2025年6月·第1套 英语六级阅读理解（四选一） 第 1 篇 · 46–50 题答案与解析

What does the U.S. secretary of education say in his open letter? 问的是某人具体说的内容，答案就在原文某句话里，不需推断。

结构是 What does the U.S. secretary of education say in his open letter?——典型 what 引导的特殊疑问句，主语 the U.S. secretary of education，谓语 say，介词短语 in his open letter 限定 say 的发生场景；无从句、无否定、无陷阱。

• A)过度推断

  公开信里没有任何关于 "必须迅速回应" 的话——urging communities to support every student 是劝学校社区支持学生出勤，不是对 respond promptly 的呼吁；A 项把作者（urging）的动作改写成信件内容，且加了原文没有的 "vital importance / promptly" 程度词。

• B)偷换概念

  deplored 在原文里描述的是 Education officials 对 "all this missed instruction" 的态度，B 项把它偷换成了 "chronically absent students 的 academic performance is deplorable"——主语从 "缺课现象" 偷换成 "学生的学业表现"，evaluatee 错位。

• C)✓ 正确
  • missing 10% of school days in a year for any reason↔school absences
  • is a primary cause of low academic achievement↔Low academic achievement is mainly attributed to

  C 项把 missing 10% of school days … is a primary cause of low academic achievement 的主动因果倒装为 "低学业主要归因于缺课" 的被动因果，与预判 "缺课是学业差的主因" 完全吻合。

• D)张冠李戴

  公开信原文用 primary cause 的客观因果定性，并未对 "school absences 对美国教育的影响" 作 worrisome 这种情感色彩评价——D 项把 Worrying 段的句首词搬到这里，但那是作者对 "担心缺勤" 的转述，并非教育部长公开信的内容。

What do the authors find about school absences? 问的是作者的客观发现，原文必有对应陈述句，不属于推断。

结构是 What do the authors find about school absences?——What 作 find 的宾语，主语 the authors，介词短语 about school absences 限定 find 的话题范围；句法简单，没有陷阱。

• A)✓ 正确
  • absences excused by a parent↔Excused school absences
  • do little to harm children's learning↔have little impact on children's learning

  A 项是 P6 第一句的字面同义改写——主语 excused absences、谓语 do little to harm 全部一一对应，无任何添加或扭曲，与预判完全吻合。

• B)与原文相反

  原文 the average child with even just one unexcused absence does much worse academically than peers with none 明确指出 unexcused 与 excused 差异很大——B 项 little difference 与原文 much worse 直接相反。

• C)过度推断

  原文只说 excused absences do little to harm、有 excused 缺勤的孩子 have test scores equal to their peers who have no absences——是 "equal to"（相当），不是 comparatively better（相对更好）。"持平" 被悄悄抬升为 "更好"。

• D)答非所问

  Unexcused absences are a big challenge to both schools and families 谈的是 unexcused 对学校和家庭构成挑战——题干 Q47 问的是 "authors 关于 school absences 的发现"，作者的核心发现是 excused 不损学（P6），而非 unexcused 对学校家庭有多挑战。话题偏离。

What do the authors believe concerning unexcused school absences? 问的是作者已经明说的观点，原文有原句，属于细节题。

结构是 What do the authors believe concerning unexcused school absences?——concerning 等于 about，是介词，引出讨论对象；与 Q47 唯一的差异在限定词 unexcused，读题时务必圈出。

• A)与原文相反

  They are likely to cause a decrease in students' academic achievements due to missed instruction 是作者明确反对的观点——It matters less as a cause of lower student achievement due to missed instruction 中 "matters less as a cause" 直接否定了 "缺课通过 missed instruction 导致学业下降" 这一因果。A 项把作者反对的观点扣给作者本人。

• B)✓ 正确
  • is a strong signal of↔point directly to
  • the many challenges children and families face↔many of the out-of-school challenges confronting children and their families

  B 项把 is a strong signal of 改写为 point directly to——"信号" 与 "指向" 是六级常见的隐喻互换，与预判 "无故缺勤指向校外挑战" 完全吻合。

• C)无中生有

  原文未说政府 typically ignores unexcused absences——恰恰相反，P10 说政策 hold schools and families accountable for the days children miss，是 "管太严" 而非 "忽视"。C 项凭空捏造 "政府忽视" 这一事实。

• D)偷换概念

  原文 is a strong signal of the many challenges children and families face 用一般现在时 face，指 "当下面对" 的挑战；D 项改成 the crises they are likely to face in the future 把时间挪到未来——把 "反映当下危机" 偷换成 "预测未来危机"。

What is the assumption underlying education policies in the U.S.? 问的是原文已经写明的预设，不是要读者推断政策背后的隐含逻辑。

结构是 What is the assumption underlying education policies in the U.S.?——主语是 the assumption，underlying 是现在分词作后置定语（= that underlies），限定 assumption 是 "作为政策基础的" 那种预设；不要把 underlying 误读为时间状语。

• A)偷换概念

  原文 missing school for any reason harms children academically 是 "缺课损学业"——A 项 Children's academic performance depends on reducing the number of absences 把它倒过来说 "学业取决于减少缺勤"，表面相近但因果主语错位：原文主语是 "缺课"，A 项主语变成 "学业"，且 depends on 把单向因果偷换为 "取决于" 这一更强的依存关系。

• B)✓ 正确
  • schools will be able to effectively intervene↔Schools can boost children's academic performance by effective intervention
  • by reducing student absences + These policies assume that missing school for any reason harms children academically↔boost children's academic performance

  B 项把第二个 assume（学校能有效干预）与前一句的因果（缺课损学业）合起来——干预 → 减少缺勤 → 提升学业，是政策预设的完整逻辑，与预判吻合。

• C)张冠李戴

  原文 hold schools and families accountable for the days children miss 说政策让学校和家庭对 "缺课天数" 负责，而不是对 out-of-school crises 负责——"out-of-school crises" 是 out-of-school challenges 里的概念，C 项把它扣到了 "政策让学校家庭负责的对象" 头上，移花接木。

• D)无中生有

  原文从头到尾在讨论 attendance / absences / missed instruction（错过的教学），从未讨论 the quality of instruction（教学质量）——D 项凭空引入 "教学质量" 概念，与原文核心论域无关。

What do the authors suggest doing regarding school absences? 问的是作者明说的建议，原文有原句，不需推断。

结构是 What do the authors suggest doing regarding school absences?——suggest doing 是 suggest 接动名词的固定搭配，What 在动名词 doing 后充当宾语；regarding = about，限定话题。结构平铺直叙，无陷阱。

• A)答非所问

  原文 P13 的建议是 "把 unexcused absence 当信号 → 把资源调配给需要者"，不是 Identifying their underlying causes（找缺勤的根本原因）——作者已经在前文给出原因（家庭/社区危机），末段不再建议 "找原因"，而是 "用信号导资源"。

• B)过度推断

  原文 P10–P12 批评了现行政策，但 We instead suggest 的建议内容是 "用 unexcused absence 当信号导资源"，而不是 Reframing school attendance policies（重构考勤政策）——作者直接给出替代做法，没把 "重构政策" 作为建议本身提出。

• C)✓ 正确
  • channel resources to↔Directing resources to
  • the children and families who need them most↔needy children

  C 项把 channel resources to 直接对应 Directing resources to，把 who need them most 压缩为 needy——两步同义改写都是六级高频考法，与预判完全吻合。

• D)与原文相反

  原文 P12 明确指出现行政策 pressuring schools who serve them to get students to school more often 是负面后果，作者是 "批评施压"——D 项 Pressuring schools to reduce unexcused ones 反而把 "施压学校" 作为作者的建议，与原文立场完全相反。