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
Novak Djokovic first picked up a tennis racket when he was four years old. At 12, he left his native Serbia for a tennis academy in Germany, and he won his first major title at 20. Today, he holds the record for the most major titles in men's tennis. Mr. Djokovic’s illustrious career fits a common idea of human excellence: a child prodigy, schooled intensively in his early years, goes on to conquer his chosen field.
But a paper published in Science suggests he may be an exception rather than the rule. It concludes that the very best performers, in fields beyond just sport, tend to follow a rather different path.
The study, led by Arne Güllich, a sports scientist in Germany, crunched data covering more than 34,000 elite performers in areas including sport, chess, classical music, and academia. It concluded that although they often reach a high level, the most intensely drilled teenagers tend not to become true superstars as adults. Those who do make that grade, by contrast, tend not to stand out early on. They take longer to reach their peaks and seem to keep their interests wider for longer.
The received wisdom—and the logic on which youth academies are based—is that the best way to nurture talent is to identify youngsters early and drill them relentlessly. But Dr. Güllich noted that prior research backing that approach had only looked at school-level athletes. It had not followed subjects into their adult careers.
When researchers crunched the longitudinal data, a reliable pattern emerged. In every field, elite youth performers and elite adults were almost entirely separate groups. Around 90% of superstar adults had not been superstars as children, while only 10% of top-level kids went on to become exceptional adults. Exceptional performance in childhood was actually negatively correlated with exceptional performance as an adult.
Adult superstars reliably maintained interests besides the one in which they eventually became elite. The best sportsmen played several sports at a high level for much longer than their lesser-performing peers. Their progress lagged behind more focused peers when young, but when they did specialize, their progress was much quicker—they had better "training efficiency."
The same was true in academia. Nobel-prizewinning scientists were less likely to have won early academic scholarships, took longer to reach senior positions, and maintained broader scientific interests than those who were nominated but did not win.
To explain why this "later flowering" occurs, researchers offered three theories. The first is "search and match": having broad interests gives a better chance of finding the field best suited to your talents. The second is "enhanced learning": learning is a transferable skill, and pursuing a variety of things hones it, making later specialization more efficient. The third is the "limited-risk hypothesis": avoiding the "hothouse" training environment early on stops youngsters from burning out or becoming disenchanted with endless practice.
Dr. Güllich emphasizes that his team is not saying the hothouse model does not work. It is a reliable way to produce highly competent people—just not the truly world-class ones. Sports academies, selective schools, and conservatoires, in other words, may want to rethink how they do things.
31. The author mentions Novak Djokovic in the first paragraph to _______.
[A] criticize the intense pressure placed on child prodigies
[B] illustrate the traditional perception of how greatness is achieved
[C] demonstrate that tennis requires earlier specialization than other sports
[D] argue that innate talent is more important than relentless drilling
32. According to Dr. Güllich's study, the fundamental flaw in previous research was that it _______.
[A] focused exclusively on sports and ignored academic and musical achievements
[B] overestimated the psychological stress experienced by elite youth performers
[C] failed to track the long-term career outcomes of young athletes into adulthood
[D] relied on subjective expert consensus rather than objective data crunching
33. What can be inferred from the study about future Nobel Prize winners?
[A] They usually demonstrate exceptional academic brilliance in early childhood.
[B] They tend to outperform their peers in publishing research at a young age.
[C] They benefit from exploring diverse scientific fields before specializing.
[D] They are the few who successfully survive the "hothouse" training system.
34. The "limited-risk hypothesis" (Para. 8) suggests that delaying specialization helps to _______.
[A] reduce the financial burden on youth academies
[B] prevent individuals from losing interest or suffering from burnout
[C] increase the likelihood of winning early academic scholarships
[D] ensure a perfect match between innate talent and career choice
35. Which of the following best summarizes the author's final conclusion regarding training institutions?
[A] They are completely ineffective and should be abolished.
[B] They produce mediocrity by discouraging intense practice.
[C] They succeed in producing competence but may stifle ultimate greatness.
[D] They should adopt the Djokovic model for all aspiring athletes.
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: BCCBC
31. 【答案】B
【解析】题型：修辞目的题/例证题
定位： 第一段 "Mr. Djokovic’s illustrious career fits a common idea of human excellence..."
分析： 第一段用德约科维奇（Novak Djokovic）极早开始练球并大获成功的经历，来说明人们普遍接受的一种关于“如何取得卓越成就”（human excellence）的观念：神童+早期强化训练。随后第二段用 "But" 转折，指出这其实是特例。因此，提及他是为了说明传统的/普遍认知的成才模式（traditional perception）。
干扰项：[A] 文中并没有批评他对儿童施加压力。 [C] 文中没有对比网球与其他运动的早期专业化需求。 [D] 德约科维奇的例子正是“无情训练”（relentless drilling）的代表，并没有强调天赋（innate talent）优于训练。
32. 【答案】C
【解析】题型：细节题
定位： 第四段最后一句话 "It had not followed its subjects into their professional, adult careers."
分析： 博士指出，支持“早期强化训练”（received wisdom）的先前研究，仅仅观察了学校级别的运动员，没有对受试者进行成年职业生涯的追踪（not followed into adult careers）。这导致它们得出了错误的结论。
干扰项：[A] 先前研究确实主要看体育，但文中的核心批评点是“缺乏长期追踪”，而不是“领域单一”。 [B] 心理压力是第八段解释成因时提到的，不是先前研究的缺陷。 [D] 文中并没有说先前的研究依赖主观共识。
33. 【答案】C
【解析】题型：推断题
定位： 第七段 "Nobel-prizewinning scientists were less likely to have won early academic scholarships... and maintained broader scientific interests..." 及第八段的理论解释。
分析： 第七段指出诺贝尔奖得主早期表现并不惊艳（较少获早期奖学金，高级职称晋升慢），且保持了更广泛的科学兴趣。选项 C（他们受益于在专业化之前探索多样的科学领域）符合文章主线（broad interests -> training efficiency）。
干扰项：[A/B] 与原文完全相反，文中明确指出他们早期成就不如未能获奖的提名者。 [D] 他们恰恰是避开了“温室”（hothouse）训练系统的一群人，而不是在系统中幸存下来。
34. 【答案】B
【解析】题型：词汇/概念理解题
定位： 第八段最后一句 "The third is the 'limited-risk hypothesis': avoiding the 'hothouse' training environment early on stops youngsters from burning out or becoming disenchanted..."
分析： “有限风险假说”是指：早期避免高压训练，可以防止年轻人“燃烧殆尽”（burning out）或对无休止的练习感到“失去兴趣/厌倦”（disenchanted/bored）。选项 B 准确转述了这一点。
干扰项：[A] 文中未提及经济负担（financial burden）。 [C] 延迟专业化反而会导致获得早期奖学金的几率降低（第七段）。 [D] 这是“寻找与匹配”（search and match）理论的内容，而非“有限风险假说”。
35. 【答案】C
【解析】题型：主旨/态度题
定位： 最后一段 "It is a reliable way to produce highly competent people—just not the truly world-class ones."
分析： 作者在最后一段借 Güllich 博士之口明确表态：传统的体校或音乐学院模式并不是完全没用，它们能产生“高度胜任”（highly competent）的人才，但产生不了“真正的世界级”（truly world-class/ultimate greatness）巨星，因此需要反思。这与选项 C 完美契合。
干扰项：[A] “完全无效并应被废除”过于极端，文中说了它们依然有效（reliable way）。 [B] 它们产生的不是平庸（mediocrity），而是高水平的胜任者（highly competent）。 [D] 德约科维奇模式就是目前的体校模式，作者建议它们需要改变（rethink），而不是推广。
【参考译文】
诺瓦克·德约科维奇四岁时第一次拿起网球拍。12岁时，他离开祖国塞尔维亚，前往德国的一所网球学院，并在20岁时赢得了他的第一个大满贯冠军。今天，他是男子网球历史上夺得大满贯冠军次数最多的纪录保持者。德约科维奇辉煌的职业生涯符合人们对人类卓越成就的一种普遍看法：一个神童，在早年接受密集训练，最终征服了他所选择的领域。
但去年年底发表在《科学》杂志上的一篇论文表明，他可能是一个例外，而不是常规。该研究得出结论：在体育以外的各个领域，最优秀的表现者往往走的是一条截然不同的道路。
这项研究由德国体育科学家阿恩·居利希（Arne Güllich）领导，分析了包括体育、国际象棋、古典音乐和学术界在内的多个领域、涵盖34000多名精英表现者的数据。[插入对比早晚期专业化成功率的数据图表图像] 研究得出的结论是：尽管那些从小接受高强度训练的青少年通常能达到很高的水平，但他们成年后往往无法成为真正的超级巨星。相比之下，那些最终达到顶峰的人，在早期往往并不显山露水。他们需要更长的时间才能达到巅峰，而且似乎能在更长的时间里保持更广泛的兴趣。
公认的观点——也是各大青训学院所基于的逻辑——是培养才华横溢的年轻人的最好方法是尽早发现他们，并对他们进行无休止的训练。但居利希博士指出，支持这种做法的先前研究大多只关注了学校级别的运动员，并未追踪受试者成年后的职业生涯。
当研究人员分析了纵向数据后，一个可靠的规律浮出水面。在每一个领域，青年精英与成年精英几乎是完全分开的两个群体。大约90%的成年超级巨星在孩童时期并不是超级明星，而只有10%的顶尖儿童最终成为了卓越的成年人。实际上，童年时期的优异表现与成年后的卓越成就是呈负相关的。
成年巨星们确实在他们最终成为精英的领域之外，还保持着其他的兴趣。最顶尖的男女运动员，在其他多项运动中达到较高水平的时间，往往比表现不如他们的同龄人要长得多。在年轻时，他们在自己最终选择的运动项目上的表现，落后于那些更为专注的同龄人。但是，一旦他们开始专业化训练，他们的进步就会快得多——用体育科学的术语来说，他们拥有更好的“训练效率”。
在学术界也是如此。诺贝尔奖得主科学家获得早期学术奖学金的可能性，低于那些被提名但未获奖的科学家。此外，他们晋升高级学术职位所需的时间更长，早期发表的论文记录较少，且在获奖领域之外保持着更广泛的科学兴趣。[插入不同科学领域的诺贝尔奖得主图像]
为了解释为什么会出现这种“大器晚成”，研究人员提出了三种理论。第一种是“寻找与匹配”：拥有广泛的兴趣并等待再决定在哪个领域深耕，可以让你有更好的机会找到最适合自己天赋的领域。第二种是“增强学习”：学习本身是一种可习得的技能，磨练它的好方法就是追求多样的体验，这会使后期的专业化训练更加高效。第三种是“有限风险假说”：尽早避开“温室”般的训练环境，可以防止年轻人精疲力竭，或因日复一日的练习而产生厌倦。
居利希博士强调，他的团队并不是说“温室”模式无效。他说，这是培养“高能力者”的可靠方法——只是培养不出真正的“世界级巨星”罢了。换言之，体育学院、选拔性学校和高端音乐学院可能需要重新思考它们的培养方式。
附注：
本篇 Flesch–Kincaid 可读性指标（估算英文文章纯语言阅读难度，数值越大代表难度越大，十分制）评分为 7.1。参考：2026年英语（一）真题四篇评分分别为 6.5、7.0、7.9、7.6，英语（二）为5.2、6.2、6.8、5.8 。在话题熟悉度，逻辑复杂度、段落结构线索丰富度方面综合指标（数值越大代表难度越大，十分制）评分为6.8。参考：2026年英语（一）真题四篇评分分别为5.8、6.5、8.2、8.0，英语（二）为4.5、6.0、6.5、5.2 。原文阅读链接为：https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/01/14/why-child-prodigies-rarely-become-elite-performers ©图源水印/网络
