. .
www.babaimi.com.
目录：
一.新题型试题
二.答案
三.总体分析
四.试题精析
五.全文翻译
2010年教育部考试中心考研英语模拟试题
----新题型PartB汇编
9、Directions:
You are going to read a list of headings and a text about preparing in the academic community. Choose the most suitable heading from the list A-F for each numbered paragraph (41-45). The first and last paragraphs of the text are not numbered. There is one extra heading which you do not need to use. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
[A] Many studies conclude that children with highly involved fathers, in relation to children with less involved fathers, tend to be more cognitively and socially competent, less inclined toward gender stereotyping, more empathic, and psychologically better adjusted. Commonly, these studies investigate both paternal warmth and paternal involvement and find-using simple correlations-that the two variables are related to each other and to youth outcomes.
[B] Boys seemed to conform to the sex-role standards of their culture when their relationships with their fathers were warm, regardless of how “masculine” the fathers were, even though warmth and intimacy have traditionally been seen as feminine characteristics. A similar conclusion was suggested by research on other aspects of psychosocial adjustment and on achievement: Paternal warmth or closeness appeared beneficial, whereas paternal masculinity appeared irrelevant.
[C] The critical question is: How good is the evidence that fathers’ amount of involvement, without taking into account its content and quality, is consequential for children, mothers, or fathers themselves? The associations with desirable outcomes found in much research are actually with positive forms of paternal involvement, not involvement per se. Involvement needs to be combined with qualitative dimensions of paternal behavior through the concept of “positive paternal involvement” developed here.
[D] Commonly, researchers assessed the masculinity of fathers and of sons and then correlated the two sets of scores. Many behavioral scientists were surprised to discover that no consistent results emerged from this research until they examined the quality of the father-son relationship. Then they found that when the relationship between masculine fathers and their sons was warm and loving, the boys were indeed more masculine. Later, however, researchers found that the masculinity of fathers per se did not seem to make much difference after all. As summarized by:
[E] The second domain in which a substantial amount of research has been done on the influence of variations in father love deals with father involvement, that is, with the amount of time that fathers spend with their children (engagement), the extent to which fathers make themselves available to their children (accessibility), and the extent to which they take responsibility for their children’s care and welfare (responsibility).
[F] It is unclear from these studies whether involvement and warmth make independent or joint contributions to youth outcomes. Moreover, “caring for” children is not necessarily the same thing as “caring about” them. Indeed, Lamb concluded from his review of studies of paternal involvement that it was not the simple fact of paternal engagement (i.e., direct interaction with the child), availability, or responsibility for child care that was associated with these outcomes. Rather, it appears that the quality of the father-child relationship made the greatest difference. J. H. Pleck reiterated this conclusion when he wrote:
[G] Research by Veneziano and Rohner supports these conclusions. In a biracial sample of 63 African American and European American children, the authors found from multiple regression analyses that father involvement by itself was associated with children’s psychological adjustment primarily insofar as it was perceived by youths to be an expression of paternal warmth (acceptance).
[H] Many studies looking exclusively at the influence of variations in father love deal with two topics: (a) gender role development and (b) father involvement. Studies of gender role development emerged prominently in the 1940s and continued through the 1970s. This was a time when fathers were considered to be especially important as gender role models for sons.
Order:
H→41.( )→42. ( )→43. ( )→A→44. ( )→45. ( ) →G
答案
41.D 42.B 43.E 44.F 45.C
总体分析
本文是一篇介绍父爱对孩子成长的影响的说明文。全文共八段，是由总到分的结构，即结论(H段)-分述1(D、B、E段)-分述2(A、F、C、G段)。
.
www.babaimi.com
试题精解
(一)快速浏览各选项段落，概括各段大意。
[A] 研究发现父亲的参与性与父亲情感温暖相关，而且和青少年的成长结果相关。
[B] 决定男孩是否遵循所在文化中有关性别角色的标准(即有男子气概)的因素不是父亲的男子气概，而是父子间关系是否亲密。
[C] 除了考虑父亲的参与性，还要考虑其参与的内容和质量。
[D] 决定男孩子是否男性化的因素是父子间关系是否温暖而关爱。父亲本身有无男子气概不是决定性因素。
[E] 第二个对父爱差异的影响进行了大量研究的领域是关于父亲的主动参与性。它包括投入性、可接近性和责任性。
[F] 参与性与情感温暖这两个变量中哪一个影响青少年的成长结果还不确定。莱姆认为父子关系的质量而非参与性是决定因素。
[G] 在黑白种族抽样中发现，参与性本身与孩子的心理调试相关，是因为年轻人将它看作是父亲情感温暖的一种表达方式。
[H] 许多专门考虑父爱影响的研究涉及两大主题：性别角色的发展;父亲的参与。
(二)将选项重新组合归类，结合已知段落，把握文章主旨和结构。
由选项可知全文主旨是父亲对男孩子成长的影响。根据内容，可将这8个选项分成三组，第一组是[B]和[D]，它们的内容几乎重合，都是论述父子关系决定男孩是否具有男子气概;第二组是[A]、[C]、[E]、[F]、[G]项，它们都提到了“父亲的参与性”;特别的一组是[H]项，它提到了以上两组的共同内容。
已经给出位置的段落是[A]、[G]和[H]段。首先，由于[H]段是首段，因此可知文章的结构是总——分结构，[H]项是概括，其余各段进行分述。那么接下来要判断，是先论述哪一组的内容。其次，由于[A]段在文章中间部分，[G]段是文章末段，而[A]和[G]段都属于第二组的内容，因此可判断，文章后面五段应是第二组选项的内容，即论述父亲的参与性对孩子成长的影响。而第二、三段是第一组选项的内容，即论述父亲对于孩子性别角色的影响。
(三)留意各段中的特征词，结合文章主旨和结构，理顺各段的逻辑顺序
首先，要判断第一组选项[B]和[D]的前后顺序。由于它们的主旨内容相同，这时需要注意的是段落中的细节。[D]段的最后两句提到，“研究者发现，父亲本身有无男子气概根本不是(男孩有无男子汉气概的)决定性因素。总结如下。”显然，后面的内容应继续围绕这一观点展开论述。而符合要求的只有[B]项。因此[D]在前，[B]在后。
其次，排列第二组选项的顺序。这一组中，除了[A]和[G]段的位置已知，[E]段的内容比较特殊。[E]段提出，第二个研究父爱影响的领域是父亲的主动参与性。因此[E]段不仅是第二组内容的总结，而且是两组内容间的过渡段。它应该置于[B]段后，作为第二组内容的开始段。然后，再判断[C]和[F]段的前后顺序。这两段的内容很相似，都强调除了父亲的参与性，还要考虑父子关系的质量。而由[F]段的末句“普拉克重申这种说法时写到”可知，后面的内容继续围绕这一话题展开论述，因此[F]在前，[C]在后。
至此，得出问题的初步答案，即[H]-[D]-[B]-[E]-[A]-[F]-[C]-[G]。通读全文，检查这种排列方式是否使这些段落构成了
一篇通顺、完整的文章。
核心词汇与超纲词汇
(1)involved(a.)耗费很多时间的，关注的，如an involved father(很投入的父亲);复杂难解的，如an involved sentence(复杂的句子)
(2)cognitively(ad.)认知地，感知地;cognitive(a)
(3)stereotype(n.)陈腔滥调，老套;gender stereotyping 性别陈规定型观念
(4)paternal(a.)父亲的，像父亲的
(5)masculine(a.)男性的，男子气概的
(6)per se本身，就其本身而言
(7)psychosocial adjustment社会心理调适
.
www.babaimi.com
全文翻译
许多专门考虑父爱影响的研究涉及两大主题：性别角色的发展;父亲的参与。性别角色发展的研究在20世纪40年代开始很突出，一直持续到70年代。这段时期里，父亲被认为是儿子非常重要的性别角色的典范。
一般情况下，研究者分别评估父亲和孩子的男性特征，然后将两套数值联系起来。许多行为科学家惊讶地发现从这种研究中得不出一致性的结果，直到他们检查了父子关系的质量。接着他们发现当有男子气概的父亲和他们的儿子间的关系温暖而关爱时，男孩子确实会更男性化一些。然而，研究者后来发现，父亲本身有无男子气概似乎根本不是定性因素。总结如下：
如果男孩们和父亲的关系很和睦，那么无论他们的父亲男子气概是多是少，他们似乎都会遵循所在文化中有关性别角色的标准。虽然，情感温暖和亲密传统上被视为女性特征。在心理调整的其他方面及成就的研究中也得出了相似的结论：看来，父亲的情感温暖和亲密是有益的，而父亲的男子气概是不相关的。
第二个对父爱差异的影响进行了大量研究的领域是关于父亲的主动参与性。也就是说，父亲和孩子呆在一起的时间量(投入性)，父亲让孩子接近的程度(可接近性)，父亲负责孩子的照顾和福利的程度(责任性)。
许多研究认为父亲主动参与性强的孩子，与父亲参与性弱的孩子相比，其认知和社会能力往往更强，不倾向于接受性别陈规定型观念，更富有同情心，心理调试也更好。这些研究一般都用简单的相关性，调查了父亲情感温暖和父亲参与性两个变量，结果发现它们之间相互关联，而且都和青少年的成长结果相关。
从这些研究中还不清楚的是参与性与情感温暖这两个变量是分别还是一起影响青少年的成长结果。而且，“照顾”孩子不一定就是“关心”他们。莱姆在他关于父亲参与性研究的评论中指出，和这些成长结果相关的不是父亲参与性(与孩子的直接交互)、易近性或照顾孩子的责任性的简单事实，而好像是父子关系质量决定了一切。普拉克重申这种说法时写到：
关键问题是：如果不考虑内容和质量，父亲的参与程度对孩子、母亲或他们自己影响重大的证据是否可信?在很多研究中发现，与满意的结果相关联的实际上是正面形式的父亲参与，而不是参与本身。通过在此提出的“正面父职参与”的概念，参与性需要和父亲行为的定性维度结合起来。
威尼采亚诺和罗内尔支持这些结论。在有63名非裔美国人和欧裔美国人的孩子参与的黑白种族抽样中，作者从多元回归分析中发现，目前来说父职参与性本身与孩子的心理调试相关，主要是因为年轻人将它看作是父亲情感温暖的一种表达方式(接纳性)。
.
