MandarinGo.

MANDARINGO

HSK 6 full-length practice: 82 original tasks with audio

Practise 40 listening questions across 16 original recordings, 40 reading questions and two open writing tasks without an account. The 82-item written-practice structure follows the checked HSK 3.0 level 6 sample counts. Every choice has an explanation in the selected interface language. Use learning mode or the site’s timers.

Open full practice

MandarinGo · Updated · Content and audio policy

Version, scope and sources

This is original MandarinGo teaching material, not an official or past paper. The checked HSK 3.0 level 6 sample has 8 + 20 + 12 listening items, 10 word-cloze + 10 shared-sentence gaps + 20 passage questions, and two writing tasks: at least 150 Chinese characters for practical writing and at least 300 for a topic composition. The separate speaking component is not included. Confirm the version required by your booked test centre.

The 40 reading questions and two writing tasks are shared with our separate HSK 6 reading and writing page. This page adds 40 original listening questions and a combined session, not 82 additional questions. The scenarios are fictional learning texts, not reports of measured studies. After listening, review the transcript, its meaning and a separate explanation for every option.

Audio grouping, synthetic narration, manual replay, timers and practice accuracy are site learning settings. Official playback counts and standardized score conversion have not been verified for this version. The page does not predict official scores or passing, and the recordings are not claimed to have had human pronunciation review.

Section sources: Official HSK 3.0 sample bundle (about 395 MB)

Your full-length practice workspace

All answers and drafts stay in this browser. No account, AI processing or upload is needed. Optional device saving restores this practice within seven days of saving; expired copies are removed on the next visit. Avoid saving on a shared device.

Learning mode lets you revisit sections, pause, replay audio and read explanations. Timed mode locks each finished section, keeps counting in the background and after a reload, and shows explanations after submission. Both modes allow manual audio replay. This is a site practice setting, not a verified official playback rule.

Site practice budgets: Listening 30 minutes · Reading 40 minutes · Writing 45 minutes. These are answering budgets, excluding official preparation, information and answer-transfer stages.

Listening: 40 original questions

Part one has eight one-question recordings; part two has five four-question recordings; part three has three four-question recordings. These are site learning groups, not verified official recording or playback rules.

The recordings are synthetic Mandarin reading of original scripts. Each recording has its own transcript and English meaning. Questions are written on this page; the recording reads the material, not the questions.

HSK 6 listening practice: audio, transcripts and explained answers

This set has 40 listening questions grouped under 16 recordings. Listen first, then open each question’s answer, evidence and four option explanations. Questions, choices and narration stay in Mandarin; meanings and explanations are available in eight interface languages. The recordings are synthetic readings of original teaching scripts, not official questions or human exam recordings.

  1. A gap in the archive
  2. Who remains in a user survey
  3. Shade in a street redesign
  4. A pause in translation
  5. An alternative library access route
  6. A pilot with a stopping rule
  7. Two tables with different definitions
  8. A poster’s bounded conclusion
  9. Interpreting a riverbank observation
  10. The denominator at a repair station
  11. Revising an internship rotation
  12. A newsletter correction
  13. Accounting for reusable delivery boxes
  14. Two layers in a dialect archive
  15. Diversity in a recommendation list
  16. Missing pages in old weather ledgers

A gap in the archive

Part 1 · L01–L01

Transcript and English meaning

档案里没有找到这座桥开工的记录，有人便断言当时根本没有修桥。研究员提醒大家，这批档案曾经迁移，部分材料已经散失。现有照片只能说明桥在那年年底已经使用，不能确定何时开工。她建议先把能确认的时间写清楚，再继续寻找施工账目。

No start-of-construction record for a bridge was found. Some claim this proves no construction took place. The researcher notes that some records were lost when the archive moved. A photograph establishes use by the end of that year, not the construction start date. She proposes stating what can be confirmed and looking for construction accounts.

L01. 研究员主要反对哪种推断？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 由没有记录推断工程从未发生

Evidence / language cue: 部分材料已经散失；现有照片只能说明桥在那年年底已经使用

  1. 由档案迁移推断全部材料都已失真 — Some records were lost; moving the archive does not make every surviving record unreliable.
  2. 由账目缺失推断照片一定拍摄于次年 — No next-year photograph claim is made; the central issue is inferring non-occurrence from missing records.
  3. 由照片推断桥在年底之前已经投入使用 — Use by year-end is precisely the limited conclusion the photograph supports.
  4. 由没有记录推断工程从未发生 — A missing record may reflect loss, so it does not establish that construction never happened.

Who remains in a user survey

Part 1 · L02–L02

Transcript and English meaning

一款学习软件只向连续使用三个月的人发问卷，满意率很高。产品经理却不愿据此宣布新课程受到普遍欢迎。她说，早早离开的使用者恰好没有进入问卷，可能遇到了不同困难。下一轮除了联系留存用户，还要询问退出者为什么离开，并分别报告两类人的反馈。

A learning app surveys only people who stayed for three months and finds high satisfaction. The manager will not infer broad approval: early leavers were excluded and may have faced different difficulties. The next round will contact both retained users and leavers, reporting their feedback separately.

L02. 经理认为现有问卷的主要局限是什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 没有覆盖可能有不同经历的退出者

Evidence / language cue: 早早离开的使用者恰好没有进入问卷

  1. 反馈时间太长，无法了解任何近期体验 — Three months defines eligibility; the key limitation is exclusion, not total absence of recent experience.
  2. 留存用户的意见不具有任何参考价值 — Retained users are still worth contacting; their views simply cannot represent everyone.
  3. 没有覆盖可能有不同经历的退出者 — Surveying only stayers omits leavers who may have had different experiences.
  4. 满意率应当与退出人数直接相加 — A rate and a headcount cannot be added directly; separate reporting is proposed.

Shade in a street redesign

Part 1 · L03–L03

Transcript and English meaning

街道改造原打算把树种成整齐的一排，方便统一养护。居民提出，下午等车的位置仍然没有树荫。设计师解释，整齐并不是唯一目标，要按太阳移动和行人停留的位置调整。团队于是保留主要通道，在候车区补种几棵树，并决定夏天再观察实际遮阴效果。

A street redesign originally placed trees in a straight row for maintenance. Residents point out that the afternoon bus waiting area still lacks shade. The designer prioritizes sun movement and where people wait, retaining the main passage while adding trees near the waiting area and planning a summer check.

L03. 方案调整体现了怎样的设计取向？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 结合使用情境，而不只追求形式整齐

Evidence / language cue: 整齐并不是唯一目标，要按太阳移动和行人停留的位置调整

  1. 把统一养护作为唯一评价标准 — Maintenance motivated the original row; it is not the revised plan’s sole criterion.
  2. 为增加树木数量而取消主要通道 — The main passage is explicitly retained, not removed to maximize tree numbers.
  3. 结合使用情境，而不只追求形式整齐 — The revision responds to waiting times and locations while retaining access and later observation.
  4. 用居民意见替代后续效果观察 — Resident feedback prompted the change, but summer observation is still planned.

A pause in translation

Part 1 · L04–L04

Transcript and English meaning

小说原文让人物说到一半便停住，读者无法立刻判断他是否同意。编辑想把这句话补完整，译者没有接受。她认为，停顿正是人物犹豫的一部分，补出明确态度反而增加了原文没有的信息。她愿意调整中文节奏，却要保留这种尚未说清的关系。

A novel stops a character’s speech halfway, leaving agreement uncertain. An editor suggests completing it. The translator refuses because the pause expresses hesitation and a definite attitude would add unsupported meaning. She will adjust the Chinese rhythm while preserving the unresolved relationship.

L04. 译者坚持保留停顿，主要是为了什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 保留原文的不确定性，避免添加确定态度

Evidence / language cue: 补出明确态度反而增加了原文没有的信息

  1. 让译文与原文的每个标点完全一致 — She protects hesitation in meaning, not exact one-to-one punctuation.
  2. 避免对中文节奏作任何调整 — She explicitly allows changes to the Chinese rhythm.
  3. 保留原文的不确定性，避免添加确定态度 — A completed definite statement would add meaning; the pause preserves hesitation.
  4. 证明编辑不应该参与文学翻译 — A particular disagreement does not establish that editors should have no role in translation.

An alternative library access route

Part 1 · L05–L05

Transcript and English meaning

图书馆准备把资料申请全部改为扫码办理，试用时却发现几位读者没有智能手机。馆员说，保留人工窗口并不是否定数字服务，而是避免把一种便利变成新的门槛。因此线上与窗口共用同一个申请队列，办理顺序仍按提交时间，不给任何渠道额外优先权。

A library’s trial of QR-only requests excludes some readers without smartphones. Staff retain a staffed desk alongside digital service so convenience does not become a barrier. Both channels use one queue ordered by submission time, with no channel priority.

L05. 两种渠道共用一个队列的用意是什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 保留可达性，同时维持一致的办理次序

Evidence / language cue: 办理顺序仍按提交时间，不给任何渠道额外优先权

  1. 保留可达性，同时维持一致的办理次序 — The desk preserves access, and a shared queue keeps ordering consistent across channels.
  2. 让窗口申请等待所有线上申请结束 — Order follows submission time, not completion of every online request before desk requests.
  3. 证明数字服务不适合任何读者 — The desk supplements digital access; staff explicitly reject a blanket rejection of digital service.
  4. 把窗口服务改为仅提供操作指导 — The desk accepts requests rather than merely teaching QR use.

A pilot with a stopping rule

Part 1 · L06–L06

Transcript and English meaning

社区想试行共享工具柜，提案中既列了借用目标，也写了停止条件：如果连续出现无法追溯的安全检查记录，就暂停外借。有人担心这会显得团队没有信心。负责人说，先约定何时停止，才能避免因为已经投入不少精力，就在条件不合格时勉强继续。

A community tool cabinet pilot includes borrowing goals and a pause rule if safety-check records repeatedly cannot be traced. The lead says this is not a lack of confidence: agreeing on stopping conditions prevents continued lending merely because much effort has already been invested.

L06. 负责人强调停止条件，主要在防止什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 因既有投入而忽视继续开展所需的条件

Evidence / language cue: 因为已经投入不少精力，就在条件不合格时勉强继续

  1. 把每次普通借用都当成异常事故 — The rule concerns repeated untraceable inspection records, not every ordinary loan.
  2. 为了节省记录工作而取消安全检查 — The proposal protects safety documentation rather than eliminating inspections.
  3. 在试行开始前拒绝一切工具借用 — The pilot may proceed; specific pause conditions are agreed in advance.
  4. 因既有投入而忽视继续开展所需的条件 — Past effort should not justify continuing when safety-record requirements are no longer met.

Two tables with different definitions

Part 1 · L07–L07

Transcript and English meaning

展馆的两张表里，参观人数差了不少。新同事以为其中一张必然填错，统计员让他先看说明：一张按进门次数记录，另一张只计算当天来过的不同访客。有人上午离开、下午再来，就会在第一张出现两次。核对之前，应先确认统计对象是否一致。

Two museum attendance tables differ. One records entries; the other counts distinct visitors per day. A person returning in the afternoon adds two entries but only one distinct visitor. The statistician says definitions must be compared before assuming an error.

L07. 根据录音，两张表的差异首先应怎样理解？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 可能来自统计口径不同，而不必然是填错

Evidence / language cue: 一张按进门次数记录，另一张只计算当天来过的不同访客

  1. 只能由下午的登记工作疏漏来解释 — The stated explanation is definition, not a demonstrated afternoon recording lapse.
  2. 可能来自统计口径不同，而不必然是填错 — Entries and distinct visitors use different units; repeat entry can legitimately create different totals.
  3. 说明展馆无法记录当天的任何访客 — Both tables record attendance, but use different counting units.
  4. 可以直接把较大数字视为不同访客数 — The larger entry count may include return visits and cannot be treated as distinct people.

A poster’s bounded conclusion

Part 1 · L08–L08

Transcript and English meaning

研究生在海报上写，新检索方法在本次小型资料库中节省了查找时间。导师没有让她改成更醒目的全面领先，而是提醒她交代资料范围：这批材料的格式比较统一，还没有测试手写文件。结论说得有限，并不削弱结果，反而让别人知道下一步应该检验什么。

A poster reports faster retrieval in one small, consistently formatted collection. The supervisor rejects a broader claim of overall superiority because handwritten files have not been tested. Stating the scope makes the result interpretable and identifies the next test.

L08. 导师建议补充资料范围，主要是为了什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 让结论与证据边界一致，并指明后续检验方向

Evidence / language cue: 还没有测试手写文件；让别人知道下一步应该检验什么

  1. 让结论与证据边界一致，并指明后续检验方向 — The tested collection supports a bounded finding, while untested handwriting identifies further work.
  2. 说明这次试验完全没有可报告的结果 — The finding is retained; the supervisor rejects an unsupported universal claim.
  3. 用缩小研究范围的方法消除所有误差 — Describing scope does not remove every error; it clarifies applicability.
  4. 证明手写材料一定会推翻现有结果 — An untested case is not evidence that the present result will be overturned.

Interpreting a riverbank observation

Part 2 · L09–L12

Transcript and English meaning

河岸照明调整后，志愿者记录到的夜间昆虫种类变多了，有人希望马上推广同样的灯具。项目负责人却指出，调整前后的天气不同，而且后期观察的人也更多。记录并非没有用，但不能把变化全部归于灯具。下一轮将保留原来的河段，同时选一个尚未换灯、环境相近的河段，在相同时间安排同样人数观察。两边都要记录气温和降雨。如果结果仍有差异，再讨论可能的解释，而不是先给器材贴上环保的标签。

After a riverbank lighting change, volunteers record more insect species. The lead cautions that weather and observer numbers also changed, so the record does not isolate the effect of lamps. The next round will compare the original section with a similar unchanged section, using matched times and observer numbers and recording temperature and rain. Remaining differences will need interpretation rather than an advance environmental endorsement.

L09. 负责人为何不赞成立即推广灯具？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 天气和观察人数同时变化，难以单独判断灯具作用

Evidence / language cue: 调整前后的天气不同，而且后期观察的人也更多

  1. 天气和观察人数同时变化，难以单独判断灯具作用 — Several conditions changed together, so the lamps’ separate contribution cannot yet be identified.
  2. 原河段没有留下任何可用记录 — The lead explicitly says the records still have value.
  3. 昆虫记录的增加已被证实完全来自天气 — Weather is a possible confounder, not a proven explanation of the entire change.
  4. 更换灯具必然会减少所有昆虫种类 — No universal decline is asserted; the recorded species count actually increased.
L10. 下一轮为什么选择尚未换灯的相近河段？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 提供一个用于比较的条件，减少环境差异的干扰

Evidence / language cue: 选一个尚未换灯、环境相近的河段

  1. 证明相近环境中的昆虫必定完全相同 — Similar surroundings support comparison but do not prove identical insect populations.
  2. 把原河段的观察记录全部替换掉 — The original section is retained rather than its records being replaced.
  3. 让两处河段分别选择最方便的观察时段 — Observation times are to be matched, not independently chosen for convenience.
  4. 提供一个用于比较的条件，减少环境差异的干扰 — A similar unchanged section provides a comparison that helps distinguish shared changes.
L11. 两边安排同样人数并记录天气，有什么作用？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 尽量让比较条件一致，并留下解释差异的信息

Evidence / language cue: 相同时间安排同样人数观察。两边都要记录气温和降雨

  1. 把观察者数量当作环境改善的唯一指标 — Observer count is a condition to control, not the sole environmental outcome.
  2. 尽量让比较条件一致，并留下解释差异的信息 — Matching effort and recording weather reduce avoidable differences and support interpretation.
  3. 使任何差异都可以自动认定由灯具引起 — Better comparison does not automatically establish the lamps as the cause of every difference.
  4. 省去记录昆虫种类的工作 — Weather records supplement rather than replace insect observations.
L12. 负责人对现有记录的态度最接近哪一项？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 保留参考价值，但限制它能支持的结论

Evidence / language cue: 记录并非没有用，但不能把变化全部归于灯具

  1. 因尚无确定结论而全部丢弃 — The records are retained as useful rather than discarded.
  2. 先用于宣传，等推广后再研究 — The lead rejects advance labeling rather than promoting first and researching later.
  3. 仅凭增长就足以作出环保认证 — An increase does not isolate the lamp effect or constitute environmental certification.
  4. 保留参考价值，但限制它能支持的结论 — The records are useful, but causal claims must remain within their evidential limits.

The denominator at a repair station

Part 2 · L13–L16

Transcript and English meaning

社区维修站公布，这个月修好的物品比上个月多了一半，大家都很高兴。一位志愿者提醒，送来维修的物品也增加了，而且两个月接收的物品种类不同。站长于是把报告分成三部分：接收数量、完成维修的比例，以及维修后再次出现同样问题的情况。难度较高、尚未找到配件的物品单独说明，不把它们悄悄移出统计。报告不再只强调修好了多少件，而是让读者看清工作量、完成情况和后续效果各指什么。

A community repair station fixed half again as many items this month, but arrivals also rose and the item mix changed. Its report will distinguish intake, completion rate and recurrence of the same fault. Difficult items awaiting parts remain visible rather than quietly leaving the statistics. The aim is to separate workload, completion and later outcomes.

L13. 志愿者提到送修数量也增加，主要质疑用修好件数来推断哪项？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 维修完成比例是否提高

Evidence / language cue: 送来维修的物品也增加了，而且两个月接收的物品种类不同

  1. 维修站是否完成过任何工作 — The count does show completed work; it is not devoid of information.
  2. 维修站是否已经停止接收物品 — No halt in accepting items is described.
  3. 维修完成比例是否提高 — With intake changing too, a higher completed count need not mean a higher completion rate.
  4. 所有送修物品都来自同一类电器 — The mix is explicitly different, and a completion count does not establish identical categories.
L14. 把暂缺配件的物品单独说明，主要避免什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 通过移除困难案例，使统计显得更好

Evidence / language cue: 不把它们悄悄移出统计

  1. 将这些物品直接认定为无法维修 — Waiting for parts is not a definitive finding that repair is impossible.
  2. 让接收数量包含尚未收到的物品 — The report concerns received items, not hypothetical future arrivals.
  3. 在报告中区分不同等待原因 — Distinguishing waiting reasons is a benefit, not the problem being prevented.
  4. 通过移除困难案例，使统计显得更好 — Keeping difficult cases visible prevents improving apparent results by excluding them.
L15. 维修后相同问题再次出现的记录反映哪方面？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 维修效果是否能够持续

Evidence / language cue: 维修后再次出现同样问题的情况

  1. 维修效果是否能够持续 — Whether the same fault returns informs the durability of the repair outcome.
  2. 配件采购费用的总和 — A recurrence record is not a total of procurement costs.
  3. 接收工作量的大小 — Intake describes workload; recurring faults concern what happens after repair.
  4. 每位志愿者的出勤次数 — Fault recurrence is not an attendance measure.
L16. 调整报告后，读者能更清楚地区分什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 投入的工作量、完成比例和后续效果

Evidence / language cue: 工作量、完成情况和后续效果各指什么

  1. 投入的工作量、完成比例和后续效果 — The three sections separate intake workload, completion and later outcomes.
  2. 哪位居民应该获得维修优先权 — No priority rule for residents is proposed.
  3. 所有物品统一的维修难度 — Different categories and difficult cases remain distinct rather than treated as uniform.
  4. 本月的维修是否完全由新增人员完成 — No claim attributes the entire increase to additional staff.

Revising an internship rotation

Part 2 · L17–L20

Transcript and English meaning

实习项目原来让所有学生每周更换一次岗位，便于了解不同部门。运行几周后，导师发现，学生刚熟悉任务就要离开，很难独立完成一个项目。新安排仍保留跨部门观察，但每人要在一个主要岗位连续工作四周，并提交一次完整过程的记录。学生可以提出岗位意向，最终分配还要看任务是否适合其已有基础。导师特别说明，延长停留不是保证就业，也不是让学生只做重复杂务，而是给他们承担完整责任的机会。

Weekly rotation introduced departments but moved students before they could finish projects. The revised internship retains cross-department observation and adds four consecutive weeks in a main role plus a process record. Preferences are considered alongside preparation for the tasks. Longer placement neither guarantees a job nor means repetitive errands; it creates room for responsibility through a whole project.

L17. 原来每周轮岗的安排出现了什么问题？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 学生刚熟悉任务，就难以继续负责到项目完成

Evidence / language cue: 学生刚熟悉任务就要离开，很难独立完成一个项目

  1. 学生完全没有机会了解其他部门 — Exposure to departments was the original purpose, not an absent opportunity.
  2. 导师无法再给学生安排主要岗位 — The revised plan assigns main roles; inability to allocate them is not the issue.
  3. 学生必须提前承诺毕业后的就业去向 — No advance employment commitment is required.
  4. 学生刚熟悉任务，就难以继续负责到项目完成 — Rapid rotation interrupted continuity and made completing a whole project difficult.
L18. 新安排如何兼顾广度与深度？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 保留跨部门观察，同时在主要岗位连续工作

Evidence / language cue: 仍保留跨部门观察，但每人要在一个主要岗位连续工作四周

  1. 保留跨部门观察，同时在主要岗位连续工作 — Observation preserves breadth while a sustained main role allows deeper responsibility.
  2. 让学生每天轮换，但不再提交记录 — Four consecutive weeks and a process record are both required, not daily rotation without records.
  3. 只让已确定就业的学生参加观察 — Observation is not conditional on securing employment.
  4. 取消跨部门观察，仅保留一个岗位 — Cross-department observation is explicitly retained.
L19. 学生提出岗位意向后，还需要考虑什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 岗位任务与其已有基础是否相适合

Evidence / language cue: 最终分配还要看任务是否适合其已有基础

  1. 哪一岗位的名称最便于宣传 — Promotional appeal of a role title is not an allocation criterion.
  2. 学生能否承诺以后不再更换行业 — No restriction on later career changes is imposed.
  3. 岗位任务与其已有基础是否相适合 — Preferences are considered alongside whether preparation fits the tasks.
  4. 是否可以免去四周的连续工作 — Stating a preference does not waive sustained placement.
L20. 导师怎样解释延长岗位停留的目的？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 帮助学生经历完整过程并承担责任

Evidence / language cue: 给他们承担完整责任的机会

  1. 使学生获得确定的就业承诺 — The mentor explicitly disclaims an employment guarantee.
  2. 让各部门停止提供观察机会 — Cross-department observation continues.
  3. 用更多重复杂务替代项目学习 — The mentor explicitly rejects reducing placement to repetitive errands.
  4. 帮助学生经历完整过程并承担责任 — Sustained work and documentation support responsibility for a whole process.

A newsletter correction

Part 2 · L21–L24

Transcript and English meaning

社区通讯登出一段居民口述后，受访者发现其中一处年份写错，要求更正。编辑查阅录音，确认错误来自整理环节，于是在网络版注明改动和原因，下期纸刊也作说明。另一位受访者希望删除自己曾经批评过服务流程的整段话，理由是现在意见变了。编辑表示，可以补充后来观点，但不能把当时确实说过的话当作录入错误处理；如果涉及此前未约定的公开范围，则应另行讨论授权。两种请求都需要认真回应，但依据并不相同。

A newsletter misstates a year from an interview. The recording confirms an editing error, so both web and the next print issue will disclose a correction. Another speaker now wants to remove an earlier criticism because their view changed. The editor offers an updated view but distinguishes it from a transcription error; publication beyond an agreed scope requires separate authorization discussion. Both requests deserve attention, under different grounds.

L21. 年份错误为什么可以按更正处理？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 录音证明整理时写错了信息

Evidence / language cue: 查阅录音，确认错误来自整理环节

  1. 录音证明整理时写错了信息 — The recording establishes an editing error and supplies a factual basis for correction.
  2. 受访者现在不再愿意接受采访 — The basis is a mismatch with the recording, not simply a changed willingness to participate.
  3. 网络版不需要保留任何修改记录 — The editor discloses both change and reason rather than erasing the revision trail.
  4. 所有居民口述都应改成统一年份 — Correcting one error is not standardizing every account to one year.
L22. 对于后来改变的意见，编辑主张怎样处理？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 可以补充新观点，但区分它与当年的表达

Evidence / language cue: 可以补充后来观点，但不能把当时确实说过的话当作录入错误处理

  1. 直接把原来的话标记为录入错误 — A genuine earlier statement does not become a transcription error merely because views changed.
  2. 只修改纸刊，不允许网络版说明 — No print-only restriction on updated views is stated.
  3. 可以补充新观点，但区分它与当年的表达 — An update can distinguish later and earlier views without misclassifying the original as an editing error.
  4. 拒绝记录受访者现在的任何想法 — The editor allows a later view to be added.
L23. 如果公开范围超出原先约定，应该怎么办？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 另行讨论授权，不能只按文字更正处理

Evidence / language cue: 如果涉及此前未约定的公开范围，则应另行讨论授权

  1. 自动假定所有材料都获得永久公开许可 — Permission for an unagreed scope cannot be presumed.
  2. 另行讨论授权，不能只按文字更正处理 — Publication scope is an authorization issue distinct from transcription accuracy.
  3. 只要年份无误，就不再需要考虑授权 — Accuracy does not substitute for permission about publication scope.
  4. 把后来观点删除，作为唯一解决办法 — Discussing authorization is proposed; deleting the updated view is not the only remedy.
L24. 这段话主要强调哪种区分？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 事实整理错误、观点更新与公开授权的不同依据

Evidence / language cue: 两种请求都需要认真回应，但依据并不相同

  1. 网络版比纸刊更可信的固定等级 — Both media disclose corrections; no fixed credibility hierarchy is proposed.
  2. 事实整理错误、观点更新与公开授权的不同依据 — Factual correction, changed views and publication permission require distinct grounds.
  3. 批评服务者与表扬服务者的不同待遇 — The grounds differ, not the treatment of praise versus criticism.
  4. 对口述资料可以随意修改与完全不能修改的二选一 — The account rejects both arbitrary revision and a blanket ban on any change.

Accounting for reusable delivery boxes

Part 2 · L25–L28

Transcript and English meaning

配送站试用可重复使用的周转箱，宣传稿原本只写纸箱用量下降。运营人员补充说，还要计算清洗、回收运输和箱体损耗。押金只是促使归还的安排，不能直接算作减少成本的收入。试行中，靠近回收点的路线归还较顺利，较远路线的记录却不完整。团队决定先补齐不同路线的数据，再按每次实际完成的配送比较成本。若某条路线表现较好，也不能立即推断所有地区都适合相同方案。

A delivery station’s reusable-box pilot reduces disposable cartons, but costs must also include washing, return transport and wear. Refundable deposits encourage returns rather than being counted as cost-saving income. Nearby routes have clearer return records than distant routes. The team will complete route data and compare cost per completed delivery; one successful route cannot establish suitability everywhere.

L25. 为什么不能只用纸箱减少量评价方案？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 还存在清洗、回收运输及损耗等成本

Evidence / language cue: 还要计算清洗、回收运输和箱体损耗

  1. 还存在清洗、回收运输及损耗等成本 — Carton reduction is one outcome; actual costs require additional categories.
  2. 清洗费用可以自动由押金永久抵消 — Refundable deposits cannot be treated as permanent income that automatically cancels costs.
  3. 只要使用可重复箱，其他成本就不再存在 — Reusable boxes still incur washing, transport and wear.
  4. 纸箱的减少已经证明配送数量没有变化 — Fewer cartons do not by themselves establish unchanged delivery volume.
L26. 对押金的理解，哪项符合录音？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 作为促使归还的安排，与真实成本分开看

Evidence / language cue: 押金只是促使归还的安排，不能直接算作减少成本的收入

  1. 作为已经实现的节约收入计入利润 — The recording explicitly rejects treating the deposit as cost-saving income.
  2. 作为不再计算箱体损耗的理由 — Wear remains a cost even when deposits are used.
  3. 作为证明远端路线归还顺利的证据 — Distant-route records remain incomplete; the deposit does not fill that evidential gap.
  4. 作为促使归还的安排，与真实成本分开看 — A deposit encourages return behavior and must not be confused with realized savings.
L27. 为什么要补齐不同路线的数据？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 避免只依据记录较全、表现较好的路线作判断

Evidence / language cue: 较远路线的记录却不完整；先补齐不同路线的数据

  1. 避免只依据记录较全、表现较好的路线作判断 — Current evidence favors better-recorded nearby routes; filling gaps reduces selective judgment.
  2. 用较近路线的结果替代全部远端记录 — The plan fills distant-route records rather than replacing them with nearby results.
  3. 使所有路线的配送距离在地图上相同 — Completing records does not make route distances identical.
  4. 在比较成本时不再计算完成的配送次数 — Completed-delivery counts remain the stated comparison unit.
L28. 某条路线试行效果较好，可以合理得出什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 它提供了有条件的经验，推广前仍需核对其他地区

Evidence / language cue: 不能立即推断所有地区都适合相同方案

  1. 它提供了有条件的经验，推广前仍需核对其他地区 — The result offers conditional experience; other settings and evidence still need checking.
  2. 所有地区都应立即取消纸箱 — A local result does not support immediate universal replacement of cartons.
  3. 归还点距离不会影响任何路线 — Return convenience is precisely one relevant route difference.
  4. 远端数据不完整已不再重要 — One favorable route does not remove missing data elsewhere.

Two layers in a dialect archive

Part 3 · L29–L32

Transcript and English meaning

方言整理小组讨论出版访谈时，有人建议把所有地方表达改成统一的书面语，认为这样更容易阅读。主持人提出，阅读方便与保留语言特征不必只能选一个。可以保留原始录音和按实际说法整理的文本，再另附便于理解的释义，两层材料彼此对应。遇到无法确定的词，不凭熟悉的普通话词语硬猜，而要标出疑问，回访说话者，并与其他语境比较。至于哪些片段可以公开，仍按受访者约定的范围处理。把资料整理得清楚，不等于有权替说话者决定一切。

A dialect archive considers replacing local expressions with uniform formal language for readability. The facilitator proposes aligned layers: original recordings and faithful transcription, plus separate accessible glosses. Uncertain words should be marked, checked with speakers and compared across contexts rather than guessed from familiar Mandarin. Publication remains within agreed permissions: clarity in editing does not grant unlimited authority over speakers’ material.

L29. 主持人对阅读便利与语言特征的关系有何看法？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 可以通过彼此对应的不同层次兼顾二者

Evidence / language cue: 保留原始录音和按实际说法整理的文本，再另附便于理解的释义

  1. 只要保留录音，就可以任意改写所有文本 — Keeping audio does not authorize arbitrary rewriting; faithful text remains a separate layer.
  2. 需要在二者之间永久放弃一个目标 — The facilitator explicitly rejects a compulsory either-or choice.
  3. 可以通过彼此对应的不同层次兼顾二者 — Aligned original and explanatory layers support readability without erasing linguistic features.
  4. 应把地方表达全部替换后再考虑释义 — The proposed approach retains local expression rather than replacing it wholesale.
L30. 面对无法确定的词，正确的处理顺序是什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 先标出疑问，再回访并比较其他语境

Evidence / language cue: 标出疑问，回访说话者，并与其他语境比较

  1. 直接换成最熟悉的普通话词 — A familiar Mandarin word may not match the actual dialect item.
  2. 先标出疑问，再回访并比较其他语境 — Marking uncertainty, revisiting speakers and checking contexts address uncertainty without guessing.
  3. 把疑问删去，使出版物看起来没有空缺 — Deleting uncertainty conceals information that is still unresolved.
  4. 只要读起来通顺，就不再核对说话者 — Fluency does not establish transcription accuracy or remove the need to check.
L31. 两层材料彼此对应，主要有利于什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 让读者区分原始表达与整理者的解释

Evidence / language cue: 两层材料彼此对应

  1. 让释义自动取代所有原始录音 — Glosses supplement rather than replace original audio.
  2. 让读者区分原始表达与整理者的解释 — Alignment lets readers check original wording against editorial explanation.
  3. 使所有方言词都获得唯一普通话译法 — Context still matters; aligned layers do not imply one unique Mandarin equivalent for every word.
  4. 取消今后回访说话者的必要 — Uncertain words still require follow-up; layering is not a substitute for verification.
L32. 关于公开片段，录音强调什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 仍须遵守与受访者约定的公开范围

Evidence / language cue: 哪些片段可以公开，仍按受访者约定的范围处理

  1. 整理工作越多，公开权限就越大 — Editorial effort does not automatically expand publication permission.
  2. 仍须遵守与受访者约定的公开范围 — Clear editing does not create unlimited authority; publication must respect the agreement.
  3. 保留两层文本后，就不再存在授权范围 — Layering concerns representation; authorization remains an independent condition.
  4. 只需向读者说明方言特点即可全部公开 — Explaining dialect features cannot substitute for the speaker’s agreed publication scope.

Diversity in a recommendation list

Part 3 · L33–L36

Transcript and English meaning

一个阅读平台发现，读者常常点开与过去选择相似的文章。若只按点击率调整推荐，列表会越来越集中。团队想加入不同主题，却没有把多样性理解为随意塞入陌生内容。他们先区分读者主动排除的主题与尚未接触的主题，再给推荐说明理由，并允许读者调整比例。评估时，既看是否有人点开，也看是否读完、是否愿意保留这种安排，以及小众主题是否长期没有出现。某一次点击下降，不能单独证明多样性没有价值；同样，题目种类增加，也不能自动证明读者受益。

A reading platform’s click-based recommendations grow narrower. Its diversity plan distinguishes topics users actively exclude from those they have not encountered, explains recommendations and lets users adjust their share. Evaluation includes opening, completion, willingness to retain the arrangement and persistent absence of niche topics. A click decline alone does not disprove value; more topic categories alone do not prove benefit.

L33. 只按点击率调整推荐，可能产生什么结果？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 推荐主题向已有偏好不断集中

Evidence / language cue: 若只按点击率调整推荐，列表会越来越集中

  1. 准确区分不喜欢与尚未接触的内容 — Separating active exclusion from lack of exposure requires more than click rate.
  2. 自动保证读者接触到更广泛主题 — The passage identifies concentration, not automatic breadth.
  3. 推荐主题向已有偏好不断集中 — Following clicks alone can reinforce similar past choices and narrow the topic range.
  4. 不再需要考虑读者是否读完文章 — Opening is not completion, so later evaluation remains necessary.
L34. 为什么要区分主动排除与尚未接触的主题？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 避免把没有机会接触误认成明确不愿阅读

Evidence / language cue: 区分读者主动排除的主题与尚未接触的主题

  1. 为了把所有陌生主题永久排除 — The plan seeks appropriate exposure rather than permanent exclusion of every unfamiliar topic.
  2. 避免把没有机会接触误认成明确不愿阅读 — Lack of opportunity to encounter a topic should not be mistaken for explicit rejection.
  3. 因为未接触就能证明读者一定喜欢 — No exposure establishes neither liking nor dislike.
  4. 让推荐系统完全不再参考个人意愿 — Both distinction and adjustable proportions take personal preferences seriously.
L35. 哪种评估方式最符合团队的思路？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 结合阅读行为、接受程度与长期覆盖情况

Evidence / language cue: 是否读完、是否愿意保留这种安排，以及小众主题是否长期没有出现

  1. 只要主题数量变多，就判定方案成功 — More categories do not automatically establish a reader benefit.
  2. 只观察第一次点击，不考虑后续阅读 — Completion and longer-term coverage are explicitly considered beyond the first click.
  3. 结合阅读行为、接受程度与长期覆盖情况 — The evaluation combines behavior, acceptance and persistent coverage gaps.
  4. 只询问平台编辑，不考虑读者感受 — Readers’ willingness to keep the arrangement is part of evaluation.
L36. 对一次点击下降，应怎样理解？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 它可能只反映部分情况，不能独自否定方案价值

Evidence / language cue: 某一次点击下降，不能单独证明多样性没有价值

  1. 它能直接证明小众主题覆盖已经改善 — A click change is not direct evidence about persistent niche-topic coverage.
  2. 它足以证明所有读者都反对多样性 — A single decline does not establish every reader’s attitude.
  3. 它说明应立即取消读者调整比例的选择 — Adjustability remains part of the design rather than being removed after one result.
  4. 它可能只反映部分情况，不能独自否定方案价值 — One metric at one time cannot represent the plan’s whole value; other evidence matters.

Missing pages in old weather ledgers

Part 3 · L37–L40

Transcript and English meaning

研究小组把旧气象账册录入数据库，某个年份的降雨记录特别少。一位成员想直接把空白日记成没有下雨。负责人提醒，空白可能来自漏记，也可能是那几页后来损坏，必须与明确写着无雨的日子分开。录入时要保留原页编号、读不清的位置和判断依据；后来找到新材料，也应留下修改记录。把旧资料数字化能够方便比较，却不会自动让原本缺失的信息变完整。只有在说明记录范围和缺失情况之后，才能谨慎讨论不同年份之间的差异。

A team digitizing old weather ledgers finds sparse rainfall entries in one year. Blank days might be unrecorded or damaged pages and must be distinguished from explicit no-rain entries. Entry retains page references, illegible passages, reasoning and later revision history. Digitization enables comparison but does not recover absent information; year-to-year differences must be interpreted with coverage and missingness disclosed.

L37. 空白日与明确记录无雨的日子为何要区分？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 空白可能是缺失记录，不能直接当作没有下雨

Evidence / language cue: 空白可能来自漏记，也可能是那几页后来损坏

  1. 纸张颜色不同会直接改变实际降雨 — The issue is evidence status, not paper color causing weather.
  2. 所有无雨记录都应删除，避免影响比较 — Explicit no-rain records remain useful and are not to be deleted.
  3. 只要录入数据库，空白就会自动补全 — Digitization does not automatically recover missing information.
  4. 空白可能是缺失记录，不能直接当作没有下雨 — An unexplained blank and an explicit no-rain entry have different evidential meanings.
L38. 保留原页编号和判断依据，有什么主要作用？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 让后来的使用者能够追溯和核查录入过程

Evidence / language cue: 保留原页编号、读不清的位置和判断依据

  1. 用编号替代对模糊字迹的任何说明 — Page numbers and illegibility notes are both retained rather than substituting for one another.
  2. 让后来的使用者能够追溯和核查录入过程 — Source references and reasoning allow later verification and revision.
  3. 使所有暂定判断自动变成确定事实 — Documented reasoning enables checking; it does not turn a provisional judgment into certainty.
  4. 保证以后找到的新材料都无须修改数据 — New material may prompt revision, which must remain traceable.
L39. 关于数字化，负责人作出了什么限定？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 它方便比较，但不会自动填补原始信息空缺

Evidence / language cue: 方便比较，却不会自动让原本缺失的信息变完整

  1. 它会消除所有年份之间的真实差异 — Easier comparison does not erase genuine differences between years.
  2. 它能保证每个空白日的天气都已确定 — Blank days may remain uncertain after digitization.
  3. 它方便比较，但不会自动填补原始信息空缺 — The format improves usability, but recovering absent information still requires evidence.
  4. 它使保留旧账册变得完全没有意义 — Page references and source checking show the originals remain important.
L40. 讨论不同年份差异之前，应先做什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 说明记录覆盖范围及信息缺失情况

Evidence / language cue: 说明记录范围和缺失情况之后，才能谨慎讨论不同年份之间的差异

  1. 挑出降雨最多的年份，删除其他年份 — Selecting years to fit an expected outcome would distort comparison.
  2. 说明记录覆盖范围及信息缺失情况 — Coverage and missingness must be disclosed before assessing comparability.
  3. 只展示最完整的一页，不再解释范围 — One complete page cannot substitute for describing coverage and missingness.
  4. 把所有空白都统一转换为无雨 — Converting every blank into no rain is the rejected approach.

Reading: 40 original questions

Digitising maps without erasing uncertainty

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

某市将旧地图数字化后，研究者发现，同一条街在不同年代的地图上有三种画法。有人据此认定街道曾多次改道，但档案员提醒，制图目的与测绘精度也可能造成（R01）。团队没有急于选择一个版本作为唯一标准，而是把每张图的年代、来源和用途一并（R02）。随后，他们将地图与同期照片、修路记录相互（R03），才确认其中一次变化对应实际施工，另一次则只是绘图简化。这一过程表明，资料被扫描成清晰图像，并不意味着其内容就（R04）了历史事实。数字工具提高了检索效率，却不能（R05）对证据来源和形成过程的判断。
R01. R01 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 差异

Evidence / language cue: 制图目的与测绘精度；三种画法

  1. 差异 — 差异 describes differences in the maps themselves, without requiring disagreement between people.
  2. 分歧 — 分歧 normally concerns divergent opinions; the sentence explains different representations.
  3. 偏见 — 偏见 is prejudice; no prejudiced attitude is established in this account.
  4. 争执 — 争执 means an argument, not a variation caused by surveying precision.
R02. R02 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 标注

Evidence / language cue: 把每张图的年代、来源和用途一并

  1. 申报 — 申报 involves reporting or applying to an authority, not attaching descriptive metadata.
  2. 撤销 — 撤销 means revoking or cancelling, whereas the team retains source information.
  3. 标注 — 标注 fits adding dates, sources and purposes as annotations to each map.
  4. 兑现 — 兑现 means fulfilling a promise or redeeming something, not documenting a map’s provenance.
R03. R03 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 印证

Evidence / language cue: 地图与同期照片、修路记录；才确认

  1. 抵消 — 抵消 means cancelling effects; the sources instead support a joint investigation.
  2. 印证 — 相互印证 means cross-checking a conclusion using different pieces of evidence.
  3. 迁就 — 迁就 is accommodating someone, not checking historical sources against one another.
  4. 替换 — 替换 would replace one source with another; the team compares several sources together.
R04. R04 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 还原

Evidence / language cue: 并不意味着；清晰图像；历史事实

  1. 遮蔽 — 遮蔽 means obscuring; denying obscurity does not express the intended limit on accuracy.
  2. 偏离 — 偏离 means departing from facts; the clause denies an automatic guarantee of accurate reconstruction.
  3. 推翻 — 推翻 means overturning a conclusion, which is not the claimed benefit of scanning here.
  4. 还原 — 还原历史事实 means reconstructing historical reality; 并不意味着 denies that clear scans guarantee this.
R05. R05 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 取代

Evidence / language cue: 提高了检索效率，却不能；对证据来源和形成过程的判断

  1. 取代 — 取代 expresses the central limit: faster retrieval does not replace evaluation of evidence.
  2. 促进 — 不能促进 would deny any assistance to judgment, a stronger claim than the passage supports.
  3. 体现 — 体现 means embodying or showing; it does not express the intended replacement relationship.
  4. 依赖 — 依赖 means depending on something; the argument is that source evaluation remains necessary.

What a service pilot can establish

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

一家公共图书馆试行延时开放。首月晚间借书量明显上升，管理者却没有据此立即（R06）服务已经全面改善。因为新增借阅可能来自原本在白天到馆的人，也可能与当月的读书活动有关。为了区分这些因素，馆方比较了活动前后的到馆时间，并邀请没有使用晚间服务的人说明困难。结果发现，一些读者真正需要的并非更晚的闭馆时间，而是交通与照明条件的（R07）。因此，下一轮调整不再单纯（R08）开放时长，而是增加末班公交信息和门口照明。评估报告也交代了这项调查的（R09）：样本来自主动回应者，尚不能代表所有居民。公开这些限制，并不是削弱报告价值，而是为后续判断留下（R10）的空间。
R06. R06 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 断言

Evidence / language cue: 没有据此立即；可能与当月的读书活动有关

  1. 质疑 — 质疑 means questioning; the text instead describes withholding a premature positive conclusion.
  2. 断言 — 断言 means asserting confidently, exactly what the managers avoid doing immediately.
  3. 询问 — 询问 is asking a question; the issue here is whether an evaluation warrants a conclusion.
  4. 承认 — 承认 treats something as an accepted fact, whereas the extent of improvement is still under examination.
R07. R07 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 改善

Evidence / language cue: 交通与照明条件；增加末班公交信息和门口照明

  1. 履行 — 履行 collocates with duties or obligations, not transport and lighting conditions.
  2. 扩散 — 扩散 means spreading outward and does not describe better access conditions.
  3. 消耗 — 消耗 means consuming resources, not resolving barriers to visiting the library.
  4. 改善 — 改善条件 matches the later changes to transport information and entrance lighting.
R08. R08 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 延长

Evidence / language cue: 不再单纯；更晚的闭馆时间

  1. 压缩 — 压缩 means reducing; the pilot initially extended opening hours.
  2. 转让 — 转让 means transferring rights or ownership, not changing the duration of opening.
  3. 延长 — 延长 fits the extension pilot; 不再单纯 says the next changes go beyond longer hours.
  4. 延误 — 延误 is an unintended delay, not the planned extension described here.
R09. R09 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 局限

Evidence / language cue: 样本来自主动回应者，尚不能代表所有居民

  1. 局限 — 局限 names a limitation of the study, explained by its self-selected sample.
  2. 权限 — 权限 concerns authority or permission, not whether respondents represent all residents.
  3. 期限 — 期限 concerns a deadline; the following clause is about representativeness instead.
  4. 界限 — 界限 describes boundaries or distinctions; 局限 specifically conveys the study’s constraint.
R10. R10 应填入哪个词？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 修正

Evidence / language cue: 公开这些限制；后续判断

  1. 兑现 — 兑现 applies to fulfilling promises, not revisiting an assessment.
  2. 修正 — 修正 allows later evidence to revise a judgment, which is why limitations are disclosed.
  3. 庆祝 — 庆祝 means celebrating and does not explain the value of documenting uncertainty.
  4. 掩饰 — 掩饰 means concealing, the opposite of openly reporting limitations.

Whose memory is being preserved?

Choose one shared sentence A–F for each gap. Use each letter at most once; one sentence remains unused. Track references, transitions and the stage of the project.

  1. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。
  2. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。
  3. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。
  4. 只要把所有录音转成文字，就能消除个人记忆中的偏差。
  5. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。
  6. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。
某街区准备建立口述历史展，志愿者先访问了几位老居民。（R11）然而，当他们询问同一家老店关闭的原因时，有人说是租金上涨，有人说是店主退休，还有人记不清具体年份。（R12）项目组因此不再把“所有人说法一致”当作展览成功的条件，而把记录不同记忆的来源列为新的工作重点。（R13）整理人员还把“我当时在场”“听邻居说”和“现在想来可能是”分别作了标记。（R14）这些标记既没有替受访者裁定谁对谁错，也没有让读者把所有说法都看成同样可靠。（R15）对于老店关闭的原因，展板只列出能够找到依据的部分，其余留待新资料补充。
R11. R11 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。

Evidence / language cue: 最初访问；然而；统一故事线与不同说法

  1. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。 — This is a later recording measure; no reason to revise the method has yet been introduced.
  2. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。 — 最终 jumps to the exhibition outcome before the initial expectation and its contrast.
  3. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。 — The following 然而 challenges this initial expectation of one unified narrative.
  4. 只要把所有录音转成文字，就能消除个人记忆中的偏差。 — Transcription does not remove memory bias, and the passage establishes no such guarantee.
  5. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。 — 这种差异 has no antecedent until the different accounts have been listed.
  6. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。 — 这样 needs the evidence labels that have not yet been introduced.
R12. R12 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: E. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。

Evidence / language cue: 有人说……有人说……；项目组因此

  1. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。 — Recording metadata is a practical step; this gap first needs reflection prompted by conflicting accounts.
  2. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。 — The method is still being reconsidered, so a final exhibition result is premature.
  3. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。 — This initial expectation belongs before 然而, not after the conflicting accounts.
  4. 只要把所有录音转成文字，就能消除个人记忆中的偏差。 — Turning speech into text cannot resolve the memory differences just described.
  5. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。 — 这种差异 refers to the three accounts and leads into the revised working priority.
  6. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。 — The firsthand, reported and inferred categories have not yet been introduced.
R13. R13 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。

Evidence / language cue: 新的工作重点；整理人员还

  1. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。 — 于是 follows the new priority and specifies how each recording’s provenance is documented.
  2. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。 — A final result would interrupt the sequence of practical organising measures.
  3. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。 — The initial assumption belongs earlier; the team is now implementing a revised approach.
  4. 只要把所有录音转成文字，就能消除个人记忆中的偏差。 — The claim about transcription is unsupported and does not document provenance.
  5. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。 — The reflection has already occurred; it cannot supply the prior measure needed by 还.
  6. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。 — The three labels have not yet appeared, so this distinction cannot follow at this point.
R14. R14 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: F. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。

Evidence / language cue: 三类标记；这些标记

  1. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。 — Metadata has already been recorded; this gap must explain the function of the new categories.
  2. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。 — The following 这些标记 still discusses the labels, before the final exhibition outcome.
  3. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。 — The original expectation does not explain the function of the three adjacent labels.
  4. 只要把所有录音转成文字，就能消除个人记忆中的偏差。 — Promising to eliminate bias conflicts with the next sentence’s refusal to adjudicate memories.
  5. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。 — Reflection on differences is not the reading benefit produced by the three labels.
  6. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。 — 这样 links the labels to visitors’ ability to distinguish three kinds of evidence.
R15. R15 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。

Evidence / language cue: 最终呈现；其余留待新资料补充

  1. 于是，他们为每段录音附上了采访时间、提问方式和受访者说明。 — Provenance recording is an earlier method, whereas this gap closes with the exhibition outcome.
  2. 最终展览同时呈现了彼此不同的叙述，并说明尚未解决的问题。 — 最终 closes the process and leads to the panel’s explicit treatment of unresolved causes.
  3. 他们最初以为，只要把同一件事问清楚，就能拼出一条统一的故事线。 — Returning to the initial unified-story assumption would disrupt the final outcome.
  4. 只要把所有录音转成文字，就能消除个人记忆中的偏差。 — The account retains uncertainty; it never claims transcription removes bias.
  5. 这种差异促使团队重新考虑访谈材料能够证明什么。 — The team’s reflection precedes its methods and cannot serve as the final presentation.
  6. 这样，参观者便能区分亲身经历、转述和事后推测。 — The labels’ function has already been explained; the gap now needs the final result.

Publishing information is not the same as access

Choose one shared sentence A–F for each gap. Use each letter at most once; one sentence remains unused. Track references, transitions and the stage of the project.

  1. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。
  2. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。
  3. 因此，研究者宣布这种办法适用于所有气候和所有街区。
  4. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。
  5. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。
  6. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。
一个社区研究小组希望帮助居民在炎热天气中安排步行路线。小组已收集了树荫、饮水点和休息座椅的位置。（R16）他们原本以为，发布渠道的问题已经解决。（R17）这使团队意识到，信息存在并不等于每个人都能找到和理解它。（R18）新的方式运行一个月，研究者没有只统计二维码被扫描了多少次，而是继续询问居民是否真正找到合适路线。（R19）例如，有人知道饮水点位置，却因通往那里的台阶而无法接近；也有人觉得纸质地图上的字太小。报告如实保留了这些问题，并注明试点发生在一个街区、一个月份。（R20）下一轮工作的重点，是据此修改服务，再观察修改是否减少了相应障碍。
R16. R16 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。

Evidence / language cue: 已收集位置信息；原本以为渠道问题解决

  1. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。 — 但 needs a preceding publication method to contrast with; none has yet been stated.
  2. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。 — An outcome report cannot precede publication when the next sentence still describes an initial assumption.
  3. 因此，研究者宣布这种办法适用于所有气候和所有街区。 — One neighbourhood cannot justify a claim covering every climate and community.
  4. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。 — Publishing an online guide establishes the channel later assumed to have solved access.
  5. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。 — Limits on generalisation belong after the pilot’s findings, which have not appeared yet.
  6. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。 — 为此 has no stated access problem to respond to at this stage.
R17. R17 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。

Evidence / language cue: 原本以为；这使团队意识到

  1. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。 — 但 counters the assumption that distribution is solved and motivates reflection on accessibility.
  2. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。 — Jumping to results does not explain why merely having information is insufficient.
  3. 因此，研究者宣布这种办法适用于所有气候和所有街区。 — A universal claim lacks evidence and cannot motivate acknowledging access barriers.
  4. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。 — Online publication has already happened; repeating it supplies no reason for reflection.
  5. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。 — Geographic limits do not explain the immediate problem of finding the information.
  6. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。 — A remedy here would deprive 这使团队意识到 of the resident feedback that triggers it.
R18. R18 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: F. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。

Evidence / language cue: 信息查找和理解；新的方式

  1. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。 — The feedback about locating the guide is already stated; this gap needs a response to it.
  2. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。 — Results come after the new arrangement runs for a month, not before it begins.
  3. 因此，研究者宣布这种办法适用于所有气候和所有街区。 — An access problem does not support a guarantee of universal applicability.
  4. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。 — Publishing only online again fails to address the stated discovery and comprehension barriers.
  5. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。 — A scope limitation supplies no concrete antecedent for 新的方式 in the next sentence.
  6. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。 — Boards and volunteers address discovery and comprehension and identify the subsequent new arrangement.
R19. R19 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。

Evidence / language cue: 试点一个月；例如台阶和小字

  1. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。 — Not finding the guide is an earlier problem, not a summary of the completed evaluation.
  2. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。 — Recording both usage and barriers introduces the following examples of steps and small print.
  3. 因此，研究者宣布这种办法适用于所有气候和所有街区。 — The next sentences still describe barriers, contradicting a universal success claim.
  4. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。 — Publication happened early and cannot summarise post-pilot evaluation.
  5. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。 — The geographic limitation belongs with the later one-neighbourhood, one-month qualification.
  6. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。 — Installing boards is a pre-pilot adjustment, not the findings after a month of observation.
R20. R20 应补入哪一句？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: E. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。

Evidence / language cue: 一个街区、一个月份；下一轮修改观察

  1. 但有些居民反馈，他们甚至不知道哪里可以看到这些建议。 — Difficulty locating the guide does not explain the limits imposed by one place and one month.
  2. 试点结束后，团队同时记录了使用率与居民遇到的具体障碍。 — The evaluation record has already been introduced; this gap explains its stated scope.
  3. 因此，研究者宣布这种办法适用于所有气候和所有街区。 — 所有 contradicts the limited setting, duration and unresolved problems just reported.
  4. 研究者先把这些建议整理成一份线上指南，邀请居民自行查阅。 — Online publication is the starting point, not a consequence of the report’s scope limitation.
  5. 这些结果只能说明当地试点的情况，不能直接推断其他地区也会如此。 — 这些结果 points back to the limited pilot and cautions against extrapolation before further work.
  6. 为此，团队在社区入口设置了纸质信息板，并请志愿者现场解释。 — Adding a board is an earlier intervention, not an explanation of how far results apply.

Shorter labels, clearer understanding?

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

一座博物馆计划把展品说明全部缩短，以降低阅读负担。试读时，多数观众确实更快读完了文字，但有些人把一件用于仪式的容器误认为日常餐具。策展人发现，被删去的恰好是说明用途与使用条件的两句话。团队于是区分了两类信息：重复形容与专业术语可以压缩，而防止关键误解的背景不能仅因占字数就删除。 第二轮试读采用“短说明加可展开背景”的形式。短说明先交代物品是什么、在什么条件下使用；愿意深入的观众再阅读补充材料。团队还请观众用自己的话解释展品，而不只询问“读起来是否轻松”。他们认为，文字长度、阅读速度与理解程度之间并非简单的同向关系。一个更短的说明，也可能让观众更快地产生错误判断。
R21. 第一轮试读暴露出的主要问题是什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 压缩时删掉了避免误解的背景

Evidence / language cue: 被删去的恰好是说明用途与使用条件的两句话

  1. 观众完全不愿阅读说明 — Most visitors read the labels; the passage does not say they refused to read.
  2. 专业术语增加了阅读时间 — The misunderstanding is not attributed to an increase in specialist terminology.
  3. 压缩时删掉了避免误解的背景 — Removing use and context led visitors to misidentify the ritual vessel as ordinary tableware.
  4. 仪式容器被换成了普通餐具 — The object was misinterpreted, not physically replaced with another exhibit.
R22. 策展人判断信息能否删减时，最重视什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 是否影响关键理解

Evidence / language cue: 防止关键误解的背景不能仅因占字数就删除

  1. 是否影响关键理解 — Preventing important misunderstandings determines what context must be retained.
  2. 是否让所有说明等长 — The passage never requires labels to have equal lengths.
  3. 是否避免任何专业词语 — Reducing jargon does not mean eliminating every specialist term.
  4. 是否满足最短字数 — The argument specifically rejects word count as the sole criterion.
R23. 请观众用自己的话解释展品，主要是为了什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 检验理解是否准确

Evidence / language cue: 而不只询问“读起来是否轻松”

  1. 替代策展人的资料研究 — Visitor explanations evaluate understanding; they do not replace research on the objects.
  2. 测量观众朗读的速度 — The task asks for meaning, not timed reading aloud.
  3. 筛选能够写长文章的观众 — No selection by long-form writing ability is described.
  4. 检验理解是否准确 — Explaining in one’s own words reveals understanding beyond reported ease of reading.
R24. 哪项最符合全文观点？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 提高阅读效率应同时检查理解效果

Evidence / language cue: 长度、阅读速度与理解程度之间并非简单的同向关系

  1. 补充背景一定会使所有人困惑 — The second round preserves layered background rather than treating it as inevitably confusing.
  2. 提高阅读效率应同时检查理解效果 — The redesign balances reading effort with evidence of accurate understanding.
  3. 只要读得快就说明设计成功 — The final sentence explicitly warns that faster reading can produce faster misunderstanding.
  4. 展品说明越长越可靠 — The text favours necessary context, not greater length for its own sake.

A cost can move rather than disappear

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

一家合作社决定更换农产品包装。较轻的材料能降低运输重量，但供应商提醒，它在潮湿环境下更容易破损。负责人没有只比较每个包装的价格，而是在同一路线、相近天气下分别试运两种方案，并记录损坏、退货与额外包装的情况。试运中，轻包装的运输费用较低，部分批次的破损却增加了。若仅公布运费下降的数据，就会掩盖这些成本转移。 合作社最后为不同距离和季节设置了不同方案：短途且干燥时采用较轻材料，雨季长途运输则保留较结实的包装。负责人在说明中强调，这不是证明某种材料在任何场景都更好，而是让选择与实际条件相匹配。由于试运只覆盖两条线路，他们还保留了在其他线路继续测试的计划。
R25. 为什么负责人不只比较包装单价？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 损坏和退货可能增加总成本

Evidence / language cue: 记录损坏、退货与额外包装；成本转移

  1. 供应商拒绝提供价格 — There is no statement that the supplier withheld prices.
  2. 包装重量与运输无关 — The text explicitly connects lighter material with lower shipping weight.
  3. 两种材料的价格完全相同 — No equality of packaging prices is reported.
  4. 损坏和退货可能增加总成本 — Unit price and freight omit losses from damage, returns and extra packaging.
R26. “成本转移”在本文中具体指什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 运费节省伴随其他损失增加

Evidence / language cue: 运费较低；部分批次的破损却增加

  1. 所有费用转由顾客支付 — The passage does not say all expenses were charged to customers.
  2. 运费节省伴随其他损失增加 — Savings in freight may be offset by higher costs from damage and related losses.
  3. 包装单价变成固定费用 — No distinction between fixed and variable costs is discussed.
  4. 供应商把业务转到其他地区 — The shift is between types of cost, not the supplier’s geographic location.
R27. 合作社最终采用什么策略？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 按环境和线路条件选择包装

Evidence / language cue: 短途且干燥；雨季长途

  1. 全部改用轻包装 — Stronger packaging remains for long wet-season routes, so the switch is not universal.
  2. 停止在雨季运输 — Shipping continues in the wet season with a different packaging choice.
  3. 按环境和线路条件选择包装 — Distance, season and moisture risk determine the selected packaging.
  4. 只选择单价最低的材料 — Damage and other losses matter alongside price; cheapest is not the rule.
R28. 两条试运线路这一信息限制了哪种结论？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 当前结果可以直接用于所有线路

Evidence / language cue: 只覆盖两条线路；在其他线路继续测试

  1. 当前结果可以直接用于所有线路 — A two-route pilot cannot justify applying its result directly to every route.
  2. 这两条线路确实进行了试运 — The limited scope does not negate the fact that those routes were tested.
  3. 轻包装曾降低部分运输费用 — This is an observed result within the pilot, not a universal extrapolation.
  4. 继续测试可能提供更多信息 — Further testing is the proposed response to the scope limitation, not a conclusion it rules out.

A downloadable file is not the whole method

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

某研究团队开放了一批匿名化问卷数据，希望其他研究者能重复分析。为了减少下载步骤，最初的页面只提供了一个表格文件。几位使用者很快提出疑问：空白单元格是“未回答”还是“不适用”？同一栏里的数字在不同年份是否采用相同单位？如果没有这些说明，即使每个人拿到完全一样的文件，也可能算出含义不同的结果。 团队随后补充了变量说明、收集过程和修改记录，并保留旧版本的下载链接。新版本修正了一处单位标注，却没有悄悄覆盖原文件。使用者因此能够说明自己用的是哪个版本，也能判断结果变化来自数据修正还是分析方法调整。项目负责人说，开放不应停在“文件可下载”这一步；让别人理解资料的含义及变化，是可复核性的必要条件，但仍不能保证所有分析都会得出相同结论。
R29. 最初页面的主要不足是什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 缺少理解字段含义所需的说明

Evidence / language cue: 空白单元格；不同年份是否采用相同单位

  1. 下载需要过多步骤 — The page deliberately reduced steps; excessive downloading steps are not the issue.
  2. 所有记录都能识别个人 — The data are described as anonymised, with no identity disclosure reported.
  3. 缺少理解字段含义所需的说明 — Unspecified missing values and units allow incompatible interpretations of the same fields.
  4. 表格禁止进行重复分析 — The stated aim is repeat analysis, not a prohibition on it.
R30. 保留旧版本链接有什么作用？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 帮助追溯分析使用的具体数据

Evidence / language cue: 说明自己用的是哪个版本；判断结果变化来自

  1. 证明旧版本没有任何错误 — An old unit label was corrected; keeping the file does not certify it as error-free.
  2. 取消对修改记录的需要 — The team also keeps a change log; version access does not replace that log.
  3. 让所有使用者只能使用旧文件 — The text preserves traceability, not mandatory exclusive use of the old file.
  4. 帮助追溯分析使用的具体数据 — Knowing the exact version helps distinguish data changes from analytical method changes.
R31. 如何理解文中“必要条件”的说法？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 缺少说明会妨碍复核，但有说明也不保证结论一致

Evidence / language cue: 可复核性的必要条件；但仍不能保证

  1. 缺少说明会妨碍复核，但有说明也不保证结论一致 — Documentation is required for checking an analysis, but is explicitly not a guarantee of identical conclusions.
  2. 提供说明后任何分析都一定正确 — The passage explicitly denies a guarantee of identical results, let alone universal correctness.
  3. 只有原团队有资格理解数据 — The project invites other researchers; interpretation is not reserved for the original team.
  4. 只要匿名化就不需要记录收集过程 — Collection details are added as part of the improvement; anonymisation does not substitute for them.
R32. 下列哪项做法最符合团队后来的原则？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 同时注明数据版本、字段解释和修改内容

Evidence / language cue: 变量说明、收集过程和修改记录；保留旧版本

  1. 修正单位后不留下任何记录 — An undocumented correction contradicts the decision not to silently overwrite the original.
  2. 同时注明数据版本、字段解释和修改内容 — Version identification, field definitions and changes together support interpretation and traceability.
  3. 只强调下载次数，不解释字段 — Download counts do not address ambiguous fields or untraceable revisions.
  4. 删除所有旧文件以避免比较 — Removing every old file would obstruct the version comparisons the team enables.

Explaining a translation choice

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

一家翻译工作室为新译者安排练习。过去，指导者会把译文改成自己认为最自然的版本，再让学员逐句对照。学员虽然能记住修改，却常常不知道换一个读者群体后该如何选择。后来，工作室改用同一段中文材料，让学员分别为社区通知和学术介绍写译文，并要求说明删改理由。 讨论时，指导者先检查两份译文是否保留了时间、条件与责任主体等必要信息，再比较语气与表达方式。一名学员为了让通知更亲切，删掉了报名截止时间；另一名学员保留全部信息，但句式过于复杂。两人的问题并不相同，因此反馈也没有被压成同一句“还不够自然”。工作室并未放弃准确性，而是把准确性作为底线，再讨论面向不同读者的表达选择。它也提醒学员，交代理由不等于任何译法都能成立。
R33. 旧练习方式的不足主要体现在哪里？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 学员难以把选择方法迁移到新读者情境

Evidence / language cue: 能记住修改；换一个读者群体后该如何选择

  1. 学员拒绝看修改意见 — Learners remember the edits; refusal to read feedback is not described.
  2. 学员难以把选择方法迁移到新读者情境 — They lack transferable reasons for choosing wording when the audience changes.
  3. 指导者完全不关注自然表达 — The old method specifically edits toward the mentor’s preferred natural phrasing.
  4. 原文从来没有必要信息 — The passage identifies essential times, conditions and responsible parties.
R34. 两名学员为什么需要不同反馈？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 一人遗漏必要信息，另一人表达复杂

Evidence / language cue: 删掉截止时间；保留全部信息，但句式过于复杂

  1. 他们使用了不同语言的原文 — Both tasks use the same Chinese source, not source texts in different languages.
  2. 一人完全不需要改进 — Both have issues to address; neither is described as needing no improvement.
  3. 两份译文的字数必然相同 — Equal word counts are neither stated nor relevant to the distinction.
  4. 一人遗漏必要信息，另一人表达复杂 — One loses essential information; the other retains it but burdens readers with complex syntax.
R35. 文中的“底线”指什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 必要信息准确保留

Evidence / language cue: 并未放弃准确性，而是把准确性作为底线

  1. 必要信息准确保留 — Checking times, conditions and responsible parties establishes non-negotiable accuracy.
  2. 全部译文采用同一种语气 — Tone may vary by audience; one universal tone is not required.
  3. 每句话必须逐字翻译 — The method discusses expression choices rather than demanding word-for-word rendering.
  4. 指导者的个人措辞不得改变 — The new approach moves beyond memorising a single mentor-approved wording.
R36. 哪种理解与最后一句最一致？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 理由应接受信息准确性和读者需要的检验

Evidence / language cue: 交代理由不等于任何译法都能成立

  1. 只要能解释理由，遗漏条件也可以接受 — Giving a reason does not automatically justify deleting essential conditions.
  2. 所有自然的表达都必须完全相同 — The passage allows different expressions for different audiences.
  3. 理由应接受信息准确性和读者需要的检验 — A rationale must survive checks against accuracy and audience needs; it is not a blanket excuse.
  4. 面向不同读者写作没有意义 — The revised exercise is built around audience differences, so the text treats them as meaningful.

Protecting focus without blocking coordination

Read the whole passage and use its wording, argument and limits to choose an answer.

某公司试行四周的“无会议上午”：员工可以集中处理需要连续思考的工作。试行结束时，内部问卷显示不少员工觉得效率提高，但客服部门反映，客户的紧急问题仍可能在上午出现。若所有沟通都必须等到下午，一些问题反而拖得更久。 评估小组因此没有把“没有会议”等同于“没有打断”，也没有因客服遇到困难就否定整项安排。他们区分了可预期的例会、可以异步处理的消息和必须立即协调的事件，并为第三类保留明确的联络通道。同时，小组把主观感受与实际完成时间分开记录，因为觉得工作顺畅，不一定意味着每种任务都完成得更快。 新的方案允许不同岗位设置集中工作时段，而不强制全公司使用同一时刻。报告最后写道：试点的价值并非找到一种永远不变的时间表，而是帮助团队识别哪些中断可以避免，哪些协调不能简单推迟。
R37. 客服部门的反馈主要揭示了什么？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: C. 紧急协调不一定能等到统一时段之后

Evidence / language cue: 客户的紧急问题仍可能在上午出现

  1. 所有员工都反对集中工作 — Many employees report improvement, so universal opposition is unsupported.
  2. 客户只会在下午提出问题 — The passage explicitly says urgent problems can arise in the morning.
  3. 紧急协调不一定能等到统一时段之后 — Deferring urgent coordination may prolong problems, which motivates an exception channel.
  4. 取消会议必然降低所有工作的效率 — A difficulty for some roles does not establish an inevitable decline for every task.
R38. 小组如何处理客服遇到的困难？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: A. 区分沟通类型并保留紧急联络方式

Evidence / language cue: 区分……三类；为第三类保留明确的联络通道

  1. 区分沟通类型并保留紧急联络方式 — Classifying communication preserves focus while allowing genuinely urgent coordination.
  2. 取消所有集中工作时段 — The group revises the arrangement rather than abandoning focused work entirely.
  3. 要求客户停止上午联系 — No restriction on customers contacting the company is proposed.
  4. 把所有消息都当作紧急事件 — The three categories explicitly avoid treating every message as urgent.
R39. 为什么把主观感受与实际完成时间分开记录？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: D. 两者反映不同方面，不能直接互相替代

Evidence / language cue: 觉得工作顺畅，不一定意味着每种任务都完成得更快

  1. 主观感受没有任何参考价值 — The group continues recording perceptions, so it does not dismiss them as worthless.
  2. 问卷不能向员工公开 — The passage does not discuss whether questionnaires may be public.
  3. 所有工作都能用相同时间衡量 — Different roles and tasks are acknowledged, not reduced to one universal timing measure.
  4. 两者反映不同方面，不能直接互相替代 — Perceived fluency and measured completion time capture different aspects and require separate observation.
R40. 最适合作为全文结论的是哪一项？
Answer, evidence and every option explained

Answer: B. 工作安排应按任务需要调整，而非机械统一

Evidence / language cue: 不同岗位设置；哪些中断可以避免，哪些协调不能简单推迟

  1. 避免所有中断比任何协调都重要 — The urgent channel shows that avoiding interruptions does not override all coordination needs.
  2. 工作安排应按任务需要调整，而非机械统一 — Adjusting to roles and event types captures both the revised plan and the final principle.
  3. 只要减少例会就不需要评估 — The entire account uses evaluation to reveal limits and guide changes.
  4. 四周试行足以制定永久不变的制度 — The ending explicitly rejects a permanently fixed timetable as the pilot’s goal.

Writing: a practical email and a reasoned argument

W01 asks for at least 150 Chinese characters and W02 at least 300. References illustrate a possible structure; open writing is not marked by exact text matching or included as zero in a total score.

W01. An email proposing a workable workshop change

You are a participant in a community Chinese workshop. The organiser plans to move every Saturday session to Wednesday afternoon next month. Write an email of at least 150 Chinese characters: acknowledge the notice, explain a specific difficulty, propose a feasible alternative including time or access arrangements, and ask how and by when participants should confirm. Use invented details; do not enter real contact information.

Start the practice to draft here.
Possible responses and self-check

工作坊负责人您好： 感谢您提前通知下个月的时间调整。我很希望继续参加，但周三下午通常有固定课程，难以按时到场。如果所有活动都改到这个时段，我可能只能退出，之前与同伴合作的练习也会中断。 想请您考虑先保留每月两次周六活动，其余场次改到周三。如果场地确实无法安排，能否让不能到场的参加者提前领取材料，并在周六参加一次线上讨论？这样既能配合场地调整，也能给时间受限的参加者保留交流机会。我愿意协助整理大家可参加的时段。 请问这个建议是否可行？也请告知我们应通过什么方式、最迟在哪一天确认下个月的安排。谢谢您的协调，期待回复。 参加者 小林

This reference acknowledges the change, explains one concrete conflict, proposes two conditional options and requests a confirmation method and deadline. Other feasible proposals are valid. Do not claim a time or venue has been approved when it is only a suggestion.

  • Is the recipient and purpose clear from the opening?
  • Have you explained a concrete constraint without inventing a confirmed decision?
  • Could the organiser act on your proposed time or participation arrangement?
  • Have you asked for both a confirmation method and deadline, with a polite closing?

W02. An argument with a limit and a counterexample

Some people say public services should use one uniform procedure because it is efficient and fair. Others say services should adapt to different users. Write at least 300 Chinese characters explaining your view. Use a concrete example, address a reasonable opposing view, and state a condition under which you would adjust your approach. No special policy knowledge is required; a clearly identified hypothetical example is acceptable.

Start the practice to draft here.
Possible responses and self-check

我认为，公共服务应有清楚而一致的基本规则，同时为确有困难的人保留可说明、可检查的替代途径。统一流程能够减少随意决定，但形式上一模一样，并不必然让每个人都有同样的参与机会。 以一个假设的图书馆预约活动为例。如果所有人都只能在手机上抢到名额，会使用手机且随时能查看消息的人可能更容易参加。保留少量电话或现场预约机会，可以帮助不熟悉手机操作的人。不过，这不意味着工作人员可以凭个人印象随意分配名额。不同渠道应使用公开的申请条件，并说明名额如何安排，避免把灵活服务变成没有依据的特殊照顾。 反对者可能担心，多种渠道会增加成本，也使排队规则更难理解。这种担心有道理。因此，替代途径不宜无限增加，而应先针对已发现的障碍小范围试行，记录工作人员的负担、使用者等待时间以及仍未解决的问题。如果额外渠道很少被使用，却明显延长所有人的等待，就需要缩小安排或换一种支持方式；如果它确实帮助原本无法参与的人，成本也在可承受范围内，就有理由继续保留。 判断服务是否公平，既要看规则是否一致，也要看人们是否有现实可行的使用途径。我的重点不是永远支持统一或永远支持灵活，而是让调整有具体理由，并能够根据新的证据修正。

The reference takes a position, labels its example as hypothetical, addresses cost and clarity objections, and specifies when to keep or revise the arrangement. A well-supported argument for stricter uniformity is also acceptable. No official score or unique model answer is assigned.

  • Does each paragraph advance the argument rather than repeat the position?
  • Does the example explain a mechanism, with hypothetical facts labelled?
  • Have you answered a strong objection rather than a distorted one?
  • Is there a specific condition that would change your choice?
  • Check reference words, transitions, repeated vocabulary and the practice character count.

The counter counts Han characters, excluding punctuation, Latin letters, digits and spaces. Length and keyword reminders are practice aids, not grammar, meaning or official marking judgments.

Sources and verification

References checked: