2019考研英语一真题试卷
2018.12.23 11:35

  新东方在线考研频道考后发布2019考研英语一真题试卷,多个名师团队深度解析真题变化、分析答案要点,帮助考生做好考后估分、迎战复试调剂击领取【2019考研真题解析直播课】,听直播抽大奖!更多2019考研英语真题级答案、考研政治真题及答案、考研数学真题及答案、管理类联考真题及答案、考研专业课真题及答案,请关注2019考研真题答案及解析专题!《2020考研新生手册》等你来拿!

2019考研真题答案解析大汇总
公共课政治英语一英语二
数学一数学二数学三
公外日语  
专业课管理类联考西医综合教育学
法硕(法学)法硕(非法学)中医综合
计算机历史学心理学
经济学金融艺术
翻译硕士汉硕二外日语
2019考研真题及答案下载【答案这里最全】


2019考研英语一真题试卷

  完型答案回忆

  few

  without

  run

  off

  literally

  back

  unfamiliar

  way

  so

  eventually

  surprised

  option

  for example

  spot

  through

  break

  breaks

  artificial

  finally

  marks

  lead

2019考研英语一阅读真题及答案解析(新东方)



李旭老师回忆:2019考研英语一阅读真题答案

  AB卷的选项内容一样,abcd顺序可能不同

2019考研英语一翻译真题(新东方在线)

  It wasn’t until after my retirement that I had the time to read scientific papers in medical journals with anything like close attention. Until then, I had, like most doctors, read the authors’ conclusions and assumed that they bore some necessary relation to what had gone before. I had also naively assumed that the editors had done their job and checked the intellectual coherence and probity of the contents of their journals.

  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 realized just how bad — inaccurate, misleading, sloppy, illogical — much of the medical literature, even in the best journals, frequently was. My discovery pleased and reassured me in a way: for it showed me that, even in advancing age, I was still capable of being surprised.

  I came to recognize 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.

  According to the authors, the problem is not merely that people do bad  science, as they have always done, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it. They quote ananonymous researcher who said pithily: ‘Poor methods get results.’ What is important is not truth, let alone importance, 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. It is at least an objective measure.

  In addition to the pressure to publish, there is a preference in journals for positive rather than negative results. To prove that factor a has no effect  whatever on outcome b may be important in the sense that it refutes a hypothesis, but it is not half so captivating as that factor a has some marginally positive statistical association with outcome b. It may be an elementary principle of statistics that association is not causation, but in practice everyone forgets it.

  The easiest way to generate positive associations is to do bad science, for example by trawling through a whole lot of data without a prior hypothesis. For example, if you took 100 dietary factors and tried to associate them with flat feet, you would find some of them that were associated with that condition, associations so strong that at first sight they would appear not to have arisen by chance.

  Once it has been shown that the consumption of, shall we say, red cabbage is associated with flat feet, one of two things can happen: someone will try to reproduce the result, or no one will, in which case it will enter scientific mythology. The penalties for having published results which are not reproducible, and prove before long to be misleading, usually do not cancel out the prestige of having published them in the first place: and therefore it is better, from the career point of view, to publish junk than to publish nothing at all. A long list of publications, all of them valueless, is always impressive.

  48)Attempts have been made to (control this inflation命题人改编为curb this kind tendency),(for example by trying, when it comes to career advancement这部分被出题人删除), to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s published 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 enough 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 favors.

  Boiling down an individual’s output to simple, objective 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 incentivize that kind of science.

  In other words, what we need is more emphasis on personal contact and even nepotism in the way careers are advanced: but tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice…

2019考研英语一翻译答案46-50(新东方在线)

  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.

  46)医学期刊中存在大量由广播公司和新闻媒体报道的这种无稽之谈,这会导致健康恐慌和短暂的饮食狂热。

  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.

  47)如今,任何申请研究职位的人都必须发表两倍于10年前同一职位所需的论文数量。

  48)Attempts have been made to curb this kind tendency to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s published papers.

  48)人们已经做出努力来遏制这种倾向,即将一些质量和数量纳入申请人发表的论文的评估当中。

  49) This would be reasonable enough 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 favors.

  49)如果不是因为科学家们可以很容易地在未来的出版物中引用自己,或者让同事为他们这样做以换取类似的好处,这将是合理的。

  50) If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful  and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions incentivize that kind of science.

  (50)如果我们想认真确保科学既有意义又可再生,那么我们必须确保我们的制度可以激励这种科学的发展。

2019考研英语一真题试卷答案

19考生对答案估分,

20考生看解析做规划,

2019考研真题解析专题报道


2020考研开挂抢跑

聚焦高频考点


手机查答案关注公众服务号


↓↓考研答案这里最全↓↓


MORE+

    相关阅读 MORE+

    版权及免责声明
    1.凡本网注明"稿件来源:新东方在线"的所有文字、图片和音视频稿件,版权均属北京新东方迅程网络科技有限公司所有,任何媒体、网站或个人未经本网协议授权不得转载、链接、转贴或以其他方式复制发表。已经本网协议授权的媒体、网站,在下载使用时必须注明"稿件来源:新东方在线",违者本网将依法追究责任。
    2.本网末注明"稿件来源:新东方在线"的文/图等稿件均为转载稿,本网转载出于传递更多信息之目的,并不意味着赞同其观点或证实其内容的真实性。如其他媒体、网站或个人从本网下载使用,必须保留本网注明的"稿件来源",并自负版权等法律责任。如擅自篡改为"稿件来源:新东方在线”,本网将依法追究责任。
    3.如本网转载稿涉及版权等问题,请作者致信weisen@xdfzx.com,我们将及时外理

    Copyright © 2011-202

    All Rights Reserved