2025高考已经结束了，全国一卷的英语第35题也是引起了不小的争议。下面，我将以普通在读高中生的视角，为大家带来我的解读。本文意在分享心得，因此请勿将其作为严谨的学术交流内容看待。
利益相关声明，我在撰写本文时是一位参与了2025年在英语科目使用全国一卷的地方的高考的高二年级学生，在真实的高考环境中完成了下面的题目，但同时这场高考对我来说无关紧要，因此本文仅以学习交流的视角谈谈我的看法。话不多说，我们先看看原题：
D篇
Microplastics have become a common source of pollution across the Earth—they have settled in the deep sea and on the Himalayas, stuck inside volcanic rocks, filled the stomachs of seabirds and even fallen in fresh Antarctic snow. They are even appearing inside humans.
Now, new research suggests that a simple, cheap measure may significantly reduce the level of microplastics in water from your tap (水龙头): boiling and filtering (过滤) it. In a study published Wednesday in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, researchers from China found that boiling tap water for just five minutes—then filtering it after it cools—could remove at least 80 percent of its microplastics.
Crucially, this process relies on the water containing enough calcium carbonate (碳酸钙) to trap the plastics. In the study, boiling hard water containing 300 milligrams of calcium carbonate led to an almost 90 percent drop in plastics. But in samples with less than 60 milligrams of calcium carbonate, boiling reduced the level of plastics by just 25 percent. Additionally, the research didn’t include all types of plastics. The team focused only on three common types—polystyrene, polyethylene and polypropylene—and they didn’t study other chemicals previously found in water such as vinyl chloride.
Still, the findings show a potential path forward for reducing microplastic exposure—a task that’s becoming increasingly difficult. Even bottled water, scientists found earlier this year, contains 10 to 1,000 times more microplastics than originally thought.
Scientists are still trying to determine how harmful microplastics are—but what they do know has raised concerns. The new study suggests boiling tap water could be a tool to limit intake. “The way they demonstrated how microplastics were trapped through the boiling process was nice,” Caroline Gauchotte-Lindsay, an environmental engineer at the University of Glasgow in Scotland who was not involved in the research, tells New Scientist. “We should be looking into upgrading drinking water treatment plants so they remove microplastics.”
- How does the author present the issue in the first paragraph?
A. By quoting an expert.
B. By defining a concept.
C. By giving examples.
D. By providing statistics. - What determines the effectiveness of trapping microplastics in water?
A. The hardness of water.
B. The length of cooling time.
C. The frequency of filtering.
D. The type of plastic in water. - What does the author try to illustrate by mentioning bottled water in paragraph 4?
A. The importance of plastic recycling.
B. The severity of the microplastic problem.
C. The danger in overusing pure water.
D. The difficulty in treating polluted water. - What is Gauchotte-Lindsay's suggestion about?
A. Choice of new research methods.
B. Possible direction for further study.
C. Need to involve more researchers.
D. Potential application of the findings.
初次做题
首先，我们看看我在考场上的做题思路。第35题的关键线索是下面这句话：
We should be looking into upgrading drinking water treatment plants so they remove microplastics.
作为全文的最后一句话，它的位置符合题意“suggestion”；根据题意，答案与“research methods”或“more researchers”明显无关，A、C选项排除；文义“upgrading drinking water treatment plants”（升级饮用水处理设施）义即将上文发现的去除微塑料的方法应用于饮用水处理设施，从而从源头解决饮用水中含微塑料的问题，而非进行进一步研究，因此我选 D。
换位思考
下面，我们从出题者的角度，尝试剖析题目考察点。
关键词1：upgrade (upgrading)
根据生活中常用的语境：
Usage: apt [options] command Most used commands: upgrade - upgrade the system by installing/upgrading packages full-upgrade - upgrade the system by removing/installing/upgrading packages
RAID degraded
不难明白，upgrade在此处应指一种较为深度的，向好方向的更新，即使用某种方法减少微塑料；
关键词2：plant (plants)
根据《辐射：避难所》里电力设施被称为Power Plant，不难理解 plant 可泛指集中的基础设施，通常用于处理与供应基础资源如水、电、煤）。之于文中，即指水处理厂。以普通的英语学习者，该义项通常被视为一词多义，且错误理解为植物会较大程度上影响对文义的理解。
不难推测，文义为希望在上述研究的基础上，在饮用水供应的源头缓解微塑料问题，因此题目中即将其替换为将研究结果应用到水处理厂。
主要争议
然而，题目放出后，许多人认为本题选 B。主要理由如下：
1. D 选项工程上不可行
许多人认为，将大量饮用水“煮沸”并冷却过滤消耗大量能源，在工程上不可行。对此，我表示怀疑。人们的第一印象告诉自己，烧水需要较长时间，消耗大量能源，并在冷却过程中向环境大量散热。这是不对的。工程上对于这种需要对工质短暂调整温度，但产物和原料温度相差不大的处理，我们可以使用逆流换热来几乎完全回收热量。沿海干旱地区的海水淡化设施的推广，今麦郎等品牌的凉白开也证明“煮沸”饮用水并冷却过滤并非完全不可行。
2. 原文用词不同
“We should be looking into modifying drinking water treatment plants so they remove microplastics.”
根据英语原文，G.-L. 的本意并不直击大刀阔斧地升级水处理厂，自然希望进行进一步研究而非直接应用。但既然题目进行了修改，我们自然应当依照改文作答。
3. G.-L. 自述
I certainly wouldn't recommend boiling water at Drinking Water plants so certainly not option D.
网传一份网友询问 G.-L. 本人的邮件回复，其中教授表示题中四个选项均“非其本意”，但是B选项应当是最接近正确的。然而，阅读题中需要分析的是“作者对受访者话语的转达方式”，受访者的本意究竟如何并不该是决定答案的关键因素。
4. 常识判断
在饮用水处理设施中将水煮沸，并不是一个工程上可行，只是在此项研究见刊之前尚不清楚其净水作用的工业方案。在部分考生眼中——哪怕不是经过了专业的学习而是凭借一定的生活直觉——饮用水设施应用煮沸法就不是一个亟待讨论的新课题，而是一个已经可以宣判死刑的荒谬方案（至少在绝大多数正常生态/工业环境的社会中）。知乎
这种观点认为，文末 G.-L. 的评论与前文的煮沸法无关，而只是一个完全不相干的隔壁领域。作为一场全国性的英语语言考试，考生不该因为这种常识性的分歧而被扣去分数。
但是，假如说考生不希望常识性的分歧而被扣去分数，就应该在做题时完全摒弃常识，而忠于原文，寻找题目可能的暗示。这点，正是上面用词不同体现的出题人的暗示。
整理思路
在看了那么多争议后，我决定重新整理思路。
1. 重新理解文义
文中的发现，与其说是煮沸法除微塑料，不如说是硬水煮沸后微塑料会减少。这也解决了一个“中国人的问题”：我们千年以来都使用的“喝开水”，怎么就变成前沿学术成果了？文义并不单讲煮沸，而是在煮沸后进行了水的理化性质分析。
2. 重新理解选项
选项 D 说 potential 应用，而任何一项研究的应用都不是直接套用实验室做法。首先，水处理厂不可能为了去除微塑料而自降水质，直接把处理好的水变成硬水再煮沸过滤。从这个角度上来说，选项 D 是包含了选项 B 的 further research 的。既然我们认为 D 去除微塑料 was nice，而 D 又包含了 B，选更全面概括了 G.-L. 的评论的选项应当更合理。
因此，本题我选 D. Potential application of the findings.
NOT by AI