Does a drink a day keep heart attacks away? Over the past two decades, numerous studies have suggested that moderate alcohol consumption—defined as one to two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women—may be associated with a reduced risk of heart disease. Researchers have hypothesized that alcohol can raise levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), the "good" cholesterol that helps remove artery-clogging plaque. Additionally, alcohol may have anti-inflammatory effects and improve blood flow, further protecting the cardiovascular system.
However, recent meta-analyses have challenged this conventional wisdom. A 2022 study published in The Lancet analyzed data from over 500,000 participants across 19 countries and found that even moderate drinking is linked to an increased risk of several cancers, including breast and liver cancer. Moreover, the supposed cardiovascular benefits may be overstated: the study found no significant reduction in heart attack risk for moderate drinkers compared to non-drinkers after adjusting for confounding factors like diet and exercise.
Critics argue that earlier studies often failed to account for lifestyle differences between drinkers and non-drinkers. For example, moderate drinkers may be more likely to have regular exercise habits or balanced diets, which could independently lower heart disease risk. Conversely, heavy drinkers are more prone to poor health behaviors, but moderate drinkers are not necessarily a representative sample of the general population.
Public health experts emphasize that the potential risks of alcohol consumption outweigh any marginal benefits. The World Health Organization classifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans. For individuals concerned about heart health, experts recommend alternative strategies such as regular physical activity, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, and avoiding smoking—all of which have proven benefits without the risks associated with alcohol.
Questions:
-
What is the conventional view about moderate alcohol consumption?
[A] It increases the risk of certain cancers.
[B] It helps reduce the risk of heart disease.
[C] It has no effect on cardiovascular health.
[D] It improves diet and exercise habits.
-
Why do recent studies challenge the traditional belief?
[A] They find moderate drinking causes more heart attacks.
[B] They adjust for confounding factors like diet and exercise.
[C] They prove alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen.
[D] They show non-drinkers have better lifestyle habits.
-
What do public health experts recommend for heart health?
[A] Limiting alcohol to one drink per day.
[B] Conducting regular meta-analyses of health data.
[C] Adopting healthy lifestyle habits instead of drinking.
[D] Comparing lifestyle differences between drinkers and non-drinkers.
- 细节定位与语义验证
原文首段明确指出：“numerous studies have suggested that moderate alcohol consumption... may be associated with a reduced risk of heart disease”（过去二十年的大量研究表明，适量饮酒可能与心脏病风险降低相关），这正是 “传统观点” 的核心内容，选项 B 与原文语义完全一致。
- 干扰项排除
- A “增加某些癌症风险” 是近期研究的发现，而非传统观点；
- C “对心血管健康无影响” 与传统观点 “降低心脏病风险” 矛盾；
- D “改善饮食和运动习惯” 是批评者指出的 “早期研究未排除的干扰因素”，并非传统观点本身。
- 学术扩展：考博英语阅读理解常考查 “传统观点 vs 现代研究” 的对比，需精准区分不同研究阶段的核心结论，避免混淆时间线。
- 细节定位与逻辑推导
原文第二段提到：“the study found no significant reduction in heart attack risk for moderate drinkers compared to non-drinkers after adjusting for confounding factors like diet and exercise”（在调整了饮食、运动等混杂因素后，研究发现适量饮酒者与不饮酒者的心脏病发作风险无显著差异），这正是近期研究挑战传统观点的关键原因 —— 排除了干扰因素，结论更严谨，选项 B 正确。
- 干扰项排除
- A “发现适量饮酒导致更多心脏病发作” 原文未提及，近期研究仅指出 “无显著益处”，而非 “有害”；
- C “证明酒精是 1 类致癌物” 是世卫组织的分类，并非近期研究挑战传统观点的直接原因；
- D “表明不饮酒者有更好的生活习惯” 是批评者对早期研究的质疑，而非近期研究的核心发现。
- 学术扩展：“confounding factors（混杂因素）” 是学术研究中的高频术语，指可能影响研究结果的额外变量，调整混杂因素是提升研究可信度的关键，也是阅读理解中判断研究结论有效性的重要依据。
- 细节定位与语义提炼
原文末段明确建议：“For individuals concerned about heart health, experts recommend alternative strategies such as regular physical activity, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, and avoiding smoking—all of which have proven benefits without the risks associated with alcohol”（对于关注心脏健康的人，专家推荐替代策略，如规律运动、富含果蔬的饮食和戒烟，这些方法均有确凿益处且无酒精相关风险），选项 C 是对该建议的精准概括。
- 干扰项排除
- A “将酒精限制在每日一杯” 与专家 “推荐替代策略” 的核心立场矛盾；
- B “定期对健康数据进行元分析” 是研究方法，并非给普通人的健康建议；
- D “对比饮酒者与不饮酒者的生活习惯” 是研究过程中的步骤，而非专家推荐的健康措施。
- 学术扩展：观点态度题需关注 “experts recommend”“public health experts emphasize” 等信号词，精准捕捉专业人士的核心建议，避免被研究过程细节干扰。
Directions: There are 10 blanks in the following passage. For each blank there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. Choose the best one and mark your answer on the ANSWER SHEET.
Solid-fuel rockets and liquid-fuel rockets are two main types of rocket engines, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Solid-fuel rockets are simpler in design, as they store fuel and oxidizer in a single solid mixture. They can be launched quickly, making them ideal for military applications and emergency missions. However, their thrust cannot be adjusted once ignited, and they are less 1 in terms of fuel efficiency compared to liquid-fuel rockets.
Liquid-fuel rockets, on the other hand, store fuel and oxidizer separately in liquid form. This allows for precise control of thrust—engines can be started, stopped, and restarted as needed. Liquid fuels also offer higher energy density, enabling rockets to carry heavier payloads or travel longer distances. The main 2 of liquid-fuel rockets is their complexity: they require intricate plumbing systems to mix fuel and oxidizer, and the liquids are often cryogenic (extremely cold), requiring special storage and handling.
In space exploration, the choice between solid and liquid fuel depends on the mission requirements. For example, the Space Shuttle used solid-fuel boosters for initial lift-off and liquid-fuel engines for orbital maneuvering. This 3 of both technologies combined the simplicity of solid fuel with the controllability of liquid fuel.
Despite their differences, both types of rockets play crucial roles in modern aerospace. Solid-fuel rockets are widely used in missiles and satellite launch vehicles, while liquid-fuel rockets are 4 for deep-space missions and human spaceflight. As technology advances, researchers are exploring hybrid rocket engines that 5 the best of both worlds—solid fuel for simplicity and liquid fuel for controllability.
- [A] effective [B] efficient [C] sufficient [D] proficient
- [A] drawback [B] benefit [C] factor [D] feature
- [A] combination [B] separation [C] comparison [D] distinction
- [A] required [B] preferred [C] replaced [D] provided
- [A] integrate [B] separate [C] distinguish [D] dominate
- 词汇辨析与语境适配
前文对比固体燃料火箭与液体燃料火箭，此处强调 “燃料效率方面不如液体燃料火箭”，“efficient” 意为 “高效的”，侧重 “资源利用效率”，符合 “fuel efficiency（燃料效率）” 的搭配语境；
- 干扰项排除
- A “effective”（有效的）侧重 “达到预期效果”，不强调 “效率”；
- C “sufficient”（足够的）语义与 “效率对比” 无关；
- D “proficient”（熟练的）用于形容人，不能修饰火箭。
- 学术扩展：考博英语完形填空中 “effective vs efficient” 是高频辨析点，需牢记 “effective 强调效果，efficient 强调效率” 的核心差异。
- 逻辑衔接与语义推导
前文介绍液体燃料火箭的优势（精准控制推力、高能量密度），此处转折指出其 “复杂性”，“drawback” 意为 “缺点、弊端”，符合逻辑转折关系；
- 干扰项排除
- B “benefit”（益处）与 “复杂性” 语义相反；
- C “factor”（因素）语义宽泛，未体现 “负面属性”；
- D “feature”（特征）仅强调 “特点”，无 “缺点” 的隐含语义。
- 学术扩展：完形填空中 “on the other hand”“however” 等转折词后常接 “缺点或相反属性”，需关注逻辑衔接词后的语义倾向。
- 词汇辨析与语境逻辑
前文提到航天飞机 “使用固体燃料助推器进行初始发射，使用液体燃料发动机进行轨道机动”，这是两种技术的 “结合”，“combination” 意为 “结合、组合”，符合语境；
- 干扰项排除
- B “separation”（分离）与 “同时使用两种技术” 矛盾；
- C “comparison”（对比）未体现 “实际应用中的结合”；
- D “distinction”（区别）语义与语境不符。
- 学术扩展：考博英语常考查 “技术融合” 类表达，“combination of technologies” 是学术写作中的高频搭配。
- 语义推导与语境适配
句意为 “固体燃料火箭广泛用于导弹和卫星运载火箭，而液体燃料火箭是深空任务和载人航天的首选”，“preferred” 意为 “首选的、更受欢迎的”，符合 “不同任务对火箭类型的偏好” 语境；
- 干扰项排除
- A “required”（必需的）语义过于绝对，深空任务并非只能用液体燃料火箭；
- C “replaced”（被替代的）与原文 “关键作用” 矛盾；
- D “provided”（被提供的）语义与 “任务需求” 无关。
- 学术扩展：“preferred for” 侧重 “基于需求的偏好”，“required for” 侧重 “强制性要求”，需根据语境区分语义强度。
- 词汇辨析与语境逻辑
后文提到 “固体燃料的简洁性与液体燃料的可控性”，说明混合火箭发动机是 “整合” 两者优势，“integrate” 意为 “整合、融合”，符合 “取两者之长” 的语境；
- 干扰项排除
- B “separate”（分离）与 “结合优势” 矛盾；
- C “distinguish”（区分）语义与语境不符；
- D “dominate”（主导）未体现 “融合” 的核心语义。
- 学术扩展：“integrate the best of both worlds” 是固定表达，意为 “取两者之长”，常用于技术融合、方案设计等学术语境。
the instruments of production, and thereby the relationships of production
生产资料，进而（由此）决定生产关系。
- 术语精准与学术规范
- 核心术语翻译：“the instruments of production” 是马克思主义政治经济学核心术语，固定译为 “生产资料”（而非 “生产工具”，后者范围更窄）；“the relationships of production” 译为 “生产关系”，符合学术规范；
- 逻辑衔接：“and thereby” 译为 “进而” 或 “由此”，精准体现 “生产资料决定生产关系” 的逻辑推导关系，契合历史唯物主义基本原理。
- 语境适配与语义完整
- 补充隐含逻辑：结合马克思主义理论，生产资料的性质决定生产关系的形式，译文虽简洁，但通过 “进而” 传递出 “决定” 的隐含语义，避免直译导致的逻辑缺失；
- 语体适配：采用政治经济学学术术语，保持译文的严谨性与专业性。
- 阅读理解：重点训练 “传统观点 vs 现代研究”“不同立场对比” 类文章的解读，精准区分研究结论、干扰因素、专家建议；
- 完形填空：积累学术高频词汇（如 efficient/effective、drawback/benefit）和逻辑衔接词，结合上下文语义与逻辑推导答案；
- 翻译：强化学术文本翻译能力，积累政治、经济、哲学类术语，注重句式优化与逻辑衔接；
- 写作：针对社会热点类话题，构建 “现状 - 论点 - 论据 - 结论” 的思辨框架，结合数据、实例增强论证力度，避免泛泛而谈。
- 重点积累马克思主义理论核心术语（如生产资料、生产关系、历史唯物主义）的固定译法，确保术语精准；
- 熟悉马克思主义哲学、政治经济学的学术表达习惯，译文需符合理论逻辑与学术规范；
- 结合专业教材与学术文献，针对性训练汉译英、英译汉能力，提升专业文本的语言转换精度。
通过系统利用真题资料和科学的备考方法，考生可高效提升考博英语综合能力，助力顺利上岸西安理工大学博士研究生。
您现在的位置： 