2024年12月·第3套 英语四级阅读理解（四选一） 第 2 篇 · 51–55 题答案与解析

What do we learn about publicity over protein in America? 是一个 What…learn about 的事实型问句，直接问关于某对象（publicity）的某一事实，没有 infer/suggest/imply 等推断信号。

句式平铺直叙：What do we learn about publicity over protein in America? 主干是 What do we learn about X，介词短语 over protein 是 publicity 的范围限定，in America 限定地域，无陷阱。

• A)✓ 正确
  • buying into a myth of protein deficiency created by food companies and self-identified health experts↔It has helped to create the myth of protein deficiency.
  • contrary to all the publicity that everyone needs more protein↔the myth of protein deficiency

  预判说"宣传促成了蛋白缺乏的迷思"，helped to create the myth of protein deficiency 一字不差地落到这个语义上，是定位句的直接同义替换。

• B)与原文相反

  原文用 buying into a myth 表明宣传是在"骗"美国人，并非"帮"他们；选项 helped Americans in search of protein-rich diets 把负面后果包装成正面服务，与原作者态度相反。

• C)无中生有

  原文从未说 publicity "raised health concerns"——P6 的健康风险讲的是高蛋白饮食本身，而非舆论造成的恐慌；选项 raised a lot of health concerns among the public 在文中无落点。

• D)偷换概念

  原文说迷思是 created by food companies and self-identified health experts，主语是"食品公司和自封专家"在制造迷思；选项 funded by food companies and health experts 把 created 偷换成 funded（资助），且把 publicity 当受资助对象，主体与动作都被改写。

Why have physicians in the U.S. never actually examined a patient with protein deficiency? 用 Why 直问原因，要求按原文给出的解释作答，不需要自行推断。

现在完成时 have…never actually examined，never 是关键否定词，actually 加强语气，提示原文给出的解释是"压根没机会见到"层面的原因；理解时把 never examined 当作"从未见过"即可。

• A)答非所问

  原文给出的原因是"日常热量摄入足够蛋白也就够了"，与"能否买到"无关；选项 purchase many kinds of protein-rich foods everywhere 谈购买便利性，是另一回事。

• B)偷换概念

  原文说的是 an adequate number of daily calories"日常足量的卡路里"，选项 absorb the number of calories recommended by food experts 偷换为"食品专家推荐的卡路里数"——多了"food experts recommended"这一未出现的限定，且 absorb 与 eating 含义偏移。

• C)✓ 正确
  • simply by eating an adequate number of daily calories we are also most likely getting enough protein↔Americans can get sufficient protein just by eating adequate foods daily.

  预判说"靠正常饮食的热量就够蛋白"，get sufficient protein just by eating adequate foods daily 几乎逐字对应，是 because 句的同义替换。

• D)与原文相反

  原文的因果是"正常饮食就够蛋白，所以不必靠补剂"；选项 rely on food supplements to prevent protein deficiency 反过来说"靠补剂预防缺乏"，正是全文批判的对象。

What should people take into consideration in deciding on the most preferable protein intake? 在问决策依据，原文必会以并列形式给出依据项，照搬即可。

in deciding on… 是 in doing 结构作状语，表"在做某事的时候"；主干是 What should people take into consideration，把状语剥掉，问句就回归"应考虑什么"，简单。

• A)无中生有

  原文只列了 age and activity level，并未把"现在健康程度"或"吃什么食物"列入考虑因素；选项 How healthy they are and what food they eat 是凭常识自造的因素。

• B)✓ 正确
  • depending on age and activity level↔How old they are and what activities they do.

  预判的"年龄+活动量"两项，与 How old they are and what activities they do 一一对齐，是最直接的同义替换。

• C)偷换概念

  原文要讨论的是"理想蛋白摄入量"本身，选项 How much protein they consume and what their body weight is 反过来把"已经摄入多少蛋白"和"体重"作为考量因素，循环定义且无文本依据；P6 提到 140-pound 只是举例上限，并非"决定理想摄入量的因素"。

• D)与原文相反

  选项 How serious their protein deficiency is and what remedies they use 默认存在"protein deficiency"，但原文 P4 明确说美国医生从未见过蛋白缺乏患者，根本不存在这样的前提。

What foods have been largely out of favor for more than a century? 是事实型问句，答案就在原文某句的事实陈述里。

现在完成时 have been largely out of favor 表过去到现在的持续状态；largely 是程度副词，表"在很大程度上"，提醒不要选"完全/彻底"等绝对化误读。

• A)与原文相反

  原文 dietary spotlight firmly fixed on low-calorie, low-fat, sugar-free snack foods 说"无糖零食"是 1970-90 年代受追捧的对象，不是被嫌弃的对象；选项 Sugar-free snacks 把追捧对象当成 out of favor，颠倒立场。

• B)与原文相反

  原文 protein has managed to remain our red-hot favorite 明说蛋白质始终是 favorite（红人），选项 Protein-rich foods 反过来说它失宠，180 度反向。

• C)无中生有

  原文 P7-P9 整段都在讲脂肪、糖和蛋白质这几类宏量营养素，从未提到"红肉/白肉"被批的话题；选项 Both red and white meats 是凭健康常识填空。

• D)✓ 正确
  • fats and sugar↔Sugary and fatty foods.
  • taken the beating in turns since over a century ago↔largely out of favor for more than a century

  预判"脂肪和糖被批了一百多年"，Sugary and fatty foods 对齐对象，题干本身对齐时间与态度，三要素全合。

What does the author imply people in developed countries should do to keep healthy? 题干直接用 imply，是推断题的标准句式。

句式较长但分层清晰：主干 What does the author imply X should do，宾语从句的主语是 people in developed countries，目的状语 to keep healthy；抓住"作者+暗示+发达国家民众+保持健康"四要素即可。

• A)✓ 正确
  • rich sources of antioxidants(抗氧化剂), vitamins and many other benefits of real food↔Enjoy natural food.
  • When we replace meals with a protein bar or drink, we also risk missing out on…↔Enjoy natural food.

  预判作者推荐"回到真实食物"，Enjoy natural food 正是这条推断的最贴文表达，且不超过一步推。

• B)过度推断

  原文只说不要靠补剂代餐、要享受真实食物的好处，从未要求 vegetarian diets（素食）；从"少吃加工补剂"推不到"完全吃素"，跨度过大。

• C)与原文相反

  全文一直在反驳"应该多吃蛋白"的舆论，Americans currently consume almost twice the National Academy of Medicine's recommended daily intake of protein 明示已经摄入过量；选项 Consume enough protein daily 仍劝读者每天摄入足够蛋白，与作者立场相反。

• D)与原文相反

  尾段明确告诫 When we replace meals with a protein bar or drink, we also risk missing out on…——"代餐"被定性为风险行为；选项 Replace meals with protein bars 反过来把它当成建议，立场颠倒。