Problem analysis & solution framing

The Shenlun problem-analysis (问题分析) task

The Guokao Shenlun (申论) paper, administered by the State Administration of Civil Service (国家公务员局) and held nationally on the same day as the Xingce (行测) paper—most recently 26 November 2023 for the 2024 cycle—routinely sets a 'problem analysis' or 'comprehensive analysis' question (综合分析题) worth 15–20 marks. The candidate is handed a packet of给定资料 (given materials): news excerpts, official statements, interview transcripts, and data tables. The task is not to opine but to extract and organize the problems those materials disclose.

The three-layer diagnostic

Mature Shenlun answers separate a problem into three layers, mirroring the analytic logic of Communist Party of China policy documents such as the 二十大报告 (20th Party Congress Report, October 2022):

1. 表现 (manifestation) — the observable symptom: queues at clinics, idle rural land, polluted rivers.
2. 原因 (cause) — why it occurs, split into 主观 (subjective:官僚主义/formalism, weak oversight) and 客观 (objective: funding gaps, demographic pressure).
3. 危害/影响 (harm) — the consequence if unaddressed: eroded 群众 trust, social instability, blocked 高质量发展 (high-quality development).

The single most penalized error is conflating manifestation with cause. If the material says '村民办事来回跑三趟' (villagers make three trips to get one thing done), that is a manifestation; the cause is fragmented 政务服务 (government service) and absent 一窗受理 (single-window intake). Examiners reward candidates who name the layer explicitly.

Source discipline: 找点 (point-finding)

Shenlun is a closed-material exercise. Article-style invention is fatal. Every problem you assert must be traceable to a sentence in the materials. The disciplined technique is 找点—reading each paragraph and tagging it with a keyword in the margin (问题/原因/对策/影响). The 国家公务员局 official scoring keys (评分细则) award marks per 要点 (point), typically 1.5–2 marks each, so a 15-mark answer expects roughly 8–10 retrieved points. Coverage beats eloquence: a plain list of the right points outscores a beautiful paragraph that misses half of them. Always lead with the keyword, then the brief evidence: '监管缺位——材料3显示职能部门互相推诿' ('regulatory absence—Material 3 shows departments passing the buck').

From problem to 对策 (countermeasure)

The solution-framing question (提出对策题) demands actionable, implementable measures written in the voice of a government cadre, not a commentator. Each countermeasure must satisfy three tests drawn from real administrative practice: 针对性 (it targets a named problem), 可操作性 (it specifies who does what), and 合法合规 (it respects existing law). A countermeasure that says '提高认识' (raise awareness) without a subject and mechanism earns nothing.

The subject–verb–object template

Write every measure as 主体 + 手段 + 内容 + 目的 (actor + means + content + goal). Compare:

• Weak: '要加强监管' (must strengthen oversight).
• Strong: '市场监管部门应建立跨部门联合执法机制，按季度抽查并向社会公示结果，杜绝多头管理' (the market regulation bureau should establish a cross-departmental joint-enforcement mechanism, conduct quarterly spot-checks and publicize results, ending fragmented administration).

The standard menu of administrative levers—worth memorizing because materials almost always cue them—is: 制度/法规 (institutional/legal), 监管/执法 (oversight/enforcement), 资金/投入 (funding), 人才/培训 (talent), 宣传/引导 (publicity), 技术/平台 (technology/platform), and 监督/问责 (supervision/accountability). Map each retrieved problem onto the lever that resolves its cause, not its symptom.

Anchoring to live policy

Strong answers anchor measures to current policy vocabulary so they read as governmental. Useful anchors include 放管服改革 (streamline administration, delegate power, optimize service—launched 2015), 'data runs instead of people' (数据多跑路、群众少跑腿), 乡村振兴 (rural revitalization, codified in the 乡村振兴促进法 effective 1 June 2021), and 共同富裕 (common prosperity, foregrounded since August 2021). Citing the 党的二十大报告 phrase 'putting people at the center' (以人民为中心) frames the goal layer correctly.

Structure and constraint discipline

Obey the word ceiling exactly—a 300-character countermeasure question that runs to 450 loses presentation marks. Present measures as a numbered list (一、二、三) or with leading keywords bolded by position. Begin with the highest-leverage institutional measure and descend to supporting tactics. Never repeat a lever; if oversight appears twice, the examiner counts it once. Close, where the prompt invites it, with a one-line 保障 (safeguard) clause naming accountability—'纳入绩效考核' (incorporate into performance appraisal)—because the 评分细则 frequently reserves a point for the implementation guarantee that lesser candidates omit.