2025年6月·第3套 英语六级阅读理解（四选一） 第 2 篇 · 51–55 题答案与解析

What does the passage say is the more recent thinking of economic growth\? 问「文章说……是什么」，要的是原文给出的具体表述，不是要考生推断。

主干是 What does the passage say is the more recent thinking of economic growth\?，what 是 say 的宾语，is 引导的从句作 say 的真正宾语；不要把 is 误读成主句谓语。结构清晰、无陷阱。

• A)✓ 正确
  • we should aim for sustainability in our economic models↔It should be made sustainable

  预判「应追求可持续」与 It should be made sustainable 字面同向，无需推断，直接锁定。

• B)偷换概念

  原文说「可持续经济」对未来重要 a sustainable economy is vital to our future，主语是「sustainable economy」，而非 It（指 economic growth）本身。

• C)与原文相反

  原文明确 GDP growth … should not be the primary goal of governments，作者主张增长不应是政府首要关切，It should be governments' chief concern 正好相反。

• D)与原文相反

  原文首句即否定 GDP growth is not a good indicator of how well a country is performing，It is an indicator of government performance 正是这个被否定的旧观点。

Why are some people opposed to the idea that governments should focus on happiness\? 问「反对的原因」，原文必有一段集中陈述反对理由。

主干 Why are some people opposed to the idea，后接 that 引导的同位语从句解释 idea 的内容；opposed to 是固定搭配「反对」，不要看成被动语态。

• A)张冠李戴

  Governments cannot impose happiness on citizens 是作者本人的让步（governments cannot impose life satisfaction on citizens），而非反对者的反对原因，时空错位。

• B)无中生有

  原文 P2 从未提到「幸福建立在个人努力上」；endeavor 在全文不存在，是凭空添加的因果。

• C)✓ 正确
  • people want different things↔Happiness means different things to different people
  • Don't different people experience different levels of happiness\?↔Happiness means different things to different people

  「幸福因人而异」与 Happiness means different things to different people 同义，三个反问句的共同指向皆收束于此。

• D)强加因果

  P1 把 sustainable 与 happiness 视为两条不同线索，原文从未说 Happiness depends on sustainable economic growth；该选项把两个概念强行嫁接。

What does philosopher Julian Baggini suggest governments do 是经典「某人的具体主张」型细节题。

主干 What does philosopher Julian Baggini suggest governments do，suggest 后接省略 that 的宾语从句 governments do (what)，what 是 do 的宾语前置——理解为「Baggini 建议政府做什么」。

• A)以偏概全

  could help reduce inequality 只是 Baggini 主张的「附带效益」（could help），不是其建议政府该做的核心；选项 A 把附带效益当成主张主体。

• B)✓ 正确
  • access things that enable them to live well↔Provide people with access to resources for a better life

  预判「让公民能用上让生活更好的资源」与 Provide people with access to resources for a better life 字面同向。

• C)偷换概念

  原文说 changes in social behavior enable us to make more efficient use of the assets，是「社会行为已发生的变化」让现有资产用得更高效；选项把它改成「政府去改变人们行为以更好利用社会财富」，主动者与目的都被偷换。

• D)以偏概全

  Technological advances 在原文同样只是 access 模型成立的「条件」，不是 Baggini 给政府的建议；选项 D 抓了边缘条件而漏掉主张句。

Why does the WHO feel the need to appeal to the economic benefits 问「WHO 为何觉得有必要诉诸经济利益」，答案不在 WHO 这句的字面，而要从作者紧接的评论中推断政府的倾向。

主干 Why does the WHO feel the need to appeal to the economic benefits of improving mental health to justify its recommendations\?，feel the need to do = 觉得有必要做，to justify 是目的状语——「为了让其建议显得合理」。

• A)无中生有

  原文从未说「无 GDP 增长就执行不了心理健康项目」，仅说「政府要看到经济收益才肯掏钱」；选项 A 把动机改成了执行前提，凭空捏造。

• B)答非所问

  Psychological interventions are conducive to people's wellbeing 是事实陈述，原文 improving mental health 也支持这一点，但题干问的是「WHO 为何要诉诸经济收益」，与「干预有益健康」无关。

• C)偷换概念

  原文强调「政府以经济为先」是导致 WHO 必须用经济话术的「原因」；选项 C 反过来说「心理健康差对经济不利」是 WHO 用经济话术的原因——把工具变成了动机来源。

• D)✓ 正确
  • As long as the economy is their priority↔Governments still take economic development as their priority
  • It says a lot, however, that the WHO feels the need to appeal to the economic benefits↔Governments still take economic development as their priority

  「政府只听经济话术」的根本原因即「政府仍以经济为先」，与 Governments still take economic development as their priority 同义。

What message does the author try to convey at the end of the passage\? 问作者结尾要传达的核心信息，是局部主旨题。

主干 What message does the author try to convey at the end of the passage\?，try to convey = 试图传达；message 是宾语前置至 what。

• A)与原文相反

  全文反对把繁荣/产值当目标（should not be the primary goal / ensuring citizens' continued productivity 被作者批评），Governments' goal should be prosperity-driven 正好是作者反对的立场。

• B)✓ 正确
  • view citizens as ends in themselves↔Governments' goal should be people-oriented
  • set the 'happiness' of citizens as their highest priority↔Governments' goal should be people-oriented

  末段「把公民视为目的」是全文落点，与 Governments' goal should be people-oriented 同义。

• C)无中生有

  原文从未谈及「决策时听取公民意见」（views in decision-making）；这是把「以人为本」误解为「问政于民」，添加了原文不存在的程序性内容。

• D)与原文相反

  作者在 governments need go no further than ensuring citizens' continued productivity 中明显嘲讽了「以产值为先」的政府逻辑；sustained productivity as their top priority 正是作者批评的对象。