2021年考研英语一真题及答案

　　2021考研英语考试现已结束了，考研在线中考网收拾了《2021年考研英语一真题及答案》，供同学们参阅。
　　2021考研英语一翻译真题
　　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出题人改编为curb this kind
tendency),(for example by trying, when it comes to career advancement这有些被出题人删去),
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…
　　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.
　　2021考研英语一翻译答案
　　46)医学期刊中存在许多由播送公司和新闻媒体报导的这种无稽之谈，这会致使安康惊惧和时刻短的饮食张狂。
　　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，任何请求研讨职位的人都有必要宣告两倍于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)我们现已做出尽力来遏止这种倾向，即将一些质量和数量归入请求人宣告的论文的评价傍边。
　　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)假定不是因为科学家们可以很简略地在将来的出书物中引证自个，或许让火伴为他们这样做以交流类似的优点，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)假定咱们想细心保证科学既有意义又可再生，那么咱们有必要保证咱们的准则可以鼓励这种科学的打开。
　　点击收取【2021考研真题解析直播课】，听直播抽大奖！更多2021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、打点类联考真题及答案、考研专业课真题及答案，请重视【2021考研真题答案及解析】专题!《2021考研重外行册》等你来拿！


2021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 专业课打点类联考西医归纳教育学法硕(法学)法硕(不合法学)中医归纳核算机前史学心思学经济学金融艺术翻译硕士汉硕二外日语2021考研真题及答案下载【答案这儿最全】19考生对答案估分，
20考生看解析做方案，
2021考研真题解析专题报导


2021考研开挂抢跑
集合高频考点

手机查答案重视大众效能号


↓↓考研答案这儿最全↓↓