ARTICLE · 1059271
9.22 考研英语阅读题源外刊模拟试题【难度6.8】
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 4
For people north of the equator, the autumn equinox is not a cheerful date. From this point on, daylight loses ground to darkness day by day, and the long slide into winter gets under way.
Ironically, one industry has reason to welcome the darker days ahead: the makers of dietary supplements. Vitamin D is produced in the skin through a reaction triggered by ultraviolet light, so when sunlight grows scarce, search-engine interest in vitamin D pills climbs accordingly. Demand has grown enormously: one study found that the share of Americans taking high doses of the vitamin rose from a mere 0.3% in 1999-2000 to 18% by 2013-14. Some governments actively endorse the practice — Britain and Iceland both recommend supplementation officially.
Is supplementing worthwhile, though? Unusually for a supplement, vitamin D has a genuinely strong scientific rationale behind it. Its role in bone health has been established for decades — insufficient vitamin D causes rickets, which softens and deforms bones. Beyond that, receptors for the vitamin turn up in tissues throughout the body, and in the 1980s researchers noticed that cancer mortality in America was markedly higher in northern states than in sunnier southern ones, a pattern they attributed to differences in sun exposure and hence vitamin D. A separate hypothesis linked low vitamin D levels to the winter uptick in common colds.
Excitement duly built as large clinical trials got under way — yet the results disappointed. Three major studies, VITAL in the United States, D-Health in Australia and ViDA in New Zealand, tracked tens of thousands of participants for years apiece. In none of them did supplementation produce a measurable benefit.
An editorial summarising the evidence in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that vitamin D made no difference to cancer or cardiovascular risk. It did not reduce falls, sharpen cognition or ward off colds, and even participants who started out mildly deficient saw no improvement. Fracture risk, despite the well-established rickets connection, was unaffected too.
The episode illustrates a broader point: human biology remains complex enough that even well-supported hypotheses about a drug's effects can turn out to be mistaken. Plausible theory is not proof. What ultimately settles the question is watching what happens when large numbers of real people take the treatment under careful observation — there is no shortcut around that kind of evidence.
The current thinking is that people need only a baseline amount of vitamin D, beyond which extra supplementation brings little additional benefit. Exceptions exist: those living far from the equator, with darker skin, who spend little time outdoors, or whose diets supply little vitamin D may genuinely benefit from a supplement, particularly in winter. Most other people can probably keep their money in their pockets.
A. It has lobbied governments to promote vitamin D use.
B. It profits from a seasonal dip in public confidence.
C. It stands to gain as natural sunlight becomes scarcer.
D. It has funded most of the research into vitamin D.
A. cancer survival rates in hospitals with different funding levels
B. cancer death rates in regions with different amounts of sunshine
C. cancer patients who did and did not take supplements
D. cancer rates among people with light and dark skin
A. Large-scale trials are rarely reliable enough to settle a scientific question.
B. Long-held theories about vitamin D failed to hold up under rigorous testing.
C. Vitamin D supplements are safe but consistently underdosed in most trials.
D. The three research teams reached conflicting conclusions about vitamin D.
A. slightly lowered heart disease risk but not cancer risk
B. helped people who were already mildly deficient
C. failed to reduce fractures despite the known rickets link
D. proved most effective at preventing falls in older adults
A. Vitamin D supplements should be avoided by everyone except doctors' patients.
B. Sound theory is no substitute for evidence from careful, large-scale testing.
C. Government-endorsed supplements are more reliable than commercial ones.
D. Seasonal changes in sunlight have little real effect on personal health.
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: CBBCB
36.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：推理判断题
定位：第二段首句 "Ironically, one industry has reason to welcome the darker days ahead: the makers of dietary supplements." 及后句 "when sunlight grows scarce, search-engine interest in vitamin D pills climbs accordingly."
分析：作者用"welcome the darker days"点出产业与日照减少之间的利益关联——日照越少，人们搜索、购买维生素D补剂的意愿越强，供应商随之受益。C项准确概括这层因果推断。
干扰项：[A]"游说政府推广维生素D"无中生有，原文只提到英、冰两国政府官方推荐补剂，并未涉及产业游说行为；[B]"利用公众信心季节性下滑获利"偷换概念，原文讲的是"日照减少"带来搜索/购买上升，并非"公众信心下滑"；[D]"资助了大部分维生素D研究"无中生有，全文未提及产业资助研究一事，属于借用现实常识设置的干扰项。
37.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：细节理解题
定位：第三段 "in the 1980s researchers noticed that cancer mortality in America was markedly higher in northern states than in sunnier southern ones, a pattern they attributed to differences in sun exposure and hence vitamin D."
分析：这项1980年代的研究比较的是美国北部各州与阳光更充足的南部各州的癌症死亡率差异，并将差异归因于日照（进而是维生素D）水平不同。B项精准对应这一比较对象。
干扰项：[A]"不同资金水平医院的癌症生存率"无中生有，原文未提及医院资金；[C]"服用与未服用补剂的癌症患者"张冠李戴，这描述的是第四段VITAL等随机对照试验的设计方式，而非本段这项观察性研究，属于跨段借用陷阱；[D]"肤色浅深不同人群的癌症发病率"张冠李戴，肤色因素出现在末段（作为可能受益人群的判断依据），并非本段研究比较的对象。
38.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：推理判断题
定位：第四段 "Excitement duly built as large clinical trials got under way — yet the results disappointed... In none of them did supplementation produce a measurable benefit."
分析：本段承接第三段建立的理论期待（"excitement duly built"），随即以"yet the results disappointed"转折，三项大型试验均未发现可测得的益处。这一"期望落空"的结构直接支持B项——长期被认可的理论未能通过严格检验。
干扰项：[A]"大规模试验很少可靠到足以定论"与原文态度相反，第六段明确肯定大规模、仔细观察式的试验是解决此类问题"无可替代"的方式；[C]"补剂安全但普遍剂量不足"无中生有，原文未提及剂量问题；[D]"三个研究团队得出相互矛盾的结论"与原文相反，三项试验结论一致，并非矛盾。
39.【正确答案】C
【解析】题型：细节理解题
定位：第五段 "Fracture risk, despite the well-established rickets connection, was unaffected too."
分析：本段连续列出编辑述评的多项否定性结论，末句明确指出：尽管维生素D与佝偻病（骨骼软化变形）的关联早已确立，补剂仍未能降低骨折风险。C项准确对应这一"despite...unaffected"的转折关系。
干扰项：[A]"轻微降低心脏病风险但对癌症无效"与原文相反，原文是"made no difference to cancer or cardiovascular risk"，两者均无效果；[B]"帮助了本就轻度缺乏的人群"与原文相反，原文明确"even participants who started out mildly deficient saw no improvement"；[D]"在预防老年人跌倒方面效果最好"与原文相反，原文是"did not reduce falls"。本题四个选项均围绕本段的多重否定信息设置反义干扰，是全篇陷阱密度最高的一题。
40.【正确答案】B
【解析】题型：主旨大意题
定位：第六段 "Plausible theory is not proof. What ultimately settles the question is watching what happens when large numbers of real people take the treatment under careful observation — there is no shortcut around that kind of evidence."，并结合全文"理论—试验—结论"的论证结构。
分析：本题需整合第六段的方法论总结与全篇论证脉络：全文并非单纯得出"维生素D无用"的结论，而是借这一案例说明——即使理论依据充分，也必须依靠严谨的大规模实证检验来验证，理论本身不能替代证据。B项准确概括这一贯穿全文的核心论点。
干扰项：[A]"除医生的病人外所有人都应避免服用"程度夸大，末段明确列出多类可能真正受益的例外人群（远离赤道、肤色较深、少晒太阳、饮食摄入不足者），并非"一律避免"；[C]"政府背书的补剂比商业补剂更可靠"无中生有，政府推荐仅用于说明补剂流行程度，原文并未在"政府背书"与"更可靠"之间建立联系；[D]"季节性日照变化对个人健康影响不大"与全文前提相反，第一、二段正是以日照减少驱动维生素D合成减少、进而推动补剂需求上升为立论起点。
【参考译文】
对于生活在北半球的人们来说，秋分并非一个令人愉快的日子。从这一天起，白昼渐短，黑夜渐长，漫长的冬季由此拉开序幕。
颇具讽刺意味的是，有一个行业却有理由欢迎这种日照减少的趋势，那就是膳食补充剂制造商。人体皮肤在紫外线照射下会产生维生素D，因此当阳光变得稀缺时，人们对维生素D补充剂的搜索热度也随之攀升。市场需求增长惊人：一项研究发现，服用高剂量维生素D的美国人比例从1999-2000年的仅0.3%激增至2013-2014年的18%。一些国家的政府也积极倡导这种做法——英国和冰岛都已正式建议民众补充维生素D。
然而，补充维生素D真的有益吗？与其他膳食补充剂不同，维生素D的功效有着坚实的科学依据。几十年来，人们早已明确了它在骨骼健康方面的作用——维生素D缺乏会导致佝偻病，进而引起骨骼软化和变形。此外，人体各处组织中都存在维生素D受体；早在20世纪80年代，研究人员就注意到，美国北部各州的癌症死亡率明显高于阳光充足的南部各州，并将这一现象归因于日照时间及由此产生的维生素D水平差异。另一项假说则将低维生素D水平与冬季感冒高发联系了起来。
随着几项大型临床试验的启动，人们对此寄予厚望，但结果却令人失望。美国开展的VITAL试验、澳大利亚的D-Health试验以及新西兰的ViDA试验，分别对数万名参与者进行了长达数年的追踪观察。然而，在这些试验中，补充维生素D均未显示出可测量的益处。
《新英格兰医学杂志》发表的一篇综述性社论指出，维生素D对癌症或心血管疾病风险并无影响。它既不能减少跌倒、改善认知功能，也无法预防感冒；即便是那些初始体内维生素D水平轻度不足的参与者，也未见明显改善。尽管维生素D与佝偻病之间存在确凿的关联，但它对骨折风险也未产生影响。
这一事件揭示了一个更普遍的道理：人体生理机制极其复杂，即便某种药物功效的假说看似证据确凿，最终也可能被证明是错误的。合理的理论并不等同于确凿的证据。要最终解决这个问题，关键在于观察大量真实人群在严密监测下接受该疗法后的实际情况——这类证据是无法通过捷径获取的。
目前的普遍观点认为，人体只需维持基础水平的维生素D即可，额外补充并无显著的额外益处。不过也有例外情况：居住地远离赤道、肤色较深、户外活动极少或饮食中维生素D摄入不足的人群，确实可能从补充剂中获益，尤其是在冬季。至于大多数其他人，则完全没必要花这笔冤枉钱。
附注：