推荐等级：
发布时间： 2021-12-24 13:54
扫码用手机做题
Th following paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G and filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
[A] These tools can help you win every argument—not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions—like， say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way ... to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives—and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win—in one way.
[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes”, and I yell, “No”, neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
本题解析：
由A选项段首的These tools可知，上一段应有与tools相关的内容，且该句是一个总结性句子。C选项中的句子多用祈使句，描述了一系列方法，与A选项中的tools相对应，故A选项为正确答案。
The fllowing paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G and filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
[A] These tools can help you win every argument—not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions—like， say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way ... to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives—and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win—in one way.
[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes”, and I yell, “No”, neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
本题解析：
由C选项往前推断，C选项首句None of these will be easy中的these表示上一段应提到了these指代的具体行动。而B选项中刚好列举了具体做法：we need to ... not to accuse ...; We need to learn ...; but we also need to admit ...; Humility requires you to recognize and ... to accept ...，故B选项为正确答案。
The folowing paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G and filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
[A] These tools can help you win every argument—not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions—like， say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way ... to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives—and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win—in one way.
[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes”, and I yell, “No”, neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
本题解析：
G选项首句中的a better way与F段末句in one way相对应；且G选项首句中的to win arguments与F段末句的help you win相对应，都表示在争论中取胜，故G选项为正确答案。
The followng paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G and filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
[A] These tools can help you win every argument—not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions—like， say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way ... to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives—and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win—in one way.
[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes”, and I yell, “No”, neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
本题解析：
由已确定选项F往前推断，又根据F选项首句的These views of arguments可知，上一段应讲述关于争论的观点。F选项第二句中所说“将谈话看作是一场斗争或比赛（see a conversation as a fight or competition）”指的就是首句所说的These views。备选项D提到了competitions，且D选项中的arguments were even just competitions与F选项句中的see a conversation as a ... competition表意相同，故正确。
The folloing paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G and filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs C and F have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
[A] These tools can help you win every argument—not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments—from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding—then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions—like， say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way ... to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives—and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win—in one way.
[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes”, and I yell, “No”, neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.
本题解析：
根据做题规律可知，文章首段通常要点明主题。纵览各选项，A选项以These tools开头，these表明前文有提到与之相关内容，故不可能是首段。B选项首句中的信号词of course表明该段与上一段应是顺承关系，故不可能是首段。D选项首句提到，如果说争论是斗争的话，那么卡耐基的观点就是对的（Carnegie would be right），由此可知，前文应提到过卡耐基的观点，故不是首段。G选项首句中的a better way更好的方法表明其前必有另外一个不那么好的方法，故不可能是首段。E选项首句虽出现了人称代词his，但紧接着便指出his所指代的是Dale Carnegie，并非指代上文，且开篇引用名人的观点引出文章的主题“争论”是谋篇布局的常用手法，故E选项应为首段。
Directions:
Write an essay of 160-200 words based on the picture below. In your essay, you should
1) describe the picture briefly,
2) interpret the meaning, and
3) give your comments.
You should write neatly on the ANSWER SHEET. (20 points)
本题解析：
In the picture, there are two people on the mountainside. One is complaining about how tired he is and wants to stop, reflecting his personality of giving up halfway; while the other is comforting his fellow and meanwhile preparing to keep on climbing after a short break, indicating his attitude of perseverance. It’s undoubted that the latter is more likely to reach the mountaintop. This picture expresses a profound philosophical idea—the importance of perseverance.
Throughout the history, numerous successful people have proved the positive influence of perseverance. Thomas Edison, the famous American inventor, tried over 6,000 kinds of materials before he finally found out the most appropriate one for bulbs. Even suffering a lot from countless failures, Edison never gave up but continued, which finally led him to success. His story vividly demonstrated that perseverance can encourage people to make greater efforts for their goals in spite of frustrating setbacks. What’s more, it is perseverance that drives us to keep moving when we are tired out or lacking passions. The inherent potential and power of our human beings may be all brought out under the push of perseverance. On the contrary, if we give up halfway, we will end up nowhere with time and energy wasted.
Therefore, I think perseverance is indispensable on the way to success. Though we may be discouraged or stuck in difficulties, remember to be persistent and keep going with a strong will, finally we will succeed.
本题要求根据图画描述内容并阐述含义，可将作文分为三大部分。第一部分描述图画内容并揭示含义，表明你的观点，即只有坚持不懈的人才能取得最后成功；第二部分列举爱迪生例子详述坚持的重要性；第三部分再次重申观点。
Part A
Directions:
Suppose you are working for the “Aiding Rural Primary School” project of your university. Write an email to answer the inquiry from an international student volunteer, specifying the details of the project.
You should write about 100 words on the ANSWER SHEET.
Do not use you own name at the end of the email. Use “Li Ming” instead. (10 points)
本题解析：
Dear Sir or Madam,
It’s a great honor to learn that you are interested in the “Aiding Rural Primary School” project, and have already applied for a volunteer position before. Now please let me give a brief introduction about this project.
The “Aiding Rural Primary School” project, founded in 2010, aims at helping 6 to 12-year-old poor kids who live in poverty-stricken families in remote rural areas of China. Every year, more than 1,500 volunteer teachers engage themselves in the rural teaching activities. This year, the project will begin at Mar. 1, lasting for four months, so please prepare some clothes and daily necessities for your own use in advance. Considering that the kids’ English may be poor, you’d better learn some basic Chinese to ensure the feasibility of your teaching plan. They must be very delighted if you could bring them some gifts like books, stationery and clothes.
Welcome to join us! I am sure that you will have a meaningful and unforgettable experience. Please contact me through emails at any time if there are any further questions.
本题要求你根据题目中所给信息写一封回信。全文可分为三部分，第一部分简要致谢和说明写信缘由；第二部分根据题干信息详细介绍该项目，可自行添加细节；第三部分结束语，表示欢迎。注意信件格式规范。
Read the following txt carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
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. (46) 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: (47) 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.
(48) 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. (49) 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. (50) 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.
本题解析：
如果我们真的想确保我们的科学是有意义且可再生的，就必须保证我们的制度能够鼓励这种科学的发展。
①结构分析：本句是一个复合句。句子主干为we must ensure ...，译为“我们必须保证……”；其后that引导一个宾语从句作must ensure的宾语；再是If引导的条件状语从句，作主句的条件状语，其中that引导一个宾语从句作ensuring的宾语。②内容要点分析：be serious about引申为“真的想”，institutions意为“制度”。
Read the fllowing text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
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. (46) 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: (47) 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.
(48) 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. (49) 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. (50) 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.
本题解析：
若不是因为科学家们可以轻易地在今后发表的论文中引用自己已经发表的论文，或让同事这样做以换取类似的好处，这种做法将是合理的。
①结构分析：本句是一个复合句。句子主干结构为This would be reasonable；其后是if引导的条件状语，其中it无实际意义，故省略不译；最后是that引导的同位语从句，解释说明the fact可省译，or连接同位语从句的两个并列谓宾结构can ... arrange to cite和(can) get associates。为使句意完整，可在cite themselves（引用自己）后增译“……的论文”；为符合汉语表达习惯，主句可最后译出。②内容要点分析：reasonable意为“合理的”。associates意为“同事”。
Read he following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points)
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. (46) 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: (47) 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.
(48) 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. (49) 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. (50) 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.
本题解析：
人们已试图去遏制这一趋势的发展，比如，将一定程度的质量和数量标准纳入对申请人发表的论文的评估中。
①结构分析：本句中句子主干为Attempts have been made to curb this tendency，该句为被动句，翻译时可以通过增加主语的方式，变被动为主动。按照汉语习惯，增译主语“人们”或“相关人士”。for example作插入语，可译为“比如”。②内容要点分析：可将incorporate ... into ...译为“将……纳入……”，some measure of译为“一定程度的”。
试卷分类：学硕教育学
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：学硕心理学
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：管理类联考综合
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：法硕非法学
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：法硕法学
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：西医综合
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：政治
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：中医综合
练习次数：0次
试卷分类：431金融学综合
练习次数：4次
试卷分类：431金融学综合
练习次数：7次
