation that requires a written key to keep track of what each item represents is not a clear example for public consumption.
Science communication is a science in and of itself. It requires rigorous training and instruction. A scientist should take communication courses that can teach a person how to identify and eliminate jargon and how to develop effective analogies to explain complex concepts. One cannot assume communication expertise; imagine if someone just decided that they were a physicist and started trying to contribute to the field without the necessary background. Doing a poor job communicating science to the public will only create confusion and widen the gap between science and society, a gap that scientists are trying to close.
51. What does the author say about communicating science to the general public?
52. What does the author advise scientists do to deal with topics outside of their specialty?
53. What does the author say we can learn from social media?
54. What does the example of the biologist who shared an intricate analogy show?
55. What does the author suggest scientists do to close the gap between science and society?
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Passage One
46. B。解析：题干问“一些音乐家如何看待在音乐创作中使用AI”。第三段首句指出，“Contrary to seeing AI as a tool, some musicians consider it to be hugely detrimental to the music scene.”（与将AI视为工具相反，一些音乐家认为它对音乐界非常有害）。这直接对应选项 B（它将对音乐制作产生不利影响）。
47. A。解析：题干问“Taryn Southern的故事说明了什么”。第二段提到，“Taryn’s story has a distinctly positive feel that highlights the advantages of using AI in music production. It can serve as a source of inspiration...”（Taryn的故事具有明显的积极意义，突出了在音乐制作中使用AI的优势。它可以作为灵感的来源...）。这说明AI技术对音乐作曲是有益的，对应选项 A（AI technology is conducive to music composition）。
48. A。解析：题干问“为什么一些音乐家反对在音乐创作中使用AI”。第三段末尾指出，“...will also argue that a computer could never emulate the work (and human touch) of a true musician.”（...也会争辩说，计算机永远无法模仿真正音乐家的作品（和人情味））。这说明AI制作的音乐缺乏人性和人类特有的触感，对应选项 A（Music produced with AI technology lacks humanness）。
49. D。解析：题干问“为什么许多人认为音乐太珍贵了而不能传授给AI技术”。第四段指出，“Since many people see music as such an inherently human expression, it is often considered too precious to impart to technology.”（由于许多人将音乐视为一种人类固有的表达方式，因此它通常被认为过于珍贵，不能传授给技术）。“inherently human expression”意味着音乐是人类特有的，对应选项 D（It is human specific）。
50. B。解析：题干问“作者如何看待AI音乐的未来”。最后一段末尾指出，“...it’s only a matter of time before AI-produced music is seen as the new norm.”（...AI制作的音乐被视为新常态只是时间问题）。这说明作者认为它在未来有成为常态的前景，对应选项 B（It has the prospect of becoming the norm in the future）。
全文翻译
自从2017年美国偶像明星Taryn Southern开始使用人工智能创作音乐以来，全世界的音乐家们便开始思考人工智能和现代科技在音乐制作领域的意义。一些人将AI用于音乐创作视为一个有助的工具，而另一些人则几乎将其看作「末日的开端」。
在Taryn的例子中，AI软件帮助她传达了那些她自己不知道如何组合的旋律与和弦。因此，最终作品是一个协作努力的成果，而非完全由技术生成的产物。Taryn的故事带有明显的积极色彩，凸显了在音乐制作中使用AI的优势。它可以作为灵感的来源，以及在音乐家遭遇文思枯竭时的理想起点。
与将AI视为工具的观点相反，一些音乐家认为它对乐坛有极大的危害。目前，由于这项技术仍非常年轻，它所制作的音乐未必是我们想听的。简而言之，它的质量并不高。那些自己制作过音乐的人，甚至那些喜欢地道、有艺术性音乐的乐迷，也会认为计算机永远无法模仿真正音乐家的作品（以及人情味）。
音乐自古以来就是人类故事中不可或缺的一部分；事实上，已知最早的乐曲据信距今约3400年。歌曲长期以来被用作传达信息和民间故事的手段，涵盖从社会伦理到世界历史的方方面面。由于许多人将音乐视为如此本质的人类表达方式，它常常被认为太过珍贵而不能交给技术。一想到计算机生成一段并非由艺术家精心创作的「随机」乐曲，几乎被视为亵渎神圣。
无论你站在争论的哪一边，AI在音乐制作中的使用似乎只会变得更加普遍。我们的现代世界痴迷于技术进步。与其回避这个黯淡未来的想法，最好的方法是保持乐观和好奇心。虽然总会有一些固执的老派音乐家拒绝使用技术，但音乐制作人应该将AI视为值得拥抱的东西。AI音乐软件仍处于起步阶段，但随着更多投资者对这项技术的发展和成果产生兴趣，并考虑到近年来其他技术进步的高速增长，AI制作的音乐被视为新常态只是时间问题。
Passage Two
51. B。解析：题干问“作者关于向公众传播科学说了什么”。第二段指出，“Communicating science beyond the academic bubble is necessary to augmenting public understanding of health and environmental issues...”（在学术泡沫之外传播科学，对于增进公众对健康和环境问题的理解……是必要的）。这直接对应选项 B（它是提高他们对科学问题理解的必要手段）。
52. C。解析：题干问“作者建议科学家在处理其专业领域以外的话题时怎么做”。第三段指出，“...that they consult with an expert if the topic is outside of their discipline.”（...如果话题超出他们的学科范围，他们应该向专家咨询）。这对应选项 C（Turn to a specialist for professional help 向专家寻求专业帮助）。
53. D。解析：题干问“作者说我们可以从社交媒体学到什么”。第四段指出，“Some have argued that the public is not educated enough to understand scientific information... but this is absurd... If anything, social media has shown that the public craves knowledge... online readers can understand even the most baffling of scientific principles.”（有人认为公众受教育程度不够，无法理解科学信息...但这很荒谬...社交媒体表明，在线读者甚至可以理解最令人困惑的科学原理）。这说明公众对科学的理解比某些人声称的要好得多，对应选项 D（The public’s understanding of science is much better than some have claimed）。
54. C。解析：题干问“那个分享复杂类比的生物学家的例子说明了什么”。第五段首句作为中心句指出，“It is equally imperative to emphasize that being an expert on a topic does not automatically make a scholar qualified to communicate it to a nonscientific audience.”（同样迫切需要强调的是，成为某个话题的专家并不会自动使一位学者有资格向非科学受众传播它）。随后举了那个生物学家的例子来证明这一点，对应选项 C（A learned scholar is not necessarily a qualified science communicator 渊博的学者不一定是一个合格的科学传播者）。
55. D。解析：题干问“作者建议科学家怎么做来缩小科学与社会之间的差距”。最后一段指出，“Science communication is a science in and of itself. It requires rigorous training and instruction. A scientist should take communication courses that can teach a person how to identify and eliminate jargon and how to develop effective analogies...”（科学传播本身就是一门科学。它需要严格的培训和指导。科学家应该参加交流/传播课程...）。这说明科学家需要发展和培养沟通技能，对应选项 D（Develop communication skills）。
核心搭配与高分句型
【核心搭配与高频短语】
jumping-off point：出发点，起跳点（serve as an ideal jumping-off point）
writer's block：创作瓶颈，文思枯竭（be hit with writer’s block）
shy away from：退缩，回避（Instead of shying away from the idea）
in its infancy：处于初期，在婴儿期（software is still very much in its infancy）
academic bubble：学术泡沫，象牙塔（beyond the academic bubble）
in and of itself：其本身，就其本身而言（Science communication is a science in and of itself）
【亮点句型解析】
Regardless of 引导的让步状语从句：
"Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, it seems likely that the use of AI in music production will only become more frequent."
（无论你支持争论的哪一方，在音乐制作中使用人工智能似乎只会变得越来越频繁。）`Regardless of + wh-从句` 用于表达无条件的让步，展现了作者客观且前瞻性的视野。
"Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, it seems likely that the use of AI in music production will only become more frequent."
（无论你支持争论的哪一方，在音乐制作中使用人工智能似乎只会变得越来越频繁。）`Regardless of + wh-从句` 用于表达无条件的让步，展现了作者客观且前瞻性的视野。
Not... but rather... 纠正/递进结构：
"That is not to suggest that they only write or present on their own research, but rather, that they consult with an expert if the topic is outside of their discipline."
（这并不是建议他们只能撰写或展示自己的研究，而是建议如果话题超出他们的学科范围，他们应该向专家咨询。）`not to suggest... but rather...` 结构非常严谨，既排除了读者的误解，又精准地提出了正确的建议。
"That is not to suggest that they only write or present on their own research, but rather, that they consult with an expert if the topic is outside of their discipline."
（这并不是建议他们只能撰写或展示自己的研究，而是建议如果话题超出他们的学科范围，他们应该向专家咨询。）`not to suggest... but rather...` 结构非常严谨，既排除了读者的误解，又精准地提出了正确的建议。
全文翻译
几周前，一位善意的教授试图在一条推文中解释病毒和人体背后的生理过程，却立即因信息中的一个错误而受到批评。随后他发表了道歉并删除了那条有误的推文。
在学术界之外传播科学，对于增进公众对健康和环境问题的理解以及帮助个人做出明智的个人决策是必要的。
然而，从事科学传播的科学家必须承认，即便在他们的领域内，他们的专业知识也是深而窄的。他们需要认识到自身知识的局限。这并非建议他们只写或只呈现自己的研究，而是说，如果主题超出了他们的学科范围，他们应该咨询专家。与在该专业领域工作的科学家进行事实核查，将防止无意中传播错误信息，而这一过程可能会产生可融入其中的有趣的新信息片段。
有人认为公众没有足够的教育程度来理解科学信息，特别是对于任何复杂现象，但这是荒谬的。科学教学可以在公共教育的各个层面找到，大多数中学都提供生物、物理和化学课程。如果说有什么的话，社交媒体已经显示公众渴望基于坚实科学基础的知识。即便是大多数科学文章之后的公众讨论也表明，在线读者能够理解即使是最令人困惑的科学原理。
同样必须强调的是，成为某个主题的专家并不自动使一位学者有资格向非科学受众传播它。最近有不少科学家在提供面向公众的科学现象解释。尽管他们有相应的资历，但他们往往在解释方面所做的极少。一位生物学家分享了一个复杂的类比，涉及图书馆、书籍、纸张、食谱、食材和一个蛋糕，来解释疫苗背后的过程。任何需要书面说明来跟踪每个项目代表什么的解释，都不是适合公众消费的清晰示例。
科学传播本身就是一门科学。它需要严格的训练和指导。科学家应该参加传播课程，这些课程可以教人如何识别和消除专业术语，以及如何开发有效的类比来解释复杂概念。一个人不能想当然地认为自己有传播专长；想象一下，如果有人突然认定自己是物理学家，然后开始试图在没有必要背景的情况下为该领域作出贡献。向公众糟糕地传播科学只会制造混乱，并扩大科学与社会之间的鸿沟——而这是科学家们正在努力缩小的鸿沟。