2024年6月·第2套 英语四级阅读理解（四选一） 第 2 篇 · 51–55 题答案与解析

What does the passage mainly discuss regarding scientific research? 中的 mainly discuss 直接锁定主旨题。

题干主句是 What does the passage mainly discuss，regarding scientific research 是介词短语作状语，限定讨论的对象范围，句式平铺直叙、无陷阱。

• A)无中生有：选项核心词在全文找不到主线对应

  Its foundation 中的 foundation（基础／根基）在 P1~P4 中找不到对应；原文一次都未把科研的‘基础’作为讨论对象。

• B)以偏概全：拿某段／某句的局部当全文主旨

  we reap the rewards from this science 中确实出现 rewards，但只是一句话铺垫，P2~P4 都未围绕 ‘rewards’ 展开；Its rewards 把局部一句话上升为全文主旨。

• C)无中生有＋时态错位

  Its prospect 中的 prospect（前景／未来展望）在 P1~P4 中无对应——作者讨论的是‘现状’与‘应对方式’，未对科研的未来作出预测。

• D)✓ 正确
  • most scientific research is funded by government grants, companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations↔Its funding
  • Funding for science has changed with the times↔Its funding

  Its funding 中的 Its 回指 scientific research，funding 则覆盖了 P1~P4 反复讨论的资助来源、资助偏差、资助审慎度——是唯一覆盖四段共同主线的选项。

What do we learn from the passage about researchers like birdwatchers and rock collectors? 询问对某一特定群体的事实陈述，是典型细节题。

主干是 What do we learn from the passage about researchers，like birdwatchers and rock collectors 是举例修饰 researchers，结构清晰、无陷阱。

• A)无中生有：原文未提即排除

  They have little access to government funding 在 P2 中找不到对应陈述——原文只说他们自掏腰包，并未对‘是否能拿到政府资助’作判断。

• B)✓ 正确
  • on a limited budget↔with limited resources
  • can do real research↔can do research

  B 项 They can do research with limited resources 把定位句 can do real research on a limited budget 中的能力与资源条件一一对应替换，与预判完全吻合。

• C)偷换概念：把原文措辞替换为相近但意义偏移的表达

  原文 can do real research 强调的是‘真正的研究’，而 amateur work in their own fields 把‘真正研究’偷换成‘业余工作’，且 in their own fields 也是原文未提的限定。

• D)张冠李戴＋绝对化

  They have no means for large-scale research 把 Most of us can't afford to do nuclear research as a private hobby 中‘多数人’的处境强行套到 ‘birdwatchers, rock collectors’ 头上，并把陈述绝对化为 no means。

What would scientific studies look like in a perfect world according to the author? 用 would look like 询问作者对一个特定情境下的事实描述。

主句是 What would scientific studies look like，in a perfect world 与 according to the author 都是状语修饰，按情境＋来源给约束，句式无陷阱。

• A)✓ 正确
  • completely objective↔totally unbiased

  A 项 They would be totally unbiased 用 unbiased 反向定义 objective，用 totally 替换 completely，与预判 ‘完全客观’ 一一对应。

• B)偷换概念：把比较项当成主张

  原文 Drug research sponsored by the pharmaceutical(制药的) industry is more likely to end up favoring the drug under consideration than studies sponsored by government grants or charitable organizations 仅把独立资助的研究当作偏差较小的对照，并未说‘完美世界里所有研究都应独立资助’。

• C)无中生有：选项关键词在原文无对应

  They would be responsibly conducted 中的 responsibly 在 P3 中没有对应词或近义概念，属凭语感想当然。

• D)无中生有＋话题外推

  They would be strictly supervised 引入‘严格监管’这一原文未涉及的维度。原文只谈‘客观’，未谈‘监管’。

What does the author say about companies and special interest groups? 询问作者对某一明确主体的具体陈述，是细节题。

主句是 What does the author say about companies and special interest groups?，about 引导的介词短语锁定主体对象，句式简短无陷阱。

• A)与原文相反：把肯定语句逆转

  原文 science has many safeguards in place to catch instances of bias that affect research outcomes 明确指出科学有 safeguards，作者也未指控这些团体‘试图打掉’safeguards；A 项 They try hard to pull down the safeguards for research 直接与原文事实对立。

• B)过度推断：把现象升级为意图

  原文只说企业资助的研究‘更可能偏向其产品’（more likely to end up favoring the drug under consideration），并未说企业‘额外努力地’去研究自家产品；B 项 They make extra efforts to research their own products 是从结果反推动机，越界。

• C)✓ 正确
  • provide invaluable funding for scientific research↔provide valuable resources for scientific research

  C 项 They provide valuable resources for scientific research 与定位句结构、谓语、宾语短语高度对齐，是定位句最纯粹的同义改写。

• D)无中生有＋绝对化

  They reap the most benefits from scientific research 中‘获益最多’这一比较级在 P4 中找不到任何对应陈述——原文谈他们是‘出资方’，未谈‘获益方排序’。

What does the author think of research funded by industry or special interest groups? 询问作者对特定 research 的明确看法，属于带观点色彩的细节题，仍可单点定位作者评价句。

主句是 What does the author think of research，funded by industry or special interest groups 是 research 的过去分词后置定语，相当于 the research that is funded by…，句式直白无陷阱。

• A)无中生有＋话题偏移

  原文谈的是‘核查这类研究的结论是否可靠’，并非‘检查其建议的可行性’；Its recommendations should be examined for feasibility 中 recommendations 与 feasibility 都是无中生有的概念。

• B)张冠李戴：把全局机制改成对单一对象的建议

  原文 misleading results will be corrected as science proceeds 是说科学过程会自我纠错，而 B 项 Its misleading results should be corrected in time 把这一过程改写为作者对企业资助研究的具体建议，并加入 in time 这一原文未提的时限。

• C)✓ 正确
  • examine…with extra care↔Its validity should be checked with additional care
  • Are the results consistent with other independently funded studies?↔Its validity

  C 项 Its validity should be checked with additional care 把作者 ‘要带着额外的小心去审查这类研究’ 用被动语态、上位名词重写，与预判一一对应。

• D)偷换概念＋强加限定

  原文 A little examination can go a long way towards identifying bias associated with the funding source 只说‘审视可帮助识别偏差’，并未要求‘独立地（independently）识别 hidden biases’；D 项强加 hidden 与 independently 两层原文没说的限制。