英语阅读仔细阅读原文（建议看自己的纸质版真题）：
Female applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences were nearly half as likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, compared with their male counterparts. Christopher Intagliata reports.
As in many other fields, gender bias is widespread in the sciences. Men score higher starting salaries have more mentoring (指导), and have better odds of being hired. Studies show they,re also perceived asmore competent than women in STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. And new research reveals that men are more likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, too.
"Say, you know, this is the best student I've ever had, " says Kuheli Dutt, a social scientist and diversity officer at Columbia University's Lamont campus. "Compare those excellent letters with a merely good letter:'The candidate was productive, or intelligent, or a solid scientist or something that's clearly solid praise, ' but nothing that singles out the candidate as exceptional or one of a kind."
Dutt and her colleagues studied more than 1, 200 letters of recommendation for postdoctoral positionsin geoscience. They were all edited for gender and other identifying information, so Dutt and her team could assign them a score without knowing the gender of the student. They found that female applicants were only half as likely to get outstanding letters, compared with their male counterparts. That includes letters of recommendation from all over the world, and written by, yes, men and women. The findings are in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Dutt says they were not able to evaluate the actual seientific qualifications of the applicants using the data in the files. But she says the results still suggest women in geoscience are at a potential disadvantage from the very beginning of their careers starting with thase less than outstanding letters of recommendation.
"We're not trying to assign blame or criticize anyone or call anyone consciously sexist. Rather, the point is to use the results of this study to open up meaningful dialogues on implicit gender bias, be it at a departmental level or an institutional level or even a discipline level. " Which may lead to some recommendations for the letter writers themselves.
问题：
51.What do we learn about applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences?
A) There are many more men applying than women
B) Chances for women to get the positions are scarce.
C) More males than females are likely to get outstanding letters of recommendation
D) Male applicants have more interest in these positions than their female counterparts
52.What do studies about men and women in scientific research show?
A) Women engaged in postdoctoral work are quickly catchins up.
B) Fewer women are applying for postdoctoral positions due to gender bias
C) Men are believed to be better able to excel in STEM disciplines
D) Women who are keenly interested in STEM fields are often exceptional.
53.What do the studies find about the recommendation letters for women applicants
A) They are hardly ever supported by concrete examples
B) They contain nothing that distinguishes the applicants.
C) They provide objective informat ion without exaggeration
D) They are often filled with praise for exceptional applicants.
54.What did Dutt and her colleagues do with the more than 1, 200 letters of recommendation？
A) They asked unbiased scholars to evaluate them
B) They invited women professionals to edit them
C) They assigned them randomly to reviewers
D) They deleted all information about gender
55.What does Dutt aim to do with her study
A) Raise recommendation writers' awareness of gender bias in their letters
B) Open up fresh avenues for women post-doctors to join in research work.
C) Alert women researchers to all types of gender bias in the STEM disciplines
D) Start a public discussion an how to raise women's status in academic circles.
原创解析：
51 C：根据题干“applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences”，定位原文“Female applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences were nearly half as likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, compared with their male counterparts.”，首先你要知道“Female”与“woman”，“male”与“man”互为同义替换，原文中的“nearly half”表示“将近一半”，因此定位句最简单的翻译时，“女性优秀推荐信比男性少”，意思与C选项相同。
52 C：根据题干“studies about men and women in scientific research show”，定位在“Studies show they're also perceived as?more competent than women in STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. And new research reveals that men are more likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, too”，这里的“they”代指“男性”，“perceived as”表示“被视为”，与C选项中的“are believed to”表示“被认为是”，为同义替换，而原文的“fields”表示“领域”，而C选项中的“disciplines”表示“学科”，也是同义替换。
注意：一般情况下阅读中discipline表示“训练；纪律；处罚”， s表示“学科”
53 B：本题略难，因为仅凭题干无法精确定位，先看54题得知其定位在第4段，而52题在第2段，因此53题定位在第三段，进行模糊定位“"Say, you know, this is the best student I've ever had, " says Kuheli Dutt, a social scientist and diversity officer at Columbia University's Lamont campus. "Compare those excellent letters with a merely good letter:'The candidate was productive, or intelligent, or a solid scientist or something that's clearly solid praise, ' but nothing that singles out the candidate as exceptional or one of a kind."
虽然这段话很难理解，而且似乎没有关于题干中“recommendation letters for women applicants”的信息，但是原文“but nothing that singles out the candidate as exceptional or one of a kind."””与B选项是同义替换，其中“exceptional”与B选项中的“distinguishes”都表示“杰出”。
54 D：本题根据题干定位比较容易，原文“Dutt and her colleagues studied more than 1, 200 letters of recommendation for postdoctoral positionsin geoscience. They were all edited for gender and other identifying information, so Dutt and her team could assign them a score without knowing the gender of the student.”，“so”是关键词，后面的内容一般是考点，“without?knowing the gend”与D选项“deleted all information about gender”
为同义替换，其中“?without?”表示“否定”，“deleted”表示“删除”。
55 A：题干“Dutt aim”，定位在最后一段“the point is to use the results of this study to open up meaningful dialogues on implicit gender bias, be it at a departmental level or an institutional level or even a discipline level. " Which may lead to some recommendations for the letter writers themselves.”其中“the point is”表示“重点是”，与题干中的“aim”，表示“目的”意思接近，故“the point is”后面是答案点。


文章翻译：
据克里斯托弗·因塔格利亚塔报道和男性申请者相比,女性在申请地球科学博士后时获得优秀推荐信的几率大概是他们的一半。
与其他许多领域一样,性别偏见在科学界普遍存在,男性的起薪更高,能得到更多的指导,也有更大的受聘几率,研究表明,在STEM（科学、技术、工程和数学)领域,他们也被认为比女性更有能力。而新的研究表明,男性也更有可能获得优秀的推荐信。
“比方说,你知道的,这是我带过的最优秀的学生。”哥伦比亚大学拉蒙特校区的社会学家、多元融合战略师库赫利·达特说。“比较一下那些优秀的推荐信和一封只是不错的推荐信:该申请者效率高,或者很聪明,或者是个相当好的科学家,或者其他此类明显的赞美之词’,但并没有什么能让申请者看起来出类拔萃或与众不同。”
达特和她的同事们研究了1200多封申请地球科学博士后的推荐信。这些推荐信中有关性别和其他的识别信息被删减了,这样达特和她的团队才能在不知道学生性别的情况下为推荐信打分。他们发现,与男性相比,女性申请者只有一半的可能性得到优秀的推荐信。这些推荐信来自世界各地,当然,既有男性写的,也有女性写的。这些研究结果发表在《自然地球科学》期刊上。
达特说,他们不能通过档案中的数据来评定申请者的实际科研素质。但是她说研究结果仍然表明,在地球科学领域,女性申请者在职业生涯初期就因为得不到优秀的推荐信而处于潜在的不利地位“我们不想指责或批评任何人,或者说任何人故意性别歧视。相反,我们研究的目的是利用这项研究结果对隐含的性别偏见开启有意义的对话,无论是在部门层面,还是在机构层面,甚至是在学科层面,"这或许可以给写推荐信的人提供一些建议。