2013年12月7日雅思阅读考试机经整理

2022-05-22 16:57:38

  2013年12月7日雅思阅读考试机经整理

  以下是2013年12月7日雅思阅读考试机经整理的主要内容,希望能帮助同学们备考。在雅思阅读备考过程中,同学们可以将此次的内容作为自己的考试素材,来复习自己的所学知识和技能。

  下面是2013年12月7日雅思阅读机经的内容。包括印度古井step well,What are the benefits of coming

  first,Ingenuity这三个部分。下面我们就一起来看看这次考试的雅思阅读考题会给大家带来哪些启发和借鉴呢?

  考试日期:

  2013年12月7日

  Reading Passage 1

  Title:

  印度古井step well

  Question types:

  TRUE/FALSE/NOT GIVEN;

  Short answer;

  Summary;

  文章内容回顾

  讲古印度的一个收集水的设施的建设。

  题型难度分析

  这篇文章的题型构成符合常规考试的模式,题目都是顺序题目,相对而言难度不大。

  题型技巧分析

  Summary填空题有几个特别重要的技巧:

  做题之前先判断所填词的词性,如果空格前面出现了“the, a, an”,那文章中需要填的词前面一般也会出现这三个冠词。

  如果题目所在句子里出现了“逻辑关系”,那么文章中相对应的句子里也会出现同样的“逻辑关系”。

  剑桥雅思推荐原文练习

  剑桥真题7 Test 4;

  剑桥真题9 Test 1;

  Reading Passage 2

  Title:

  What are the benefits of coming first

  Question types:

  List of Headings;

  Matching人物观点匹配;

  Summary;

  文章内容回顾

  关于生育顺序对孩子发育的影响。

  题型难度分析

  出现了段落大意题和人物理论匹配题,题目难度较大。

  题型技巧分析

  标题配对题(List of headings)是雅思阅读中的一种重要题型,要求给段落找小标题。它一般位于文章之前,由两部分组成:一部分是选项,另一部分是段落编号,要求给各个段落找到与它对应的选项,即表达了该段中心思想的选项,有时还会举一个例子。当然,例子中的选项是不会作为答案的。

  解题思路:

  1.将例子所对应的选项及段落标号划去

  2.划出选项中的关键词及概念性名词

  3.浏览文章,抓住各段的主题句和核心词(尤其是反复出现的核心词),重点关注段落首句、第二句与末句

  4.与段落主题句同义或包含段落核心词的选项为正确答案

  在做雅思人名观点配对题时不需要看完全篇再去做题,而是可以采用定位法去解决,这样既快捷高效地完成了阅读任务,也不会再对阅读中的搭配题感到棘手和害怕。

  考题要点:

  A.人名观点配对一般考察的是某个人的言论(statement)、观点(opinion)、评论(comment)、发现(findings or discoveries)。这样,一般这个题的答案在文中就只有两个答案区:

  1.人名边上的引号里面的内容;

  2.人名+ think /say /claim /argue /believe /report /find /discover /insist /admit /report... + that从句。

  B.人名在文中一般以以下方式出现:

  1.全称(full name),如:Brian Waldron

  2.名(first name),不常见

  3.姓(surname),如:Professor Smith

  4. He/she(在同一段话中,该人再次出现时,用指示代词替代)

  因此,建议考生去文中找人名时,应该将上述四种情况均考虑进去。再者,应该谨记在心的是:如果一个人名在一段话中出现N次,也只能算一次。如果一个人名在N段话中出现,就算N次。

  C.该题的答案遍布于全文。因此应该从文章的开头往后依次寻找人名。

  D.该题貌似是全篇文章的考察,其实考察的就是这些人所说的几句话。故应先从文中找人名,再去找答案。

  相关英文原文阅读

  When

  I tell people I study whether birth order affects personality, I

  usually get blank looks. It sounds like studying whether the sky is

  blue. Isn’t it common sense? Popular books invoke birth order for

  self-discovery, relationship tips, business advice and parenting

  guidance in titles such asThe Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are(Revell,

  2009). Newspapers and morning news shows debate the importance of the

  latest findings (“Latter-born children engage in more risky behavior;

  what should parents do?”) while tossing in savory anecdotes (“Did you

  know that 21 of the first 23 astronauts into space were firstborns?”).

  But

  when scientists scrutinized the data, they found that the evidence

  just did not hold up. In fact, until very recently there were no

  convincing findings that linked birth order to personality or behavior.

  Our common perception that birth order matters was written off as an

  example of our well-established tendency to remember and accept

  evidence that supports our pet theories while readily forgetting or

  overlooking that which does not. But two studies from the past three

  years finally found measurable effects: our position in the family does

  indeed affect both our IQ and our personality. It may be time to

  reconsider birth order as a real influence over whom we grow up to be.

  Size Matters

  Before

  discussing the new findings, it will help to explain why decades of

  research that seemed to show birth-order effects was, in fact, flawed.

  Put simply, birth order is intricately linked to family size. A child

  from a two-kid family has a 50 percent chance of being a firstborn,

  whereas a child from a five-kid family has only a 20 percent chance of

  being a firstborn. So the fact that astronauts are disproportionately

  firstborns, for example, could merely show that they come from smaller

  families—not that firstborns have any particularly astronautic

  qualities. (Of course, firstborns may indeed have astronautic

  qualities. The point is that with these data, we cannot tell.)

  There

  are many reasons that family size could affect our predilections and

  personalities. More children mean that parental resources (money, time

  and attention) have to be spread more thinly. Perhaps more telling,

  family size is associated with many important social factors, such as

  ethnicity, education and wealth. For example, wealthier, better-educated

  parents typically have fewer children. If astronauts are more likely

  to have well-educated, comfortable parents, then they are also more

  likely to come from a smaller family and thus are more likely to be a

  firstborn.

  Of

  the some 65,000 scholarly articles about birth order indexed by Google

  Scholar, the vast majority suffer from this problem, making the

  research difficult to interpret. Many of the few remaining studies fail

  to show significant effects of birth order. In 1983 psychiatrists

  Cecile Ernst and Jules Angst of the University of Zurich determined,

  after a thorough review of the literature, that birth-order effects

  were not supported by the evidence. In 1998 psychologist Judith Rich

  Harris published another comprehensive attack on the concept inThe Nurture Assumption(Free

  Press). By 2003 cognitive scientist Steven Pinker of Harvard

  University found it necessary to spend only two pages of his 439-page

  discussion of nature and nurture,The Blank Slate(Penguin), dismissing birth order as irrelevant.

  New Evidence

  Even

  so, the case in 2003 against birth-order effects was mainly an absence

  of good evidence, rather than evidence of an absence. In fact, the

  past few years have provided good news for the theory. In 2007 Norwegian

  epidemiologists Petter Kristensen and Tor Bjerkedal published work

  showing a small but reliable negative correlation between IQ and birth

  order: the more older siblings one has, the lower one’s IQ. Whether

  birth order affects intelligence has been debated inconclusively since

  the late 1800s, although the sheer size of the study (about 250,000

  Norwegian conscripts) and the rigorous controls for family size make

  this study especially convincing.

  剑桥雅思推荐原文练习

  剑桥真题9 Test 2;

  剑桥真题8 Test 2;

  Reading Passage 3

  Title:

  Ingenuity

  Question types:

  Multiple Choice;

  TRUE/FALSE/NOT GIVEN;

  文章内容回顾

  文章先对ingenuity下了定义,然后讲到人们对它的需求不断增加,后面讲到不同领域对它的需求。

  题型难度分析

  题型顺序与文章顺序一致,难度中等。

  题型技巧分析

  是非无判断题:做题前一定要读懂题目要求,明白什么情况下选FALSE,什么情况下选NOT GIVEN。只有题目内容与文章相反的情况下才可以选FALSE。对于选择TRUE的选项,一般情况下题目当中会出现与文章内容相对应的同义替换词。

  剑桥雅思推荐原文练习

  剑桥真题5 Test1;

  考试趋势分析和备考指导:

  总结2013年前11个月的考试,阅读题型中段落细节题,填空题和判断题是一定会出现的考题,会配合出现list of heading和选择题。

  以上就是雅思阅读机经的相关介绍,分享给大家,希望对大家有所帮助,最后祝大家都能考出好成绩。

相关推荐:

热门院校