5.31 考研英语阅读模拟试题【难度8.0】

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

Microplastics in the atmosphere are heating the planet, magnifying climate change impacts, according to new research.

Sellers were talking excitedly about the possibility of giving shoppers real-time coupons based on their behaviour. These retailers imagined a world in which someone who stood in front of a pair of shoes would receive an instant discount offer on their phone.

What started as an idea for discounts is now suspected of showing up across the online world as variable individual prices.

Think of a 76-year-old who is buying printer cartridges. They may be quoted a price that is higher than their younger neighbour simply because data suggests that they never comparison shop. That young neighbour could face their own price penalty if data shows that their credit score sits in the wrong quartile. If you want to feel real outrage, consider that an algorithm might charge more for nappies after a customer buys children’s cough syrup on the basis that parents of sick children are less price sensitive than those of healthy ones.

The economists coined the terms “surveillance wages” and “surveillance prices” in 2022 as a way to describe the strategy of an employer or seller using personally identifiable online information to set wages or prices.

For economists trained to see price as an information mechanism, surveillance pricing represents a kind of holy grail — each transaction perfectly representing preference.

But from a consumer’s point of view each transaction is extracting the maximum possible surplus. When my colleagues and I first tried to describe this idea we called it “personal pricing”. The problem is that this sounded too appealing, conjuring up the bespoke service of the ultra-wealthy, extended democratically to everyone. The reality is that it is not a personalised service but a way to employ the same data infrastructure that social media uses to sequence feeds, only here the information doesn’t determine what someone sees but what they pay or are paid.

It is almost impossible to know exactly where the strategy is being employed. When different prices show up for different people, companies tend to claim it is not the work of surveillance pricing. Amazon and Delta, for example, have attributed price variation to market dynamics, third-party sellers or A/B testing. When a study on significant price differences on Instacart was published last year, Instacart claimed they were the result of randomised price testing.

Such denials are about to face further scrutiny. A few weeks ago, a JetBlue customer complained on X that when looking at flights to travel for a funeral, the price kept rising. JetBlue customer service replied, suggesting the customer clear their cache and try again. Clearing the browser cache deletes local tracking data, implying that the higher price may have been tied to data collected from previous browsing sessions. The company’s post was then deleted. A class-action lawsuit followed. JetBlue has said that its fares are not determined by cached data or other personal information.

There have been efforts at regulation. Europe and the UK have launched investigations. In 2024, Khan, who went on to become chair of the Federal Trade Commission, launched an investigation into how companies were using AI to base pricing on consumer behaviour. Last year, New York passed a law requiring disclosure of surveillance prices, and this month, the Colorado legislature passed a bill banning both surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. The law includes carve-outs for loyalty discounts but requires that they be available to all customers on identical terms.

This legal and political pressure is arriving just as the technology has reached a critical capacity. Improvements in algorithmic capacity and consumer databases could enable a pricing revolution.

In the past, companies had to base prices on some combination of cost-plus, demand-based and competitor-based modelling. Now, they can incorporate a wide range of psychological, dynamic and experimental pricing. The data sets involved might include credit scores, GPS patterns, search duration, individual purchase histories and even keystroke dynamics that correlate with different emotional states.

This raises a fundamental question about whether markets premised on individualised information asymmetry — secret prices — are public markets at all.

The legal tests are just beginning in the courts. More states and countries should follow Colorado’s lead. It will be easier to ban surveillance pricing before it becomes widespread than afterwards.

31. According to the text, the divergence between economists and consumers regarding surveillance pricing lies in whether it ________.
[A] genuinely reflects market supply and demand or merely manipulates psychological vulnerabilities
[B] democratizes bespoke services for the general public or exclusively caters to the ultra-wealthy demographic
[C] serves as a flawless indicator of individual preferences or functions as a tool for maximum profit extraction
[D] relies on randomized A/B testing or utilizes highly sensitive personal consumption data

32. The JetBlue incident is cited in Paragraph 8 to demonstrate that ________.
[A] the aviation industry faces mounting legal challenges for violating federal antitrust regulations
[B] corporate denials of implementing surveillance pricing are increasingly contradicted by inadvertent disclosures
[C] airlines have historically been transparent about utilizing cached data to determine dynamic fare prices
[D] clearing browsing history remains the only effective countermeasure against discriminatory pricing models

33. What characterizes the recent legislative action taken by the Colorado legislature?
[A] It mandates the public disclosure of the algorithms used to calculate surveillance wages.
[B] It permits traditional loyalty discounts provided they are universally accessible under uniform conditions.
[C] It completely outlaws all forms of variable pricing to protect marginalized consumer groups.
[D] It initiates a federal investigation into how artificial intelligence dictates consumer behavior.

34. The author suggests that the impending "pricing revolution" is fundamentally propelled by ________.
[A] the strategic integration of cost-plus and demand-based modeling by tech giants
[B] the growing public outrage against the unethical exploitation of vulnerable consumers
[C] the unprecedented enhancement of algorithmic capabilities and extensive consumer tracking
[D] the establishment of personalized customer service networks across the online world

35. Which of the following best encapsulates the author's primary conclusion?
[A] The public market must embrace algorithmic innovations to maintain its competitive edge.
[B] Preemptive legislative interventions are urgently needed to curb the spread of individualized pricing.
[C] Consumers should actively manage their digital footprints to outsmart discriminatory pricing systems.
[D] Surveillance pricing represents an inevitable evolution of market dynamics that defies strict regulation.

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: CBBCA

31.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：细节推断题
定位： 第五段和第六段。“For economists... surveillance pricing represents a kind of holy grail — each transaction perfectly representing preference. But from a consumer’s point of view each transaction is extracting the maximum possible surplus.”
分析： 原文明确对比了双方的视角：经济学家认为这完美反映了消费者的“偏好（preference）”，而消费者则认为这是在榨取最大的“剩余价值（surplus）”。选项 C“作为个人偏好的完美指标，还是作为提取最大利润的工具（serves as a flawless indicator of individual preferences or functions as a tool for maximum profit extraction）”是对原文这两种截然相反视角的精准转述。
干扰项：[A] 真正反映了市场供需，还是仅仅操纵了心理弱点（张冠李戴，“供求/心理弱点”确实在文章其他段落出现过，但并未被用来概括经济学家与消费者的“核心理论分歧”）；[B] 将定制服务民主化给大众，还是专门迎合超级富豪阶层（概念偷换，第六段指出这种定价让人“联想到（conjuring up）”给富人的定制服务，但随后的现实是“它根本不是定制服务”，该选项把作者批判的假象当成了经济学家的观点）；[D] 依赖随机的A/B测试还是利用高度敏感的个人消费数据（修饰错位，这是企业辩解与实际操作之间的分歧，不是经济学家与消费者之间的分歧）。

32.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：例证推断题
定位： 第八段。企业通常否认监视定价（Such denials are about to face further scrutiny）。随后举出 JetBlue 的例子：机票价格上涨后，客服回复建议“清除缓存（clear their cache）”，这无意中暗示了价格与之前的浏览数据有关，随后公司删帖并遭到诉讼。
分析： 举 JetBlue 这个例子是为了反驳第七段提到的“企业对监视定价的否认”。选项 B“企业对实施监视定价的否认日益被无意中的泄露所反驳（corporate denials... are increasingly contradicted by inadvertent disclosures）”完美揭示了该例子的逻辑功能。
干扰项：[A] 航空业因违反联邦反垄断规定而面临日益增多的法律挑战（过度推断，虽然提到了集体诉讼，但并未上升到“违反联邦反垄断法规”的高度）；[C] 航空公司历来对利用缓存数据确定动态票价持透明态度（事实相反，原文第一句就说这种做法面临审查，且公司很快删帖并“否认/said its fares are not determined by cached data”）；[D] 清除浏览记录仍然是抵御歧视性定价模式的唯一有效对策（软绝对词陷阱，“唯一有效/only effective”过度夸大了这种临时措施的作用）。

33.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：事实细节题
定位： 第九段最后一句“...this month, the Colorado legislature passed a bill banning both surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. The law includes carve-outs for loyalty discounts but requires that they be available to all customers on identical terms.”
分析： 原文指出，科罗拉多州的法律虽然禁止监视定价，但包含了对忠诚度折扣的“豁免条款（carve-outs）”，前提是这些折扣必须以“相同的条件提供给所有客户（available to all customers on identical terms）”。选项 B“它允许传统的忠诚度折扣，前提是这些折扣在统一的条件下普遍适用”是对该法律特征的精准同义替换。
干扰项：[A] 它强制要求公开用于计算监视工资的算法（张冠李戴，“要求公开信息”是纽约州法律/New York passed a law 的特征，而非科罗拉多州）；[C] 它完全宣布所有形式的可变定价为非法（程度篡改，原文明确提到了对忠诚度折扣的“豁免/carve-outs”，并非“完全非法”）；[D] 它启动了一项关于AI如何决定消费者行为的联邦调查（实体错位，启动调查的是“联邦贸易委员会主席Khan”，不是科罗拉多州立法机构）。

34.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：因果细节题
定位： 第十段和第十一段。“Improvements in algorithmic capacity and consumer databases could enable a pricing revolution... Now, they can incorporate a wide range of psychological, dynamic and experimental pricing.”
分析： 原文指出，能够促成（enable）这场“定价革命”的，是“算法能力和消费者数据库的改进（Improvements in algorithmic capacity and consumer databases）”，使得企业现在能结合心理学等广泛的数据。选项 C“算法能力的史无前例的增强和广泛的消费者追踪”精准回应了推动这场革命的根本技术原因。
干扰项：[A] 科技巨头对成本加成和基于需求的建模的战略整合（时间错位，第十一段明确指出，成本加成和基于需求的定价是“过去（In the past）”的方法，不是当前的革命）；[B] 公众对不道德剥削弱势消费者的日益增长的愤怒（强加因果，公众愤怒推动的是“立法监管”，而不是“定价革命”本身）；[D] 在网络世界中建立个性化的客户服务网络（偷换概念，第六段明确指出监视定价“不是个性化服务/not a personalised service”）。

35.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：主旨推断题
定位： 第十二段和第十三段（最后两段）。“This raises a fundamental question about whether markets... are public markets at all... More states and countries should follow Colorado’s lead. It will be easier to ban surveillance pricing before it becomes widespread than afterwards.”
分析： 文章结尾对“监视定价”的合法性提出了根本质疑，并大声疾呼：更多国家和州应效仿科罗拉多州（颁布禁令），因为在它“广泛蔓延之前（before it becomes widespread）”将其禁止，比之后再采取行动要容易得多。选项 B“迫切需要先发制人的立法干预，以遏制个性化定价的蔓延（Preemptive legislative interventions are urgently needed to curb the spread of individualized pricing）”极其出色地提炼了作者的终极呼吁。
干扰项：[A] 公开市场必须拥抱算法创新以保持其竞争优势（方向倒置，作者对这种算法定价持警惕和反对态度，认为它破坏了“公开市场”）；[C] 消费者应积极管理其数字足迹以智胜歧视性定价系统（避重就轻，尽管提到了清除缓存的例子，但作者最终的结论是呼吁“政府立法封禁”，而不是把责任推给消费者的自我防护）；[D] 监视定价代表了市场动态的必然演变，无视严格监管（态度矛盾，作者明确呼吁监管且认为可以在其泛滥前“ban/禁止”它，并不认为它能“无视监管”）。

【词汇注释】

【长难句剖析】

The reality is that it is not a personalised service but a way to employ the same data infrastructure that social media uses to sequence feeds, only here the information doesn’t determine what someone sees but what they pay or are paid.

拆解：句子主干为 The reality is that...，其后跟着一个由 that 引导的表语从句。

表语从句中使用了两个经典的对比结构：第一个是 not A but B（不是个性化服务，而是一种利用数据基础设施的方式）；第二个是修饰语中的 only here... doesn't determine X but Y（只不过在这里，信息决定的不是某人看到了什么，而是他们支付或得到的报酬）。

"that social media uses to sequence feeds..." 是定语从句，修饰 data infrastructure。

句意： 现实情况是，这并不是一种个性化服务，而是一种利用社交媒体用于排序信息流的相同数据基础设施的方法，只不过在这里，这些信息决定的不是某人能看到什么，而是他们要支付多少钱或能得到多少报酬。

【结构分析】

商业科技与社会政策评论，文章逻辑脉络如下：

【参考译文】

卖家们兴奋地谈论着根据购物者的行为向他们提供实时优惠券的可能性。这些零售商想象了这样一个世界：一个站在一双鞋前的人，手机上会立刻收到一份折扣优惠。

最初旨在提供折扣的想法，现在被怀疑在整个网络世界演变成了针对个人的可变定价。

试想一位正在购买打印机墨盒的76岁老人。他们得到的报价可能比年轻邻居的要高，仅仅因为数据表明他们从不“货比三家”。而那位年轻邻居如果信用评分处于较低水平，也可能面临自己的价格惩罚。如果你想感到真正的愤怒，不妨考虑一下：在一位顾客购买了儿童止咳糖浆后，算法可能会向其收取更高的尿布价格，理由是生病孩子的父母对价格的敏感度低于健康孩子的父母。

经济学家在2022年创造了“监视工资”和“监视定价”这两个术语，用来描述雇主或卖家利用可识别身份的在线个人信息来设定工资或价格的策略。

对于受过将价格视为信息机制训练的经济学家来说，监视定价代表着一种“圣杯”——每一笔交易都完美地代表了消费者的偏好。

但从消费者的角度来看，每一笔交易都是在榨取最大可能的消费者剩余。当我和同事们最初试图描述这个想法时，我们称之为“个性化定价”。问题在于，这个词听起来太吸引人了，让人联想到超级富豪的定制服务被民主地延伸到了每个人身上。现实情况是，这并不是一种个性化服务，而是一种利用社交媒体用于排序信息流的相同数据基础设施的方法，只不过在这里，这些信息决定的不是某人能看到什么，而是他们要支付多少钱或能得到多少报酬。

人们几乎不可能确切知道这种策略被应用在了哪里。当不同的人看到不同的价格时，公司往往声称这不是监视定价的杰作。例如，亚马逊和达美航空将价格差异归因于市场动态、第三方卖家或A/B测试。去年，当一项关于Instacart（美国生鲜杂货代购平台）存在显著价格差异的研究发表时，Instacart声称这是随机价格测试的结果。

这样的否认即将面临更严格的审查。几周前，一位捷蓝航空（JetBlue）的客户在X（原推特）上抱怨说，在查询回家奔丧的航班时，票价一直在上涨。捷蓝航空的客服回复，建议客户清除缓存后再试一次。清除浏览器缓存会删除本地追踪数据，这暗示着较高的票价可能与之前浏览会话收集的数据有关。该公司的这条帖子随后被删除，并引来了一场集体诉讼。捷蓝航空随后表示，其票价不是由缓存数据或其他个人信息决定的。

监管方面已有所行动。欧洲和英国已经发起了调查。2024年，后来成为美国联邦贸易委员会主席的汗（Khan）发起了一项调查，调查公司如何利用AI根据消费者行为进行定价。去年，纽约州通过了一项要求披露监视价格的法律；而本月，科罗拉多州立法机构通过了一项法案，同时禁止监视定价和监视工资。该法律包括对忠诚度折扣的豁免，但要求这些折扣必须以相同的条件提供给所有客户。

这种法律和政治压力到来之际，正值该技术达到了临界能力。算法能力和消费者数据库的改进可能促成一场定价革命。

过去，公司必须根据成本加成、基于需求和基于竞争对手的建模组合来定价。现在，他们可以结合广泛的心理学、动态和实验性定价。所涉及的数据集可能包括信用评分、GPS轨迹、搜索持续时间、个人购买历史，甚至与不同情绪状态相关的击键动态。

这提出了一个根本性问题：以个体化信息不对称（即秘密定价）为前提的市场，究竟还能不能算作公开市场。

法庭上的法律考验才刚刚开始。更多的州和国家应该效仿科罗拉多州的带头作用。在监视定价变得普遍之前将其封禁，要比事后补救容易得多。

附注：