《2026年高考领航卷英语》

D
The makers of some brain-monitoring headsets and other consumer neurotechnology（神经技术）devices may not have enough privacy and data-sharing policies. An analysis of these companies’ policies shows many gather users’ neural data and maintain the right to share or sell the information without additional permission from users.
The findings come from a report by the Neurorights Foundation in New York. It looked at 30 companies that sell neurotech devices or services directly to consumers with promised benefits. “Our position is that brain data is at least as sensitive as personal health data,” says Rafael Yuste, co-founder of the Neurorights Foundation. “Why should people be okay about sharing brain data that can be decoded（解码）?”
The Neurorights Foundation found that 29 of the 30 companies could access customers’ neural data without proper sharing limits. Two-thirds allowed for the sharing of customer data, almost another third left this unclear, and just one company specifically said it wouldn’t. Furthermore, only 12 of the 30 companies gave customers both the right to withdraw permission for data processing and the right to request data deletion.
Among firms contacted for comment, a few pushed back on the foundation’s report. The Sweden-based company Flow Neuroscience told New Scientist that it doesn’t collect any neural data. And Tre Azam, founder of the UK-based company MyndPlay, said it never has access to or stores “brainwave data or any other data” from customers. He added that the firm’s software runs locally on devices without sending any information to cloud computing servers.
The problem is the absence of US government regulations, says Yuste, in comparison with the data privacy protections of the European Union. But that could be changing: Colorado became the first US state to add privacy protections for brain data. The Neurorights Foundation described it as a “game changer”. It also served as a beginning and inspiration, says Yuste.
32. What did the Neurorights Foundation report focus on?
A. Risk of getting data from brains.
B. Neurotech experiences of users.
C. Security of collected brain data.
D. Unseen data-processing policies.
33. Why does the author list the figures in paragraph 3?
A. To guarantee users’ fundamental rights.
B. To prove insufficiency of privacy policies.
C. To draw readers’ attention to brain data.
D. To reveal illegalities of certain companies.
34. What is paragraph 4 mainly about?
A. Consequences of poor regulation.
B. Examples of trustworthy companies.
C. Challenges of neurotech development.
D. Disagreements from the businesses.
35. What might the author continue talking about?
A. The US government’s creative moves.
B. More upcoming brain data protections.
C. The European Union’s privacy policies.
D. More problems with neurotech devices.

答案： 32.C　[命题立意]考查理解具体信息的能力。
①明题意 神经权利基金会的报告聚焦什么？
A“获取脑数据的风险”；B“用户在神经技术方面的体验”；C“被收集的脑数据的安全性”；D“被忽略的数据处理政策”。
②解题目 首段即指出基金会分析的是“privacy and data-sharing policies”，并发现许多公司都会收集用户的神经数据并保有不经用户额外允许共享或出售信息的权利；第二段引用联合创办人观点强调“brain data is at least as sensitive as personal health data”。由此可见报告关注的是公司收集的脑数据是否安全、隐私是否受保护。
❌错因分析 A项，报告关注的是数据被获取后的使用风险（共享/出售），而非获取过程本身的风险；B项，用户体验未涉及；D项，原文关注的是数据共享政策而非数据处理政策。
33.B　[命题立意]考查推断的能力。
①明题意 作者为什么在第三段列举这些数据？
A“为了保障用户的基本权利”；B“为了证明隐私政策的不足”；C“为了引起读者对脑数据的关注”；D“为了揭露某些公司的违法行为”。
②解题目 第一段首句即指出“The makers... devices may not have enough privacy and data-sharing policies”，第二段又提出脑数据的敏感性，第三段则是用数字具体展示了30家公司中只有少数能保证用户脑数据隐私以及支配权，只有一家公司明确表示不会共享，由此证明隐私政策不足的中心论点。
❌错因分析 A项，“保障用户基本权利”是长远来看作者渴望实现的最终结果，不是此处列数据的目的；C项，“引起读者的关注”主观臆断；D项，“illegalities”表述过重。
34.D　[命题立意]考查理解主旨要义的能力。
①明题意 第四段主要是关于什么的？
A“监管不善的后果”；B“值得信任的企业范例”；C“神经技术发展的挑战”；D“企业的反驳”。
②解题目 段首句中的“a few pushed back on the foundation’s report”点明主旨，随后列举了Flow Neuroscience和MyndPlay的回应，均否认报告的结论。整段围绕“企业不同意报告结论”展开。
❌错因分析 A项在第四段未提及，是上文的内容；B项，无法根据企业对自身的看法断定其值得信赖；C项，“never has access”是为了反驳而不是说明技术上的困难。
35.B　[命题立意]考查推断的能力。
①明题意 作者接下来可能谈论什么？
A“美国政府的创新行动”；B“更多要到来的脑数据保护措施”；C“欧盟的隐私政策”；D“更多神经技术设备方面的问题”。
②解题目 末段先指出“问题在于美国政府法规的缺失”，随后以“But that could be changing”转折，引出科罗拉多州是美国第一个增加脑数据隐私保护措施的州，这将改变“游戏规则”，文章最后是Yuste的话“这也作为一个开端和激励”。因此按照行文逻辑，下文可能展开描述其他州在脑数据保护方面的做法。
❌错因分析 A项错在“creative”；C项，欧盟仅作为比较对象提到，文章重点在于美国的情况；D项的“问题”在前文已经充分阐述过。
二次精读
【重点词汇】Para.3：allow for 使有可能；考虑到 furthermore adv. 此外，而且 withdraw permission 撤回许可 data deletion 数据删除 Para.4：push back (on sth.) 反对，抵制（计划、想法或变革）
Para.5：in comparison with 与……相比 game changer 游戏规则改变者
【词缀变形】Para.1：private adj. 个人的，私人的→privately adv. 私下，单独→privacy n. 隐私→privatize v. 使私有化→privatization n. 私有化 add v. 增加→addition n. 增加物→additional adj. 额外的 permit v. 允许→permission n. 许可；许可证→permissive adj. 纵容的，放任的→permissible adj. 容许的，许可的→impermissible adj. 不允许的
Para.5：compare v. 比较，对比→comparison n. 比较，对比→comparative adj. 比较的；相对的→comparable adj. 可比较的，类似的→incomparable adj. 不可比拟的，举世无双的
【一词多义】1.position 常用义：n. 位置；职位 文章义：n. 立场，观点(Para.2) She has made her position very clear. 她明确表示了自己的立场。
2.access 常用义：n. 通道，入径 文章义：v. 获取，访问（Para.3） Users can access their voice mail remotely. 用户可以远程获取语音邮件。