懒笔记
2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?
CET-4 · 来自 2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 · Part III Section C (2) · 阅读理解（四选一）

Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?

《人工智能合乎伦理吗?》 —— 2018年12月英语四级真题第1套文章逐层精读

本文选自2016年4月12日发表在 www.project-syndicate.com 网站上的一篇标题为“Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?”(《人工智能合乎伦理吗?》)的文章。

本页是 2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章的精读视角页——这篇议论文全文 345 词、7 段，CEFR 难度 B2（B2 级在英语四级文章中占 46%），作者立场为「客观中立」；英文原文之外，本篇已有的 11 项精读维度逐项展开，其中能迁移到其他英语四级真题文章的判断方法（篇章结构、修辞、言外之意、作者态度、体裁速判）随各维度一并讲透。

精读最佳实践

本页解析里的段号（P1）都可以点——点一下，原文在顶部翻开并定位到该段，解析引用的原文同步标亮；合上原文，你还停在刚才读到的位置。点 P1 试试。

PASSAGE · 文章原文

7 段英文原文

以下为2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 的阅读理解（四选一）原文，共 7 段。左侧 P1–P7 是段落编号——本页全部解析（结构、逐段、修辞、自检题）都以它为坐标回指原文，点击解析里的段号，原文即在顶部翻开并定位到该段、引用的原文同步标亮；合上原文仍停在当前阅读位置。原文保持卷面形态，不带翻译与标注。

Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?

The AlphaGo program's victory is an example of how smart computers have become.

But can artificial intelligence (AI) machines act ethically, meaning can they be honest and fair?

One example of AI is driverless cars. They are already on California roads, so it is not too soon to ask whether we can program a machine to act ethically. As driverless cars improve, they will save lives. They will make fewer mistakes than human drivers do. Sometimes, however, they will face a choice between lives. Should the cars be programmed to avoid hitting a child running across the road, even if that will put their passengers at risk? What about making a sudden turn to avoid a dog? What if the only risk is damage to the car itself, not to the passengers?

Perhaps there will be lessons to learn from driverless cars, but they are not super-intelligent beings. Teaching ethics to a machine even more intelligent than we are will be the bigger challenge.

About the same time as AlphaGo's triumph, Microsoft's 'chatbot' took a bad turn. The software, named Taylor, was designed to answer messages from people aged 18-24. Taylor was supposed to be able to learn from the messages she received. She was designed to slowly improve her ability to handle conversations, but some people were teaching Taylor racist ideas. When she started saying nice things about Hitler, Microsoft turned her off and deleted her ugliest messages.

AlphaGo's victory and Taylor's defeat happened at about the same time. This should be a warning to us. It is one thing to use AI within a game with clear rules and clear goals. It is something very different to use AI in the real world. The unpredictability of the real world may bring to the surface a troubling software problem.

Eric Schmidt is one of the bosses of Google, which owns AlphaGo. He thinks AI will be positive for humans. He said people will be the winner, whatever the outcome. Advances in AI will make human beings smarter, more able and "just better human beings."

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

7 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 的这篇原文——每段给出英文段落主旨、段落标题与中文解读，并提炼一条「这段为什么这样读」的具体方法。

  1. P1

    AI's Remarkable Capability

    AlphaGo's victory shows the remarkable intelligence of modern computers.

    本段为文章主旨提供了 factual background：既然 AI 如 AlphaGo 已显示出 remarkable capabilities，我们才必须进一步追问它能否在现实中作出 ethical decisions。

    抓住主谓判断
  2. P2

    Can AI Be Ethical?

    The article raises the question of whether AI machines can behave ethically.

    本段把第一段的技术成就转化为伦理难题，正式确立全文主线：AI 的 intelligence 并不自动等于 moral reliability。后文的无人驾驶汽车和聊天机器人都在回答或检验这一问题。

    盯住转折设问
  3. P3

    Ethical Dilemmas for Driverless Cars

    Driverless cars reveal the difficulty of programming AI to make ethical choices in life-and-death situations.

    本段是全文的第一个主要论据，通过 driverless cars 把抽象的 AI ethics 落到具体的 real-world decisions。它支持文章主旨中“现实场景的伦理编程具有重大挑战”这一判断。

    归并连串设例
  4. P4

    The Greater Challenge of Superintelligent AI

    The ethical challenge will become even greater when machines are more intelligent than humans.

    本段连接汽车案例与更广泛的 AI debate，把局部的现实困境提升为未来的普遍挑战。它强化了文章主旨：伦理问题不是暂时的 technical detail，而是随 AI 能力增长而更突出的核心问题。

    抓住比较升级
  5. P5

    The Failure of Microsoft's Chatbot

    Microsoft's chatbot failure shows that AI can learn and spread harmful ideas in real-world interaction.

    本段提供第二个、更直接的反面案例，证明现实世界的 AI 会受人类输入和社会环境影响。它具体支撑文章主旨中“伦理实施不能只看技术能力，还需谨慎考量”的观点。

    串起因果链条
  6. P6

    From Game Success to Real-World Risk

    AI may work well in games with clear rules, but real-world use creates unpredictable and troubling problems.

    本段是全文论证的总结性核心段，它把 AlphaGo 与 Taylor 两个案例整合为明确结论：clear-rule games 中的成功不能保证 AI 在现实世界中同样安全、可靠和合乎伦理。

    锁定两类环境
  7. P7

    An Optimistic View of AI

    Eric Schmidt argues that advances in AI will ultimately improve human beings.

    本段补入 pro-AI 的乐观声音，使文章论述更具平衡性。它并未消除前文的 ethical warning，反而形成 tension：即使 AI 可能让人类更好，如何处理 real-world ethical risks 仍是必须解决的问题。

    辨明观点归属
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

7 道逐段细节自检题

针对2018年12月英语四级真题第1套这篇原文，每段配 1 道细节题（ 1 个正确项 + 5 个干扰项 ，由懒笔记精读引擎基于本段命制，非试卷原题）。 选项默认中性；点「显示答案与解析」展开正确项、解析与最快解法，现代浏览器会同步高亮正确选项。

  1. 第 1 段 定位词 AlphaGo program's victory

    What does the AlphaGo program's victory show about computers?

    • A Computers can now defeat humans in every activity.
    • B AlphaGo is the world's only intelligent computer program.
    • C Computers have become highly intelligent.
    • D Artificial intelligence has changed the rules of the game.
    • E Computer games have become more popular because of AlphaGo.
    • F Computers have already learned to make fair moral decisions.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项把原文 how smart computers have become 改写为 highly intelligent，保留了 computers 与 intelligence level 的核心语义，属于直接的 synonym paraphrase。

    事件后评价词直配 用题干中的完整短语 AlphaGo program's victory 直接锁定 第1段，不必先通读全文。随后只核对 show 后面的评价维度，保留与 smart 构成同义关系的正确项，排除加入范围、伦理或因果信息的选项。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 act ethically

    What does it mean for AI machines to act ethically?

    • A They can think faster than human beings.
    • B They can operate without any human control.
    • C They can always produce the most profitable outcome.
    • D They can be honest and fair.
    • E They can copy every form of human intelligence.
    • F They can avoid making any difficult choices.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    原文用 meaning can they be honest and fair 直接解释 act ethically。该项完整保留 honest 与 fair 两个并列特征，没有增加新的 ethical standard。

    释义标记后取答案 通过 act ethically 直接定位 第2段，再利用紧随其后的 meaning 读取释义，不分析整篇论证。比较选项时只检查能否完整承接该释义，符合两个并列品质的即为正确项。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 choice between lives

    What difficult situation may driverless cars sometimes face?

    • A They may make more mistakes than human drivers.
    • B They may be unable to travel on California roads.
    • C They may need passengers to control every sudden turn.
    • D They may have to obey different road laws for animals.
    • E They may face a choice between lives.
    • F They may cause damage whenever they protect their passengers.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：E

    该项直接对应原文 sometimes ... face a choice between lives，并保留 may 所表达的 possibility，没有把特定风险扩大为所有驾驶情形。

    选项困境短语反定位 先浏览选项并抓住最具体的 choice between lives，再反向锁定 第3段。由于题干问 sometimes face，只需核对同句中的宾语，原词复现且保留可能性限定的选项就是正确项。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 bigger challenge

    What does the text identify as the bigger challenge?

    • A Learning basic driving lessons from driverless cars.
    • B Making driverless cars more intelligent than all people.
    • C Proving that driverless cars are super-intelligent beings.
    • D Preventing machines from becoming more intelligent.
    • E Replacing human drivers with ethical machines immediately.
    • F Teaching ethics to a machine more intelligent than humans.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：F

    该项对应 Teaching ethics to a machine even more intelligent than we are，并把 we are 明确改写为 humans，完整保留 teaching ethics 与 higher intelligence 两个要素。

    比较级左读主语 用 bigger challenge 直接锁定 第4段，并从该短语向左读取句子主语，不必分析上一段的全部案例。与这一主语保持动作和对象一致的选项就是正确项。

  5. 第 5 段 定位词 Taylor

    Why did Microsoft turn off Taylor?

    • A She began repeating racist ideas and praising Hitler.
    • B People aged 18-24 refused to send her messages.
    • C She was completely unable to learn from messages.
    • D She deleted every message sent by her users.
    • E Microsoft had already developed a smarter replacement.
    • F Professional hackers permanently damaged her software.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：A

    该项综合了原文 teaching Taylor racist ideas 与 she started saying nice things about Hitler。repeating 概括其学习后的输出，praising Hitler 则准确转述 saying nice things about Hitler。

    结果句前追最近诱因 利用 Taylor 锁定 第5段，再直接寻找 turn her off 前由 when 引出的触发事件。无需梳理软件的全部设计过程；能概括该最近原因且不添加强制性事实的就是正确项。

  6. 第 6 段 定位词 Taylor's defeat

    What warning is suggested by Taylor's defeat and AlphaGo's victory?

    • A AI performs equally well in games and in the real world.
    • B Unpredictable real-world conditions may expose troubling software problems.
    • C Clear rules make real-world software problems impossible.
    • D Taylor's defeat proves that all learning software will fail.
    • E AI should only be used to win games with simple goals.
    • F Software problems disappear when AI has clear goals.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：B

    该项直接整合 The unpredictability of the real world 与 may bring to the surface a troubling software problem。expose 是 bring to the surface 的准确 paraphrase。

    警示句后抓环境风险 用 Taylor's defeat 锁定 第6段，然后跳过事件复述，直接读取 warning 后对 game 与 real world 的对比结论。抓住 unpredictability 与 bring to the surface 的因果搭配，即可识别正确项。

  7. 第 7 段 定位词 Eric Schmidt

    According to Eric Schmidt, how will advances in AI affect human beings?

    • A They will lose control of every intelligent machine.
    • B They will become less capable as AI improves.
    • C They will become smarter, more able, and better human beings.
    • D They will benefit only when AI produces the expected outcome.
    • E They will be replaced by companies that own AI programs.
    • F They will stop developing their own intelligence.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项直接对应 make human beings smarter, more able and just better human beings，只把使役结构改写为 become，三个 positive effects 均得到保留。

    人名后提取并列评价 以 Eric Schmidt 直接锁定 第7段，然后只读取 thinks 和 said 后的评价，不回看其他案例。把 smarter、more able 与 better 视为并列信息组，完整保留该组的选项即为正确项。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

4 个意群的议论文骨架

按议论文 的行文骨架切分意群，每个意群标注它覆盖的段落与对主旨的作用——逐段读完后回到这里俯瞰全篇，能看清作者为什么按这个顺序行文。

  1. 引言 P1 P2

    AI智能化发展引出伦理问题

    这个 opening paragraph 先用 AlphaGo 的 victory 来展示 AI 的 smart capabilities，然后通过 but 这个 turning point 立刻抛出 core question：AI machines 能否 act ethically，也就是能否做到 honest and fair。这是典型的 引言 structure，先给 background context，再提出 central issue 来 engage readers。

    这个 introduction 通过提出 ethical programming 这个 fundamental question，为后面讨论 challenges 和 real-world scenarios 搭建了 thematic framework，让 readers 明白整篇文章要探讨的 central concern 是什么。

    提出AI伦理编程的核心问题
  2. 分论点 P3

    无人驾驶汽车的伦理困境

    这个 supporting argument 用 driverless cars 作为 concrete example 来 illustrate ethical dilemmas。段落展示了 AI 在 real-world scenarios 中面临的 moral choices：是 avoid hitting a child 还是 protect passengers，是 avoid a dog 还是只考虑 car damage。这些 hypothetical situations 体现了 programming ethics 的 complexity，说明 clear rules 很难 cover 所有 ethical situations。

    这个 supporting point 通过 multiple ethical scenarios 来 demonstrate 主旨中提到的 significant challenges。它把 abstract ethical question 转化为 tangible dilemmas，让 readers 感受到在 real-world context 中 program ethical behavior 的 practical difficulty，有力支撑了 ethical AI implementation 需要 careful consideration 这个 main argument。

    展示现实场景中的伦理编程难题
  3. 分论点 P4 P5 P6

    微软聊天机器人失败案例的警示

    这个 supporting argument 先在 第4段 指出 teaching ethics to super-intelligent AI 是 bigger challenge，然后 第5段 用 Microsoft's Taylor chatbot 这个 negative example 来 demonstrate real failure。Taylor 从 learning mechanism 变成了 spreading racist ideas 的工具，这个 concrete case 展示了 AI ethical training 的 unpredictability 和 vulnerability。第6段 把 AlphaGo's victory 和 Taylor's defeat 进行 contrast，强调 game environment 和 real world 的 fundamental difference，pointing out 真实世界的 unpredictability 会 bring troubling problems to the surface。

    这组 paragraphs 通过 negative case study 和 contrast analysis 深化了主旨。Taylor 的 failure 直接体现了 ethical AI implementation 的 significant challenges，而 AlphaGo 与 Taylor 的 juxtaposition 精准呼应主旨中 "contrast between success and failure" 以及 "beyond game-like environments" 这两个 key points，用 empirical evidence 证明 real-world ethical programming 确实 requires careful consideration。

    用失败案例证明现实环境的不可预测性
  4. 结论 P7

    业界领袖对AI未来的乐观展望

    这个 conclusion 引入 Eric Schmidt（Google boss）的 optimistic perspective，认为 AI advances will be positive for humans，会让人类 smarter、more able 和 just better。这个 ending 既不是简单的 summary，也不是 strong stance，而是提供了 alternative viewpoint 来 balance 前面的 warnings，让 readers 自己思考和判断 AI 的 future implications。

    这个 conclusion 通过引入 authoritative optimistic view，并不否定前文的 challenges 和 warnings，而是 present contrasting perspective 让文章保持 balanced tone。它呼应主旨中的 "careful consideration" 含义——既要认识 challenges（前文重点），也要理解 potential benefits（本段内容），最终让 readers 形成 nuanced understanding of ethical AI implementation。

    提供与警示形成对照的乐观视角
MAIN IDEA · 速判主旨

6 步定位这篇文章的主旨

不读完全篇也能锁定主旨——以下 6 步按2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 这篇原文的实际行文顺序给出，每步说明看哪里、看出什么，可直接迁移到其他英语四级文章。

  1. 首段识别话题领域 P1

    议论文的 opening 通常会引出 topic，本文 第1段 提到 AlphaGo's victory 和 smart computers，立刻确定文章围绕 AI 这个 central topic 展开，这为后续判断 main idea 提供了 foundation

  2. 转折处发现核心问题 P2

    第2段 的 'But can AI machines act ethically' 是典型的 pivot point，通过 but 这个 adversative conjunction 和 rhetorical question 的形式，把讨论从 AI capability 转向 ethical concerns，这个 shift 揭示了文章的 real focus 不是 AI 有多 smart，而是 ethical challenges

  3. 主体段落定性质 P3 P5

    第3段 用 driverless cars 的 ethical dilemmas 作为 illustration，不断抛出 'Should...?' 'What about...?' 'What if...?' 这些 hypothetical scenarios 强调 programming ethics 的 difficulty。第5段 的 Taylor chatbot failure 是 negative example，进一步 reinforce 挑战的 existence。这些 body paragraphs 的 unified function 是 problem illustration 而非 solution presentation

  4. 结论段提炼观点 P6

    第6段 明确说 'This should be a warning' 并对比 'one thing...something very different'，直接 articulate 了 thesis：在 clear rules 的 game 和 unpredictable real world 之间存在 fundamental difference。这种 explicit comparison 和 cautionary tone 清晰表达了主旨的 cautious stance

  5. 反方观点辨识 P7

    第7段 引入 Eric Schmidt 的 optimistic view，说 AI will be positive，但这出现在作者已经 establish 了 cautionary tone 之后。文章没有用 indeed, therefore 等 agreement signals 来 embrace 这个 view，而是让它 stand alone，这种 placement 暗示这是 counterpoint 而非 author's conclusion，作者的 main stance 仍然是 第6段 的 warning

  6. 要素整合成主旨 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

    将前面 steps 的 findings 整合：topic 是 AI (第1段)，core concern 是 ethics (第2段)，supporting evidence 是 game/real-world contrast 和 failures (第3段-5)，conclusive stance 是 warning about challenges (第6段)。主旨必须 reflect 这个 complete logic chain，而不只是 mention topic 或 restate examples

主旨信号词 But P2 challenge P4 warning P6 something very different P6 unpredictability P6

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

尽管像AlphaGo这样的人工智能展示了卓越的能力,但在现实世界场景中编程机器以符合伦理地行事面临重大挑战。AlphaGo的成功与微软聊天机器人的失败之间的对比说明,伦理人工智能的实施需要超越具有明确规则的游戏环境的仔细考虑。
While AI like AlphaGo demonstrates remarkable capabilities, programming machines to act ethically in real-world scenarios presents significant challenges. The contrast between AlphaGo's success and Microsoft's chatbot failure illustrates that ethical AI implementation requires careful consideration beyond game-like environments with clear rules.
WORD INFERENCE · 生词推断

4 个生词的上下文推断

不查词典，只用文中线索推出词义——每个词给出推断出的释义与 完整推理链。已收录进英语四级高频真题词集的单词可点击进入词条页。

  • ethically 以符合道德准则的方式(诚实、公平地行事)

    现在让我们把这三条线索串联起来。首先,从 construction analysis(构词分析)我们知道 ethically 与 ethics(道德)有关,表示一种行为方式。接着,文中直接给出了 honest and fair 这两个具体特征,明确了什么叫 ethically。最后,通过 driverless cars 的 moral dilemmas,我们看到 acting ethically 在实际场景中意味着在利益冲突时做出符合道德准则的选择。这三个维度——构词、定义、应用——共同指向同一个结论。

    词根拆解+定义标志+场景验证
  • triumph 重大胜利,巨大成功

    让我们整合这些线索。第一条线索通过 synonym substitution(同义替换)告诉我们 triumph 和 victory 可以互换使用。第二条线索通过与 defeat 的 direct opposition(直接对立)确认了它的正面含义。第三条线索从 contextual significance(语境重要性)补充说明这不是一般的胜利,而是具有 historical importance(历史意义)的成就。三条线索从不同角度converge on(汇聚于)同一个结论。

    同义复现+对立框架+评价功能
  • chatbot 聊天机器人(用于自动回复消息的智能软件)

    现在整合这三个维度的信息。构词法告诉我们这是 chat 和 bot 的结合体,指向一个与对话相关的 automated system(自动化系统)。Appositive definition(同位语定义)明确它是 software,功能是 answer messages。Behavioral description(行为描述)补充了它的 intelligent features(智能特性),即能学习和改进。三条线索共同描绘出一个完整的画像。

    复合词拆解+功能定位+行为分析
  • unpredictability 不可预测性,难以预料的特性

    让我们建立完整的 inference chain(推理链)。构词法分析给出了 literal meaning(字面含义):'不可预测性'。语境对比通过 game versus real world 的框架强化了这一理解:游戏环境是 predictable 的,现实世界则相反。例证分析提供了 tangible evidence(有形证据),展示了什么是 unpredictable situations。三个层面——linguistic structure(语言结构)、rhetorical contrast(修辞对比)、empirical illustration(实证说明)——相互印证。

    词缀拆解+对立概念+具体例证
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

6 处修辞手法与仿写

每处修辞给出它在本文的具体用法、同类信号词清单与一份可直接套用的 写作仿写建议——读完能认，也能写。

  • 举例论证

    P3

    作者使用了 driverless cars 作为 concrete example 来说明 AI ethical dilemmas。通过 detailed scenarios（比如是否避让 child 或 dog），作者让抽象的 ethical programming challenge 变得 tangible and relatable。这个 vivid example 帮助 readers 理解为什么 teaching ethics to machines 是如此 complex，直接支撑了文章关于 real-world AI implementation 需要 careful consideration 的 main argument。

    信号词 One example For example For instance Take... as an example Consider the case of A case in point is To illustrate Such as Like

    仿写： 写作时要选择 familiar yet thought-provoking 的例子。首先 introduce the example clearly，然后 break it down into specific scenarios 来展示 complexity。可以用 progressive questions（递进式提问）来 deepen the analysis。仿写模版：'One example of [主题] is [具体例子]. [例子细节描述]. Sometimes, however, [复杂情况]. Should [具体困境1]? What about [具体困境2]? What if [进一步情况]?'

  • 举例论证

    P5

    Microsoft's chatbot Taylor 是 another concrete example，展示了 AI ethical failure in practice。这个 real-world case 与 AlphaGo's success 形成 parallel structure，说明 AI 在 controlled environment 和 unpredictable real world 的 different outcomes。通过 Taylor learning racist ideas 这个 disturbing scenario，作者 demonstrates 为什么 real-world AI implementation presents significant challenges，直接 reinforces 文章的 cautionary message。

    信号词 One example For example For instance Take... as an example Consider the case of A case in point is To illustrate Such as Like

    仿写： 使用 real-world case 时要 provide sufficient context（谁、什么、何时）。描述 what went wrong 时要 specific and factual，避免 vague statements。可以用 narrative approach 让例子更 engaging。仿写模版：'[时间背景], [主体]'s [产品/项目] [遭遇问题]. The [具体事物], named [名称], was designed to [原本目的]. [主体] was supposed to [预期功能], but [实际问题]. When [具体表现], [主体] [采取措施].'

  • 对比论证

    P6

    作者 juxtapose AlphaGo's victory 和 Taylor's defeat，创造 sharp contrast 来 highlight key distinction。这个 strategic comparison 强调了 game environment with clear rules 和 unpredictable real world 之间的 fundamental difference。Through this contrast，作者 effectively argues 为什么 AI success in controlled settings 不能 guarantee ethical behavior in complex reality，这直接 supports 文章关于 careful consideration 的 central thesis。

    信号词 but however in contrast on the other hand while whereas unlike different from It is one thing... It is another/something different at the same time

    仿写： 构建对比时要确保 two elements 有 meaningful connection 但 differ in crucial aspects。可以用 temporal markers（如 'at the same time'）来 establish parallelism。明确指出 'It is one thing... It is something very different...' 这样的 contrast structure 会让对比更 explicit。仿写模版：'[事件A] and [事件B] happened at about the same time. This should [引出观点]. It is one thing to [情况A with its features]. It is something very different to [情况B with contrasting features]. [对比产生的启示].'

  • 引用论证

    P7

    作者 quote Eric Schmidt（Google boss）的 optimistic view 关于 AI。这个 authoritative voice 引入了 alternative perspective，认为 AI will be positive 和 make humans 'better'。虽然这个 quote 似乎 contradicts 前面的 cautionary tone，但它实际上 serves to acknowledge 存在的 optimistic viewpoint，使文章的 argument 显得更 balanced and credible。通过 presenting both concerns and hopes，作者的 cautious stance 变得更 reasonable and persuasive。

    信号词 said thinks believes according to as [人名] stated argues claims points out noted that emphasized In the words of

    仿写： 引用时要 identify the source clearly（name + position/credentials）。使用 reporting verbs（said, thinks, believes）来 introduce the quote。可以在引用后 briefly contextualize 或 comment on its significance。仿写模版：'[人名] is [身份/职位], which [与主题的关联]. He/She thinks/said [观点内容]. [引述具体话语]. [可选：简短评论引用的含义或与文章论点的关系].'

  • 反问修辞

    P2

    作者在 第2段 使用 rhetorical question 'But can artificial intelligence (AI) machines act ethically, meaning can they be honest and fair?' 来 engage readers 和 introduce core issue。这个 question 不期待 direct answer，而是 prompt readers to think deeply about AI ethics。它 sets up the entire argument 并创造 sense of urgency。通过 questioning rather than stating，作者 invites readers into the discussion，使他们成为 active participants rather than passive recipients。

    信号词 Can Should What if What about How can Is it possible that Do we really Who would Why would Isn't it

    仿写： 构建反问时要确保 question itself contains the argument's essence。可以在问题中 embed definitions 或 clarifications（如 'meaning can they be...'）来 guide understanding。最有效的 rhetorical questions 往往 touch on fundamental concerns 或 widely-held doubts。仿写模版：'But can [主体] [核心行为/能力], meaning [具体解释/标准]?' 或在列举场景后：'Should [主体] be [行为1]? What about [行为2]? What if [情况3]?'

  • 因果论证

    P3 P6

    作者在多处建立 causal relationships 来 support arguments。特别是 'As driverless cars improve, they will save lives' 和 'The unpredictability of the real world may bring to the surface a troubling software problem'。这些 cause-effect links 展示了 logical progression：技术进步 → 生命拯救，以及现实世界的 unpredictability → 软件问题暴露。这种 causal reasoning 帮助 readers understand 为什么 AI ethics 是 pressing concern 以及为什么 real-world implementation 需要 caution，直接 strengthens 文章的 argumentative foundation。

    信号词 As will may because since therefore thus consequently as a result lead to cause result in due to so

    仿写： 建立因果关系时要确保 logical connection is clear and reasonable。使用 causal markers（as, will, may）来 signal relationships。可以从 established fact（如技术进步）推导到 likely outcome（如拯救生命）。避免 overstating certainty：用 'will' for strong causation，'may' for possibility。仿写模版：'As [原因/条件], [主体] will [结果]. [补充说明]. [原因/条件] may [可能的后果].'

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

6 处话里有话

作者没有明说、但靠信号词传递出来的态度与暗示——每处给出原文片段、信号词类型与解读。

  • AI伦理问题比技术成就更紧迫

    P2
    The AlphaGo program's victory is an example of how smart computers have become. But can artificial intelligence (AI) machines act ethically, meaning can they be honest and fair?

    转折类 But but however yet nevertheless nonetheless though

    作者通过 but 这个 transition word 制造 sharp contrast:前面 mention AlphaGo 的 victory 只是个 setup,真正的 argument 从转折开始。Rhetorical question「can they act ethically」implicitly suggests 答案可能是 negative 或者至少是 uncertain 的。这个 implication 为整篇 article 的 main thesis 奠定了 foundation—technology 的 intelligence 不等于 ethical capability。这种 opening strategy 有效地 redirect readers 从 admiring technical achievements 到 questioning moral dimensions,perfectly aligns with 文章主旨中强调的 ethical challenges beyond game-like environments。

  • AI决策的道德困境无明确答案

    P3
    They will make fewer mistakes than human drivers do. Sometimes, however, they will face a choice between lives.

    让步转折类 Sometimes, however sometimes however even though despite in spite of although even if

    作者先 concede driverless cars 的 advantage(fewer mistakes),立刻用 however 引入 life-or-death decisions 的 scenario。随后的三个 rhetorical questions 层层递进:从 child versus passengers,到 dog versus risk,再到 property damage。这个 escalating series of questions 的 implication 非常 clear—没有 straightforward ethical programming solution。作者 deliberately 不提供 answers,因为 absence of answers 本身就是 the point:ethical AI 不像 game AI 那样有 clear rules。这完美 support 文章主旨关于 real-world ethical challenges 的 complexity,与后文 AlphaGo 和 Taylor 的 contrast 形成 coherent argument。

  • 超级智能AI的伦理教育更为艰巨

    P4
    Perhaps there will be lessons to learn from driverless cars, but they are not super-intelligent beings. Teaching ethics to a machine even more intelligent than we are will be the bigger challenge.

    转折对比类 but not...but rather than instead the bigger challenge more importantly more critically

    作者用 perhaps 这个 tentative word 来 weaken driverless cars 的 instructive value,随即通过 but 进行 sharp pivot。关键的 implication 在于「not super-intelligent beings」和「even more intelligent than we are」的 contrast—如果给 limited intelligence 的 machines 编程 ethics 都困难重重,那么 teaching ethics to superintelligent AI 将是 qualitatively different 且 far more daunting 的 challenge。这个 implication 扩展了 article 的 scope 从 current AI applications 到 future AGI scenarios,deepening 文章主旨关于 ethical programming complexity 的 argument,同时 foreshadow 后面 Taylor 的 example 所展示的 unpredictability。

  • AI学习能力可能被恶意利用

    P5
    Taylor was supposed to be able to learn from the messages she received. She was designed to slowly improve her ability to handle conversations, but some people were teaching Taylor racist ideas.

    转折类 but some people but supposed to...but designed to...but intended to...however meant to...yet expected to...instead

    作者通过 juxtapose Taylor 的 design purpose(learn and improve)和 actual outcome(racist ideas)来 reveal 一个 fundamental flaw:AI 的 learning capability 缺乏 moral filtering mechanism。The phrase「some people were teaching」的 implication 是 AI systems 对 input 的 quality 无法 discriminate,这与前文 driverless cars 的 ethical dilemmas 形成 parallel—both scenarios expose AI 在 real-world complexity 面前的 inadequacy。这个 concrete example 强化了文章主旨中关于 real-world unpredictability 的 argument,为下一段的 warning 提供 empirical evidence。

  • 游戏规则环境与现实世界的本质差异

    P6
    It is one thing to use AI within a game with clear rules and clear goals. It is something very different to use AI in the real world.

    对比类 It is one thing...It is something very different It is one thing...it is another X is one thing, Y is quite another there is a difference between X and Y unlike X, Y whereas X, Y X versus Y

    这个 contrastive statement 是整篇 article 的 conceptual pivot。通过 juxtapose「clear rules and clear goals」of games with「the real world」的 unspecified complexity,作者 imply AlphaGo 的 success 具有 limited transferability。The phrase「something very different」的 strong emphasis 暗示 game AI 和 real-world AI 之间的 gap 可能是 unbridgeable 的。这个 implication 直接 serve 文章主旨:ethical AI implementation 的 challenge 不是 technical capability,而是 real-world environments 的 inherent unpredictability,这与 clear-rule games 有 fundamental difference。

  • 乐观预测缺乏现实支撑

    P7
    He thinks AI will be positive for humans. He said people will be the winner, whatever the outcome.

    委婉表达类 He thinks...He said he thinks he believes he claims according to he suggests he argues

    在 establish 一系列 AI ethical challenges 和 Taylor's catastrophic failure 之后,作者仅用 neutral reporting language 来 present Schmidt 的 optimistic view,没有任何 supportive elaboration。这种 structural placement 和 bare attribution 的 combination 创造强烈的 implied contrast—Schmidt's optimism 显得 disconnected from 前文 established 的 reality。Phrase「whatever the outcome」的 implication 尤其 problematic:它 suggest outcome 的 uncertainty,却又 claim guaranteed victory,这种 logical tension 进一步 undermine 这个 viewpoint。整个 paragraph 通过 implicit contrast 强化了文章主旨:对 AI ethical capability 的 optimism 可能是 premature 且 unfounded 的。

AUTHOR ATTITUDE · 作者态度

作者态度：客观中立

结论先行：本文作者态度为客观中立（ cautiously concerned with measured optimism）。下面是按步骤还原的判断过程与文中的态度信号词。

  1. 识别核心议题和提问方式 P1 P2

    议论文的 opening question 往往 reveal 作者的 concern focus。这里作者没有 celebrate AI's achievement，而是 quickly shift 到 ethical dimension，说明他关注的不是 technological success 本身，而是其 moral implications。这种 questioning approach 暗示作者持有 critical thinking mindset。

  2. 例证呈现的复杂性处理 P3 P5

    议论文中，作者选择 present problems without immediate solutions 表明他们 recognize the issue's complexity。这不是 pessimistic avoidance，而是 intellectual honesty。作者用 series of questions 来 illustrate 说明他在 encourage readers 去 think deeply，这是 engaged and thoughtful attitude 的标志。

  3. 对比案例的辩证分析 P5 P6

    在议论文中，contrast 和 comparison 是 reveal 作者 critical perspective 的重要 rhetorical device。作者用 victory/defeat parallel 来 emphasize 一个 key distinction：game with clear rules versus real world complexity。这种 nuanced comparison 表明作者既 acknowledge AI's potential 又 recognize its limitations，这是 balanced attitude 的体现。

  4. 结论的开放性与限定性 P7

    议论文的 ending placement 和 attribution style 很 telling。作者选择以 someone else's optimism 结尾，而不是 his own declarative conclusion，这是 open-ended approach。用 reported speech（'He thinks'、'He said'）create distance，暗示作者 present this view for consideration 而非 full agreement。这种 concluding strategy 维持了 throughout 的 cautious yet open-minded tone。

  5. 辩证综合的平衡立场 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

    议论文作者态度的 final assessment 需要 synthesize 全文的 rhetorical moves。这篇文章的 structure 是 classic dialectical pattern：present achievement → raise concerns → provide cautionary examples → acknowledge potential。作者没有 land on extreme position，这种 middle-ground approach combined with serious engagement with problems 表明作者既不 reject AI 也不 unconditionally embrace it，而是保持 analytical distance。

文中的态度信号词

  • But P2

    这个 'But' 出现在 opening praise 之后，immediately introduce contrast，标志着 author's critical turn。在议论文中，这种 adversative conjunction 在 early position 是 strong signal，表明作者不会 simply celebrate the topic，而会 raise complications。它 set the tone for the entire essay：acknowledge achievement but probe deeper。

    同类词 However Yet Nevertheless Nonetheless Still

  • should be a warning P6

    这个 modal phrase 'should be a warning' 是 strong evaluative language，直接 express 作者的 normative judgment。它不仅 point out a fact，而且 prescribe 读者 should adopt certain attitude。在议论文中，这种 deontic modals（表示 obligation 或 necessity）reveal 作者认为某事 matters 且 requires response，体现 engaged concern rather than detached observation。

    同类词 should caution us must be careful need to be aware ought to concern us requires vigilance

  • troubling P6

    形容词 'troubling' 是 clear emotional marker，express 作者的 negative evaluation of potential problems。在议论文中，这类 affective adjectives 虽然表达 concern，但并非 extreme condemnation。'Troubling' 比 'catastrophic' or 'disastrous' 更 measured，showing 作者 take issues seriously 但不 resort to alarmism。这 balance 是 cautious attitude 的 linguistic evidence。

    同类词 concerning worrying alarming disturbing problematic

  • Perhaps P4

    'Perhaps' 在句首 introduce 一个关于 lessons from driverless cars 的 tentative statement。这个 hedging adverb 表明作者 not making absolute claims，而是 exploring possibilities。在议论文中，频繁使用 hedging language 显示 author acknowledges uncertainty 和 complexity，这与 dogmatic or overly confident tone 形成对比，体现 measured and intellectually honest approach。

    同类词 Maybe Possibly Potentially It may be It might be

  • positive P7

    形容词 'positive' 出现在 conclusion，但 crucially 它是 attributed to Eric Schmidt（'He thinks AI will be positive'）而不是作者 own unqualified assertion。这个 attribution strategy 很关键：作者 present optimistic view 但通过 reported speech 保持 distance。在议论文中，这种 technique 允许作者 acknowledge positive perspectives without fully committing to them，maintaining analytical detachment。

    同类词 beneficial favorable advantageous promising constructive

  • challenge P4

    名词 'challenge' 出现在讨论 teaching ethics to super-intelligent AI 的 context。这个词 acknowledge difficulty 但不表示 impossibility。在议论文中，'challenge' 是 neutral-to-slightly-negative term that frames issues as problems to solve 而非 insurmountable barriers。这种 framing 显示作者 recognize obstacles 但 maintain problem-solving orientation，consistent with cautious optimism。

    同类词 difficulty obstacle hurdle problem issue

GENRE · 速判体裁

30 秒判定这是一篇议论文

体裁决定读法与出题套路。以下判断步骤与标志词全部以本文为例，可直接迁移到其他英语四级 真题文章。

如何快速判断这是一篇议论文？

  1. 开篇提出价值判断问题 P1 P2

    说明文的 opening 通常会直接进入 topic explanation 或者 definition，新闻报道会聚焦 who、what、when、where 这些 factual elements。而议论文会在开头就建立一个需要 debate 或 explore 的 central question，这篇文章的 ethical question 明显是要引发 discussion 和 reasoning，而非单纯 inform facts。

  2. 举例论证观点 P3

    说明文中的 examples 主要功能是 clarify concepts 或 demonstrate processes，新闻报道的 examples 是 factual cases that already happened。但议论文的 examples 是为了 support a claim 或 illustrate a point of view，往往带有 hypothetical nature 或者 selective presentation 来 strengthen the argument。这里的 driverless car scenarios 明显是 thought experiments 用于 support ethical concerns。

  3. 对比案例论证 P5 P6

    说明文会 present multiple examples 来 cover different aspects of a topic comprehensively，但不会 strategically contrast them 来 make a point。新闻报道可能 mention different events 但重点在 reporting facts。议论文会 use contrasting cases strategically 来 highlight tensions、contradictions 或 support the thesis，这里 Taylor's defeat vs. AlphaGo's victory 的 contrast 明显服务于 warning 这个 argumentative purpose。

  4. 价值判断与立场 P6 P7

    说明文使用 neutral、objective language 来 describe and explain，新闻报道即使 quote opinions 也主要是 reporting what others said。议论文会 directly express evaluations、make recommendations 或 present different viewpoints for readers to consider，这里的 warning 和 prescriptive tone（"should be"）以及 引入 opposing view（Schmidt's optimism）都是典型的 argumentative moves。

  5. 整体论证链条 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

    通过 overall structure 可以最终确认 genre：议论文的 paragraphs 之间存在 logical argumentation relationship（cause-effect、contrast、support、conclusion），每个 paragraph 推进 the argument forward。说明文的 paragraphs 是 parallel explanations of different aspects，新闻的 paragraphs 按 importance 递减排列 facts。这篇文章的 structure 明显是 building and developing an argument about AI ethics through cumulative reasoning。

哪些词暴露了议论文体裁？

  • But can P2 质疑引导词 But should But will However, can Yet, does Still, would
  • Should P3 道德判断引导词 Ought to Must we Is it right to Would it be ethical to Do we have the right to
  • Perhaps P4 不确定性限定词 Maybe Possibly It seems It appears Arguably
  • will be the bigger challenge P4 评价立场表态词 is more problematic poses a greater risk is the real concern matters more is fundamentally different
  • This should be a warning to us P6 明确主张表态词 This should be a warning We must recognize It is crucial that We need to understand This demonstrates
  • It is one thing to... It is something very different to... P6 对比论证结构词 It is one thing to X, but another to Y X is different from Y While X may be true, Y is not On the one hand X, on the other hand Y X contrasts sharply with Y
  • He thinks... He said P7 观点引述反驳词 He thinks She argues They claim X believes According to Y
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

4 句真题句逐层精讲

下列真题句各有独立的句子解析页——中文翻译、结构树逐层拆解、成分与时态、考点讲解与真题高频词。点击句子进入完整解析。

FAQ · 常见问题

关于 《人工智能合乎伦理吗?》 的常见问题

2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章 Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical? 的原文出自哪里？
2018年12月英语四级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章 Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical? 选自2016年4月12日发表在 www.project-syndicate.com 网站上的一篇标题为“Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?”(《人工智能合乎伦理吗?》)的文章。
2018年12月英语四级真题第1套文章《人工智能合乎伦理吗?》的主旨是什么？
尽管像AlphaGo这样的人工智能展示了卓越的能力,但在现实世界场景中编程机器以符合伦理地行事面临重大挑战。AlphaGo的成功与微软聊天机器人的失败之间的对比说明,伦理人工智能的实施需要超越具有明确规则的游戏环境的仔细考虑。（英文表述：While AI like AlphaGo demonstrates remarkable capabilities, programming machines to act ethically in real-world scenarios presents significant challenges. The contrast between AlphaGo's success and Microsoft's chatbot failure illustrates that ethical AI implementation requires careful consideration beyond game-like environments with clear rules.）
Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?（2018年12月英语四级真题第1套文章）是什么体裁？难度如何？
体裁为议论文，作者立场是客观中立（cautiously concerned with measured optimism）。CEFR 难度 B2，全文 345 词、7 段；在英语四级全部 511 篇真题文章中，B2 级共 234 篇（占 46%）。
2018年12月英语四级真题第1套文章《人工智能合乎伦理吗?》的篇章结构是怎样的？
全文 7 段按议论文骨架分为 4 个意群：引言 · 第1段、第2段——AI智能化发展引出伦理问题；分论点 · 第3段——无人驾驶汽车的伦理困境；分论点 · 第4段、第5段、第6段——微软聊天机器人失败案例的警示；结论 · 第7段——业界领袖对AI未来的乐观展望。
Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical? 一文的作者态度是什么？
作者态度是客观中立（cautiously concerned with measured optimism）。判断路径：识别核心议题和提问方式 → 例证呈现的复杂性处理 → 对比案例的辩证分析 → 结论的开放性与限定性 → 辩证综合的平衡立场；文中的态度信号词包括 But（第2段）、should be a warning（第6段）、troubling（第6段）、Perhaps（第4段）、positive（第7段）、challenge（第4段）。
2018年12月英语四级真题第1套文章 Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical? 中有哪些值得积累的生词？
按文中出现顺序共 4 个：ethically（以符合道德准则的方式(诚实、公平地行事)）、triumph（重大胜利,巨大成功）、chatbot（聊天机器人(用于自动回复消息的智能软件)）、unpredictability（不可预测性,难以预料的特性），每个词的词义都可以由文中上下文线索推断得出。

本页数据最后更新：