MandarinGo.

MANDARINGO

HSK 6 reading and writing: 40 questions and 2 writing tasks

Practise 40 original reading items and two open writing tasks without signing in. The 10 word-cloze + 10 shared-sentence gaps + 20 passage questions follow the reading task counts in the checked HSK 3.0 level 6 sample. Read explanations for every choice, then write an email and an argument.

MandarinGo · Updated · Content and audio policy

The scope of this reading and writing practice

This is not a complete 82-item written paper: listening and the separate speaking component are not included. These original passages and teaching explanations are MandarinGo’s own material. Scenarios are fictional learning texts, not reports of measured studies. We show reading accuracy, not official scores, pass/fail predictions or calibrated exam difficulty.

In each sentence-gap group, choose five of six sentences, using each letter at most once. Follow references and argument structure, not isolated matching words. Write before opening the reference; different supported viewpoints and feasible email proposals can be valid. This learning mode has no countdown.

Your reading and writing workspace

Answers and drafts are checked in this browser. They are not uploaded, sent to AI or saved to your account. Optional saving keeps a device copy. Copies are restored only within seven days of saving; expired copies are removed when this page is next opened. Avoid saving on shared devices.

Answer R01–R40: 10 word-cloze items, 10 sentence gaps in two shared groups and 20 passage questions. Each numbered position counts once in our learning feedback.

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.

Reading accuracy counts each of the 40 items once. Writing is reviewed separately and is never included as zero in a combined score. This is a learning check, not an official result.

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.

Counter available when JavaScript is enabled.
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.

Counter available when JavaScript is enabled.
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 only, excluding punctuation, spaces, Latin letters and digits. It is a transparent practice aid, not a confirmed official character-counting or marking rule. The keyword reminder does not judge grammar or meaning.

Sources and verification

References checked: