懒笔记
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2)
CET-6 · 来自 2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 · Part III Section C (2) · 阅读理解（四选一）

2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2)

议论文 · 阅读理解（四选一） · 真题文章逐层精读

Scientific American《科学美国人》2009.11.10文幸Does Hunting Help or Hurt the Environment?(狩猎对环境有益还是有害?)。

本页是 2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章的精读视角页——这篇议论文全文 426 词、7 段，CEFR 难度 C1（C1 级在英语六级文章中占 58%），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六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2020年7月英语六级真题第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。

Is hunting good or bad for the environment? Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment's carrying capacity.

On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as savage, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals' Voice, hunting "causes immense suffering to individual wild animals…" and is "irrationally cruel because unlike natural predation(捕食), hunters kill for pleasure …" He adds that, despite hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters' license fees are used to "manipulate a few game species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance."

Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mourning doves—"provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control."

Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature's Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting "designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both"—what Varner terms "therapeutic hunting"—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—are not.

Regardless of one's individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2006 show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.

Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. found that eighty percent of respondents agreed that "hunting has a legitimate place in modern society," and the percentage of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.

Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction.

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

7 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2020年7月英语六级真题第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

    The Natural and Practical Case for Hunting

    Presents the pro-hunting perspective by arguing hunting is natural and serves as necessary population control after humans eliminated natural predators.

    作为 opening paragraph,它 establish 了整篇文章的 controversial nature。通过 present pro-hunting arguments first,作者 set up 一个 balanced discussion framework。这个段落对 overall thesis 的 contribution 是 provide context:它 show 为什么 hunting debate exists 以及 supporters 的 rationale。注意它用 'hot button issue' 开头,immediately signal 这是一个 contentious topic,为后续的 multi-perspective analysis 做好 preparation。这种 structure choice 符合 academic argumentation 的 convention,即 present different sides before reaching conclusion。

    识别立场标记词并提取论证链条
  2. P2

    Moral and Ecological Opposition to Hunting

    Presents the anti-hunting perspective through moral condemnation and challenges hunting's claimed ecological benefits by arguing it actually harms biodiversity.

    这个 paragraph 是 argumentative balance 的 essential component。它和 第1段 形成 clear opposition,fulfill 了议论文 present multiple perspectives 的 requirement。对于 article's main thesis 来说,这个段落 demonstrate 了 debate 的 complexity 和 intensity。特别 significant 的是它 raise 了 moral dimension,这 elevate discussion beyond mere practicality。段落使用 authoritative source (Glenn Kirk) 来 strengthen credibility,这是 academic argumentation 的 standard practice。整体来看,它 prepare readers for deeper exploration of complexity,因为现在 both sides 都有 compelling arguments on table。

    区分观点层次并识别反驳结构
  3. P3

    The Impracticality of Modern Hunting

    Challenges hunting's practical value by citing evidence that most hunted species provide minimal nutrition and do not need population control.

    这个 paragraph 在 article structure 里 serve 了 important function of diversifying critique。它 demonstrate 说 anti-hunting position 不只 rely on moral argument,还有 empirical evidence 支持。对于 overall thesis about debate complexity 来说,这个段落 show 如何 practical considerations 也 favor anti-hunting side。特别值得 注意的是它的 brief nature:相比前两段,它更 concise,这 suggest 它可能是 supplementary argument rather than main pillar。但正因为 brevity,它 deliver punchy message without overwhelming readers。这种 rhythm variation 是 effective essay writing 的 characteristic。

    评估证据类型及其累积效应
  4. P4

    A Middle Ground: Conditional Acceptance of Hunting

    Introduces a nuanced ethical position distinguishing between morally justifiable therapeutic hunting and indefensible subsistence or sport hunting based on whose interests are served.

    这个 paragraph 在 argumentative progression 里 mark 一个 pivotal shift。前三段 establish clear opposition,这个段落 introduce complexity through nuanced analysis。对于 article's thesis about debate depending on perspective 来说,这个段落 demonstrate 说 even individual scholars 的 perspective can be complex 和 conditional。它 also transition essay from pure debate presentation towards more analytical phase。Varner 的 framework potentially reconcile 前面的 contradictions by suggesting both sides 可能 partially correct depending on hunting type。这种 intellectual sophistication elevate article beyond simple he-said-she-said format。

    识别调和策略和分类逻辑
  5. P5

    The Decline in Hunting Participation

    Presents statistical evidence showing a significant and sustained decline in hunting participation in America from 15% in 1996 to 5% in 2006.

    这个 paragraph mark 重要的 structural transition in the article。After extensive debate presentation (第1段-4),它 shift to empirical reality check。对于 overall thesis 来说,这个 data provide important context:说明 hunting debate 不只是 academic exercise,而是 relate to actual social trend。Declining participation 可能 reflect moral concerns' influence,或者 simply indicate cultural shift。这个段落的 neutral tone ('regardless of one's stance') contrasts with earlier passionate arguments,suggesting article 正在 move towards more balanced conclusion。它 set up for potential discussion about future trends or implications。

    识别规范性向描述性的转换
  6. P6

    Rising Public Acceptance Despite Fewer Hunters

    Reveals a paradox where public support for hunting is rising despite declining participation, with 80% accepting hunting's legitimacy and disapproval dropping from 22% to 16%.

    这个 paragraph add another layer of complexity to article's thesis。它 show 说 public opinion 不是 monolithic 或 static,而是 nuanced 和 evolving。对于 debate complexity theme 来说,这个 paradox demonstrate 说 people can simultaneously not hunt themselves 但 recognize hunting's legitimacy。这可能 relate back to 第4段 的 nuanced position:people 可能 accept certain forms of hunting while not participating。段落也 suggest 说 moral opposition (第2段) 可能不 reflect majority view。整体来看,它 prepare readers for article's concluding perspective by showing social attitudes 的 complexity 和 potential for common ground。

    分析反直觉数据的对比关系
  7. P7

    Finding Common Ground: Toward Cooperation

    Proposes potential collaboration between hunters and environmentalists based on their shared opposition to urban sprawl and habitat destruction, reflecting rising public acceptance.

    这个 final paragraph 完成了 article's argumentative arc。它不 simply declare 一方 correct,而是 propose pragmatic solution that acknowledge complexity。对于 overall thesis 来说,它 demonstrate 说 despite philosophical differences (第1段-4), practical cooperation possible based on shared goals。这个 conclusion align with 第4段 的 nuanced approach 和 第6段 的 public acceptance data,creating coherent narrative。'Urban sprawl and habitat destruction' 作为 common enemies 是 strategic choice,因为这些 threats transcend hunting debate。最终,段落 leave readers with hopeful message:polarized debates 可能 find resolution through focus on shared interests rather than differences。

    追溯结论与前文的关联
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

7 道逐段细节自检题

针对2020年7月英语六级真题第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 natural way prey animals

    Why do some people regard hunting as a natural way to manage certain prey animals?

    • A Because hunting always restores every predator species eliminated by humans.
    • B Because prey animals provide more nutrition than other hunted species.
    • C Because the loss of animal predators can allow prey herds to reproduce beyond the environment's carrying capacity.
    • D Because all animal species have always been predators rather than prey.
    • E Because hunters are legally required to maintain ecological balance.
    • F Because hunting is considered morally preferable to natural predation.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项完整保留了原论证的因果骨架：animal predators 被 humans wiped out，随后 prey herds reproduce beyond carrying capacity，因此有人把 hunting 看作调节手段。选项没有把这一观点扩大为作者的最终结论。障碍在于题干中的 natural 容易诱导考生选择“狩猎本身天经地义”的泛化表述；但正确项必须落在具体的 ecological mechanism 上。

    三点因果闭环 时间极紧时，先以题干中的 prey animals 反向扫描全文，并寻找其相邻的 predator 或 carrying capacity，而不是从首段逐句细读；该词链会直达 第1段。随后执行“因果闭环验算”：只有正确项同时解释捕食者减少、猎物扩张与狩猎被视作管理方式之间的关系。其余选项即使含有 hunting 或 environment，也缺少闭环。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 Glenn Kirk license fees

    What does Glenn Kirk claim hunters' license fees are used to do?

    • A They are used to compensate non-game species for habitat destruction.
    • B They are used to reduce the suffering caused by natural predation.
    • C They are used to increase the genetic integrity of wildlife.
    • D They are used to manipulate a small number of game species into overpopulation.
    • E They are used to fund sport hunting for pleasure.
    • F They are used to keep all wildlife populations in balance.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    该项精准转述引语的核心谓语 manipulate 和结果 overpopulation，并保留 a small number 的范围限定。题目设置的难点是原句信息很长，后面还接着 non-game species、biological diversity 等后果；考生若只记住负面评价，可能会误选后果而遗漏“费用被用来做什么”这个动作焦点。

    右侧谓语截取 先抓 license fees 这个低频经济名词，可在数秒内定位 第2段；不必完整阅读引语。直接采用“谓语截取法”：从该名词右侧只找第一个支配它的核心动词及其宾语。正确项对应的正是这一最短动作链，其他涉及 biodiversity 或 balance 的选项多是后果、他人主张或方向反转。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 Humane Society practicality

    Why does the Humane Society question the practicality of hunting most hunted species?

    • A Because they are too dangerous for hunters to approach.
    • B Because they have already exceeded the environment's carrying capacity.
    • C Because hunting them is irrationally cruel even when it is necessary.
    • D Because they are protected from hunting by federal law.
    • E Because such species provide little nutrition and generally do not need population control.
    • F Because they benefit only human beings rather than ecosystems.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：E

    该项一一对应原文的两个并列判断：minimal nutrition 与 do not require population control。little 和 generally 属于恰当的语义改写，既没有改变立场，也没有把适用范围绝对化。难点在于题干问 practicality，考生须把“营养少”和“不需要控制”整合为对狩猎实际必要性的否定。

    双低效用检验 看到 practicality 后，不必先找 hunting 的所有出现位置，而是专门扫描带否定意义的效用词，如 minimal、do not require、little、need。它们在 第3段 聚集出现。以“双否定需求检验”判定：正确项必须同时显示收益低和控制需求低，缺一项的选项优先排除。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 Gary E. Varner therapeutic hunting

    According to Gary E. Varner, what makes therapeutic hunting defensible?

    • A It provides hunters with a reliable source of nutrition.
    • B It is carried out solely for recreation and pleasure.
    • C It reduces every wildlife population to the same level.
    • D It is supported by a majority of Americans.
    • E It guarantees that no individual animal suffers.
    • F It is designed to promote the welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：F

    选项完整对应 Varner 的定义：designed to secure aggregate welfare、the integrity of its ecosystem、or both。promote 是对 secure 的恰当改写，target species 和 ecosystem 保留了受益对象。设置障碍在于段落同时提到 subsistence 和 sport hunting，考生必须抓住“谁受益”这一分类标准，而非被 hunting 的类型名称带偏。

    受益者筛选 先由 therapeutic hunting 这一专名定位 第4段，再跳过人物和书名介绍，直接抓破折号前后的定义块。用“受益者测试”快速判定：正确项的受益终点必须是 target species 或 ecosystem；任何把收益终点放在 hunters 或 public 的选项都可立即剔除。

  5. 第 5 段 定位词 2006 data considered themselves hunters

    What do the 2006 data indicate about Americans who considered themselves hunters?

    • A Only five percent, or about 12.5 million people, identified themselves as hunters, a decline from earlier years.
    • B Nine percent, or 12.5 million people, identified themselves as hunters.
    • C Fifteen percent of Americans became hunters for the first time in 2006.
    • D The number of hunters had risen steadily since 1996.
    • E Most Americans considered hunting an important modern activity.
    • F Five percent of hunters disapproved of hunting in 2006.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：A

    该项同时正确匹配 2006 的 five percent 与 some 12.5 million individuals，并概括 down from nine percent 和 15 percent 的下降趋势。难点是题干问数据“indicate”，答案既可呈现当前水平，也须避免误把 2001 或 1996 的数字写成当年数值。

    三槽同组校验 直接在题干上画出“2006-自我认定-比例/人数”三个数据槽，再扫 第5段 只填这三个槽。不要先读 down from 后面的旧数据。之后以正确项为模板做“同组校验”：百分比、人数和趋势必须属于同一调查叙述，任一项跨年份即排除。

  6. 第 6 段 定位词 2007 survey public attitudes

    What did the 2007 survey reveal about public attitudes toward hunting?

    • A Public disapproval of hunting rose from 16 percent to 22 percent.
    • B Most respondents viewed hunting as legitimate in modern society, while disapproval had decreased.
    • C Only five percent of respondents believed hunting had a legitimate place.
    • D A majority supported hunting only when it provided nutritional benefits.
    • E Respondents rejected cooperation between hunters and environmental groups.
    • F Support for hunting declined because fewer Americans hunted.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：B

    该项综合两条调查发现：eighty percent agreed hunting has a legitimate place，以及 disapproval 从 22 percent 降至 16 percent。most 是对 eighty percent 的准确概括，had decreased 则保留了历史比较方向。障碍在于文章前段说 fewer Americans hunt，考生容易误以为公众支持也下降；但参与行为与态度评价不是同一指标。

    正负态度同向 以 public attitudes 为核心，不读全文，直接扫描 第6段 中的 attitude verbs：agreed、legitimate、disapproval。然后用“正负同向法”判定：正确项应呈现支持端增强，反对端减弱，二者都指向更高的 public support。任何把 hunter participation 填进来，或把 decline 读成 increase 的项立即淘汰。

  7. 第 7 段 定位词 green leaders cooperation

    Why are green leaders increasingly encouraging cooperation with hunters?

    • A Because both sides agree that sport hunting is morally justifiable.
    • B Because environmental groups want more game species to become overpopulated.
    • C Because hunters and environmental groups both oppose urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
    • D Because hunters have become the majority of the American public.
    • E Because both sides reject all forms of population control.
    • F Because license fees guarantee the protection of non-game species.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项准确复现结尾的共同利益基础：both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction。题目障碍在于前文集中展示了围绕 hunting 的道德和实践分歧，考生可能惯性地寻找“双方都支持狩猎”的理由；但结尾的合作是基于共同反对的环境问题，而非观点完全统一。

    共同敌人定位 先用 cooperation 扫描关系词，再只读其后的 After all 解释句，立即定位 第7段。采用“共同反对物法”：正确项必须同时包含双方以及一个双方共同反对的外部问题；若选项让双方共同支持某种狩猎立场，或写成绝对一致，均不符合合作论证。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

7 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

    狩猎环境影响的争议性

    这个 opening paragraph 通过 hot button issue 这个表达直接 introduce 了狩猎的 controversial nature，作者用 on the one hand 引出 pro-hunting 的 perspective，强调 hunting 是 natural 且能 control 过度繁殖的 prey animals，这种 balanced introduction 为后续的 debate 奠定了 foundation

    作为典型的 argumentative essay 的 introduction，这个意群通过 rhetorical question 开篇，instantly engage 读者并 establish 文章要探讨的 central controversy，同时用 depends upon who you ask 暗示接下来会 present multiple viewpoints，这种 setup 为整个 debate structure 做好了 preparation

    提出核心争议问题
  2. 分论点 P2

    动物权益视角的反狩猎论证

    这个 body paragraph 用 on the other hand 这个明确的 transition 引出 opposing view，通过 Glenn Kirk 的 specific quotations 来 present 反对狩猎的 moral arguments，关键词 immense suffering、irrationally cruel、pleasure 构建了 emotional appeal，同时用 biological diversity、genetic integrity、ecological balance 这些 scientific terms 来 counter 支持方的 population control argument

    作为 debate 的第一个 substantial argument，这个意群 establish 了 anti-hunting position 的 two-pronged approach：moral objection (suffering, cruelty) 和 ecological critique (manipulation, loss of diversity)，通过 quote an authority figure 来增强 credibility，这个 detailed presentation 让 debate 从 introduction 的 general overview 进入到 specific argumentation phase

    呈现反对方核心论据
  3. 分论点 P3

    狩猎实用性的质疑论证

    这个 paragraph 用 beyond moral issues 明确 signal 了 argument shift，从 ethical dimension 转向 practical dimension，通过 Humane Society 的 authority 和 statistical claim (vast majority) 来 argue 大多数 hunted species 既不 provide nutrition 也不需要 population control，这种 pragmatic critique 构成了 anti-hunting position 的另一 pillar

    这个意群通过 introduce a different angle of critique 来 strengthen the anti-hunting position，它 demonstrate 了 opponents 不只是基于 moral grounds 反对狩猎，还有 practical reasons，这种 multi-dimensional argumentation 让 debate presentation 更 comprehensive，同时用 beyond 这个 word explicitly signal 了 argument expansion

    补充反对方次要论据
  4. 分论点 P4

    狩猎道德合理性的条件辨析

    这个 paragraph introduce 了 nuanced position through Gary Varner 的 work，用 some types...may be morally justifiable while others may not 这种 conditional language 来 present a middle-ground view，区分 therapeutic hunting (defensible) 和 subsistence/sport hunting (not defensible)，这种 differentiation based on purpose 提供了 more sophisticated perspective than simple pro or con

    这个意群在 debate structure 中起到 critical complicating function，它 break 了简单的 binary opposition，通过 introduce conditional approval 来 show 问题的 complexity，这种 nuanced view 让 argumentative essay 更 sophisticated，体现了 academic writing 应该 acknowledge complexity 而不是 oversimplify issues

    引入折中观点立场
  5. 分论点 P5

    狩猎参与率的下降趋势

    这个 paragraph 用 regardless of one's individual stance 明确 signal 了 major topic shift，从 moral/practical debate 转向 empirical data about participation，通过 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 的 statistical evidence 展示 hunters 的 percentage 从 1996 年的 15% 下降到 2006 年的 5%，这种 data-driven presentation 引入了 sociological dimension

    这个意群 mark 了 essay structure 的 important transition：从 normative debate (should hunting be allowed) 转向 descriptive analysis (what is actually happening)，这种 shift 让文章不只是 theoretical debate，还 ground 在 real-world trends，为最后的 conclusion about collaboration 做 preparation by showing the changing landscape

    呈现参与度数据事实
  6. 分论点 P6

    公众支持度的上升趋势

    这个 paragraph 用 however 制造 striking contrast，前面说 participation declining，这里说 public support rising，通过 2007 survey 的 data 显示 80% agree hunting has legitimate place，且 disapproval 从 22% 降至 16%，这个 paradox (fewer hunters but more support) 非常 intriguing and important for understanding the issue complexity

    这个意群 create 了 important tension in the data section，它 show 了 counterintuitive trend：即使 actual hunters 减少，social acceptance 反而 increasing，这种 paradoxical finding 让 issue 更 complex and interesting，同时为 final paragraph 的 collaboration suggestion 提供了 logical foundation：既然 public support increasing，cooperation becomes more feasible

    呈现支持度数据对比
  7. 结论 P7

    猎人与环保组织的合作趋势

    这个 concluding paragraph 用 perhaps matching the trend 来 connect 前面的 data 和最后的 synthesis，提出 green leaders advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups 这个 forward-looking suggestion，用 after all 引出 common ground：both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction，这种 unity-based conclusion 为整个 debate 提供了 constructive resolution

    作为 conclusion，这个意群 perform 了 classic synthesizing function，它不是简单 restate 前面的 debate，而是 based on the data trends (rising public support despite declining participation) 来 suggest a pragmatic path forward，通过 identify common ground (shared opposition to sprawl and habitat loss) 来 transcend the binary debate，这种 solution-oriented ending 是 sophisticated argumentative essay 的 typical move

    提出合作解决方向
MAIN IDEA · 速判主旨

5 步定位这篇文章的主旨

不读完全篇也能锁定主旨——以下 5 步按2020年7月英语六级真题第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六级文章。

  1. 识别首段的争议框架 P1

    议论文的 opening 往往通过 rhetorical question 来 frame the debate，第一段的 'depends upon who you ask' 和 'on the one hand...on the other hand' structure 直接揭示这是一篇 presenting multiple perspectives 的文章，而不是单一 argument 的文章

  2. 标记各方观点段落 P2 P3 P4

    第2段-第4段 分别呈现 opponents' view、practical objections、和 nuanced position，这种 multi-perspective layout 确认文章在 examining rather than advocating。每段的 'on the other hand'、'others contend'、'Author...suggests' 等 attribution phrases 标记了不同的 voices

  3. 捕捉数据转折点 P5 P6

    第5段-第6段 突然 shift to statistical data ('five percent'、'80 percent'、'declined from 22 percent to 16 percent')，这种从 argumentative discourse 到 factual reporting 的转变，说明文章在 documenting current trends 而非仅仅 debating principles

  4. 识别结尾合作倾向 P7

    第7段 的 'increasingly advocating cooperation' 和 'after all, both deplore' 呈现了 convergence narrative，这个 concluding gesture 暗示文章主旨不仅是 present debate，还包括 potential resolution 或 common ground

  5. 整合四段式结构 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

    整篇文章的 macro-structure 形成了 'problem → perspectives → reality → potential solution' 的 progression，这种 architecture 典型地对应 'explores debate + notes trends + suggests cooperation' 类型的主旨。不是简单的 pros and cons list，而是包含 dynamic elements（declining participation, rising support, potential alliance）

主旨信号词 depends upon who you ask P1 on the one hand...on the other hand P1 according to P2 however P6 increasingly P7 cooperation P7

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

文章探讨了狩猎对环境是有益还是有害的争论,呈现了支持者和反对者的论点,同时指出尽管参与人数下降,公众接受度却在上升,并提出猎人与环保人士之间可能合作的建议。
The article examines the debate over whether hunting benefits or harms the environment, presenting arguments from both supporters and opponents, while noting that public acceptance is rising despite declining participation, and suggesting potential collaboration between hunters and environmentalists.
WORD INFERENCE · 生词推断

5 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。已收录进英语六级高频真题词集的单词可点击进入词条页。

  • ironic 讽刺的;出乎意料却又合理的;矛盾的

    好,让我们把这些 clues 整合起来。首先,从 context 看,人类先消灭了 natural predators,现在又要通过 hunting 来控制 prey population,这本身就是一个充满 contradiction 的 situation。其次,从 sentence structure 看,'ironic as it sounds' 这个 concessive clause 明确暗示了某种 unexpectedness 或 contradiction。最后,从 morphology 看,-ic 后缀告诉我们这是一个 adjective,用来描述这种 contradictory 的特征。综合这些线索,我们可以推断:ironic 是用来描述一种 situation 或 statement,它表面看起来 contradictory 或 unexpected,但实际上是 true 的。

    三维分析:逻辑关系+句法结构+构词特征
  • savage 野蛮的;残暴的;未开化的

    让我们整合这些 clues。首先,从 parallel structure 看,savage 与 morally wrong、cruel、causing suffering 这些 strongly negative terms 并列出现,说明它具有 strong negative moral connotation。其次,从 contrast 看,savage 与 natural predation 对立,前者是 for pleasure,后者是 for survival,这暗示 savage 描述的是一种 uncivilized、brutal 的行为,缺乏 natural necessity 或 moral justification。综合这两条线索,我们可以推断:savage 是一个 strongly negative adjective,用来描述 brutal、cruel、uncivilized 的行为或状态。

    情感定位:并列词汇+对比反衬
  • manipulate 操纵;控制;人为改变

    现在让我们综合分析。首先,从 causal relationship 看,manipulate 导致了某些 species 的 overpopulation,同时 harm 了其他 species,这说明它是一种 powerful、deliberate intervention,能够 alter natural balance。其次,从 collocation 'manipulate...into...' 看,这个 verb 可以 cause something to change into a specific state,而且这个 change 是 artificial 而非 natural。最后,从 morphology 看,-ate suffix 确认这是一个 action verb。综合这些 clues,manipulate 表示一种 deliberate、skillful control or alteration,通常带有 negative connotation,暗示这种 control 是 unfair 或 deceptive。

    行为分析:因果效应+搭配模式+词形特征
  • therapeutic 治疗性的;有益健康的;恢复性的

    让我们整合这些 evidence。首先,从 explicit definition 看,therapeutic hunting 的 goal 是 to secure welfare and integrity of species and ecosystems,这些 positive outcomes 强烈暗示 therapeutic 与 healing、beneficial、restorative 相关。其次,从 contrast 看,与只 benefit humans 的 hunting 不同,therapeutic hunting benefits the ecosystem itself,这进一步确认它的 restorative、corrective nature。最后,从 word form 看,-ic suffix 表明这是一个 descriptive adjective。综合分析,therapeutic 描述一种 healing、beneficial、restorative 的特性,目的是 to improve or maintain health and balance。

    定义对比:明确阐释+概念区分+词形验证
  • deplore 强烈反对;谴责;对...深感遗憾

    现在综合分析。首先,从 pragmatic context 看,both groups deplore 相同的事物是他们能够 cooperate 的 common ground,这暗示 deplore 表达一种 shared negative stance。其次,从 semantic collocation 看,deplore 的 objects 是 environmentally destructive phenomena,这确认 deplore 表达的是 strong disapproval or regret。综合这两条线索,deplore 是一个 transitive verb,表示 strongly disapprove, regret, or condemn something,通常用于 formal or serious contexts。

    态度动词:语用功能+对象特征
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

7 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。

  • 引用论证

    P2

    文章在 第2段 引用了 Glenn Kirk from California-based The Animals' Voice 的观点，他认为 hunting causes immense suffering 并且是 irrationally cruel。这种 citation 增强了 anti-hunting argument 的 credibility 和 authority，让读者看到反对狩猎的声音不是空穴来风，而是有具体的 animal advocate organization 在支持。通过引用专业人士的 perspective，作者成功地 present 了一个 well-supported viewpoint，使得整个 debate 更加 balanced 和 convincing。

    信号词 According to argues claims states suggests notes points out asserts contends maintains observes emphasizes adds that

    仿写： 当你想要 support 某个观点时，不要只说「很多人认为」，而要问自己：在这个 field 里有哪些 recognized experts 或 organizations？他们的具体 statement 是什么？比如你写环保话题，可以引用 environmental scientists 的研究结论；写教育话题，可以引用 education scholars 的理论。模版：According to [专家/机构名称] of/from [所属组织], "[具体观点的直接引语]"... He/She adds that [进一步补充说明]。记住要包含 source 的 background information，这样 citation 才有 weight。

  • 对比论证

    P1 P2

    文章在 第1段 和 第2段 使用了 on the one hand... on the other hand 的 contrasting structure，将 pro-hunting 和 anti-hunting 两个 opposing perspectives 进行 juxtaposition。第1段 呈现 hunters 认为狩猎是 natural 的观点，而 第2段 immediately presents 动物保护者认为狩猎是 savage 和 morally wrong 的相反立场。这种 sharp contrast 让读者清晰地看到 debate 的两个 extremes，也 mirror 了文章开头的 central question: is hunting good or bad? 通过这种对比，作者 effectively illustrate 了这个 issue 的 complexity 和 controversy。

    信号词 On the one hand On the other hand however in contrast conversely while whereas unlike but yet nevertheless although

    仿写： 当你需要 present 一个 controversial topic 时，试着用对比框架来 organize ideas。首先 identify 明确的 two sides，然后用 transitional phrases 将它们 connect。不要只是 list 两个观点，而要让它们形成 meaningful opposition。比如写科技影响，可以先说 supporters believe technology enhances efficiency，然后用 however 或 in contrast 转折，说 critics argue it undermines human connection。模版：On the one hand, [群体A] contend that [观点A], arguing that [支持理由]. On the other hand, [群体B] see [同一事物] as [相反评价], arguing that [反对理由]。关键是让 contrast 服务于你的 thesis，而不是为对比而对比。

  • 举例论证

    P3

    文章在 第3段 提供了 specific examples 来 support 观点，列举了 waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mourning doves 这些 concrete species，说明它们 provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control。这些 tangible examples 让抽象的 anti-hunting argument 变得 concrete 和 visualizable。读者可以 picture 这些 specific animals，而不是停留在 vague 的「被猎杀的动物」概念上。通过这些 examples，作者 demonstrate 了反对者的论点不是 theoretical speculation，而是基于 actual hunted species 的 reality。

    信号词 such as for example for instance including like namely specifically in particular to illustrate as an example

    仿写： 当你 make 一个 general statement 后，问自己：能否给出 2-3 个 specific examples 来 back it up？例如你说「社交媒体影响青少年」，不要停在这里，而要举出 Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat 等 particular platforms 和它们的 specific impacts。模版：According to [来源], the vast majority of [总体类别]—such as [例子1], [例子2], and [例子3]—[共同特征/问题]. 注意 dash 和 such as 的配合使用很 elegant。选择 examples 时确保它们是 representative 的，能 truly reflect 你的 general claim，而不是 cherry-picked outliers。

  • 引用论证

    P4

    第4段 引用了 Author Gary E. Varner 在其书 In Nature's Interests 中的观点，他 suggests 某些类型的狩猎（therapeutic hunting）may be morally justifiable。这个 citation 很特殊，因为它不是简单地 support one side，而是 introduce 了一个 nuanced perspective，即狩猎的 morality 取决于 its purpose。引用 published book 和 named author 为这个 middle-ground position 提供了 scholarly credibility，使得文章的 debate presentation 更加 comprehensive 和 intellectually honest。

    信号词 suggests argues proposes contends maintains asserts claims states according to notes points out emphasizes

    仿写： 当你想要 present 一个 more sophisticated or nuanced view，引用 academic works 特别有效。注意本例的格式：Author [姓名] suggests in his/her book, [书名], that [观点]. 引用书籍时要 italicize title (在手写时用 underline)。这种引用特别适合当你想 introduce 一个 complex argument that requires more explanation。不要只是 drop 一个 name，而要说清楚这个人的 credentials (如 author, researcher, professor) 和他们观点的 source (book, study, article)。

  • 举例论证

    P5

    第5段 使用 specific statistical data 作为 examples：only five percent of Americans (some 12.5 million individuals) consider themselves hunters，并对比了 2001 年的 nine percent 和 1996 年的 15 percent。这些 concrete numbers 是 numerical examples，它们用 quantifiable evidence 来 support 文章关于狩猎参与度下降的 claim。数字的 specificity 使得这个 trend 不容置疑，比单纯说「越来越少人打猎」convincing 得多。Data source (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) 的注明也增加了这些 examples 的 credibility。

    信号词 show that reveal that indicate that demonstrate that data gathered statistics show research finds surveys indicate studies reveal figures show

    仿写： 使用 statistics as examples 时，遵循这个 pattern：[Data source] show/reveal/indicate that [具体数字+内容]，并可以加上 trend comparison (如本文的 down from...). 模版：Data gathered by [机构名称] in [年份] show that [百分比/数字] of [群体]—some [换算后的绝对数字]—[行为/状态], down/up from [对比数字] in [对比年份]. 注意在 percentage 后加上 absolute number (用 some 或 approximately 引导) 可以让数据更 concrete。始终 cite your data source 以增加 credibility。

  • 举例论证

    P6

    第6段 引用 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. 的具体调查结果作为 example：eighty percent of respondents agreed that hunting has a legitimate place，以及 disapproval declining from 22 percent (1995) to 16 percent (2007)。这个 survey example 用 specific research findings 来 support public support increasing 的论点。与 第5段 类似，它使用 concrete data，但这次 focus 是 public attitudes 而非 participation rates，通过 specific survey questions 和 responses 来 illustrate changing public opinion。

    信号词 survey poll study research found that revealed that showed that indicated that respondents participants

    仿写： 引用 survey results 时，清楚说明 survey source, year, 和 specific findings。模版：A [年份] survey by [调查机构] found that [百分比] of respondents [行为/观点], and [另一个发现] declined/increased from [起始数据] in [年份] to [结束数据] in [年份]. 注意本文用 agreed that + 完整句子来 quote survey question，这比只说「支持狩猎」更 specific 和 credible。当引用 attitude changes 时，提供 before-and-after comparison 能强有力地 demonstrate trends。

  • 因果论证

    P7

    第7段 在结尾使用 causal reasoning，说明为什么 green leaders are advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups，原因是 both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction。这里用 After all 引出 causal explanation，建立了 cooperation advocacy 与 shared concerns 之间的 cause-effect relationship。这个 reasoning 解释了看似矛盾的两个群体 (hunters vs. environmentalists) 为何能够 collaborate，因为它们有 common enemy (habitat loss)。这种因果逻辑为文章提供了一个 forward-looking conclusion，suggesting possible resolution to the debate。

    信号词 After all because since given that due to as a result consequently therefore thus hence leads to causes results in

    仿写： 使用因果论证时，clearly signal the causal relationship。本文的 After all 是 elegant 的 causal marker，表示「原因在于」。其他可用的 patterns：X is happening because Y, given that Y, since Y。模版：[现象/观点], after all, [解释原因]. 或：[群体] are increasingly [行动], because/since/given that [共同点/原因]. 确保你的 cause 能 logically lead to the stated effect。在结尾用因果论证特别有效，它能 tie together previous points 并 explain implications 或 future directions。

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

7 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。

  • 狩猎自然性论证的反讽

    P1
    And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals

    反讽类 ironic ironically paradoxically surprisingly oddly enough strangely curiously

    这个 implication 揭示了 pro-hunting argument 的内在 inconsistency:人类先破坏了 ecological balance,然后用继续 human intervention 来 justify hunting。作者通过 ironic 暗示这不是 natural solution 而是 human-caused problem 的延续。这对全文 thesis 的作用是 subtle 地质疑 hunting supporters 的 logic foundation,为后续呈现 opposition views 埋下 foreshadowing。

  • 狩猎动机的道德质疑

    P2
    unlike natural predation, hunters kill for pleasure

    对比类 unlike in contrast to whereas while as opposed to contrary to different from

    这个 contrast 的 implication 是狩猎缺乏 moral basis,因为它不是 survival necessity 而是 recreational choice。通过 unlike 建立的 comparison,作者暗示 hunters 的 behavior 无法从 nature 获得 moral justification。这直接 support 文章主旨中 opponents 的 moral argument,说明狩猎不同于 natural ecological processes,而是带有 human ethical problems 的 activity。

  • 狩猎管理机构的利益冲突

    P2
    despite hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters' license fees are used to manipulate a few game species into overpopulation

    让步转折类 despite although though even though while in spite of notwithstanding

    这个 implication 揭示狩猎管理存在 systemic corruption:声称 population control,实际是 economic-driven manipulation 导致 ecological damage。Despite 结构传递的信息是 hunters 的 environmental stewardship claim 是 deceptive,实际 practice 破坏 biodiversity。这个 revelation 对主旨的作用是提供 concrete evidence 证明狩猎不但不是 environmental solution,反而是 ecological problem 的 contributor,强化了 opponents 的 position。

  • 狩猎实用性的根本质疑

    P3
    the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mourning doves—provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control

    量化限制语 vast majority most almost all hardly any rarely minimal negligible

    这个 implication 是狩猎的两大 practical justifications——食物来源和种群管理——在绝大多数情况下都不成立,暗示狩猎主要是 recreational activity 而非 practical necessity。Vast majority 这个 quantifier 让反驳具有 devastating effect,因为它不是 isolated cases 而是 systematic pattern。对主旨的作用是 complement moral arguments 提供 practical dimension 的 criticism,共同构建狩猎 lacks both ethical and practical justification 的 comprehensive case。

  • 狩猎类型的道德分界

    P4
    some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be

    对比转折类 while whereas but yet on the other hand conversely in contrast

    这个 implication 引入了 ethical framework 的 complexity:狩猎的 morality 不是 absolute 而是 contextual,取决于它服务的 interests。While 构建的 distinction 暗示 current hunting practices 主要属于 morally indefensible category (sport and subsistence for human benefit)。对主旨的贡献是提供 middle-ground perspective,既不全盘否定也不无条件支持,而是建立 evaluative criteria,这 enriches the debate 并暗示 reform direction。

  • 狩猎实践与观念的背离

    P6
    fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. ... Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise.

    转折类 however nevertheless nonetheless yet still but on the contrary

    这个 paradoxical trend 的 implication 是狩猎正在从 common practice 转变为 socially tolerated but not personally embraced activity。However 标记的 contrast 暗示 public 对狩猎的态度变得更 nuanced:在 principle level 认可其 legitimate place,但在 personal level 不选择 participate。对主旨的作用是展现 debate 的 evolving nature 和 societal complexity,为最后一段的 cooperation possibility 提供 social context。

  • 环保阵营立场的战略转变

    P7
    Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups

    模糊限制语 Perhaps perhaps possibly may might could seems to

    这个 hedged statement 的 implication 是狩猎 debate 正在从 ideological confrontation 转向 pragmatic alliance 基于 common environmental concerns。Perhaps 标记的不是 uncertainty 而是这个 shift 的 significant and potentially controversial nature。对主旨的作用是提供 forward-looking perspective,暗示尽管 debate 持续,practical cooperation 正在 emerge based on shared interests in habitat preservation,这为文章提供 balanced 和 constructive ending。

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（ objective and balanced）。下面是按步骤还原的判断过程与文中的态度信号词。

  1. 识别开篇平衡结构 P1

    在 argumentative essays 议论文中，opening paragraph 是 reveal author's stance 揭示作者立场的关键位置。如果作者开篇就用 'depends on' 或 'some say...others say' 这类 structure 结构，通常意味着他在 presenting multiple perspectives 呈现多元视角，而非 advocating 倡导某个单一观点。

  2. 对立观点等量呈现 P1 P2 P3

    在议论文中，如果作者 systematically presents 系统地呈现 multiple viewpoints 多种观点，给每个 perspective 观点相当的 space 篇幅和 fair treatment 公正对待，说明他不是在 persuade 说服读者接受某个观点，而是在 inform 告知和 analyze 分析这个 issue 议题。

  3. 中性动词归属观点 P1 P2 P3 P4

    客观的作者会用 neutral reporting verbs 中立报道动词（如 'say'、'argue'、'contend'）来 introduce others' opinions 引入他人观点，而非用 'claim'（暗示 doubt 怀疑）或 'correctly point out'（表示 agreement 同意）。这种 linguistic distance 语言距离感表明作者在 maintaining objectivity 保持客观性。

  4. 结尾呈现趋势而非判断 P5 P6 P7

    议论文的 ending 结尾往往最能 reveal author's true stance 揭示作者真实立场。如果结尾是 factual summary 事实总结或 open-ended observation 开放性观察（如这里的 trend report 趋势报告），说明作者维持了 neutral position 中立立场。相反，如果结尾有 'we must'、'it is imperative' 这类 call to action 行动号召，就表明 advocacy 倡导态度。

  5. 四维度综合验证客观性 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

    这种 comprehensive presentation 全面呈现加上 absence of personal judgment 缺乏个人判断的写作方式，是 objective argumentative writing 客观议论文写作的 hallmark 标志。作者的 role 角色是 informative reporter 信息报道者，aim 目的是帮助读者 understand the complexity 理解复杂性，而非 convince them 说服他们。

文中的态度信号词

  • depends upon who you ask P1

    这个 phrase 短语直接 signal 表明作者认为这个 issue 议题没有 single answer 单一答案，需要 consider multiple perspectives 考虑多元视角。它在 opening sentence 开篇句就 establish 确立了 balanced tone 平衡语气，告诉读者作者不会 impose 强加某个 viewpoint 观点。

    同类词 it depends on varies depending on differs according to a matter of perspective subjective question

  • on the one hand...on the other hand P1

    这组 contrastive markers 对比标记是 structural balance 结构平衡的 explicit signal 明确信号。它们 organize 组织 opposing viewpoints 对立观点 in parallel structure 以平行结构，giving equal weight 给予同等权重 to both sides，显示作者的 even-handed treatment 公正对待。

    同类词 some say...others argue proponents claim...critics contend supporters believe...opponents maintain while X argues...Y counters

  • some say P1

    这个 attribution phrase 归属短语将 opinion 观点 attribute to 归属于 others，creating distance 创造距离 between the author and the viewpoint。它是 neutral reporting 中立报道的 marker 标记，表明作者在 presenting 呈现而非 endorsing 认可这个观点。

    同类词 many argue others contend advocates claim critics maintain opponents believe

  • according to P2

    这个 citation phrase 引用短语明确 attribute 归属观点到 specific source 具体来源（Glenn Kirk），显示作者在 reporting others' positions 报道他人立场而非 expressing personal views 表达个人观点。它增强了文章的 objectivity 客观性和 credibility 可信度。

    同类词 as stated by in the view of from the perspective of as X notes X points out that

  • ironic as it sounds P1

    这个 hedging phrase 模糊短语 acknowledge 承认某个观点的 unexpected nature 意外性质，但不 judge 判断其 validity 有效性。它显示作者在 observing 观察这个 irony 讽刺，而非 using it to discredit 用它来质疑这个 argument 论点。

    同类词 paradoxically surprisingly interestingly notably it is worth noting

  • regardless of P5

    这个 phrase 短语 shift focus 转移焦点 from the debate 从辩论 to objective facts 到客观事实（统计数据）。它 signal 表明作者要 present empirical evidence 呈现经验证据，which applies 适用 no matter what 无论什么 stance 立场 one holds，进一步 reinforce 强化 objectivity 客观性。

    同类词 irrespective of despite whatever one's position setting aside independent of

  • perhaps P7

    这个 modal adverb 情态副词在文章 conclusion 结论部分使用，显示作者即使在 final observation 最终观察中也保持 tentative tone 试探语气，not making definitive claims 不做确定性断言。它 reinforce 强化了整体的 objective stance 客观立场。

    同类词 possibly may might could be it seems that

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六级 真题文章。

如何快速判断这是一篇议论文？

  1. 开篇争议性问题 P1

    说明文 expository writing 会直接陈述 facts 和 information，新闻报道 news report 会用 who-what-when-where 的格式报道 events，而议论文 argumentative essay 必定围绕一个 controversial topic 展开，开头的 question form 就是在 establish 这个 debate。

  2. 对立观点标记词 P1 P2 P3

    说明文通常是 single-perspective explanation，新闻报道虽然可能 quote different sources 但重点在 report facts 而非 contrast opinions。议论文必须 showcase the tension between different viewpoints，这种 structural pattern 的 'one side vs. another side' 是最直接的 identifying feature。

  3. 道德评判性语言 P2 P4

    说明文 focus on objective explanation 不做 moral judgments，新闻报道 maintain neutrality 避免 subjective评价。议论文的显著特点是 engage with ethical dimensions，使用 evaluative language 来 argue for or against certain positions。当文章出现 'right/wrong'、'should/shouldn't'、'justifiable' 这类词时，它在 make normative claims 而非仅仅 describe。

  4. 多方专家引证 P2 P3 P4

    说明文会 cite sources 来 provide factual information，但议论文的 citations 有明确的 argumentative purpose —— 它们代表 different ideological camps。新闻报道 quote sources 是为了 report what happened，而议论文 strategically present various expert opinions 来 illustrate the complexity of the debate 并让读者看到 multiple legitimate perspectives。

  5. 趋势演化探讨 P5 P6 P7

    说明文的 conclusion 通常是 summary of information，新闻报道往往以 latest development 结束。议论文的 ending 更复杂 —— 它可能 acknowledge the debate's complexity、present shifting perspectives、或 suggest future directions。这篇文章没有给出 definitive answer，反而 show how opinions are evolving，这种 nuanced ending 是议论文的特征。

  6. 辩论架构完整性 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

    说明文是 linear explanation of a topic，新闻报道是 chronological or inverted pyramid reporting of events，而议论文是 dialectical exploration of a controversy。这篇文章不是在 explain what hunting is (说明文)，也不是在 report a hunting incident (新闻)，而是在 examine the ethical and practical debates surrounding hunting。它的 entire architecture 建立在 'different people have different views' 这个 premise 上。

哪些词暴露了议论文体裁？

  • hot button issues P1 争议性话题引入词 hot button issue controversial topic debatable question depends on perspective who you ask
  • On the one hand P1 对比论证连接词 on the one hand on the other hand however in contrast conversely
  • On the other hand P2 对比论证连接词 on the one hand on the other hand however in contrast conversely
  • some say P1 观点归属词 advocates argue critics contend proponents believe opponents claim according to
  • many environmental and animal advocates see P2 观点归属词 some say advocates argue critics contend proponents believe opponents claim
  • ironic as it sounds P1 评价性插入语 surprisingly paradoxically ironically remarkably notably
  • morally wrong P2 价值判断词 ethically questionable justifiable defensible unjustifiable legitimate
  • Beyond moral issues P3 论点递进标记词 beyond furthermore moreover in addition to not only... but also
  • may be morally justifiable P4 立场表态词 suggests may be justifiable defensible are not proposes
  • Regardless of one's individual stance P5 转折过渡词 regardless of despite in spite of notwithstanding even though
  • however P6 对比论证连接词 yet but nevertheless nonetheless still
  • Perhaps P7 推论性结尾词 perhaps possibly it seems that appears to suggests that
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

8 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 2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 的常见问题

2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章 的原文出自哪里？
Scientific American《科学美国人》2009.11.10文幸Does Hunting Help or Hurt the Environment?(狩猎对环境有益还是有害?)。
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章的主旨是什么？
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章探讨了狩猎对环境是有益还是有害的争论,呈现了支持者和反对者的论点,同时指出尽管参与人数下降,公众接受度却在上升,并提出猎人与环保人士之间可能合作的建议。（英文表述：The article examines the debate over whether hunting benefits or harms the environment, presenting arguments from both supporters and opponents, while noting that public acceptance is rising despite declining participation, and suggesting potential collaboration between hunters and environmentalists.）
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 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（objective and balanced）。CEFR 难度 C1，全文 426 词、7 段；在英语六级全部 593 篇真题文章中，C1 级共 343 篇（占 58%）。
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章的篇章结构是怎样的？
全文 7 段按议论文骨架分为 7 个意群：引言 · 第1段——狩猎环境影响的争议性；分论点 · 第2段——动物权益视角的反狩猎论证；分论点 · 第3段——狩猎实用性的质疑论证；分论点 · 第4段——狩猎道德合理性的条件辨析；分论点 · 第5段——狩猎参与率的下降趋势；分论点 · 第6段——公众支持度的上升趋势；结论 · 第7段——猎人与环保组织的合作趋势。
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章的作者态度是什么？
作者态度是客观中立（objective and balanced）。判断路径：识别开篇平衡结构 → 对立观点等量呈现 → 中性动词归属观点 → 结尾呈现趋势而非判断 → 四维度综合验证客观性；文中的态度信号词包括 depends upon who you ask（第1段）、on the one hand...on the other hand（第1段）、some say（第1段）、according to（第2段）、ironic as it sounds（第1段）、regardless of（第5段）、perhaps（第7段）。
2020年7月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章中有哪些值得积累的生词？
按文中出现顺序共 5 个：ironic（讽刺的;出乎意料却又合理的;矛盾的）、savage（野蛮的;残暴的;未开化的）、manipulate（操纵;控制;人为改变）、therapeutic（治疗性的;有益健康的;恢复性的）、deplore（强烈反对;谴责;对...深感遗憾），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：