Section C: Reading Comprehension
Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer Sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
Passage One
Questions 46 to 50 are based on the following passage.
Vegetarians would prefer not to be compelled to eat meat. Yet the reverse compulsion (强迫) is hidden in the proposals for a new plant-based “planetary diet.” Nowhere is this more visible than in India.
Earlier this year, the EAT-Lancet Commission released its global report on nutrition and called for a global shift to a more plant-based diet and for “substantially reducing consumption of animal source foods.” In countries like India, that call could become a tool to aggravate an already tense political situation and stress already undernourished populations.
The EAT report presumes that “traditional diets” in countries like India include little red meat, which might be consumed only on special occasions or as minor ingredients in mixed dishes.
In India, however, there is a vast difference between what people would wish to consume and what they have to consume because of innumerable barriers around class, religion, culture, cost, geography, etc. Policymakers in India have traditionally pushed for a cereal-heavy “vegetarian diet” on a meat-eating population as a way of providing the cheapest sources of food.
Currently, under an aggressive Hindu nationalist government, Muslims, Christians, disadvantaged classes and indigenous communities are being compelled to give up their traditional foods.
None of these concerns seem to have been appreciated by the EAT-Lancet Commission’s representative, Brent Loken, who said “India has got such a great example” in sourcing protein from plants.
But how much of a model for the world is India’s vegetarianism? In the Global Hunger Index 2019, the country ranks 102nd out of 117. Data from the National Family Health Survey indicate that only 10 percent of infants of 6 to 23 months are adequately fed.
Which is why calls for a plant-based diet modeled on India risk offering another whip with which to beat already vulnerable communities in developing countries.
A diet directed at the affluent West fails to recognize that in low-income countries undernourished children are known to benefit from the consumption of milk and other animal source foods, improving cognitive functions, while reducing the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies as well as mortality.
EAT-Lancet claimed its intention was to “spark conversations” among all Indian stakeholders. Yet vocal critics of the food processing industry and food fortification strategies have been left out of the debate. But the most conspicuous omission may well be the absence of India’s farmers.
The government, however, seems to have given the report a thumbs-up. Rather than addressing chronic hunger and malnutrition through an improved access to wholesome and nutrient-dense foods, the government is opening the door for company-dependent solutions, ignoring the environmental and economic cost, which will destroy local food systems. It’s a model full of danger for future generations.
46. What is more visible in India than anywhere else according to the passage?
47. What would the EAT-Lancet Commission’s report do to many people in countries like India?
48. What do we learn from the passage about food consumption in India?
49. What does the passage say about a plant-based diet modeled on India?
50. How does the Indian government respond to the EAT-Lancet Commission’s proposals?
Passage Two
Questions 51 to 55 are based on the following passage.
Back in 1964, in his book Games People Play, psychiatrist Eric Berne described a pattern of conversation he called “Why Don’t You—Yes But”, which remains one of the most irritating aspects of everyday social life. The person adopting the strategy is usually a chronic complainer. Something is terrible about their relationship, job, or other situation, and they moan about it ceaselessly, but find some excuse to dismiss any solution that’s proposed. The reason, of course, is that on some level they don’t want a solution; they want to be validated in their position that the world is out to get them. If they can “win” the game—dismissing every suggestion until their interlocutor (对话者) gives up in annoyance—they get to feel pleasurably righteous (正当的) in their resentments and excused from any obligation to change.
Part of the trouble here is the so called responsibility/fault fallacy (谬误). When you’re feeling hard done by—taken for granted by your partner, say, or obliged to work for a half-witted boss—it’s easy to become attached to the position that it’s not your job to address the matter, and that doing so would be an admission of fault. But there’s a confusion here. For example, if I were to discover a newborn at my front door, it wouldn’t be my fault, but it most certainly would be my responsibility. There would be choices to make, and no possibility of avoiding them, since trying to ignore the matter would be a choice. The point is that what goes for the baby on the doorstep is true in all cases: even if the other person is 100% in the wrong, there’s nothing to be gained, long-term, from using this as a justification to evade responsibility.
Should you find yourself on the receiving end of this kind of complaining, there’s an ingenious way to shut it down—which is to agree with it, ardently. Psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb describes this as “over-validation”. For one thing, you’ll be spared further moaning, since the other person’s motivation was to confirm her belief, and now you’re confirming them. But for another, as Gottlieb notes, people confronted with over-validation often hear their complaints afresh and start arguing back. The notion that they’ re utterly powerless suddenly seems unrealistic—not to mention rather annoying—so they’re prompted instead to generate ideas about how they might change things.
“And then, sometimes, something magical might happen,” Gottlieb writes. The other person “might realise she’s not as trapped as you are saying she is, or as she feels.” Which illustrates the irony of the responsibility/fault fallacy: evading responsibility feels comfortable, but turns out to be a prison; whereas assuming responsibility feels unpleasant, but ends up being freeing.
51. What is characteristic of a chronic complainer, according to psychiatrist Eric Berne?
52. What does the author try to illustrate with the example of the newborn on one’s doorstep?
53. What does the author advise people to do to chronic complainers?
54. What happens when chronic complainers receive over-validation?
55. How can one stop being a chronic complainer according to the author?
Answers & Explanations (答案与解析)
Passage One
46. B。解析：题干问“根据文章，在印度什么比在其他任何地方都更显而易见？” 第一段提到，素食者更希望不被强迫吃肉，然而在以植物为基础的“行星饮食”的提议中，隐藏着“相反的强迫”（the reverse compulsion，即强迫吃素）。接着说“Nowhere is this more visible than in India.”（这在印度比在其他任何地方都更明显）。文章第五段也指出，印度的许多弱势群体“are being compelled to give up their traditional foods”（正被强迫放弃传统食物）。这说明人们对“被强迫吃植物性食物”是不情愿的。因此选 B（人们不情愿被强迫吃植物性食物）。
47. C。解析：题干问“EAT-Lancet 委员会的报告会对印度等国家的许多人产生什么影响？” 第二段指出，“In countries like India, that call could become a tool to... stress already undernourished populations.”（在印度等国家，这一呼吁可能成为一种工具……给已经营养不良的人口带来压力。）这说明该报告会使原本就营养不良的人受到更大压力，状况更糟。因此选 C（使他们更加营养不良）。
48. B。解析：题干问“关于印度的食物消费，我们从文章中了解到什么？” 第四段明确指出：“In India, however, there is a vast difference between what people would wish to consume and what they have to consume because of innumerable barriers...”（然而在印度，由于阶级、宗教、文化、成本等无数障碍，人们想吃的食物和他们不得不吃的食物之间存在巨大差异）。这表明许多人根本无法获得他们想吃的食物。因此选 B（许多人根本无法获得他们喜欢的食物）。
49. D。解析：题干问“关于以印度为模式的植物性饮食，文章怎么说？” 第八段指出这种饮食模式有可能成为“殴打发展中国家脆弱社区的鞭子”。第九段进一步解释，这种针对富裕西方的饮食未能认识到，“in low-income countries undernourished children are known to benefit from the consumption of milk and other animal source foods... while reducing the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies...”（在低收入国家，营养不良的儿童从食用牛奶和其他动物源性食物中获益……减少营养缺乏）。这就意味着在低收入国家推广纯植物性饮食可能会恶化营养问题。因此选 D（它可能会使低收入国家的营养问题恶化）。
50. A。解析：题干问“印度政府如何回应 EAT-Lancet 委员会的提议？” 最后一段指出：“The government, however, seems to have given the report a thumbs-up... ignoring the environmental and economic cost, which will destroy local food systems. It’s a model full of danger for future generations.”（然而，政府似乎对这份报告竖起了大拇指（表示赞成）……无视将破坏当地粮食系统的环境和经济成本。这是一个对子孙后代充满危险的模式）。这说明政府接受了提议，但代价是牺牲了人民的长远利益。因此选 A（它以牺牲其人民的长远利益为代价接受了这些提议）。
Passage Two
51. C。解析：题干问“根据精神病学家埃里克·伯恩的说法，长期抱怨者的特征是什么？” 第一段指出，长期抱怨者采用的策略是“find some excuse to dismiss any solution that’s proposed”（找借口拒绝任何提议的解决方案）。他们这样做的原因是为了“excused from any obligation to change”（免除任何改变的义务/责任）。因此选 C（他们不断拒绝他人的提议，同时不承担解决问题的责任）。
52. D。解析：题干问“作者试图用门口新生儿的例子来说明什么？” 第二段为了解释“责任/过错谬误”（responsibility/fault fallacy），举了新生儿的例子：“if I were to discover a newborn at my front door, it wouldn’t be my fault, but it most certainly would be my responsibility.”（如果我在前门发现一个新生儿，那不是我的错，但这绝对是我的责任）。这说明虽然不是你的过错，但你仍有责任去处理。因此选 D（应该在责任和过错之间划清界限）。
53. A。解析：题干问“作者建议人们对长期抱怨者做些什么？” 第三段指出：“Should you find yourself on the receiving end of this kind of complaining, there’s an ingenious way to shut it down—which is to agree with it, ardently.”（如果你发现自己是这种抱怨的接受者，有一种巧妙的方法可以终止它——那就是热烈地同意它）。shut it down 对应 stop them from going further，agree with it 对应 agreeing with them。因此选 A（通过同意他们来阻止他们继续说下去）。
54. B。解析：题干问“当长期抱怨者得到过度认可（over-validation）时会发生什么？” 第三段后半部分指出：“people confronted with over-validation often hear their complaints afresh and start arguing back... so they’re prompted instead to generate ideas about how they might change things.”（面临过度认可的人经常重新听他们的抱怨并开始反驳……因此他们反而被促使产生关于如何改变现状的想法）。generate ideas 对应 come up with ideas。因此选 B（他们被促使想出做出可能改变的主意）。（注：虽然原文也提到 start arguing back，但这是过程，最终导致的结果/重点是想出改变的主意，B选项概括得更完整）。
55. C。解析：题干问“根据作者的观点，一个人如何才能停止成为一个长期抱怨者？” 最后一段总结了责任/过错谬误的讽刺意味：“evading responsibility feels comfortable, but turns out to be a prison; whereas assuming responsibility feels unpleasant, but ends up being freeing.”（逃避责任感觉舒适，但结果却是个牢笼；而承担责任感觉不适，但最终能让人获得自由）。因此，要摆脱这种状况，就需要承担责任。因此选 C（承担责任以解放自己）。
核心搭配与高分句型
【核心搭配与高频短语】
leave out：遗漏，忽略，排除在外（have been left out of the debate）
at the expense of：以...为代价（at the expense of a much larger number）
take for granted：认为...理所当然（taken for granted by your partner）
shut down：关闭，停业，此处指终结/制止对话（an ingenious way to shut it down）
end up being：最终成为（ends up being freeing）
at a loss：不知所措（题干选项用语）
【亮点句型解析】
Nowhere is this more visible than... 否定词前置倒装：
"Nowhere is this more visible than in India."
（这在印度比在其他任何地方都更明显。）否定词 `Nowhere` 置于句首，引起部分倒装，语气强烈地强调了这种现象在印度的显著程度。
"Nowhere is this more visible than in India."
（这在印度比在其他任何地方都更明显。）否定词 `Nowhere` 置于句首，引起部分倒装，语气强烈地强调了这种现象在印度的显著程度。
Should you find yourself... 虚拟语气省略 if：
"Should you find yourself on the receiving end of this kind of complaining, there’s an ingenious way to shut it down..."
（如果你发现自己成了这种抱怨的首当其冲者，有一种巧妙的方法可以终止它……）这里是 `If you should find...` 的倒装形式，用于提出一种假设情况，显得正式且客观。
"Should you find yourself on the receiving end of this kind of complaining, there’s an ingenious way to shut it down..."
（如果你发现自己成了这种抱怨的首当其冲者，有一种巧妙的方法可以终止它……）这里是 `If you should find...` 的倒装形式，用于提出一种假设情况，显得正式且客观。