懒笔记
2023年12月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US
CET-6 · 来自 2023年12月英语六级真题第1套 · Part III Section C (2) · 阅读理解（四选一）

The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US

2023年12月英语六级真题第1套文章逐层精读

The British Psychological Society(英国心理学会)网站于2022年2月22日发表的一篇标题为“The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US”的文章。

本页是 2023年12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 444 词、8 段，CEFR 难度 C1（C1 级在英语六级文章中占 58%），作者立场为「消极批判」；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

8 段英文原文

以下为2023年12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 8 段。左侧 P1–P8 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。

The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US

Journal editors decide what gets published and what doesn't, affecting the careers of other academics and influencing the direction that a field takes. You'd hope, then, that journals would do everything they can to establish a diverse editorial board, reflecting a variety of voices, experiences, and identities.

Unfortunately a new study in Nature Neuroscience makes for disheartening reading. The team finds that the majority of editors in top psychology and neuroscience journals are male and based in the United States: a situation that may be amplifying existing gender inequalities in the field and influencing the kind of research that gets published.

Men were found to account for 60% of the editors of psychology journals. There were significantly more male than female editors at each level of seniority, and men made up the majority of editors in over three quarters of the journals. Crucially, the proportion of female editors was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers.

The differences were even starker in the neuroscience journals: 70% of editors were male, and men held the majority of editorial positions in 88% of journals. In this case, the proportion of female editors was not significantly lower than the proportion of female researchers working in neuroscience—a finding that reveals enduring gender disparities in the field more broadly.

Based on their results, the team concludes that "the ideas, values and decision-making biases of men are overrepresented in the editorial positions of the most recognized academic journals in psychology and neuroscience."

Gender inequality in science is often attributed to the fact that senior academics are more likely to be male, because historically science was male-dominated: it's argued that as time goes on and more women rise to senior roles, the field will become more equal. Yet this study showed that even the junior roles in psychology journals tended to be held disproportionately by men, despite the fact that there are actually more female than male junior psychology faculty.

This implies that a lack of female academics is not the problem. Instead, there are structural reasons that women are disadvantaged in science. Women receive lower salaries and face greater childcare demands, for instance, which can result in fewer publications and grants—the kinds of things that journals look for when deciding who to appoint. Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers.

A lack of diversity among journal editors also likely contributes to psychology's WEIRD problem. If journal editors are largely men from the United States, then they will probably place higher value on papers that are relevant to Western, male populations, whether consciously or not.

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

8 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2023年12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

    Why Editorial Diversity Matters

    Because editors wield great influence, editorial boards should be diverse and representative.

    本段承担 introduction 的功能，为全文建立价值基准：既然 editorial boards 理应多元，后文对男性主导现象的揭示才具有批评意义。它也为文章主旨中的 underrepresentation of women 预先搭建了判断框架。

    由编辑权力推出多元必要
  2. P2

    A Disturbing Editorial Imbalance

    A new study reveals male and U.S. dominance among top journal editors, with harmful consequences for the field.

    本段从 第1段 的应然标准转入现实问题，形成 ideal versus reality 的鲜明反差。它先总览研究结论，后面的 第3段 和 第4段 则分别用 psychology 与 neuroscience 的数据来证明这一总论断。

    研究发现加后果
  3. P3

    Women's Underrepresentation in Psychology Journals

    Psychology journals underrepresent women on editorial boards relative to the field's researcher population.

    本段是文章关于 psychology 的核心证据，具体支撑了全文“女性编辑比例低于领域人口构成”的主旨。它还排除了“男性编辑多只是因为男性研究者本来就多”这一可能解释，为后文讨论结构性障碍埋下伏笔。

    用群体比例识别代表不足
  4. P4

    Deeper Gender Disparities in Neuroscience

    Neuroscience journals are even more male-dominated, reflecting broader gender inequality in the field.

    本段补充 neuroscience 的证据，并与 第3段 共同证明问题跨越两个重要学科。更重要的是，它说明编辑失衡有时不是独立现象，而是 broader gender disparities 的外在表现，从而推动文章进入原因分析。

    透过反常数据看学科失衡
  5. P5

    The Overrepresentation of Male Perspectives

    Male perspectives and biases are overrepresented in leading editorial positions.

    本段把前两段的统计 evidence 上升为价值和决策层面的风险：编辑性别失衡意味着学术判断可能偏向男性经验。它承接全文关于“影响发表何种研究”的主旨，也为 第8段 的 WEIRD problem 提供逻辑基础。

    抓取引文结论的核心
  6. P6

    Why the Seniority Explanation Fails

    Male dominance in junior editorial roles challenges the claim that inequality is merely a legacy of seniority.

    本段是全文论证的关键转向：它否定了“等待时间自然解决问题”的被动解释。通过证明 qualified female juniors 并不稀缺，文章为 第7段 提出的 structural barriers 这一真正原因做好了逻辑铺垫。

    用初级岗位反驳资历论
  7. P7

    Structural Barriers Behind Editorial Inequality

    Structural barriers, not a lack of qualified women, produce editorial inequality and must be removed.

    本段直接完成全文主旨中最重要的因果判断：问题源于 structural barriers，而非女性能力或数量不足。它同时提出 active reform 的立场，使文章从揭露问题、反驳旧解释，进一步发展为具有现实指向的批评与倡议。

    沿因果链锁定结构障碍
  8. P8

    Editorial Homogeneity and Psychology's WEIRD Bias

    A male and U.S.-dominated editorial culture may bias psychology toward Western male research populations.

    本段扩展并收束全文论证：编辑性别与地域失衡不仅伤害女性学者的机会，也会影响哪些 populations 被研究、哪些议题被重视。它具体落实了文章主旨中“编辑构成会影响发表研究”的观点，并揭示这种不平等对学科知识质量与普遍性的深层危害。

    由编辑构成推断研究偏向
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

8 道逐段细节自检题

针对2023年12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 diverse editorial board seek

    Why does the author believe that journals should seek a diverse editorial board?

    • A Because diverse boards are more likely to reduce the cost of journal publishing.
    • B Because editors are required to represent every academic discipline equally.
    • C Because editors' publishing decisions can shape academics' careers and the direction of a field.
    • D Because a diverse board guarantees that all submitted papers will be published.
    • E Because journal editors have less influence than university administrators.
    • F Because journals mainly need editors with identical research backgrounds.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项完整复现原文的推理骨架：editors 的 decisions 具有 downstream effects，所以 board 的 voices、experiences 与 identities 不能单一。它没有把 diverse board 偷换成保证公平结果，而是准确回答“为何需要”。障碍在于 shape 是对 affecting 与 influencing 的概括，考生需识别这是合法的同义改写。

    前句因果压缩 时间极紧时，直接用题干中的 diverse editorial board 回扫至 第1段，不必从头通读。随后采用“因果箭头压缩法”：只看该搭配前一句，提取 editors decisions 后面的两个 effect；能同时覆盖 career 与 field direction 的正确项即为答案项。此法比逐个完整翻译六个选项更快。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 new study leading psychology and neuroscience journals

    What concern does the new study raise about leading psychology and neuroscience journals?

    • A They employ too many junior editors from outside the United States.
    • B They publish too few studies on neuroscience compared with psychology.
    • C They have already eliminated gender inequality among researchers.
    • D Their male-dominated, U.S.-based editorial makeup may reinforce gender inequality and affect published research.
    • E They choose editors solely according to the quality of their publications.
    • F They are becoming less influential in setting research priorities.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    该项把研究所揭示的 composition 与两个可能后果准确连起来：gender inequalities 和 kind of research。may reinforce 保留了原文 may be amplifying 的审慎语气；affect published research 概括 influencing the kind of research。障碍是把两项并列发现压缩为一条因果概述，考生不能只选其中一个事实。

    情绪词后扫读 锁定 第2段 的最快入口是 new study 加 psychology and neuroscience journals 这一组合。定位后不读全部背景，只执行“情绪词后扫读”：从 disheartening 或 concern 对应处向后，抓取 may 引导的整段补语；与之同构且保留 may 的正确项就是答案项。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 female editors data show

    What did the data show about female editors in psychology journals?

    • A They accounted for 60% of all psychology-journal editors.
    • B They outnumbered male editors at every level of seniority.
    • C They formed the majority in over three quarters of the journals.
    • D Their proportion matched that of female neuroscience researchers.
    • E Their proportion was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers.
    • F Their representation had risen significantly in recent years.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：E

    该项准确抓住 Crucially 后的核心比较：female editors 对 overall women psychology researchers。significantly lower 保留统计强度，overall 保留参照总体。难点在于前文也说 male editors 更多，但本题所问的最精确结论不是简单的“女性较少”，而是“编辑代表性低于人才池比例”。

    Crucially后核对 在 第3段 中直接跳到信号词 Crucially，而不按句序处理全部数字。该词后面的 proportion comparison 往往承载作者最想强调的结论。用题干的 female editors 核对该句的主体，再选择保留 significantly lower 与 researcher base 的正确项。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 female neuroscience editors broader gender disparity

    Why does the finding on female neuroscience editors still point to a broader gender disparity?

    • A Because women held more than half of all editorial positions in neuroscience.
    • B Because female editors were significantly less represented than female researchers.
    • C Because neuroscience journals had no male majority at all.
    • D Because the study excluded senior editorial positions from its analysis.
    • E Because gender differences in neuroscience have disappeared outside journals.
    • F Because women are already underrepresented among neuroscience researchers, so parity with that group is not evidence of equality.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：F

    该项解释了表面矛盾：female editor proportion 没有显著低于 female researcher proportion，只说明两者相当；而后者本身反映 enduring gender disparities。so parity is not evidence of equality 是对作者逻辑的准确推演。障碍在于原文没有直说“parity is not equality”，考生须依据前后句完成推断。

    基准反查 用题干中的 still 回到 第4段，优先扫读破折号后的解释性同位语，而非停留在百分比。执行“基准反查”：凡是 editor proportion 的结论，立即反问其 researcher benchmark 是否健康；能否定“相等即公平”这一误推的正确项即为答案项。

  5. 第 5 段 定位词 researchers conclude most recognized journals

    What do the researchers conclude about editorial positions in the most recognized journals?

    • A Men's ideas, values, and decision-making biases are overrepresented in influential editorial roles.
    • B Male editors are more productive researchers than female editors.
    • C Editorial biases have no effect on the research journals publish.
    • D Women make most editorial decisions in recognized journals.
    • E Only unconscious biases, rather than values or ideas, matter in editorial work.
    • F The most recognized journals are equally represented across all identities.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：A

    该项精准保留 overrepresented 的判断及三项并列内容：ideas、values、decision-making biases；influential editorial roles 对 most recognized academic journals 的 editorial positions 作合理概括。障碍在于正确项没有停在“男性人数更多”，而是揭示了作者关切的认知和决策层面后果。

    并列词指纹 直接寻找 第5段 的 team concludes 这一结论触发词，然后只读引号中的三个并列名词和 overrepresented。采用“并列词指纹法”：正确项必须同时保留观念、价值、决策偏向这一组语义指纹及其失衡方向。

  6. 第 6 段 定位词 male dominance of senior academics editorial inequality

    What evidence challenges the claim that editorial inequality is mainly caused by the male dominance of senior academics?

    • A More women than men had risen to senior academic roles.
    • B Junior psychology editorial roles were disproportionately held by men despite women outnumbering men among junior faculty.
    • C Junior psychology faculty were predominantly male.
    • D Senior editors were selected without considering academic experience.
    • E Psychology journals employed equal numbers of male and female junior editors.
    • F The number of senior academics has no relation to gender inequality in science.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：B

    该项完整再现 Yet 引出的反证：若 senior male dominance 是主要原因，那么 junior level 理应较平衡；但 women 在 junior faculty 中更多，junior editorial roles 却仍偏向 men。despite 精确保留反常关系，是挑战 claim 的逻辑核心。

    Yet后反证配对 在 第6段 不必逐句消化历史背景，直接扫描 Yet 与 despite 两个反转词。把它们之间的“职位分布”与“junior faculty 构成”压成一组反证；同时含两个 junior 维度且方向相反的正确项即为答案项。

  7. 第 7 段 定位词 structural disadvantages appointed to editorial boards

    How can structural disadvantages reduce women's chances of being appointed to editorial boards?

    • A Women are less interested than men in publishing scientific research.
    • B Journals appoint editors mainly to compensate for lower salaries.
    • C Lower salaries and heavier childcare demands can lead to fewer publications and grants valued in editorial appointments.
    • D Childcare demands guarantee that women receive more research grants.
    • E Editorial boards select candidates without considering publications or grants.
    • F The shortage of female academics prevents journals from finding any women to appoint.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    该项完整保留两段因果：structural burdens can result in fewer publications and grants；这些 credentials 是 journals look for when deciding who to appoint。can lead to 与 can result in 的概率强度一致，valued in editorial appointments 准确连接结果和岗位。障碍在于选项把原文长句压缩，考生须复原 publications/grants 的桥梁作用。

    任命终点倒推 先用 appointed 直达 第7段 的句尾，再倒读至 result in，执行“终点倒推法”。从 journals look for 的 credentials 逆推到它们为何减少；能覆盖“障碍→凭证减少→任命不利”的正确项即为答案项。

  8. 第 8 段 定位词 WEIRD problem male, U.S.-based editorial group

    How might a largely male, U.S.-based editorial group contribute to psychology's WEIRD problem?

    • A They will publish only research conducted by male scientists in the United States.
    • B They are likely to value all cultural populations equally.
    • C They deliberately reject every paper about non-Western populations.
    • D They may favor papers relevant to Western male populations, consciously or unconsciously.
    • E They remove gender inequalities by focusing on Western populations.
    • F They give higher value only to papers written by junior faculty.
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    该项忠实改写 likely/probably 的推断：editors 的背景可能使其更看重 relevant to Western, male populations 的 papers。may 和 consciously or unconsciously 分别保留概率性与意图开放性。障碍在于 favor 是对 place higher value on 的同义替换，且考生须抵制把可能偏好强化为必然排斥。

    条件句宾语对齐 WEIRD 是 第8段 的唯一术语入口。定位后跳过首句的总判断，直接抓 if—then 条件句中 probably place higher value on 的宾语；采用“宾语替换法”，把该宾语与选项中的 papers relevant to 哪类 populations 对齐，保留 may 的正确项即为答案项。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

6 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

    期刊编辑的权力与多样性期待

    这个 opening paragraph 直接点出了 journal editors 的关键 role：他们 decide what gets published，这直接 affects 其他学者的 careers 和整个 field 的 direction。作者用 "You'd hope" 这种带有 expectation 的表达，establish 了一个理想状态——journals 应该 establish diverse editorial boards 来 reflect 各种 voices 和 identities。

    这个 introduction 的作用是 set up expectations，为后文揭示 reality 与 ideal 之间的 gap 做铺垫。通过强调 editors 的 influence 和 diversity 的 importance，作者 establish 了一个 evaluative framework，让读者 anticipate 接下来会讨论 current situation 是否 meet 这个 standard。

    提出编辑委员会应当多样化的期待
  2. 分论点 P2

    研究揭示编辑性别失衡现状

    这个 paragraph 用 "Unfortunately" 这个明显的 contrast marker 来 shift from expectation to reality。它 introduces a Nature Neuroscience study 作为 evidence source，然后 present the core finding：majority of editors 是 male 且 based in US。关键是作者不只 state facts，还 interpret consequences——这种 situation "may be amplifying existing gender inequalities" 和 "influencing the kind of research that gets published"。

    这是 thesis statement 意群，它 introduces the central evidence（Nature Neuroscience study）并 presents the main claim（male dominance in editorial boards）。更重要的是，它 already starts connecting findings to implications（amplifying inequalities, influencing research），为后续 detailed analysis 提供了 framework。这个 paragraph 是从 general expectation 到 specific problem 的 pivot point。

    呈现研究发现的编辑性别失衡
  3. 分论点 P3 P4

    心理学期刊的详细数据分析

    这两个 paragraphs 构成 detailed evidence 的第一部分，分别 present psychology 和 neuroscience journals 的 specific statistics。第3段 focus on psychology：60% male editors，male majority at all seniority levels，male dominance in over three quarters of journals。Crucially，它 point out 一个关键 comparison——female editors 的 proportion 明显 lower than female psychology researchers 的 overall proportion。第4段 shift to neuroscience，showing even starker disparities（70% male，88% journals male-dominated），但有个重要 distinction：这里 female editors 的 proportion 与 female neuroscience researchers 的 proportion 没有 significant difference，这 reveals 整个 neuroscience field 的 broader gender disparities。

    这个意群通过 field-by-field breakdown 来 substantiate the main claim。它不只 give numbers，更重要的是 provide comparative context（editors vs. researchers in the field），这个 comparison 是 crucial 的，因为它 helps distinguish between different types of inequality：psychology 的问题是 editorial boards underrepresent women relative to field，而 neuroscience 的问题是 entire field 的 gender disparity。这种 nuanced analysis 让 argument 更 sophisticated。

    提供两个学科的性别失衡数据
  4. 分论点 P5

    数据的结论性诠释

    这个 single paragraph 非常简短但 functionally distinct。它用 "Based on their results" 这个明确的 signal phrase 来 shift from data presentation to interpretation。作者 quote 研究团队的 conclusion，指出 "the ideas, values and decision-making biases of men are overrepresented"。这个 statement 不只是 summarize numbers，而是 interpret the implications——这不是简单的 demographic fact，而是关于 whose perspectives dominate 的问题。

    这个意群的 function 是 crystallize the meaning of the data。前面的 statistics 可能被 read as merely descriptive，但这个 paragraph makes explicit that we're talking about ideological and decisional overrepresentation。它 elevates the discussion from demographic imbalance 到 epistemic and power imbalance。这是 argumentative writing 中的 key move——not just what the data shows, but what it means。

    诠释数据背后的权力失衡
  5. 分论点 P6 P7

    驳斥传统解释并揭示结构性原因

    这两个 paragraphs 构成 causal analysis 意群。第6段 首先 present 一个 common explanation（"Gender inequality is often attributed to" historical male dominance，会随 time 自然 improve），然后用 "Yet" 来 introduce counter-evidence——even junior roles 在 psychology journals 也是 disproportionately male，尽管 junior faculty 中 actually more females。第7段 explicitly state "This implies that a lack of female academics is not the problem"，然后 shift to structural reasons：lower salaries，greater childcare demands，导致 fewer publications and grants。最后 call for "actively breaking down these existing barriers" rather than blaming tradition。

    这个意群 performs critical argumentative work——它 refutes a common counterargument（"it'll improve with time"）并 establishes the real cause（structural barriers）。这 elevates the argument from descriptive（there is inequality）to diagnostic（why it persists）and prescriptive（we must actively intervene）。通过 showing that even with more female junior faculty，inequality persists，作者 demonstrate 这不是 pipeline problem 而是 systemic problem。这个 causal analysis 是 essential for the normative claim that active intervention is needed。

    分析性别失衡的结构性根源
  6. 分论点 P8

    编辑失衡导致研究偏向问题

    这个 final body paragraph 引入 another consequence of editorial board inequality——psychology's WEIRD problem（Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic）。作者 argue 如果 journal editors 主要是 US men，他们会 "probably place higher value on papers that are relevant to Western, male populations, whether consciously or not"。这个 paragraph 将 gender inequality 和 geographic/cultural bias 连接起来，showing how editorial composition shapes what knowledge gets validated。

    这个意群 expands the scope of the argument from who gets appointed 到 what research gets published。它 demonstrates that editorial inequality has epistemic consequences——it shapes the knowledge base of the field。用 "A lack of diversity among journal editors also likely contributes" 这个 phrasing，作者 connect gender inequality to broader issues of representation in research populations。这 strengthens the overall argument by showing multiple layers of impact。

    揭示编辑失衡对研究内容的影响
MAIN IDEA · 速判主旨

8 步定位这篇文章的主旨

不读完全篇也能锁定主旨——以下 8 步按2023年12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. 首段期望与现实的落差 P1

    议论文的 opening 往往通过 contrast 或 problem statement 来 establish 作者要讨论的 core issue。这里第一段用 'You'd hope' 这种 hypothetical expectation 引出了 editorial diversity 这个 topic，同时暗示 reality 可能与 expectation 有 gap，这就是作者要 argue 的 starting point。

  2. 研究证据引入问题 P2

    议论文需要 evidence-based argumentation，第二段出现的 'new study' 和 'disheartening reading' 直接 confirm 了首段暗示的 problem 是 real and significant。'Male-dominated' 和 'amplifying gender inequalities' 这些 phrases 明确了文章的 critical focus。

  3. 数据层层深化问题 P3 P4

    第三、四段提供的 specific percentages（60%、70%）和 comparisons（male vs. female editors, editors vs. researchers）用 hard data 来 demonstrate 问题的 extent。这些 quantitative details 不仅 prove 问题 exists，还 show 它有多 serious，这是 build 强有力 argument 的关键。

  4. 研究结论明确点题 P5

    第五段的 'the team concludes that' 是典型的 explicit summary statement，直接 articulate 了 research 的 key implication：male overrepresentation in editorial positions。这是作者 借用 study 的 conclusion 来 reinforce 自己的 central argument。

  5. 反驳常见归因 P6

    第六段用 'is often attributed to' 引入一个 common explanation（历史原因导致 senior positions 男性多），然后用 'Yet' 和新 evidence 来 challenge 这个 explanation。这种 argument-counterargument pattern 表明作者不仅 present 问题，还在 eliminate 简单化的 explanations，pushing for 更深层的 structural causes。

  6. 揭示结构性根源 P7

    第七段用 'This implies' 引出 causal interpretation，明确指出 'structural reasons' 而非 'lack of female academics' 是 root cause。'Rather than...we should' 这种 contrast structure 进一步 clarify 作者的 position 并 call for action。这些都是 argumentative writing 的 key features，直接 reveal 作者的 thesis。

  7. 问题延伸系统影响 P8

    第八段用 'also likely contributes to' 连接到更 broad 的 issue（WEIRD problem），表明 editorial gender imbalance 不仅是 diversity 问题，还 affects research content and direction。这种 widening of scope 是议论文 concluding strategy，showing 问题的 systemic nature。

  8. 论证链条完整主旨 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

    议论文的 thesis 不是单个 sentence 能完全 capture 的，而是 entire argument 的 logical progression。通过 trace 从问题到证据到解释到根源分析的 flow，我们看到作者的 complete position：不仅 identify gender disparity exists，更重要是 argue 其 structural nature 和 perpetuating effect。最后的 WEIRD problem connection 进一步 emphasize 这种 bias 如何 shape research landscape。

主旨信号词 disheartening P2 amplifying P2 overrepresented P5 Yet P6 structural reasons P7 Rather than P7 likely contributes to P8

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

顶尖心理学和神经科学期刊的编辑委员会由男性主导,女性编辑的比例低于该领域的人口统计数据。这种性别差异源于结构性障碍而非合格女性学者的短缺,并通过影响哪些研究被发表而使不平等持续存在。
Top psychology and neuroscience journals have male-dominated editorial boards that underrepresent women relative to the field's demographics. This gender disparity stems from structural barriers rather than a shortage of qualified female academics, and it perpetuates inequalities by influencing what research gets published.
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。已收录进英语六级高频真题词集的单词可点击进入词条页。

  • disheartening 令人沮丧的,使人灰心的

    我们来整合这三条线索。首先从 word formation 看,dis- 这个 prefix 明确表示否定,加上 heart 这个与情感密切相关的 root,已经指向让内心感到不舒服的方向。接着看 context,前文表达了 hope for diversity,而 unfortunately 这个强烈的 transition word 引出完全相反的 reality。最后,后文列举的 male-dominated、gender inequality 等 negative findings 正是造成这种情感的 concrete evidence。三条线索从词源、语境转折、因果逻辑层层递进,共同指向一个让人内心感到失望、沮丧的状态。

    构词情感+转折对比+因果验证
  • starker 更鲜明的,更显著的,更严峻的

    让我们把这些 clues 串联起来。语法上,-er 这个 comparative suffix 确立了 degree comparison 的 framework。然后看 concrete evidence,从 60% 到 70%,从 three quarters 到 88%,这些 numerical progressions 清晰展现了问题在 escalating。最后从 discourse structure 看,作者刻意用 even 来修饰,整段都在强调 neuroscience 的 situation 比 psychology 'worse' 或 'more severe'。所有线索汇聚到一点:starker 描述的是对比、差异或问题变得更加鲜明、明显、严重。

    比较级定位+数据追踪+程度强化词
  • disproportionately 不成比例地,过多地

    现在我们整合这三个 layers of evidence。从 morphology 来看,dis- + proportion 的组合直接指向'比例失调'这个 core meaning。在 specific context 中,作者对比了 editorial positions 的 gender distribution 和 faculty pool 的 actual composition,发现两者严重 mismatch。从 argumentative structure 看,这个词是作者用来 challenge 传统解释、证明存在 structural barriers 的关键 evidence。所有线索都指向:disproportionately 描述的是某种分布严重偏离应有比例的状态。

    构词拆解+比例对比+论证功能
  • amplify 放大,加剧,加强

    让我们汇总这些 analytical threads。从 etymology 角度,ampl- 这个 root 与'扩大'相关,配合 -fy 这个 causative suffix,word formation 本身就传达 making something bigger 的含义。在 immediate context 中,它修饰 existing inequalities,表明作用对象是 pre-existing problems。从 broader argument 看,作者构建了一个 feedback loop:gender imbalance in editorial boards → biased publication decisions → reinforced systemic inequalities。amplifying 正是描述这个 vicious cycle 中问题 intensification 的 process。所有证据都指向'放大、加剧'这个 meaning。

    词根方向+作用对象+因果链定位
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

5 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

    P2 P3 P4

    文章通过 psychology journals 和 neuroscience journals 这两个 concrete examples 来支撑 gender inequality 的 central argument。第3段 里提到 men account for 60% of psychology journal editors，而 第4段 显示 neuroscience 领域的情况 even starker，达到 70%。这种 empirical evidence 让抽象的 editorial board diversity problem 变得 tangible and convincing，直接服务于文章揭示 structural gender disparities 的 main thesis。

    信号词 for instance for example such as take...as an example consider in the case of specifically to illustrate

    仿写： 当你要论证一个 general phenomenon 时，先问自己：能否找到 one or two representative cases？比如论证 social media addiction 时，不要只说 'many people are addicted'，而要说 'among young adults aged 18-25, 73% check their phones within 5 minutes of waking up'。仿写模版：[General claim]. For instance/Take [specific field/case] as an example, [具体数据或现象], which demonstrates [回扣论点]。

  • 对比论证

    P3 P4

    文章在 第3段 和 第4段 中进行了 striking contrast：psychology 领域 60% male editors versus neuroscience 领域 70% male editors。更关键的 contrast 是：psychology 中 female editors 的比例 significantly lower than female researchers 的整体比例，而 neuroscience 中两者 not significantly different。这个 comparison 不仅展示了 the severity of disparity，还揭示了 different patterns of inequality across fields，强化了文章关于 structural barriers 而非单纯 talent shortage 的 thesis。

    信号词 in contrast while whereas however on the other hand conversely unlike compared to even starker different from

    仿写： 寻找你论证对象中的 contrasting dimensions。不要只描述 A 的情况，而要问：B 的情况如何 different？比如论证 remote work benefits 时，可以对比 'before pandemic, only 15% companies offered remote options; now 68% do'。关键是选择 meaningful comparison points。仿写模版：While [A shows/demonstrates X], [B reveals/exhibits Y], suggesting/indicating [论点]。或：In contrast to [situation A], [situation B] shows [差异], which implies [结论]。

  • 因果论证

    P7 P8

    第7段 展现了清晰的 causal chain：women 面临 lower salaries 和 greater childcare demands（原因），这 result in fewer publications and grants（直接后果），而这些又是 journals look for when appointing editors 的 criteria（最终导致 underrepresentation）。这个 cause-and-effect analysis 直接支持文章的 core argument：gender disparity 不是因为 lack of qualified women，而是因为 structural barriers。通过揭示这个 causal mechanism，作者把问题从 individual level 提升到 systemic level。

    信号词 result in lead to cause because due to as a result consequently therefore thus which can result in contribute to bring about

    仿写： 构建 causal argument 时，要 trace the chain：initial condition → intermediate effect → final outcome。避免 oversimplified 'A causes B'，而要展示 mechanism。比如论证 'social media affects mental health'，可以写：'constant comparison with curated online personas (原因) triggers feelings of inadequacy (中间环节), which can result in anxiety and depression (结果)'。仿写模版：[Condition/Factor A] leads to/results in/causes [Effect B], which in turn contributes to/brings about [Final outcome C]。关键词：result in, lead to, contribute to, because, due to。

  • 引用论证

    P5

    第5段 直接 quotes the research team 的 conclusion：'the ideas, values and decision-making biases of men are overrepresented...'。这个 direct quotation 不是作者自己的 interpretation，而是来自 Nature Neuroscience study 的 researchers。通过 citing authoritative source，作者增强了 argument 的 credibility 和 objectivity，让读者感觉这不是 opinion 而是 evidence-based finding。这个 quote 也 serves as a bridge，connecting empirical data（第3段-4）和 broader implications（第6段-8）。

    信号词 according to states that argues that concludes that notes that suggests that claims that points out that as X puts it in the words of

    仿写： 选择 quotations 时要 strategic：引用的内容应该 directly support 你的 main point，且来自 credible source。不要只是 drop a quote；要 integrate it。模式是：introduce the source → present the quote → explain its significance。比如：'According to Dr. Smith, a leading researcher in the field, "[quote]". This finding suggests that [你的解读]'。仿写模版：[Source/Study] concludes/argues/finds that "[quote]", which demonstrates/reveals/indicates [论点]。记得用 reporting verbs（concludes, argues, states, notes）。

  • 对比论证

    P6

    第6段 构建了一个 temporal contrast：traditional explanation（'as time goes on, more women will rise to senior roles'）versus current reality（'even junior roles are disproportionately male'）。这个 contrast 非常 strategic，因为它 dismantles 一个 common excuse for inequality。作者用 'yet' 这个 adversative connector 来 signal 这个 contradiction，showing that the 'wait and it'll fix itself' argument doesn't hold water when even entry-level positions show disparity。这直接 serves the thesis about structural barriers。

    信号词 yet however but nevertheless nonetheless despite although even though in spite of contrary to

    仿写： 当你要 challenge a common belief 时，用 contrast 是 powerful tool。模式：present the conventional wisdom → use 'yet', 'however', 'but' → show contradicting evidence。比如：'It's often said that technology brings people together. Yet studies show that face-to-face interactions have decreased by 40% since smartphones became ubiquitous.' 仿写模版：It's argued/believed that [common view], yet/however [contradicting reality], which suggests [你的论点]。关键是 set up expectation 然后 subvert it。

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

12 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。

  • 理想与现实的落差

    P1
    You'd hope, then, that journals would do everything they can to establish a diverse editorial board

    委婉表达 You'd hope, then You'd hope You'd expect One would think Ideally In theory You'd assume

    作者通过 "You'd hope" 这个 phrase 先建立一个 reasonable expectation,即 journals 应该 establish diverse editorial boards。但这个 hopeful tone 本身就 implies 现实并非如此,为第二段的 "disheartening" findings 做 foreshadowing。这种 rhetorical strategy 让读者先 acknowledge 一个 common sense expectation,然后更容易 accept 作者关于 gender inequality 的 criticism,从而 reinforce 文章关于 editorial boards 缺乏 diversity 这个 central argument。

  • 研究结果令人失望

    P2
    Unfortunately a new study in Nature Neuroscience makes for disheartening reading

    转折类 Unfortunately Regrettably Sadly Disappointingly However Yet But

    "Unfortunately" 配合 "disheartening reading" 这个 phrase,作者 explicitly express 对 study findings 的 negative assessment。这不仅 confirm 了第一段 implied 的 diversity 缺失问题,更通过 emotional language 强化了 issue 的 seriousness。这个 strategic positioning 让读者在看到 specific statistics 之前就 emotionally prepared 去 accept 作者关于 gender inequality 的 critique,为整篇文章的 argumentative thrust 奠定 emotional foundation。

  • 情况可能更严重

    P2
    a situation that may be amplifying existing gender inequalities in the field and influencing the kind of research that gets published

    情态词 may be amplifying may be might be could be may contribute to likely possibly

    "May be amplifying" 这个 phrase 虽然用了 tentative language,但 "amplifying" 这个 verb 本身就 implies existing inequalities 不仅被 maintained,还在被 magnified。这个 implication 将 editorial board composition 的问题从 representation 层面提升到 systemic impact 层面,暗示这不只是 numbers 的问题,而是会 influence research direction 和 perpetuate bias 的 structural issue。这 directly support 文章主旨中关于 structural barriers 的 argument。

  • 比例失衡的关键证据

    P3
    Crucially, the proportion of female editors was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers

    强调类 Crucially Importantly Significantly Notably More importantly Key point Most significantly

    "Crucially" 引出的这个 comparison 是整个 argument 的 turning point。它不只是说 male editors 多,而是证明 editorial boards 的 gender composition 与 researcher pool 的 gender composition 不 match。这个 disproportionate representation 才是问题的 crux,因为它 demonstrate 不是因为 qualified women 太少,而是有 systematic barriers 阻止 women 进入 editorial positions。这 directly challenge 第六段要 address 的 "pipeline" excuse。

  • 神经科学领域问题更根深蒂固

    P4
    The differences were even starker in the neuroscience journals

    对比类 even starker even worse more pronounced far more considerably more worse still even more problematic

    "Even starker" 这个 phrase 不仅 introduce neuroscience 的 data,更 imply psychology 的情况已经很 problematic,而 neuroscience 更 severe。紧接着的 finding 揭示 neuroscience 的 editorial gender ratio 其实 reflect 了 researcher pool 的 ratio,这个 subtle difference 暗示 neuroscience 整个 field 的 gender disparity 比 psychology 更 fundamental。这个 layered analysis 支持文章主旨中关于 structural barriers 的 argument。

  • 揭示更深层的领域性别问题

    P4
    a finding that reveals enduring gender disparities in the field more broadly

    解释说明类 a finding that reveals which shows suggesting that indicating that demonstrating that implying that pointing to

    "Reveals enduring gender disparities in the field more broadly" 这个 phrase 将 editorial board 的 gender imbalance 重新 frame 为 neuroscience 整个 field 的 symptom 而非 isolated problem。"Enduring" 这个 adjective 暗示这是 long-standing 和 persistent 的 issue,不是 recent phenomenon。这个 reframing 让问题从 journal editorial practices 扩展到 entire discipline 的 structural inequity,为第七段关于 structural barriers 的 discussion 做 preparation。

  • 挑战传统解释的合理性

    P6
    it's argued that as time goes on and more women rise to senior roles, the field will become more equal

    让步类 it's argued that some claim that the argument goes one might argue it is often said that the conventional wisdom is many believe that

    "It's argued that" 这个 impersonal structure 引入了关于 gender inequality 的 traditional explanation,即 "pipeline problem" 或 "time will fix it" narrative。但通过这种 distancing language,作者暗示不 endorse 这个 explanation。紧接着 "Yet" 引出的 contrary evidence 推翻这个 argument,证明即使在 junior levels 也有 gender imbalance despite 充足的 female candidates。这个 rebuttal 支持文章主旨中 structural barriers 而非 pipeline shortage 才是 root cause 的 argument。

  • 推翻传统解释

    P6
    Yet this study showed that even the junior roles in psychology journals tended to be held disproportionately by men, despite the fact that there are actually more female than male junior psychology faculty

    转折类 Yet However But Nevertheless Nonetheless On the contrary In contrast

    "Yet" 引出的 evidence 直接 contradict "pipeline" explanation,证明即使在 junior positions(按 traditional narrative 应该已经有更多 women)仍然是 male-dominated。"Despite the fact that there are actually more female than male junior psychology faculty" 这个 clause 更是 devastating,因为它 show qualified women 充足但仍被 underrepresented。这个 strong counterevidence 是文章 argument 的 turning point,从 documenting disparity 转向 proving structural barriers,为第七段的 causal analysis 提供 foundation。

  • 问题本质在于结构性障碍

    P7
    This implies that a lack of female academics is not the problem. Instead, there are structural reasons that women are disadvantaged in science.

    推论类 This implies that This suggests that This indicates that This means that This shows that The implication is It follows that

    "This implies that" 引出文章最 critical 的 causal claim,明确 reject "pipeline problem" narrative 并 establish "structural barriers" 作为 true cause。"Not... Instead" 这个 explicit contrast 让作者的 position 完全 clear。这个 shift from supply-side explanation 到 demand-side and systemic explanation 是整个 argument 的 conceptual core,直接 articulate 文章主旨中 "structural barriers rather than shortage" 的 central claim。

  • 批评被动等待的态度

    P7
    Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers

    对比类 Rather than simply Rather than Instead of As opposed to Rather than merely Not just... but Instead of passively

    "Rather than simply blaming... on tradition" 这个 phrase 批评把 inequality 归咎于 historical factors 的 passive attitude,暗示这是在 excuse inaction。"Should be actively breaking down these existing barriers" 则 call for proactive intervention。"Simply" 和 "actively" 的 contrast 强化了从 explanation 到 action 的 urgency。这个 normative claim 将文章从 academic analysis 提升到 policy advocacy,呼应主旨中 structural barriers 需要被 addressed 而非仅仅被 documented。

  • 暗示编辑偏见的连锁效应

    P8
    A lack of diversity among journal editors also likely contributes to psychology's WEIRD problem

    情态词 also likely probably likely to tends to is prone to has a tendency to in all likelihood

    "Also likely contributes to psychology's WEIRD problem" 这个 phrase 将 editorial diversity 问题 connect 到 psychology 研究的 geographical and cultural bias(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic populations)。这个 connection 暗示 male-dominated, US-centric editorial boards 不仅是 representation issue,更会 systematically bias research topics, methodologies, and sample populations toward privileged demographics。这个 broader implication 强化文章主旨中 editorial composition "influencing what research gets published" 的 argument。

  • 编辑偏好的潜在机制

    P8
    they will probably place higher value on papers that are relevant to Western, male populations, whether consciously or not

    模糊限制语 whether consciously or not intentionally or otherwise deliberately or not knowingly or unknowingly explicitly or implicitly aware of it or not by design or by default

    "Whether consciously or not" 这个 phrase 承认 editorial bias 可能是 unconscious 或 unintentional,但这不 diminish 其 harmful effects。通过这种 framing,作者 avoid accusing individual editors of deliberate discrimination,而是 point to implicit biases 和 structural factors 导致的 systematic preference for certain types of research。这个 nuanced positioning 让 critique 更 robust,因为它 address 会有人 defend "we don't consciously discriminate" 的 common objection,同时 maintain editorial diversity 问题的 seriousness and real-world consequences。

AUTHOR ATTITUDE · 作者态度

作者态度：消极批判

结论先行：本文作者态度为消极批判（ critically concerned, calling for reform）。下面是按步骤还原的判断过程与文中的态度信号词。

  1. 首段情感词定调 P1 P2

    议论文的作者通常会在开篇用一两个态度词direct地表达自己的立场，因为开头段落承担着引出话题和暗示writer's stance的双重功能，所以定调词往往最早出现且最明显。

  2. 数据段评价词 P3 P4

    议论文常常用数据或研究结果作为论据support观点，但作者会在陈述fact的同时插入评价性词汇，这种fact+evaluation的结构正是判断态度的关键突破口。

  3. 转折词后观点 P6 P7

    议论文常常先呈现一种traditional或普遍的观点，再用转折词反驳，这种反驳的动作本身就是一种explicit的态度表达，说明作者不认同前面的解释。

  4. 呼吁性建议句 P7 P8

    议论文的结论段往往是作者态度最concentrated的地方，如果作者用should、must、need to等词提出建议，说明他不仅是observer，而是active advocate，态度必然偏向批判或积极倡导。

  5. 四维证据整合 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

    议论文的态度判断不能only依赖单一词汇或段落，而要multiple evidence互相印证，四个层次的信号词从情感、评价、转折、呼吁层层递进，形成完整的critical论证链。

文中的态度信号词

  • Unfortunately P2

    这个词直接放在段首，用来引出下文的disheartening finding，说明作者对研究结果本身持negative情绪，是全文态度的第一个明确信号。

    同类词 Sadly Regrettably Disappointingly

  • disheartening P2

    这个形容词直接修饰reading这个动作，把作者阅读研究报告后的subjective感受表达出来，是non-neutral情绪词的典型代表。

    同类词 troubling concerning alarming

  • Crucially P3

    这个词出现在数据陈述之后，用来强调proportion of female editors偏低这一fact的重要性，暗示作者认为这是一个serious的问题。

    同类词 Importantly Notably Strikingly

  • Yet P6

    这个转折词否定了前面提到的传统解释即随着时间推移问题会自然解决，引出作者更倾向的structural explanation，是态度反转的关键节点。

    同类词 However Nonetheless But

  • disadvantaged P7

    这个词直接描述women在science领域的处境，带有明显的sympathetic和critical色彩，表明作者认为这是一种unfair的structural问题。

    同类词 marginalized underrepresented sidelined

  • should P7

    这个情态动词出现在结论性的句子actively breaking down these existing barriers中，明确表达作者从陈述问题转向了提出解决方案，是态度最直接的行动号召。

    同类词 must need to ought to

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. 开篇价值判断 P1

    议论文的核心特征是 take a stance,而说明文只是 present information objectively,新闻报道主要 report facts。开头出现 normative language 或 value judgment 是议论文的强烈 signal,因为它表明作者不只是在 inform,而是在 argue for something。

  2. 情感色彩词汇 P2 P4

    说明文追求 objectivity 和 neutral tone,新闻报道虽然可能有 angle 但主要 focus 在 factual reporting。议论文则会明确使用 evaluative adjectives 和 adverbs 来 convey 作者的 attitude 和 judgment,引导读者接受某个 viewpoint。

  3. 证据支撑论点 P3 P4 P5

    说明文中数据是 primary content,目的是 educate。新闻报道中数据是 newsworthy information。但在议论文中,evidence 是 instrumental—它们是 building blocks 用来 construct 和 support 作者的 thesis。数据的 function 不同,决定了 genre 的不同。

  4. 反驳对立观点 P6 P7

    说明文很少 engage in refutation,新闻报道可能 present different sides 但不会 argue for one。议论文的特征是 actively debate,使用 counter-arguments 来 strengthen own position。出现'Yet'、'However'、'Instead'等 transition words 引入 contrasting view 是 argumentative discourse 的典型 pattern。

  5. 行动呼吁结尾 P7 P8

    说明文 ends with summary of information,新闻报道 typically closes with final facts 或 quotes。议论文则以 recommendation、call for change、或 restatement of thesis 结尾,目的是 leave readers with clear sense of what should be done。这种 action-oriented conclusion 是 persuasive writing 独有的。

  6. 立场论证处方三角 P1 P5 P7 P8

    单一 feature 可能 misleading,但这三者的 combination 构成 definitive pattern。说明文可能有 structure 但无 stance,新闻可能有 evidence 但无 prescription。只有议论文同时具备 clear position、strategic use of evidence、和 call for change/action 这个 complete argumentative arc。

哪些词暴露了议论文体裁？

  • Unfortunately P2 立场表态词（评价性副词，Evaluative Adverb） disheartening Crucially surprisingly importantly arguably
  • Yet P6 论证逻辑连接词（转折/反驳型连接词，Contrastive Connector） However But Nevertheless Although Whereas
  • This implies that P7 观点引导词（推论/结论引导词，Inferential Marker） This suggests that It follows that This means that concludes that reveals that
  • we should P7 立场表态词（呼吁/建议型情态动词，Modal of Recommendation） should ought to must need to have to
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

7 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 The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US 的常见问题

2023年12月英语六级真题第1套 Part III Section C (2) 文章 The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US 的原文出自哪里？
The British Psychological Society(英国心理学会)网站于2022年2月22日发表的一篇标题为“The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US”的文章。
2023年12月英语六级真题第1套文章 The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US 的主旨是什么？
顶尖心理学和神经科学期刊的编辑委员会由男性主导,女性编辑的比例低于该领域的人口统计数据。这种性别差异源于结构性障碍而非合格女性学者的短缺,并通过影响哪些研究被发表而使不平等持续存在。（英文表述：Top psychology and neuroscience journals have male-dominated editorial boards that underrepresent women relative to the field's demographics. This gender disparity stems from structural barriers rather than a shortage of qualified female academics, and it perpetuates inequalities by influencing what research gets published.）
The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US（2023年12月英语六级真题第1套文章）是什么体裁？难度如何？
体裁为议论文，作者立场是消极批判（critically concerned, calling for reform）。CEFR 难度 C1，全文 444 词、8 段；在英语六级全部 593 篇真题文章中，C1 级共 343 篇（占 58%）。
2023年12月英语六级真题第1套文章 The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US 的篇章结构是怎样的？
全文 8 段按议论文骨架分为 6 个意群：引言 · 第1段——期刊编辑的权力与多样性期待；分论点 · 第2段——研究揭示编辑性别失衡现状；分论点 · 第3段、第4段——心理学期刊的详细数据分析；分论点 · 第5段——数据的结论性诠释；分论点 · 第6段、第7段——驳斥传统解释并揭示结构性原因；分论点 · 第8段——编辑失衡导致研究偏向问题。
The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US 一文的作者态度是什么？
作者态度是消极批判（critically concerned, calling for reform）。判断路径：首段情感词定调 → 数据段评价词 → 转折词后观点 → 呼吁性建议句 → 四维证据整合；文中的态度信号词包括 Unfortunately（第2段）、disheartening（第2段）、Crucially（第3段）、Yet（第6段）、disadvantaged（第7段）、should（第7段）。
2023年12月英语六级真题第1套文章 The majority of psychology journal editors are men and based in the US 中有哪些值得积累的生词？
按文中出现顺序共 4 个：disheartening（令人沮丧的,使人灰心的）、starker（更鲜明的,更显著的,更严峻的）、disproportionately（不成比例地,过多地）、amplify（放大,加剧,加强），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：