A. of me and Richard staying out late every night
B. of Richard and me staying out late every night
C. of Richard's and my staying out late every night
D. when Richard and me stay out late every night
- 核心考点拆解：本题考查 “approve of” 的固定搭配及人称代词并列顺序，是博士英语高频语法考点。
- 固定搭配：“approve” 表示 “赞成、认可” 时，需与介词 “of” 搭配，后接名词或动名词短语作宾语，因此直接排除 D 项（“when” 引导从句，不符合 “approve of + 名词 / 动名词” 的搭配规则）。
- 人称代词顺序：英语中并列人称代词作宾语时，需遵循 “第三人称→第二人称→第一人称” 的礼貌顺序，即 “Richard（第三人称）and me（第一人称）”，A 项 “me and Richard” 顺序错误，排除。
- 所有格用法：C 项 “Richard's and my” 为双重所有格，后需接名词（如 “Richard's and my books”），而本题后接动名词 “staying”，语法搭配矛盾，排除。
- 语境验证：句意为 “理查德和我每晚熬夜让父母不高兴，他们不赞成我们这样做”，B 项 “of Richard and me staying...” 既符合语法规则，又准确传达语义，为唯一正确选项。
- 拓展延伸：类似考点在国防科技大学考博英语中反复出现，如 “object to”“devote to” 等 “动词 + 介词” 结构，需重点记忆 “介词后接动名词” 的规则，以及人称代词并列的礼貌顺序（主格：I→you→he/she；宾格：him/her→you→me）。
A. having its special properties
B. one has its special properties
C. each has its special properties
D. each having its special properties
- 核心考点拆解：本题考查独立主格结构，是博士英语中区分语法水平的关键考点，需重点掌握 “逗号前后无连词时，不能出现两个独立分句” 的规则。
- 分句逻辑：逗号前后无并列连词（and/but）或从属连词（because/which），因此不能构成两个独立分句。B、C 项均为完整句子（主谓宾结构），会导致 “逗号连接两个句子” 的语法错误，直接排除。
- 主谓一致：A 项 “having its” 中，“its” 指代 “many kinds of metals”（复数名词），指代复数名词需用 “their”，语法矛盾，排除。
- 独立主格用法：D 项 “each having its special properties” 为 “代词 each + 现在分词” 构成的独立主格结构，在句中作伴随状语，补充说明 “每种金属都有其特殊性质”，符合 “逗号后用非谓语结构” 的语法规则。
- 语境验证：句意为 “金属有很多种类，每种都有其特殊性质”，D 项既解决了语法冲突，又精准传达 “个体与整体” 的逻辑关系，符合博士英语对 “句式严谨性” 的要求。
- 拓展延伸：独立主格结构常见形式包括 “名词 / 代词 + 现在分词 / 过去分词 / 不定式”，如 “The meeting over, we all left the room.”（名词 + 副词）、“He entered the room, his nose red with cold.”（名词 + 形容词），需结合国防科技大学历年真题（如 2015、2018 年英语真题）中的类似题型强化练习。
A. emphasizes purely literary aspects of such fiction
B. misinterprets the ideological content of such fiction
C. misunderstands the notions of Black identity contained in such fiction
D. substitutes political for literary criteria in evaluating such fiction
- 定位与原文匹配：根据题干 “Addison Gayle” 定位至原文第一段：“Addison Gayle's recent work, for example, judges the value of Black fiction by overtly political standards, rating each work according to the notions of Black identity which it propounds.”（例如，艾迪生・盖尔的近期作品通过公开的政治标准评判黑人小说的价值，根据作品所宣扬的黑人身份观念来打分）。
- 核心逻辑分析：文章开篇明确观点 —— 罗杰・罗森布拉特的《黑人小说》采用 “文学标准” 而非 “社会政治标准”，成功改变了此前多数研究的方法；而盖尔的批评恰恰相反，用 “政治标准” 替代 “文学标准”，这正是作者反对的核心原因。
- 选项排除：
- A 项 “强调纯文学层面” 与原文 “by overtly political standards” 矛盾，排除；
- B 项 “误解意识形态内容”、C 项 “误解黑人身份观念” 原文未提及，盖尔的问题是 “评判标准错误”，而非 “误解内容”，排除；
- D 项 “用政治标准替代文学标准评价” 与原文完全一致，为正确选项。
- 博士级思维延伸：本题需把握 “学术批评中‘标准一致性’” 的核心原则 —— 作者并非否定政治视角，而是反对 “用政治标准取代文学标准” 的片面做法。这一逻辑在国防科技大学考博英语阅读中频繁出现（如 2017 年 “科学研究方法” 主题文章），需学会区分 “观点差异” 与 “标准差异”，避免陷入 “内容理解” 的误区。
Of course, there is far more oil underground than can be recovered. It may be in a pool too small or too far from a potential market to justify the expense of drilling. Some oil lies under regions where drilling is forbidden, such as national parks or other public lands. Even given the best extraction techniques, only about 30 to 40 percent of the oil in a given pool can be brought to the surface. The rest is far too difficult to extract and has to remain underground.
答案解析：
当然，地下蕴藏的石油远多于可开采的量。有些石油储存在储量过小的油藏中，或距离潜在市场过远，开采成本得不偿失；还有些石油位于禁止钻探的区域，例如国家公园或其他公共用地。即便采用最先进的开采技术，一个油藏中通常仅有约 30% 至 40% 的石油能够被开采至地表，剩余部分因开采难度极大，只能留存于地下。
- 术语精准性：
- “oil pool” 译为 “油藏”（石油行业规范术语），而非字面意义的 “油池”，符合博士英语 “专业语境适配” 要求；
- “extraction techniques” 译为 “开采技术”，避免 “提取技术” 等口语化表达，体现学术严谨性。
- 句式优化：
- 拆分英文长句 “It may be in a pool too small or too far from a potential market to justify the expense of drilling”，译为 “有些石油储存在储量过小的油藏中，或距离潜在市场过远，开采成本得不偿失”，用 “分号” 连接两个分句，符合中文 “短句逻辑”，避免直译导致的生硬。
- “to justify the expense of drilling” 译为 “开采成本得不偿失”，未直译 “证明钻探费用合理”，而是结合语境转化为中文常用表达，实现 “语义等效”。
- 逻辑连贯性：
- 用 “有些”“还有些”“即便”“剩余部分” 等连接词，梳理 “总量差异→开采限制→技术局限” 的逻辑链，符合博士英语翻译 “逻辑显性化” 的评分标准（如 2013、2022 年国防科技大学英语翻译真题均强调逻辑连贯）。
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take.（不少于 200 词）
答案解析：
The claim that we learn more from like-minded people than from those with opposing views oversimplifies the complexity of human learning. While shared perspectives can reinforce existing knowledge and create a supportive environment for accumulation, contradictory views often drive deeper reflection and intellectual breakthroughs—making them equally, if not more, valuable for academic and personal growth.
Admittedly, learning from consensus has its merits. When interacting with people who share our views, we avoid the friction of confrontation and can efficiently build on common foundational knowledge. For example, researchers in the same field often collaborate to refine theories: a team of AI scientists with shared views on machine learning can quickly advance algorithm optimization without rearguing basic principles. This kind of learning is efficient and reassuring, helping us consolidate expertise and expand on established frameworks—critical for mastering specialized fields like engineering or physics, which are core to 国防科技大学’s academic focus.
However, dissent is indispensable for comprehensive learning. Contradictory views challenge our cognitive biases and force us to re-examine the rationale behind our beliefs. Consider the history of quantum mechanics: Einstein’s opposition to Bohr’s “uncertainty principle” spurred decades of debate, leading to experiments that deepened humanity’s understanding of subatomic particles. In daily academic life, a colleague’s critical feedback on a research proposal can reveal flaws we overlooked—such as logical gaps in a system engineering model—ultimately leading to more rigorous and innovative solutions. Without dissent, we risk falling into intellectual complacency, a danger for doctoral students who need to push the boundaries of knowledge.
In conclusion, learning from shared views and dissent serves complementary purposes. Consensus fosters efficient knowledge accumulation, while dissent promotes critical thinking and innovation. For aspiring doctoral students at 国防科技大学，embracing both is essential: leverage consensus to build a solid academic foundation, and welcome dissent to challenge assumptions and drive breakthroughs. Only by balancing the two can we achieve the depth and breadth of learning required for impactful research.
- 立场与结构：开篇明确 “反对题干片面观点，主张共识与异议同等重要”，采用 “承认共识价值→强调异议不可替代→总结平衡策略” 的三段式结构，符合博士写作 “逻辑分层清晰” 的要求。
- 论据适配性：
- 结合国防科技大学优势学科（AI、系统工程、量子力学）举例，体现 “学术场景关联性”，避免泛泛而谈；
- 引用 “爱因斯坦与玻尔的学术辩论” 等经典案例，增强论证权威性，符合博士写作 “论据深度” 的评分标准。
- 语言与风格：
- 使用 “cognitive biases”“intellectual complacency”“rigorous” 等学术词汇，避免口语化表达；
- 运用让步状语从句（“While shared perspectives...”）、分词结构（“leading to experiments...”）等复杂句式，体现博士英语 “语言复杂度” 要求（如 2013、2023 年国防科技大学英语写作真题均强调句式多样性）。
您现在的位置： 