懒笔记
2019年考研英语一真题 Section II Part C Why is so much bad science published
Postgraduate · 来自 2019年考研英语一真题 · Section II Part C · 英译汉（划线句子翻译）

Why is so much bad science published

2019年考研英语一真题文章逐层精读

The Spectator《旁观者》2017.06.06-篇题为Why is so much bad science published(为什么这么多劣质科学文章被发表)的文章。

本页是 2019年考研英语一真题 Section II Part C 文章的精读视角页——这篇议论文全文 412 词、4 段，CEFR 难度 C1（C1 级在考研英语一文章中占 90%），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，其中能迁移到其他考研英语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

4 段英文原文

以下为2019年考研英语一真题 Section II Part C 的英译汉（划线句子翻译）原文，共 4 段。左侧 P1–P4 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。

Why is so much bad science published

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end, that I realised just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was. I came to recognise various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.

Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled "The Natural Selection of Bad Science", published on the Royal Society's open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it. What is important is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself. There has been a kind of inflationary process at work: nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality, then, count the number.

Attempts have been made to curb this tendency, for example, by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant's papers. This is the famed citation index, that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted elsewhere in the scientific literature, the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account. This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.

Boiling down an individual's output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great. If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science.

PARAGRAPHS · 逐段精读

4 段逐段主旨与解读

逐段拆解2019年考研英语一真题 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 Problem of Bad Medical Science

    Much published medical research is poor and can mislead the public.

    对于全文而言，本段承担提出问题的功能，即先让读者看到 bad science 的广泛存在及其 public harm。它为后文追问 “Why is so much bad science published?” 铺垫了逻辑起点：既然问题严重，就必须进一步寻找其 institutional cause。

    从例子回扣问题
  2. P2

    How Career Incentives Produce Bad Science

    Academic career incentives encourage scientists to prioritize publication quantity over research quality.

    本段是全文论证的核心转折，它把 第1段 中“坏科学很多”的 observation，解释为评价和晋升制度造成的结果。这样，文章的批评对象从表面的 individual misconduct 上升到深层的 academic system，也为下一段讨论 citation index 的局限奠定基础。

    锁定设问后的答案
  3. P3

    The Limits of Citation-Based Evaluation

    Citation indices, though designed to assess quality, are vulnerable to manipulation.

    本段的作用是反驳一种看似可行的 reform measure。它说明，即使评价体系从 publication count 转向 citation count，只要仍依赖简单的 quantitative metric，就不能真正保证 quality。由此，论证进一步支持全文的观点：问题不能靠表面数字指标轻易解决。

    抓住方案的漏洞
  4. P4

    Reforming Incentives for Better Science

    Institutions should move beyond simple metrics and encourage meaningful, reproducible science.

    本段承担全文结论与升华的作用。它汇总前文的论证：第1段 展示 bad science，第2段 揭示制度性诱因，第3段 说明 citation metric 也会失灵；最终，作者提出 institutional reform 的方向。它与文章主旨完全一致，即以高质量、可重复的 science 替代对 publication volume 和简单数字的迷信。

    由弊端落到改革
SELF CHECK · 段落自检题

4 道逐段细节自检题

针对2019年考研英语一真题这篇原文，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 broccoli

    The author mentions the broccoli example to show that many medical papers are

    • A based on extensive clinical research
    • B strictly reviewed by medical journals
    • C scientifically unreliable and misleading
    • D intended to promote healthy lifestyles
    • E too complex for the lay press to understand
    • F unlikely to influence public reactions
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：C

    原文先将这类论文归入 bad paper，随后使用 nonsense 作出明确的 negative evaluation，并指出它们经媒体传播后会引发 health scares 和短暂的 dietary enthusiasms。因此，scientifically unreliable 概括其质量问题，misleading 概括其可能造成的误导性后果。

    情感极性匹配 直接锁定 第1段，并使用情感极性判定法。观察定位词附近的 bad、nonsense 和 scares 等 negative words，再寻找同样具有 negative polarity、同时能够概括科学质量及传播后果的正确项。

  2. 第 2 段 定位词 bad science

    According to the recent paper, bad science prevails because current academic systems

    • A fail to provide enough research posts
    • B encourage scientists to pursue the ultimate truth
    • C are being affected by global economic inflation
    • D prioritize the number of publications over their quality
    • E demand researchers to publish results on websites
    • F limit the freedom of scientific exploration
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：D

    原文明确对照 publication quantity 与 quality，并以 Never mind the quality 和 count the number 强调评价体系偏重数量。正确项通过 prioritize... over... 准确改写了这种制度偏好。

    数量质量对照 快速定位 第2段 后，不必逐句翻译，而是寻找 quantity 与 quality 的对照关系。选项中若出现 number、publications、quality 以及 prioritize... over... 之类的比较结构，应优先核对其方向，借此快速识别正确项。

  3. 第 3 段 定位词 citation index

    The author suggests that the citation index may fail to work because scientists can

    • A hardly get their work quoted by others
    • B refuse to incorporate quality into assessment
    • C hardly find enough scientific literature
    • D forget to cite their previous publications
    • E inflate their citation counts through self-citation and reciprocal favors
    • F only quote papers of great importance
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：E

    原文指出 scientists 可以在后续 publications 中 cite themselves，也可以让 associates 帮忙引用，以换取 similar favours。这些行为能够人为增加 citation counts。正确项中的 self-citation 和 reciprocal favors 分别对应这两种方式，inflate 则准确概括其对指标的扭曲。

    引用次数造高 定位至 第3段 后，重点识别评价指标中的 human factor。若指标的数值可以通过 self-promotion 或 reciprocal arrangement 人为提高，就应寻找能够同时概括自我操作和相互配合的正确项。

  4. 第 4 段 定位词 meaningful and reproducible

    To ensure science is meaningful and reproducible, the author advocates that

    • A more simple metrics should be introduced
    • B researchers should reduce their output efficiency
    • C the ambiguity in assessment should be totally removed
    • D individual output should not be assessed at all
    • E scientists should stop publishing in journals
    • F institutional encouragement should be given to quality research
    显示答案与解析 收起答案与解析

    正确答案：F

    原文要求确保 institutions encourage that kind of science，其中 that kind of science 指 meaningful and reproducible science。正确项用 institutional encouragement 概括 institutions encourage，并以 quality research 概括这种研究所具有的目标属性。

    制度主体匹配 定位 第4段 中目标短语所在句后，直接识别 modal force 和 responsibility holder。再在选项中寻找以 institutional role 为核心、并能与 encourage 构成同义关系的正确项。

STRUCTURE · 篇章结构

4 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

    医学文献质量问题的发现

    作者通过 personal experience 发现了 medical literature 中存在大量的 bad science，特别是那些 statistical correlation 看似科学但实际上是 nonsense 的研究，这些研究被 media 传播后造成了 health scares 和 dietary fads。

    这个 introductory paragraph 通过具体的 broccoli example 来 illustrate 坏科学的典型特征，为后文探讨 why bad science is published 以及 systemic problems 奠定了 empirical foundation，让读者直观感受到这个 issue 的普遍性和严重性。

    现象呈现
  2. 分论点 P2

    坏科学泛滥的系统性原因

    这段通过引用 Royal Society 的 paper 来 explain 为什么 bad science 如此普遍：核心原因是 current career advancement system 激励的是 publication quantity 而非 truth，形成了一种 inflationary process，导致 researchers 必须发表更多 papers 来获得 positions，这种 'count the number' 的评价机制从根本上 encourage bad science。

    这个 supporting argument 直接 address 文章的 central thesis：通过 citing authoritative source（Royal Society paper）和 statistical evidence（发表数量的 inflation）来 demonstrate 坏科学不是个别现象而是 systemic issue。'Publication has become almost an end in itself' 这个 key insight 揭示了问题的 structural nature，为后文讨论 failed solutions 和 need for reform 提供了 theoretical basis。

    系统性病因诊断
  3. 分论点 P3

    改革尝试的局限性

    这段讨论了 attempts to address 数量导向问题的 solution（citation index）及其 limitations。虽然 citation index 试图 incorporate quality measures，但它也容易被 game through self-citation 和 reciprocal citation，说明 simple quantitative fix 无法真正解决 systemic problem。

    这个 counterargument analysis 通过展示 existing reform efforts 的 inadequacy 来 strengthen 主论点。它 acknowledge 了 citation index 这个 seemingly reasonable solution，但通过揭示其 exploitable loopholes（self-citation schemes）来 demonstrate 问题的 intractability。这种 'even attempted solutions fail' 的 rhetoric 为最后段的 call for fundamental reform 增加了 urgency 和 necessity。

    改革失败案例
  4. 结论 P4

    根本性改革的必要性

    这段通过 acknowledge simple metrics 的 practical advantages（省时省力）来 transition 到 core argument：这些 quantitative approaches 的 long-term costs 很高，真正要确保 meaningful and reproducible science，必须进行 institutional reform 来 incentivize quality research 而非单纯的 publication volume。

    这个 concluding paragraph 通过 'If we are serious about' 这种 prescriptive language 来 synthesize 前文论证并 issue a call to action。它不仅 restate 了 thesis（metrics fail to ensure quality），还 elevate 讨论到 institutional level，明确指出需要 systemic change。'Meaningful and reproducible' 这两个 criteria 呼应了第一段的 bad science examples，形成 argumentative closure。

    改革呼吁
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2019年考研英语一真题 这篇原文的实际行文顺序给出，每步说明看哪里、看出什么，可直接迁移到其他考研英语文章。

  1. 首段定位问题现象 P1

    议论文的首段通常会 introduce the issue 或 present a phenomenon，这个 phenomenon 往往就是作者要 discuss 的核心问题。这篇文章首段就指出 bad science in medical literature 这个现象，为后续 argumentation 铺垫

  2. 中段追溯问题根源 P2

    议论文在 problem 提出后，通常会 explain the root cause。第二段明确用 Why 开头提问，然后引用 paper 来 answer，指出 current system 和 career advancement 是 root cause。这种 cause-effect relationship 是主旨的 key component

  3. 现有方案及其缺陷 P3

    第三段描述了 attempts to solve the problem 但又指出这些 attempts 的 flaws（如 citation gaming）。这种 critique of existing solutions 表明作者认为 problem 尚未解决，deepens the argument

  4. 末段提取解决方案 P4

    末段用 must ensure 这样的 strong modal verb，明确提出 institutional reform 的 necessity。Conclusion 中的 prescriptive statements（应该做什么）往往是 thesis 的 final crystallization

  5. 整合论证链条 P1 P2 P3 P4

    将四个 components 整合：bad science exists (Para 1) ← caused by incentive system (Para 2) ← not solved by simple metrics (Para 3) → needs institutional reform (Para 4)。这个 logical chain 就是完整主旨

主旨信号词 bad P1 positively encourages P2 unfortunately P4 must ensure P4 problem P2

MAIN IDEA · 主旨

这篇文章在说什么

当前学术体系激励科学出版中的数量而非质量,导致劣质科学泛滥。发表数量和引用指数等简单量化指标无法确保有意义的研究。需要进行机构改革,优先考虑可重复的高质量科学,而不仅仅是发表数量。
The current academic system incentivizes quantity over quality in scientific publishing, leading to widespread bad science. Simple quantitative metrics like publication counts and citation indices fail to ensure meaningful research. Institutional reform is needed to prioritize reproducible, high-quality science over mere publication volume.
WORD INFERENCE · 生词推断

6 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。已收录进考研英语高频真题词集的单词可点击进入词条页。

  • purport 声称、意图表明（常暗示可疑或未经证实）

    我们来 synthesize 这些 clues。首先从 syntactic structure 看，purport to show 这个 pattern 表明它是个 verb of assertion。然后从 contextual tone 看，作者在 criticize bad papers，用 nonsense 这样的 negative vocabulary，说明这些 papers 的 claims 是 questionable 的。最后从 morphology 看，port 有「携带」之意，整个词表达「携带某种声称」。把这些 threads 编织在一起，这个 verb 的 core meaning 就是「声称、宣称」，而且带有「未经证实的、可疑的」这种 implication。

    句法、语气、词根三维推断学术动词
  • pernicious 恶性的、有害的、危险的

    让我们 connect the dots。从 medical terminology 的 convention 看，修饰 disease 的 adjectives 描述其 characteristics。从 morphology 看，-cious suffix 和 vicious/malicious 的 parallel 强烈暗示 negative, harmful meaning。而且 per- prefix 可能强化这种 negativity（thoroughly bad）。虽然 immediate context 没有直接 define 这个词，但 morphological evidence 配合 medical context 的 convention，可以 confidently infer 这是个描述 disease 的 serious, harmful, dangerous nature 的 adjective。

    专业领域惯例结合词缀模式推断
  • intriguing 引人入胜的、激发兴趣的

    我们来 synthesize。从 coordinate structure 看，intriguing 和 important 是 compatible positive evaluations。从 rhetorical function 看，作者在 introduce 一个值得研究的 question，这种 question 必须能 capture readers' interest。从 morphology 看，intrigue + -ing 的 pattern 表示「causing intrigue」，即「引起兴趣」。所有 clues converge on 一个 meaning：这个 adjective 描述某事物能够 stimulate curiosity 和 intellectual interest。

    并列词义协调与修辞功能双向锁定
  • inflationary 膨胀的、不断增长的

    让我们 weave together these threads。从 punctuation logic 看，colon 后的 explanation 明确指出 twice the number 这种 quantitative increase。从 morphology 看，inflate 的 economic meaning（通货膨胀）提供了 perfect analogy。从 metaphorical framework 看，作者在批评一种「数量虚高但质量不升」的现象，exactly like economic inflation。所有 evidence points to 同一个 meaning：不断增长的、膨胀的。

    跨领域隐喻映射识别核心含义
  • curb 限制、遏制、控制

    综合来看，从 problem-solution structure 可以推断：面对 negative tendency（inflationary process），需要采取 attempts to curb it，而 solution 是 incorporate quality measures。这个 logical chain 表明 curb 是个 verb of restraint 或 control。从 causation logic 看，when you want to stop something bad from growing，你需要 curb it。所有 contextual clues converge on「限制、遏制」这个 meaning。

    问题解决框架推断干预动词
  • entail 使必然发生、需要、涉及

    让我们 integrate all clues。从 sentence structure 看，entails 连接 action（using simple metrics）和 result（savings）。从 argumentative structure 看，作者在讨论 trade-offs，这个 verb 描述 one approach 的 consequence。从 morphology 看，en- + tail 可能表示「引发跟随而来」。所有 evidence 指向一个 meaning：这个 verb 表示某个 action 或 decision 必然带来或涉及某种 consequence 或 requirement。

    因果结构三角验证推导结果动词
RHETORIC · 修辞手法

8 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

    P1

    作者用 broccoli 和 pernicious anaemia 的 correlation study 作为 concrete example，来 illustrate bad science 的典型表现。这个 specific case 让 abstract concept 变得 tangible，directly 展示了 medical literature 中充斥着 questionable findings 的现状。通过这个 exaggerated example（吃西兰花和恶性贫血的相关性研究），effectively 揭示了当前 scientific publishing 存在的 nonsense，为后文分析 systemic problems 奠定了 empirical foundation。

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

    仿写： 在写 argumentative essay 时，先提出你的 main claim，然后 immediately 跟上一个 vivid、specific 的 example。选择的 case 要 representative 且容易引起 readers' resonance。模版：When discussing [topic], consider [specific example]: [详细描述]. This case illustrates [你想证明的观点].

  • 因果论证

    P2

    文章在 second paragraph 建立了 clear causal chain：current career advancement system（cause）directly leads to bad science publication（effect）。作者指出问题的 root cause 不仅是 individual scientists doing bad work，而是 institutional incentives actively encourage 这种行为。这个 causal analysis 是全文的 pivotal argument，揭示了 superficial symptoms 背后的 systemic reason，从而将批判 target 从 individual researchers 转向 structural problems。

    信号词 why because the reason is leads to results in consequently therefore this is why the cause of stems from

    仿写： 构建因果论证时，明确 distinguish between immediate causes 和 root causes。使用 causal connectors 来 signal relationship，但避免 oversimplified linear causation。模版：The problem is not merely [surface issue], but [deeper cause] positively encourages/leads to [consequence]. This creates a situation where [further explanation of mechanism].

  • 对比论证

    P2

    文章在 second paragraph 用 temporal contrast 对比：10 years ago 申请 research post 需要的 publication number 和 nowadays 的 requirement 形成 sharp contrast。这个 quantitative comparison 直观地展示了 inflationary process 的 severity，让 readers 感受到 pressure 的 escalation。通过 then vs. now 的 juxtaposition，作者 effectively 证明了 system 正在朝着 quantity over quality 的方向 deteriorate。

    信号词 whereas while in contrast on the other hand however conversely unlike compared to previously... now

    仿写： 使用对比论证时，选择 comparable elements 在 key dimension 上进行 contrast。可以是 temporal（past vs. present）、spatial（different contexts）或 categorical（different approaches）。模版：[Time period A] required [standard A], whereas nowadays [standard B] has become necessary. This shift from [old state] to [new state] demonstrates [your point].

  • 引用论证

    P2

    作者在 second paragraph explicitly cite 一篇 titled "The Natural Selection of Bad Science" 的 paper，published on Royal Society's open science website。这个 authoritative source 为作者的 argument 提供了 external validation 和 scientific backing。通过 reference 这个 recent academic work，文章不仅增强了 credibility，还表明这不是 isolated opinion 而是 broader academic community 正在讨论的 pressing issue。

    信号词 according to as stated in research shows studies indicate titled published in evidence suggests scholars argue cited in

    仿写： 使用引用论证时，选择 reputable 且 relevant 的 sources。明确 indicate source 的 title、publication venue 和 key finding。模版：A recent [study/paper/report] titled "[title]", published [where], [demonstrates/argues/reveals] that [key point]. This [supports/confirms/challenges] the notion that [your argument].

  • 比喻修辞

    P2

    作者用 "inflationary process" 这个 economic metaphor 来 describe publication requirements 的 escalation。这个 figurative language 将 abstract academic phenomenon 映射到 familiar economic concept，让 readers 立即 grasp 这种不断 inflate 的、value-diluting 的 nature。这个 metaphor effectively 暗示了就像 monetary inflation 会导致 currency devaluation，publication inflation 也导致了 individual publication 的 value decline。

    信号词 like as if a kind of metaphorically in a sense can be seen as resembles similar to

    仿写： 选择 metaphors 时，找一个 readers 熟悉的 domain 来 illuminate unfamiliar concept。确保 tenor 和 vehicle 之间有 meaningful parallels。模版：There has been a kind of [familiar process] at work: [describe how this metaphor applies to your topic]. Just as [vehicle behavior], [tenor behavior].

  • 对比论证

    P2

    在 second paragraph 结尾，作者用 "Never mind the quality, then, count the number" 这个 sharp statement 形成 quality vs. quantity 的 explicit contrast。这个 opposition 直接点出了 current system 的 fundamental flaw：evaluation 重心从 scientific merit 转移到了 numerical metrics。这个 binary contrast 清晰地 frame 了整篇文章的 central critique。

    信号词 not... but rather than instead of never mind... then versus as opposed to priority shifts from... to

    仿写： 使用对比论证时，选择 comparable elements 在 key dimension 上进行 contrast。可以直接用 imperative + contrast structure 来 emphasize priority shift。模版：Never mind [dismissed aspect], then, [prioritize this aspect instead]. This reveals a shift from valuing [old standard] to pursuing [new standard].

  • 因果论证

    P3

    在 third paragraph，作者解释 citation index 作为 quality measure 的 logic：important paper 会被 cited more often。但紧接着指出这个 causal assumption 的 flaw：scientists 可以 manipulate 这个 system through self-citation 或 reciprocal arrangements。这个 cause-effect analysis 揭示了即使是 well-intentioned solution 也会被 game，因为 underlying incentive structure 没有改变。

    信号词 the assumption being on the grounds that based on the idea that if it were not for this would work except the logic being

    仿写： 分析 flawed solution 时，先 present intended causal logic，然后 expose actual unintended consequences。模版：This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that [actors] can easily [gaming behavior], or [alternative manipulation]. This undermines the assumption that [original causal logic].

  • 对比论证

    P4

    在 final paragraph，作者构建了 short-term benefits vs. long-term costs 的 temporal contrast。"Considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity" 和 "quite great long-term costs" 形成 sharp opposition，展示 simple metrics 的 immediate appeal 如何 mask 其 lasting damage。这个 contrast 揭示了 current approach 的 shortsightedness，呼应全文对 systemic reform 的 call。

    信号词 unfortunately however but short-term... long-term immediate... eventual while... ultimately

    仿写： 使用 temporal contrast 时，明确 distinguish immediate benefits from delayed consequences。用 concessive structure 来 acknowledge tradeoffs。模版：[Action] entails considerable [short-term benefits]. Unfortunately, the long-term [costs/consequences] are likely to be [significant negative outcome]. This tradeoff reveals [deeper problem].

IMPLIED MEANING · 言外之意

8 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。

  • 医学文献质量低劣的普遍性

    P1
    I realised just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was

    程度强化类 just how bad so much extremely remarkably surprisingly considerably significantly

    这个 implicature 通过 just how bad 传递的信息是:医学文献的质量问题不是 isolated cases,而是一个 pervasive 且 serious 的 systemic issue。作者用 realised 配合 just how bad 制造了一个 cognitive contrast,暗示这个问题的 severity 远超他最初的 assumption。这对文章 thesis 起到 foundational 作用,因为它 establishes 问题的 scale 和 urgency,为后文 explaining 为什么 bad science 会被 published 以及呼吁 institutional reform 奠定了 critical premise。Without 这个 strong opening implicature,后面的 argument 就会缺少 compelling motivation。

  • 荒谬研究的典型特征

    P1
    the kind of paper that purports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia

    示例讽刺类 the kind of paper that the kind of... that such as for example for instance like typically

    这个 implicature 的真正含义是:当前大量发表的医学研究充斥着 trivial、methodologically questionable 的 findings,这些研究追求 statistical correlations 而缺乏 meaningful causation 或 practical significance。通过这个 deliberately absurd example,作者 conveys 这类研究的 fundamental flaws:微小的 correlation coefficients(1.17)、arbitrary specificity(one kilo)、以及 dubious causal claims。这个 implicature 对 thesis 的作用是 demonstrating 问题的 concrete manifestation,让 abstract criticism 变得 tangible 且 relatable。它也 sets up 后文关于 publication pressure 的讨论,暗示这些 nonsensical papers 之所以存在,是因为 systemic incentives 在 rewarding quantity over substance。

  • 坏科学背后的制度性根源

    P2
    the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it

    递进否定类 not merely... but not only... but also not just... but more than just beyond merely rather than simply instead of just

    这个 implicature 传递的 critical insight 是:坏科学不是 isolated acts of poor scholarship,而是 systemic dysfunction 的 inevitable outcome。通过 not merely... but 结构,作者 shifts blame 从 individual scientists 到 institutional structures,这是一个 fundamental reframing。positively encourages 这个表达特别 powerful,因为它暗示系统不只是 passive 或 neutral,而是 actively incentivizing bad practices。这对文章 thesis 至关重要,因为它 establishes 问题的 root cause,也为最后提出 institutional reform 的 solution 提供了 logical foundation。如果问题只是 individual competence,那么 training 就够了;但如果是 systemic incentives,就必须 restructure the system itself。

  • 发表数量的通货膨胀效应

    P2
    What is important is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself

    异化表达类 has become almost an end in itself become an end in itself lost sight of deviated from distorted into perverted into reduced to

    这个 implicature 揭示的是学术界价值体系的 fundamental corruption:research 的 ultimate goal(discovering truth)被 bureaucratic metric(publication count)所 replaced。has become almost an end in itself 暗示 publication 不再是 communicating findings 的 vehicle,而是变成了 self-serving objective,disconnected from knowledge advancement。这对文章 thesis 的作用是 explaining 为什么 bad science proliferates:当 system rewards publication regardless of quality,researchers 就被 incentivized 去 maximize output 而非 pursue meaningful inquiry。这个 implicature 也为 第4段 的 solution 铺垫,因为既然 metrics 导致了 distortion,改革就必须 address metric design 本身。

  • 发表数量要求的倍增压力

    P2
    anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago

    数量对比类 twice the number twice double triple half a fraction of exponentially more

    这个 implicature 传递的信息是学术界正经历 unsustainable 的 productivity arms race。twice in only 10 years 不只是 describing 标准提高,更是 implying 这种 inflationary spiral 是 recent、rapid、且 likely to continue。暗含的 logic 是:如果 quality 保持不变,这种 doubling 是 impossible 的,所以 quantity increase 必然伴随 quality dilution。这直接 supports 文章 thesis,因为它 concretizes 为什么 bad science 被 produced:researchers 面临 exponentially growing pressure 去 publish more,而 time 和 rigorous methods 是 finite 的,所以 shortcut 和 low-quality work 成为 inevitable。这个 implicature 也 strengthens 对 institutional reform 的 urgency:如果 trend continues,问题只会 worsen。

  • 引用指数改革的局限性

    P3
    This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours

    让步转折类 This would be reasonable if it were not for would be reasonable if it were not for however but yet nevertheless although

    这个 implicature 揭示的是 quantitative metrics 在学术界的 inherent vulnerability:任何 measurable indicator 都可能被 gamed。通过 easily 和 for similar favours 这些表达,作者暗示 citation manipulation 不是 rare aberration 而是 common practice,这 fundamentally undermines metric 的 validity。对文章 thesis 的作用是 demonstrating 为什么 superficial reforms(用 citation index 替代 publication count)无法 solve 根本问题:只要 system 依赖 simple quantitative metrics,gaming 就是 inevitable。这为 第4段 的 final argument 铺垫:真正的 solution 需要 move beyond simplistic metrics,embrace more holistic 和 qualitative 的 assessment approaches。这个 implicature 也 reinforces 问题的 systemic nature:不是个别 researchers 的 ethical failure,而是 incentive structure 本身 invites manipulation。

  • 简单量化指标的权宜之计

    P4
    Boiling down an individual's output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great

    利弊转折类 entails considerable savings... Unfortunately Unfortunately However But The downside is The problem is The cost of

    这个 implicature 的关键信息是:学术界选择 simple metrics 是出于 administrative convenience 而非 epistemic soundness,这种 trade-off 看似 efficient 实则 destructive。entails considerable savings 承认了 quantitative metrics 的 pragmatic appeal:它们 reduce evaluation 的 complexity 和 subjectivity,这对 bureaucratic processes 很 attractive。但 Unfortunately... quite great 这个转折 reveals 这种 expedience 的 true cost:它 incentivizes bad science 并 undermines research integrity。对文章 thesis 的作用是 diagnosing 问题的 root cause:institutions 选择 simple metrics 不是 ignorance,而是 prioritizing administrative efficiency over scientific quality。这为最后的 prescriptive conclusion 设置了 stage:要改变现状,institutions 必须 willing to invest 更多 time、energy、ambiguity in evaluation processes,即 move away from convenience toward rigor。这个 implicature 也 makes 作者的 critique more nuanced:不是 demonizing 个人,而是 exposing systemic trade-offs。

  • 确保优质科学的制度责任

    P4
    If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science

    条件命令类 If we are serious about... we must ensure If we are serious about... we must If we truly want... we need to To achieve X, we must Y X requires that we Y Unless we... we cannot Without X, Y is impossible

    这个 implicature 的核心含义是:学术界虽然 professes commitment to scientific integrity,但 current institutional practices 与这个 value 相悖,因此需要 fundamental reform。are serious about 这个表达 challenges institutions 的 sincerity:如果真的 care about meaningful and reproducible science,现有的 metrics-driven system 就必须被 replaced。meaningful and reproducible 这两个 attributes 的 juxtaposition 也 significant:前者针对 content quality,后者针对 methodological rigor,together 代表 scientific research 的 core standards。must ensure that our institutions encourage 明确 locates responsibility 在 institutional level,呼应了 第2段 关于 systemic incentives 的 analysis。对文章 thesis 的作用是 culminating argument:既然问题是 systemic,solution 也必须是 systemic;既然 institutions shape incentives,institutional reform 是 necessary and sufficient condition。这个 implicature 将整篇文章的 critical analysis 转化为 actionable conclusion,completing 从 problem identification 到 solution prescription 的 argumentative arc。

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

  1. 首段负面词汇定调 P1

    议论文的 opening paragraph 往往会 reveal 作者的 basic stance，当作者用 bad much of the medical literature、great deal of nonsense 这样的 strong negative language 时，说明他对 current situation 持有 critical view，这是 establish 整体 tone 的关键。

  2. 问题提出与证据引入 P2

    议论文中的 rhetorical questions 通常不是 genuine inquiry，而是作者用来 emphasize problem 的 device。当作者问 why bad science exists 并马上 provide evidence（citing academic paper），说明他在 build up 一个 systematic critique，这显示出 deep concern about the issue。

  3. 方案评估与局限指出 P3

    当议论文提到 solution 但马上用 conditional negative（if it were not for）来 qualify 时，说明作者认为这些 measures are inadequate。这种 pattern 反映出作者不仅 critical of the problem，也对 existing remedies 感到 dissatisfied，这 deepens 我们对他 concerned attitude 的理解。

  4. 全文态度弧线整合 P1 P2 P3 P4

    议论文的 concluding paragraph 是作者 final statement of position。当结尾用 unfortunately 开始、用 must 结束，表明作者不仅 identify problem，还 feel urgency about fixing it。这种 from criticism to call-for-action 的 progression 是 concerned attitude 的 典型特征。

文中的态度信号词

  • bad P1

    这个 bad 直接 modify medical literature，是作者 express negative judgment 的最 straightforward way。在议论文中，这种 simple but strong adjective 能 immediately establish 作者的 critical position，让读者从一开始就 understand 作者的 disapproval。

    同类词 poor flawed defective inferior inadequate

  • nonsense P1

    Nonsense 比 bad 更 emotional 和 dismissive，作者用它来 describe 某类 medical journals 的内容，这显示出他不仅 disapprove，还感到 frustrated。在议论文中，这种 stronger negative noun 表明作者的 criticism 已经超越 mild disagreement，达到了 strong condemnation 的程度。

    同类词 rubbish absurdity garbage drivel foolishness

  • problem P2

    Problem 是议论文中的 key organizational word，它 marks 作者 transition from description to analysis。在 第2段，作者明确说 the problem is not merely...but，这个 structure 不仅 identify problem，还 deepen 对它的 understanding，显示作者在 systematically dissect 这个 issue。

    同类词 issue trouble difficulty flaw defect

  • positively encourages P2

    这个 phrase 很有意思，positively 本来是 positive word，但这里用 ironic tone 来 emphasize 系统如何 encourage bad behavior。作者通过这种 ironic usage 来 strengthen criticism，暗示 system 的 perverse incentives。在议论文中，这种 verbal irony 是 sophisticated critical technique。

    同类词 encourages promotes fosters incentivizes rewards

  • unfortunately P4

    Unfortunately 是 explicit attitude marker，它 directly express 作者的 regret and concern。放在 concluding paragraph 的开头，它 sets emotional tone for final assessment，告诉读者作者对 current situation 感到 disappointed and worried。这是议论文中 signal overall stance 的 powerful device。

    同类词 regrettably sadly disappointingly lamentably unhappily

  • must ensure P4

    Must 是 strongest modal verb，表示 obligation and necessity。作者用它来 conclude article，这 transform criticism into call for action。在议论文中，must ensure 这种 imperative structure 显示作者不仅 identify problems，还 demand solutions，这是 concerned attitude 的 ultimate expression。

    同类词 must should need to have 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，可直接迁移到其他考研英语 真题文章。

如何快速判断这是一篇议论文？

  1. 开篇判断性表态 P1

    第1段 中作者用 'just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was' 和 'nonsense' 这些带有明确 negative judgment 的词汇，直接表达了 critical stance。说明文会 neutral 地介绍 topic，新闻报道会 objective 地呈现 events，但议论文会在开篇就 reveal author's position。

  2. 问题成因探究 P2

    第2段 明确提出 'Why is so much bad science published?' 这个 central question，然后引用 research paper 来 explain the cause（'our current system of career advancement positively encourages it'）。说明文会 describe 'what is'，新闻会 report 'what happened'，但议论文会 explore 'why' 和 'how to solve'。

  3. 方案评估批判 P3

    第3段 提到 'Attempts have been made to curb this tendency'，介绍了 citation index 这个 existing solution，但随即用 'This would be reasonable if it were not for' 来 point out its flaw。说明文不会 evaluate alternatives，新闻不会 critique proposals，只有议论文会 engage with opposing views 来 strengthen own argument。

  4. 行动呼吁倡议 P4

    第4段 用 'we must ensure' 这种 imperative mood 来 call for action（'ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science'）。说明文的 ending 会 summarize information，新闻会 conclude with facts，但议论文会 push for specific actions 或 reinforce position，因为它的 ultimate goal 是 persuasion。

  5. 论证弧线完整性 P1 P2 P3 P4

    本文完整呈现了 argumentative arc：第1段 establish negative thesis about medical literature，第2段 analyze root cause，第3段 critique existing solution，第4段 propose what must be done。这种 progression from critique to solution 是典型的 argumentative logic，而说明文是 general-to-specific information flow，新闻是 inverted pyramid structure (most important first)。

哪些词暴露了议论文体裁？

  • nonsense P1 立场表态词 bad ridiculous absurd problematic flawed
  • Why is so much bad science published? P2 观点引导词 Why How can we explain What accounts for The question is The issue is whether
  • positively encourages P2 论证逻辑连接词 actually promotes inevitably leads to directly results in necessarily causes fundamentally drives
  • not merely... but P2 论证逻辑连接词 not only... but also not just... but rather more than... actually beyond... in fact not simply... instead
  • Unfortunately P4 立场表态词 Regrettably Sadly Alarmingly Disturbingly Worryingly
  • must ensure P4 立场表态词 should guarantee need to make certain ought to require have to establish it is imperative that
  • If we are serious about P4 观点引导词 If we truly care about If we are committed to If we genuinely want Unless we acknowledge Only if we
SENTENCE INSIGHTS · 句子精讲

10 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 Why is so much bad science published 的常见问题

2019年考研英语一真题 Section II Part C 文章 Why is so much bad science published 的原文出自哪里？
The Spectator《旁观者》2017.06.06-篇题为Why is so much bad science published(为什么这么多劣质科学文章被发表)的文章。
2019年考研英语一真题文章 Why is so much bad science published 的主旨是什么？
当前学术体系激励科学出版中的数量而非质量,导致劣质科学泛滥。发表数量和引用指数等简单量化指标无法确保有意义的研究。需要进行机构改革,优先考虑可重复的高质量科学,而不仅仅是发表数量。（英文表述：The current academic system incentivizes quantity over quality in scientific publishing, leading to widespread bad science. Simple quantitative metrics like publication counts and citation indices fail to ensure meaningful research. Institutional reform is needed to prioritize reproducible, high-quality science over mere publication volume.）
Why is so much bad science published（2019年考研英语一真题文章）是什么体裁？难度如何？
体裁为议论文，作者立场是消极批判（Critical and Concerned）。CEFR 难度 C1，全文 412 词、4 段；在考研英语一全部 102 篇真题文章中，C1 级共 92 篇（占 90%）。
2019年考研英语一真题文章 Why is so much bad science published 的篇章结构是怎样的？
全文 4 段按议论文骨架分为 4 个意群：引言 · 第1段——医学文献质量问题的发现；分论点 · 第2段——坏科学泛滥的系统性原因；分论点 · 第3段——改革尝试的局限性；结论 · 第4段——根本性改革的必要性。
Why is so much bad science published 一文的作者态度是什么？
作者态度是消极批判（Critical and Concerned）。判断路径：首段负面词汇定调 → 问题提出与证据引入 → 方案评估与局限指出 → 全文态度弧线整合；文中的态度信号词包括 bad（第1段）、nonsense（第1段）、problem（第2段）、positively encourages（第2段）、unfortunately（第4段）、must ensure（第4段）。
2019年考研英语一真题文章 Why is so much bad science published 中有哪些值得积累的生词？
按文中出现顺序共 6 个：purport（声称、意图表明（常暗示可疑或未经证实））、pernicious（恶性的、有害的、危险的）、intriguing（引人入胜的、激发兴趣的）、inflationary（膨胀的、不断增长的）、curb（限制、遏制、控制）、entail（使必然发生、需要、涉及），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：