2020年考研英語(yǔ)(一)真題及答案解析：

Part C

Directions:

Read the 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 beg

read scientific papers from beginning to end that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequency was, I came to recognize various sins of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who est 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, generate both health scores 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 than people do bad science,but than out current system of career advancement positively encourages it.what is important is not truth, but inflationary process at work: (47) Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than 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 curd 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 else where 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 scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat 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 saving in time,energy and ambiguity.Unfortunate 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 king of science.