4.26 考研英语阅读题源外刊模拟试题【难度7.4】经济学人:开始运动吧 Feat. 임윤아 Lim Yoona

（ 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 2

For those in the doldrums, few things are more tiresome than being told to exercise. But unwelcome advice is not necessarily wrong. Study after study has found that exercise boosts mood and reduces anxiety. Two large analyses published earlier this year go further, suggesting it works about as well as therapy or antidepressants.

The first, published in January by researchers based across Britain and Ireland, took the form of a Cochrane review—a well-regarded meta-analysis of health-care research. It pooled the results of 69 randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to measure the effects of exercise on depression. The second paper, published in February in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, was a so-called meta-meta-analysis. It drew on more than 1,000 trials involving nearly 80,000 participants. Both concluded that exercise reduces symptoms of depression and anxiety by roughly as much as conventional treatments.

There are important caveats. Meta-analyses are only as good as the studies they include, and exercise trials are prone to being skewed. For one thing, participants cannot be blinded—they know if they are doing kettlebell swings or not—which makes their self-reported mood vulnerable to any favourable expectations they might have. For this and other reasons, the Cochrane review judged all the studies it included to be at “high risk” of bias.

What’s more, the meta-meta-analysis did not include any studies that tested exercise against other interventions. The findings from the exercise trials were, instead, compared against those from separate trials of antidepressants or therapy. But unlike exercise studies, RCTs of antidepressants are typically well blinded and have strong placebo effects, making it harder for them to achieve similarly impressive results. “I don’t think it’s a fair comparison,” says Jonathan Roiser, a professor of neuroscience at University College London.

All the same, most researchers are confident that exercise helps improve mood. Aerobic workouts, such as running, walking or cycling, seem to be particularly beneficial across the board. For depression, group-based or supervised exercise is more effective than sweating alone, and the benefits of exercise accrue over several months. For anxiety, the best results seem to come from lower-intensity activity.

Why exercise works is less clear. The popular idea that exercise generates a “high” by causing the release of endorphins, a form of opioid, has little scientific support. A study published in 2021 found that blocking runners’ opioid receptors reduced neither the euphoria they reported after a session nor the drop in anxiety. Researchers instead think that endocannabinoids—chemicals produced by the body and brain that activate the same receptors as the active molecules in cannabis—might be responsible for these short-term boosts.

Other pathways are also being triggered. Exercise seems to reduce inflammation and improve brain plasticity, as well as increasing the transmission of dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is involved in the process of weighing effort against reward and so increasing transmission may help reverse the loss of motivation associated with depression.

There are purely psychological benefits, too: exercise can provide people with a sense of achievement, agency and eventually mastery, all of which are known to lift mood. Plenty of reasons, then, to work up a sweat.

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: DCBAB

26.【正确答案】D
【解析】题型：因果细节题
定位： 第三段第二、三句“For one thing, participants cannot be blinded... which makes their self-reported mood vulnerable to any favourable expectations they might have. For this and other reasons, the Cochrane review judged all the studies it included to be at ‘high risk’ of bias.”
分析： 原文指出，由于运动试验的参与者无法“被设盲（cannot be blinded）”——他们显然知道自己是否在做壶铃摇摆——这使得他们自我报告的情绪容易受到他们任何良好“期望（expectations）”的影响。因为这个原因，Cochrane综述认为这些研究存在“高风险”偏见。选项 D“因为无法对受试者设盲使得他们的期望不受控制”是对原文的精准同义替换。
干扰项：[A] 依赖过时的随机对照试验，原文未提及试验过时；[B] 参与者不可避免地对体力消耗怀有负面情绪，这与原文所述受试者受“良好期望（favourable expectations）”影响相矛盾；[C] 研究人员故意操纵受试者自我报告的情绪，原文说是受试者自身期望的影响，并非研究人员故意操纵。

27.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：事实细节/观点题
定位： 第四段第三、四句“But unlike exercise studies, RCTs of antidepressants are typically well blinded and have strong placebo effects, making it harder for them to achieve similarly impressive results. ‘I don’t think it’s a fair comparison,’ says Jonathan Roiser...”
分析： 乔纳森·罗伊瑟教授认为比较不公平，原因在前一句：抗抑郁药的随机对照试验通常“设盲良好（well blinded）”，且具有很强的安慰剂效应，这使得它们很难达到同样令人印象深刻的结果（因为对照组吃了安慰剂也会有明显好转，从而缩小了药物组的优势）。选项 C“抗抑郁药试验受到更严格的设盲程序限制”准确传达了这种不对等性。
干扰项：[A] 涉及更多数量的参与者，原文并未比较两类试验单体的参与者数量；[B] 运动试验受自我报告数据的影响较小，第三段恰恰说明了运动试验极易受期望和自我报告的影响；[D] 运动干预总是无法产生令人印象深刻的结果，原文表明运动试验产生了令人印象深刻的结果，只是比较的前提不够公平。

28.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：事实细节题
定位： 第五段第三句“For depression, group-based or supervised exercise is more effective than sweating alone...”
分析： 作者在第五段具体给出了不同类型心理问题的运动建议。明确指出对于抑郁症，“基于群体的或受监督的运动（group-based or supervised exercise）”比独自锻炼更有效。选项 B“在小组中锻炼或在专业监督下锻炼”直接对应了这一建议。
干扰项：[A] 独立进行低强度体育活动，“低强度”是第五段末尾针对“焦虑（anxiety）”而非抑郁症的建议；[C] 在有氧和无氧运动之间不断切换，原文未提及无氧运动或两者切换；[D] 将高强度间歇训练限制在每周几次，这属于其他文本的错乱信息，且与原文针对抑郁症的具体建议无关。

29.【正确答案】A
【解析】题型：事实细节题
定位： 第七段第二、三句“Exercise seems to... increasing the transmission of dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is involved in the process of weighing effort against reward and so increasing transmission may help reverse the loss of motivation associated with depression.”
分析： 原文第七段阐述了多巴胺机制：增加多巴胺的传递有助于“扭转与抑郁症相关的动力丧失（reverse the loss of motivation）”。选项 A“增加多巴胺传递有助于对抗抑郁症中的动力缺失”是原文的精准转述。
干扰项：[B] 内啡肽的释放被科学证明会产生运动“快感”，第六段明确表示这种流行观点“几乎没有科学依据（has little scientific support）”；[C] 阻断阿片受体可完全消除减缓焦虑的效果，第六段指出阻断受体“既没有减少快感，也没有减少焦虑的下降（reduced neither... nor...）”；[D] 内源性大麻素主要负责长期的动力恢复，第六段末尾指出它们可能负责的是“短期提升（short-term boosts）”。

30.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：主旨大意题
定位： 全文逻辑结构。
分析： 文章第一、二段提出结论：运动改善情绪的效果与治疗或抗抑郁药差不多。第三、四段发生了逻辑转折（caveats），指出现有关于运动的荟萃分析研究在“设盲”等方法论上存在缺陷和偏差。第五段再次反转（All the same），强调尽管研究方法有瑕疵，研究人员仍确信运动有效，并随后在六、七、八段探讨了其生理学（多巴胺、内源性大麻素）和心理学机制。因此，选项 B“尽管现有研究存在方法论缺陷，运动仍提供了不可否认的心理健康益处”最全面、准确地概括了全文的波折逻辑与核心观点。
干扰项：[A] 运动正式取代了传统疗法和抗抑郁药，文章只说效果相当，未说“正式取代”；[C] 运动的心理优势明显大于生理机制，文章平级探讨了这两方面的机制，未作大小比较；[D] 医疗专业人员应停止向抑郁患者提供不受欢迎的运动建议，第一段明确表示“不受欢迎的建议并不一定是错的（unwelcome advice is not necessarily wrong）”。

【词汇注释】

【参考译文】

对于那些处于情绪低落的人来说，很少有什么比被告知去运动更令人厌烦的了。但不受欢迎的建议并不一定是错误的。一项又一项的研究发现，运动能提升情绪并减少焦虑。今年早些时候发表的两项大型分析报告更是进一步指出，其效果与心理治疗或抗抑郁药不相上下。

第一项报告由驻英国和爱尔兰的研究人员于今年1月发表，采用了“Cochrane综述”的形式——这是一种备受推崇的医疗保健研究荟萃分析。它汇总了69项旨在测量运动对抑郁症影响的随机对照试验（RCTs）的结果。第二篇论文于今年2月发表在《英国运动医学杂志》上，是一项所谓的“元荟萃分析（meta-meta-analysis）”。它利用了涉及近8万名参与者的1000多项试验。两项研究都得出结论，运动对抑郁和焦虑症状的缓解程度大致与传统疗法相当。

不过，这里有重要的注意事项。荟萃分析的质量取决于它们所包含的研究质量，而运动试验很容易出现偏差。首先，参与者无法被“设盲”——他们显然知道自己是否在做壶铃摇摆——这使得他们自我报告的情绪很容易受到他们可能持有的任何良好期望的影响。由于这个以及其他原因，Cochrane综述将其包含的所有研究都评定为存在“高风险”的偏见。

更重要的是，这项元荟萃分析并没有包含任何将运动与其他干预措施进行直接对照测试的研究。相反，运动试验的发现是被拿来与抗抑郁药或心理治疗的独立试验结果进行比较。但与运动研究不同的是，抗抑郁药的随机对照试验通常设盲严密，且具有很强的安慰剂效应，这使得它们很难取得同样令人惊艳的结果（注：因为对照组也有效果，缩小了药物的绝对优势）。伦敦大学学院的神经科学教授乔纳森·罗伊瑟说：“我认为这不是一个公平的比较。”

尽管如此，大多数研究人员仍然确信运动有助于改善情绪。如跑步、散步或骑自行车等有氧运动似乎在各个方面都特别有益。对于抑郁症，集体或有监督的运动比独自流汗更有效，并且运动的益处需要在几个月的时间里积累。对于焦虑症，最好的效果似乎来自于低强度活动。

关于运动为何起作用的原因尚不明确。流行观点认为，运动通过释放一种名为内啡肽的阿片类物质来产生“快感”，这几乎没有科学依据。2021年发表的一项研究发现，阻断跑步者的阿片受体既没有降低他们运动后报告的愉悦感，也没有减少焦虑的下降。研究人员转而认为，内源性大麻素——由身体和大脑产生的、与大麻中活性分子激活相同受体的化学物质——可能是产生这些短期情绪提升的原因。

其他神经通路也被触发了。运动似乎能减少炎症并改善大脑可塑性，同时还能增加大脑中多巴胺的传递。多巴胺参与权衡努力与回报的过程，因此增加其传递可能有助于扭转与抑郁症相关的动力丧失。

运动还有纯粹的心理益处：它能给人们带来成就感、自主感以及最终的掌控感，众所周知，所有这些都能提升情绪。因此，我们有充分的理由去大干一场、痛快出汗。

附注：

©임윤아 Lim Yoona

（ 请多多支持吧）