2020年 考研英语二阅读理解（四选一） 第 3 篇 · 31–35 题答案与解析

Which of the following is true about Madrid's clean air zone? 用 "which is true" 直接索取关于某具体对象的客观事实，没有 infer/imply 等推理信号，属于典型的事实判断。

Which of the following is true about Madrid's clean air zone? 是常规的特殊疑问句：主语 Which of the following，系动词 is，表语 true，about 引出话题对象。结构平铺直叙，无陷阱。

• A)与原文相反

  Its effects are questionable 说该区效果可疑，但原文 despite its success in improving air quality 已明示该区在改善空气质量方面是成功的，效果本身并不可疑。

• B)张冠李戴

  It has been opposed by a judge 把反对者说成法官，但原文 A judge has now overruled the city's decision to stop levying fines, ordering them reinstated. 明示法官是 "推翻了停止执法的决定、命令恢复罚款"，法官实际上是在支持该区、反对的是新议会。

• C)无中生有

  It needs tougher enforcement 称该区需要更严格的执行，原文全段讨论的是政治反复与法律拉锯，从未出现 "执行力度不够、需要加强" 的论断。

• D)✓ 正确
  • the zone's future looks uncertain at best↔Its fate is yet to be decided
  • But with legal battles ahead↔yet to be decided

  预判的 "命运未定" 与 Its fate is yet to be decided 在核心语义上完全一致，且原文 the zone's future looks uncertain at best 给出直接同义替换，无需推理，选 D。

Which is considered a weakness of the city-level measures to tackle dirty air? 询问的是一个被作者明确归类的客观属性，答案应在原文有直接对应句，非推理。

Which is considered a weakness of the city-level measures to tackle dirty air? 主干为 Which is considered a weakness，of 短语作 weakness 的后置定语，to tackle dirty air 不定式再修饰 measures。层层后置但语义清晰，无陷阱。

• A)与原文相反

  They are biased against car manufacturers 说措施 "对汽车制造商不公平"，但原文 rather than on to the car manufacturers whose cheating is the real cause of our toxic pollution 恰恰是在指责制造商造假却没承担成本——"反向偏袒" 司机才是问题，不是 "反向偏袒" 制造商。

• B)无中生有

  They prove impractical for city councils 说措施 "对市议会来说不切实际"，原文从未讨论市议会执行是否可行的问题；作者只说措施 politically controversial, and therefore vulnerable——政治上有争议、因此脆弱，与 "实操不可行" 不是同一回事。

• C)偷换概念

  They are deemed too mild for politicians 称措施 "被认为对政客而言太温和"，原文 politically controversial 说的是 "在政治上有争议"——意指有人反对、易被推翻，并未说 "措施温和"。"政治上的争议性" 与 "对政客而言温和" 不是一回事。

• D)✓ 正确
  • put the costs of cleaning the air on to individual drivers↔put too much burden on individual motorists

  预判的 "负担落到普通司机/车主身上" 与 put too much burden on individual motorists 在主谓宾三个成分上完全等值；这正是 rather than on to the car manufacturers 反向对比所凸显的 weakness 内容。选 D。

The author believes that the extension of London's Ulez will ____. 询问的是作者对一个具体事件后果的判断，原文应有直接对应句（含 will/be sure to 等同极性表达），非两步推理。

The author believes that the extension of London's Ulez will ____. 是宾语从句结构：主句 The author believes，that 引导宾语从句，从句主语为 the extension of London's Ulez，谓语 will + 选项动词。结构清晰，无陷阱。

• A)✓ 正确
  • it is sure to spark intense opposition↔arouse strong resistance

  预判的 "激起更多车主的强烈反对" 与 arouse strong resistance 在动词、宾语、极性三个维度上完全等值；原文 from the far larger number of motorists 进一步坐实了 "反对的规模"，与 strong 形成印证。选 A。

• B)无中生有

  ensure Khan's electoral success 称扩展 Ulez 会确保 Khan 选举成功，原文恰恰相反——And if Sadiq Khan wins 是说 "如果他先赢了再扩展"，扩展是赢之后的动作，作者也没有说扩展会助选；段首 It's not hard to imagine a similar reversal happening in London. 反而暗示扩展可能像马德里那样招致政治反转。

• C)偷换概念

  improve the city's traffic 说会改善城市交通，原文讨论的是 improving air quality（改善空气质量）而非 traffic（交通流量）；后者是车辆通行状态，前者是空气污染指标，二者不是一回事。

• D)过度推断

  discourage car manufacturing 称会让汽车制造业受挫，原文虽多次批评 car manufacturers，但全文从未说 Ulez 的扩展会 "打击汽车制造"——作者的逻辑链是 "国家应迫使厂商守规"，而非 "Ulez 抑制造车"。这是从作者立场延伸出的两步推理，超出原文。

Who does the author think should have addressed the problem? 询问的是作者明确指认的责任主体，原文有直接对应名词，非综合推理。

Who does the author think should have addressed the problem? 是嵌套疑问句：Who 是真正的疑问词，does the author think 是插入语，should have addressed 是 Who 在嵌入小句中的谓语。注意 Who 既是主句疑问词又是嵌套小句的主语，不要被中间的 the author think 干扰。

• A)答非所问

  Local residents 是当地居民，原文 safeguard residents' health 中 residents 出现过，但身份是 "被保护的对象" 而非 "应当解决问题的责任主体"；本题问的是该由谁来 address，不是谁是受益人。

• B)与原文相反

  Mayors 是市长。原文 But mayors and councilors can only do so much 与 They are acting because national governments … have failed to do so 共同说明：市长是 "已经在做的、力量有限的" 一方，作者不仅没说他们 "应做未做"，反而把他们摆在了 "代国家政府善后" 的位置。

• C)与原文相反

  Councilors 是议员，与 mayors 在原文中并列出现，承担相同的 "已经在做但力有不逮" 角色；同样不是作者归责的对象。

• D)✓ 正确
  • national governments↔National governments
  • have failed to do so↔should have addressed the problem

  预判的 "国家政府" 与 National governments 是原词复现；原文已明确 They are acting because national governments … have failed to do so 把责任归于国家政府，无推理空间。选 D。

It can be inferred from the last paragraph that auto companies ____. 以 "It can be inferred" 起头，明确要求在原文基础上做一步推理，不是直接转述。

It can be inferred from the last paragraph that auto companies ____. 是 It 作形式主语的被动句：It can be inferred 是主句，from the last paragraph 状语限定推理来源，that 引导真正主语从句，从句主语 auto companies + 谓语（选项）。结构标准，无陷阱。

• A)无中生有

  will raise low-emission car production 称汽车厂商 "将提高低排放车产量"，原文从未提及厂商会 "扩大低排放车产量"，作者讨论的是 "应让他们守规整改"，与 "提高产量" 不是同一回事；且 will 是事实预测，与作者 "应该" 的规范主张极性不符。

• B)✓ 正确
  • require auto companies to bring their vehicles into compliance↔should be forced to follow regulations
  • insist that manufacturers clean up their cars↔should be forced to follow regulations

  We're doing everything but insist that manufacturers clean up their cars. 用 everything but 的反讽结构，把 "应坚持让厂商守规" 明示为唯一缺失项；这与 should be forced to follow regulations 的语义一步对应、不需要再推。选 B。

• C)无中生有

  will upgrade the design of their vehicles 称厂商 "将升级车辆设计"，原文谈的是 "使车辆合规、清洁"——可能涉及设计但作者未明示；且 will 同样是事实预测，与作者的 should 主张极性不符。

• D)偷换概念

  should be put under public supervision 称厂商 "应接受公众监督"，原文明确指向的是 require auto companies to bring their vehicles into compliance——由监管制度强制合规，而非 "public supervision（公众监督）"；监管主体被偷换为公众，而非政府的合规执法。