4.24 考研英语外刊阅读模拟试题【难度8.3】彭博社观点:刷视频

（ 请多多支持吧 ）

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 3

What if the next time you doom-scrolled through Instagram or TikTok, you reached an end point? The so-called infinite scroll has become such a fixture of social media that our dopamine receptors have come to expect it, even though it undermines our mental health and serves no real purpose other than to keep us glued to an app for as long as possible.

A new law being drafted by the European Commission is designed to turn this and other similar engagement hacks off by default, targeting the psychological tricks tech firms borrow from the gambling world. The Digital Fairness Act (DFA) aims to tackle notification designs harnessing variable rewards—a tactic that dispenses stimuli inconsistently to keep you checking your phone. The law will also target autoplay, where a video starts before you decide to watch it.

The forthcoming act, tabled by Commissioner Michael McGrath, addresses the ways tech firms manipulate consumer behavior. It targets deceptive design tricks like pre-selecting a check box or sneaking an insurance policy into a shopping cart. Critically, it forces tech firms to turn off addictive design by default. If Instagram users want their endless newsfeed back, they will have to go into their settings to turn it on.

Europe has a short but critical window of opportunity to push through the new rules. This follows a landmark Los Angeles jury verdict in March that found Meta and Alphabet’s Google liable for the addictive design of their platforms. Meanwhile, a raft of countries across the globe have either enacted or are considering social-media bans for kids. The momentum crosses courts, governments, and the public.

But there is a risk the Commission will fumble. It has shifted to a de-regulation agenda under Ursula von der Leyen, who has made “competitiveness” her signature issue. Tech companies have capitalized on those vibes to frame the DFA as an antithesis to growth. The biggest drag on European innovation, however, is a lack of domestic funding, not regulation. The new rules are more likely to hurt tech leviathans whose size and network effects contribute to their addictive quality.

Tech lobbyists argue otherwise, and vehemently. Commission officials have held nearly 100 meetings about the DFA since December 2024, with roughly 83% involving tech industry representatives, according to the Corporate Europe Observatory. The industry seems to be aiming at getting the DFA completely off the table. One plausible outcome is that the act gets diluted so it only applies to children. That would only win half the battle, since everyone is affected by addictive design patterns.

When asked about the lobbying risk, McGrath’s spokesperson said the Commissioner would table an “ambitious proposal.” McGrath faces an uphill battle. His law could lead to the kind of sweeping rules that helped break the stranglehold of Big Tobacco in the 1990s, which followed a combination of litigation, regulation, and public opinion.

Social media is facing a similar tipping point. The LA jury trial focused entirely on design decisions like auto-play and recommendation algorithms, establishing that those features were deliberate and known to cause harm. Providing a moral and legal foundation, that decision is exactly what the DFA can build its case upon. Let’s hope McGrath holds the line.

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: BABCB

31.【正确答案】B【解析】题型：事实细节题定位： 第一段、第二段。“The so-called infinite scroll has become such a fixture... serves no real purpose other than to keep us glued to an app for as long as possible.”（所谓的无限滚动……除了让我们尽可能长时间地粘在应用程序上之外，没有任何实际用途。）以及第二段第一句“A new law... is designed to turn this and other similar engagement hacks off by default, targeting the psychological tricks tech firms borrow from the gambling world.”分析： 原文明确指出，新法案（DFA）旨在默认关闭“无限滚动”和其他类似的“参与度黑客手段（engagement hacks）”，并瞄准科技公司用来延长用户停留时间的“心理诡计（psychological tricks）”。选项B“限制延长用户参与度的心理战术”是对这两段核心目的的完美概括。干扰项：[A] 完全禁止使用社交媒体算法，“完全禁止（completely ban）”过于绝对，法案要求的是“默认关闭（off by default）”；[C] 阻止科技公司收集个人用户数据，这属于隐私保护法（如GDPR）的范畴，并非本文DFA针对的“上瘾设计”；[D] 对涉赌应用处以重罚，原文是说科技公司“借鉴了赌博界的心理诡计”，并非针对真正的赌博应用。

32.【正确答案】A【解析】题型：事实细节/推理题定位： 第三段最后两句“Critically, it forces tech firms to turn off addictive design by default. If Instagram users want their endless newsfeed back, they will have to go into their settings to turn it on.”分析： 原文指出，DFA迫使科技公司“默认关闭（turn off... by default）”上瘾设计。如果用户想要无限滚动的信息流，他们“必须进入设置将其开启（turn it on）”。这在互联网术语中被称为“选择加入（opt in）”。选项A“要求用户手动选择开启无尽的信息流”是原文的精准同义替换。干扰项：[B] 完全移除自动播放功能，法案要求的是默认关闭，用户仍可去设置里开启，并非“完全移除（completely remove）”；[C] 原文提到偷偷把保险单塞进购物车是“欺骗性设计（deceptive design tricks）”，法案旨在打击这种行为，而不是让他们“在偷偷塞入之前获得明确许可”；[D] 提供详细的教程，文中未提及教程。

33.【正确答案】B【解析】题型：事实细节题定位： 第五段第二、三句“It has shifted to a de-regulation agenda under Ursula von der Leyen, who has made ‘competitiveness’ her signature issue. Tech companies have capitalized on those vibes to frame the DFA as an antithesis to growth.”分析： 原文表明，欧盟委员会已转向去监管议程，并将“竞争力”作为标志性议题。科技公司正是利用了这种氛围，将DFA陷害/描绘为“增长的对立面（an antithesis to growth）”。选项B“与促进经济增长的首要目标相矛盾”完美对应了科技公司的这一游说借口。干扰项：[A] 剥夺欧洲初创企业的国内资金，原文作者反驳时说“欧洲创新的最大阻力是缺乏国内资金，而不是监管”，这是作者的观点，不是科技公司的借口；[C] 不公平地针对美国科技巨头，文中未提及“歧视性针对美国企业”的论点；[D] 违反了数据保护条例的基本原则，无中生有。

34.【正确答案】C【解析】题型：观点态度题定位： 第六段最后两句“One plausible outcome is that the act gets diluted so it only applies to children. That would only win half the battle, since everyone is affected by addictive design patterns.”分析： 作者指出，法案可能被淡化为只适用于儿童，但作者紧接着评价：“这只能赢得一半的战斗（only win half the battle），因为每个人都会受到上瘾设计模式的影响。”这说明作者认为仅仅保护儿童是远远不够的。选项C“一个不完整的解决方案（an incomplete solution）”准确表达了作者对这种潜在妥协的不满。干扰项：[A] 一个必要的妥协，作者认为所有人都受影响，因此这并不“必要（necessary）”；[B] 一场史无前例的胜利，与“只赢了一半”的情感色彩相悖；[D] 一个具有法律约束力的先例，偏离了对“是否彻底解决问题”的讨论。

35.【正确答案】B【解析】题型：主旨态度题定位： 全文逻辑基调及最后一段“Providing a moral and legal foundation, that decision is exactly what the DFA can build its case upon. Let’s hope McGrath holds the line.”分析： 在整篇文章中，作者严厉批评了科技公司的上瘾设计（称其损害心理健康），反驳了科技游说集团的借口（称其为hogwash/废话），并指出LA的判决为DFA提供了道德和法律基础。最后一句更是直接呼吁：“让我们希望麦格拉思能坚守阵地（holds the line）。”这充分表明了作者对该法案及更严格监管的坚定支持。选项B“坚定地支持（Firmly supportive）”是对作者态度的准确描述。干扰项：[A] 怀疑但宽容，作者一点也不宽容，完全站在了监管的一边；[C] 客观中立，文章多次使用带有强烈感情色彩的词汇（如doom-scrolled, hogwash, stranglehold），并非绝对中立；[D] 强烈悲观，虽然面临游说压力，但作者看到了“类似烟草巨头倒台”的希望，呼吁坚守，并非强烈悲观。

【词汇注释】

【参考译文】

如果在下一次你无脑刷Instagram或TikTok时，突然到达了一个尽头，会怎么样？这很难想象。所谓的“无限滚动”已经成为社交媒体的固定模式，以至于我们的多巴胺受体已经习惯了它的存在，尽管它是一个极其浪费时间的东西，除了让我们尽可能长时间地粘在应用程序上之外，它损害了我们的心理健康且没有任何实际用途。

欧盟委员会正在起草一项新法律，旨在默认关闭这一功能及其他类似的“留客诡计”，其矛头直指科技公司长期以来从赌博界借用的心理学把戏。《数字公平法案》（DFA）旨在解决利用“可变奖励”的通知设计——这是一种不规律地分配刺激的策略，就像老虎机上旋转的表盘一样，让你不停地查看手机。该法律还将把目标对准自动播放功能，即在你还没决定观看之前，视频就开始播放了。

由委员迈克尔·麦格拉思（Michael McGrath）提交的这项即将出台的法案，应对了科技公司操纵消费者行为的各种方式。它针对的是欺骗性的设计把戏，比如预先勾选复选框或在购物车里偷偷塞进一份保险单。至关重要的是，它迫使科技公司默认关闭上瘾设计。如果Instagram用户想找回他们永无止境的信息流，他们必须进入设置将其开启。

在推动新规通过方面，欧洲拥有一个短暂但至关重要的机会窗口。今年3月，洛杉矶的一个陪审团做出了具有里程碑意义的裁决，认定Meta和Alphabet旗下的谷歌应对其平台的上瘾设计负责。与此同时，全球许多国家已经颁布或正在考虑针对儿童的社交媒体禁令。这种势头跨越了法院、政府和公众。

但欧盟委员会存在搞砸的风险。在乌尔苏拉·冯德莱恩（Ursula von der Leyen）的领导下，委员会已经转向了去监管议程，她将“竞争力”作为自己的标志性议题。科技公司正是利用了这种氛围，将DFA描绘成增长的对立面。当然，这完全是废话。欧洲创新最大的阻力是缺乏国内资金，而不是监管。而且，新规更有可能伤害到的是那些凭借庞大体量和网络效应促成上瘾特质的科技巨头。

科技游说者则提出了截然相反的激烈论点。据非营利研究和宣传组织“企业欧洲观察（Corporate Europe Observatory）”称，自2024年12月以来，委员会官员已经与各个组织举行了近100次关于DFA的会议，其中约83%的会议都有科技行业代表参与。该行业似乎旨在让DFA彻底流产。一个可能的结果是，该法案被淡化，只适用于儿童。但这只能算赢得了一半的胜利，因为每个人都会受到上瘾设计模式的影响。

当被问及游说风险时，麦格拉思的发言人表示，该委员将提出一份“雄心勃勃的提案”。麦格拉思面临着一场艰苦的战斗。他的法律可能会促成一系列全面的规定，就像20世纪90年代打破烟草巨头束缚的那些规定一样，那是诉讼、监管和公众舆论共同作用的结果。

社交媒体正面临着类似的临界点。洛杉矶陪审团的审判完全聚焦于自动播放和推荐算法等将用户推入“兔子洞”的设计决策，确立了这些功能是蓄意为之且已知会造成伤害的。该裁决提供了一个道德和法律基础，DFA完全可以以此为据进行立案。让我们希望麦格拉思能坚守阵地。

附注：

©图源水印/网络

（ 请多多支持吧）