52. What do we learn from the findings of a new study in Nature Neuroscience?
- A. The majority of top psychology and neuroscience journals reflect a variety of voices, experiences and identities.
- B. The editorial boards of most psychology and neuroscience journals do influence the direction their field takes.
- C. The editorial boards of the most important journals in psychology and neuroscience are male-dominated.
- D. The majority of editors in top psychology and neuroscience journals have relevant backgrounds.
答案：C
答案句：Unfortunately a new study in Nature Neuroscience makes for disheartening reading. The team finds that the majority of editors in top psychology and neuroscience journals are male and based in the United States: a situation that may be amplifying existing gender inequalities in the field and influencing the kind of research that gets published.
参考译文：不幸的是，《自然·神经科学》上的一项新研究令人沮丧。研究团队发现，顶级心理学和神经科学期刊的大多数编辑是男性且位于美国：这种情况可能加剧该领域现有的性别不平等，并影响发表的研究类型。
定位线索：题干“findings of a new study in Nature Neuroscience”→答案句“a new study in Nature Neuroscience”；文中“the majority of editors...are male”对应选项C“editorial boards...are male-dominated”；“top psychology and neuroscience journals”直接对应选项C中“most important journals”。
解析：题干问从《自然·神经科学》新研究的发现中得知什么。答案句直接给出研究发现：顶级心理学和神经科学期刊的大多数编辑是男性，即选项C“编委会由男性主导”的同义转述。A与原文“disheartening”相反，且原文说编辑多为男性，并非反映多样化；B是编辑职责的影响，不是研究发现的直接内容；D“相关背景”原文未提及，属于无中生有。
53. What fact does the author highlight concerning the gender differences in editors of psychology journals?
- A. There were quite a few female editors who also distinguished themselves as influential psychology researchers.
- B. The number of female editors was simply disproportionate to that of women engaged in psychology research.
- C. The proportion of female editors was increasingly lower at senior levels.
- D. There were few female editors who could move up to senior positions.
答案：B
答案句：Crucially, the proportion of female editors was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers.
参考译文：关键的是，女性编辑的比例显著低于女性心理学研究者的总体比例。
定位线索：题干“gender differences in editors of psychology journals”→答案句“female editors...women psychology researchers”；文中“proportion of female editors was significantly lower than”对应选项B“number of female editors was simply disproportionate to”；“women psychology researchers”对应选项B“women engaged in psychology research”。
解析：题干问作者强调的关于心理学期刊编辑性别差异的事实。答案句明确指出：女性编辑比例显著低于女性心理学研究者比例，即选项B“女性编辑数量与从事心理学研究的女性数量不成比例”。A“有影响力的女性编辑”原文未提及；C“高级别比例更低”原文说“each level of seniority”男性更多，但未强调“越来越低”；D“很少有女性编辑能晋升”原文未提及，属于无中生有。
55. What does the author suggest we do instead of simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition?
- A. Strike a balance between male and female editors.
- B. Increase women's employment in senior positions.
- C. Enlarge the body of female academics.
- D. Implement overall structural reforms.
答案：D
答案句：This implies that a lack of female academics is not the problem. Instead, there are structural reasons that women are disadvantaged in science. Women receive lower salaries and face greater childcare demands, for instance, which can result in fewer publications and grants-the kinds of things that journals look for when deciding who to appoint. Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers.
参考译文：这意味着缺乏女性学者不是问题所在。相反，女性在科学中处于不利地位有结构性原因。例如，女性薪水较低、育儿负担更重，这可能导致发表论文和获得资助更少——而这些都是期刊决定任命人选时看重的。与其简单地将编委会的不平等归咎于传统，我们应该积极打破这些现有障碍。
定位线索：题干“instead of simply blaming...on tradition”→答案句“Rather than simply blaming...on tradition”；文中“structural reasons”对应选项D“structural reforms”；“breaking down these existing barriers”对应选项D“Implement overall structural reforms”。
解析：题干问作者建议做什么而不是简单归咎于传统。答案句先指出问题在于“structural reasons”（结构性原因），随后明确建议“actively breaking down these existing barriers”（积极打破现有障碍），即选项D“实施全面结构性改革”。A“平衡男女编辑”是结果而非改革措施；B“增加女性高级职位”是结构性改革的一部分，但不够全面；C“扩大女性学者队伍”与原文“a lack of female academics is not the problem”直接矛盾。