考研人都需要看的考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析

考研人都需要看的考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析已公布，真题可以帮助考生了解考试的具体题型，从而在复习过程中对不同题型进行有针对性的训练。下面的文章大家可以仔细阅读，希望能给各位考生带来帮助。

考研人都需要看的考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析

Text 3

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery

claim into the community’s credible discovery.

Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible

discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”

21. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its

[A] uncertainty and complexity.

[B] misconception and deceptiveness.

[C] logicality and objectivity.

[D] systematicness and regularity.

22. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires

[A] strict inspection.

[B] shared efforts.

[C] individual wisdom.

[D] persistent innovation.

23. Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it

[A] has attracted the attention of the general public.

[B] has been examined by the scientific community.

[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.

[D] has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.

24. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that

[A] scientific claims will survive challenges.

[B] discoveries today inspire future research.

[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified.

[D] scientific work calls for a critical mind.

25. Which of the following would be the best title of the test?

[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

[B] Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

[D] Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

Text 3

26. 答案：A

【解析】

文章第一段第二句话提到“But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route."，但是在每天的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊和复杂的路径。A 项 uncertainty and complexity 是对文中 ambiguous and complicated 的同义替换，所以为正确答案。B 项是利用文中最后一句话的干扰“Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound”，这句话是说“有误解和自我欺骗的可能”，从而导致了科学发现的模棱两可和复杂性;C 项和 D 项是受文章第一句话的干扰，但是第一句同时提出只有“在理想中(in the idealized version of ...)，科学发现才能够很客观。

27. 答案：B

【解析】

第二段第二句中提到“But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to...”,其中 it 指的是将科学发现获得公众可信度的过程。接下来的第四句话具体讲到了这个过程：“through which the individual researcher's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime.”，即要经历从个人到集体的过程，需要每个人共同的努力，故答案为 B。

28. 答案：B

【解析】

本段第三句话中提到“ Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries”，即“研究者需要在科学团体复杂的社会结构中实现科学发现”，在这句话的后面有一个分号，分号后面的三个短句分别解释了在科学团体中不同身份的人所做的不同工作，如新闻编辑者和评论家需要控制科学发现公开的过程,而另外一些科学家需要同过新的发现来证明已有的发现等。除此之外，最后一句话“transform an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery”即将个人的发现转换为集体可信的科学发现，故答案为 B，即科学发现获得公众的可信度需要集体的努力和验证。答案 A 是利用本段首句设置的干扰，属于主观臆断;答案 C 为干扰项目，以偏概全;答案 D 文中没有提及。

29. 答案：D

【解析】

第四段主要讲到了科学发现获得大众可信度的过程中面临的两个矛盾。Albert Szent-Gyorygi 的观点主要针对第二个矛盾，即创新本身经常会引起怀疑。同时他认为科学发现需要“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought”，即看到每个人都已经看到的，并想到别人没有想到的。由此可推知，他认为科学研究发现需要非凡的 观察和思考能力，需慎思明辨。故答案为 D。

30. 答案：C

【解析】

首段介绍了科研发现过程充满主观因素特点，第二段指出(在诸多主观因素影响下得出的)发现声明成为客观知识需经历“取信过程”;第三段具体展示该取信过程的各个环节; 第四段插入介绍该取信过程中存在的两个矛盾以及该过程的漫长和艰辛;末段用 Annette Baier 原话总结了该过程。可见，全文都围绕科学发现的“取信过程”(即，可信度从无到有的发展过程)

【全文翻译】

在科学研究的理想状态下，关于世界的事实正在等待着那些客观的研究者来观察和搜集，研究者们会用科学的方法来进行他们的工作。但是在每天的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊和复杂的路径。我们的目标是做到客观，但是我们却不能逃离我们所处的独特的生活经验的环境。之前的知识和兴趣会影响我们所经历的，会影响我们对于经验意义的思考， 以及我们会采取的随后的行动。这里充满着误读，错误和自我欺骗的机会。

所以，对于发现的申明应该被当做是科学的原型。这与新近开发的采矿资源比较类似， 他们都充满着可能性。但是发现声明需要经过需要集体的审查和接受才能转为成熟的发现。 这个过程就配称之为“取信过程”，通过这个过程一个单个研究者的“我”在这里就变成了这个社区中的任何人，任何地方和任何时间。客观的知识不应该是起点而是目标。

一但一个科学发现变成公开的，那么这个发现就获得了知识的信任。但是和开发采矿资 源不一样的是，科学协会将控制接下来会发生的事情。在复杂的科研机构的社会结构中，研 究者去做出发现;编辑和评审者通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色;其他的科学家使用 新的发现来满足他们自己的目标;最后，公众(也包括其他科学家)接受到新的发现和可能 相伴随的技术。当一个发现的声明最终通过了机构的审查，在有关所涉及到的共享的和抵触 的信念之间的互动和冲突将把一个人的发现变为一个机构的可信的发现。

在整个取信过程中存在着两个悖论，第一：科学工作倾向于关注一些流行科学的某些方面，而这些方面又是被认为是不完全和不正确的。去复制和确认已经被人所知和所信的东西不会有多少回报。科学要做的是去探究新的东西而不是再次探究。不足为奇的是，新发表的重要的，有说服力发现和可信的发现将会被后来的研究者质疑，并带来潜在的修改甚至驳斥。 第二个悖论是：新颖的东西本身就经常会招致怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者，生理学家 Albert Azent-Gyorgyi 曾经将发现描述为：“观察每个人观察的，思考没有人想到的。”但是思考其他人没有想到的并且告诉其他人他们所遗漏的可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候，真正新颖的科学发现被人们所接受和认可将会花好多年的时间。

具体信息请考生关注院校官网等发布的官方消息。

这里是考研人都需要看的考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析的全部内容，通过对真题的统计分析，考生可以明确哪些知识点是考试的重点和难点，从而在复习过程中给予更多的关注。在这里祝各位考生一战成硕。

推荐阅读：

211高校(116所)历年考研复试分数线查询

2025考研全国各省市研招院校硕士研究生招生简章查询