GRE閱讀中的常見錯誤解析
GRE閱讀中的常見錯誤解析 閱讀滿分不再難,我們來看看吧，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE閱讀中的常見錯誤解析 閱讀滿分不再難
犯錯在考試中實(shí)屬正常，而知道那些地方容易出錯，怎樣避免二次犯錯則是考生需要學(xué)會的知識。在GRE閱讀中，考生最容易犯哪些錯誤呢?下面小編就來為大家匯總GRE閱讀中導(dǎo)致扣分的一些主要錯誤。
看題目時粗心大意
其實(shí)對于聰明的中國考生來說，許多時候GRE閱讀的題目要求都可以給我們許多的暗示，例如題目中有NB這樣的字眼，有些備選項(xiàng)會被用上2次，這無疑是出題者給我們無聲的暗示。還有對于一些細(xì)節(jié)的題目，一定要看清題目要求，要不就會出力不討好了。還有些題干上會標(biāo)明考查內(nèi)容的段落和出處，千萬不要不看題干，回原文通篇瘋狂地尋找，既耽誤了時間，又降低了正確率。
大多數(shù)的閱讀段落首句都是主題句，呈現(xiàn)出總分結(jié)構(gòu)的特征，接下來的支持具層層展開，保持著與主題句的線性支持關(guān)系，這樣一來，閱讀一段文章時， 思路只要按照首句的方向展開即可，如果第二句和第三句與首句保持一致，那么首句就是段落的主題句，除非中間出現(xiàn)了大的轉(zhuǎn)折或者對比，改變了方向。而如果首句是主題句，那么首句的方向就是整個段落的方向，因此，在閱讀過程中只要把握“主題”和“方向”，以及維持或改變方向的“關(guān)系詞”，就能理解主旨，而段落中的生詞變得毫無意義。當(dāng)然詞匯對于閱讀有致命的影響，因此建議廣大考生在用技巧和方法的同時，提高詞匯是解決英語閱讀問題的根本所在。
指讀和回讀的不良習(xí)慣
指讀，顧名思義，用手指或者筆邊指邊讀的習(xí)慣說明是在以“詞”為單位閱讀。GRE閱讀文章篇幅往往較長，如果word by word，一是時間緊迫，無法在考試規(guī)定時間完成題目;二是容易斷章取義，失去了對文章整體感的把握。
回讀就是一段話，一遍不行兩遍，兩遍不行三遍，直到自以為讀懂為止，這是典型的以“句子”為單位閱讀的特征，因?yàn)樽x者雖然有可能最終讀懂每一句 話，但是卻不可能有效區(qū)分主題句和支持句，導(dǎo)致其不可能掌握段落主旨。從心理學(xué)角度講，這是不自信和不放心的表現(xiàn)，擔(dān)心自己有內(nèi)容遺漏，一而再再而三地讀，其實(shí)掌握了GRE文章出題的思路，熟悉西方人表達(dá)上的思維模式，例如開門見山式，重要信息前置等原則，就可以大膽的在閱讀時有“舍”有“得”。
糾結(jié)于長句
面對少則二行，多則四行左右的GRE閱讀中的長難句，許多考生苦不堪言。究竟要怎么閱讀才能事半功倍呢 這里提出“撥筍理論”，將繁瑣冗長的句子去除從句，修飾詞，層層剝離，找出最重要的核心意思。Eg, Port cities become industrial, financial and service centers and political capitals because of their water connections and the urban concentration which arises there and later draws to it railways, highways and air routes. 請大家“剝?nèi)ァ币恍┘?xì)節(jié)和次重點(diǎn)的修飾詞，然后注意句子邏輯，找最核心的句意，快速閱讀，你只需知道port cities become centers and capitals because of water and urban concentration. 這樣既不會遺漏重要情節(jié)，又可以養(yǎng)成考場上答題時快、準(zhǔn)、狠的特點(diǎn)。
新GRE閱讀長難句的結(jié)構(gòu)解讀
1、長成分
1)長從句做主語、賓語及其他成分
a、主語從句
b、賓語從句
2)長狀語
3)層層修飾
4)并列成分
2、常見倒裝搭配
(1)及物動詞加介詞：固定詞組的固定搭配中，經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)倒裝情況，如：bring A to B，寫作：bring to B A
例：Yet Waltzer’s argument , however deficient , does point to oneof the most serious weaknesses of capitalism-namely , that it brings topredominant positions in a society people who ,no matter howlegitimately they have earned their material rewards , often lack thoseother qualities that evoke affection or admiration.
類似的情況：throw over , insert into , import into , infer from, establish for , advocate as 等
(2)及物動詞加副詞
例：make possible …(單詞或者句子)
3、省略的幾種情況
(1)重復(fù)的成分
(2)讓步轉(zhuǎn)折的省略：如although (but)
(3)定語從句引導(dǎo)詞的省略which(that )
(4)定語從句的引導(dǎo)詞和系動詞同時省略，變成后置定語
如：qualities(such as “the capacity for hard work”) essential in producing wealth
4、 短語被分割
如：such as, so that , too to , more than , from A to B , between A and B
5、多重否定
如：Despite these vague categories , one should not claimunequivocally that hostility between recognizable classes cannot belegitimately observed .
6、難句分析舉例
Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industrygreatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealthdetached from the land and the duties of the landowners; and almostequally detached from the responsible management of business.
[句子主干]Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industrygreatly increased …shareholders as a class, (which was) an element…
[語法難點(diǎn)]本句是典型的非限定性定語從句，難點(diǎn)在其主語和賓語都有較長的短語和of結(jié)構(gòu)限定，并且分句是由兩個and相連的3個部分組成的。分句an element…landowners 又帶有兩個定語從句，一個是(which was)representing…，另一個是(which was)detached…。
可見，定語從句的難點(diǎn)在于經(jīng)常省略“引導(dǎo)詞+be”的結(jié)構(gòu)，從而在理解上容易和分詞結(jié)構(gòu)相混淆。
[句子翻譯] 對資本和企業(yè)的這種大規(guī)模的非個人操縱大大增加了股東作為一個階級的數(shù)量和重要性。這個階層作為國計(jì)民生的一部分，代表了非個人責(zé)任的財(cái)富與土地及土地所有者應(yīng)盡義務(wù)的分離，而且也幾乎與責(zé)任管理相分離。
以上便是新gre閱讀考試長難句解析介紹，需要大家理解上不要跟跟結(jié)構(gòu)相混淆，雖然新GRE考試和舊g都有長難句考查，但是新gre閱讀考試側(cè)重考查考生的邏輯推斷能力，所以新gre閱讀考試長難句理解的基礎(chǔ)上一定要分清句子結(jié)構(gòu)。
GRE雙語閱讀：馬克卡尼成英國銀行新晉領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人
Mark Carney——I mean what I say
馬克·卡尼：“言出必行”
The new governor is struggling to convince skeptical markets
英國銀行新晉領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人正試圖極力說服持懷疑態(tài)度的國內(nèi)市場
CREDIBILITY is treasured by central bankers. It is after all why politicians, who patently lack that precious quality, have entrusted the monetary guardians with the job of taming inflation. But what happens when investors do not believe a supposedly binding central-bank commitment to keep interest rates low?
信譽(yù)對于央行行長們來說是極其珍貴的，而這也正是為何那些早已將個人信譽(yù)消耗殆盡的政客們委任這些“貨幣守護(hù)者”來遏止通貨膨脹的原因。但當(dāng)投資方不再信任央行曾信誓旦旦“維持國內(nèi)低利率”的承諾的后果將會是什么?
The answer this week from Mark Carney, the Canadian governor of the Bank of England, was to set out again the case for the forward guidance which had failed to convince the markets when he first delivered it earlier this month. Speaking in Nottingham on August 28th he also announced a relaxation in banks' liquidity requirements to encourage lending. But Mr. Carney's speech seemed unlikely to sway the skeptics. They doubt that the bank's base rate, which has been at a three-century low of 0.5% for over four years, will stay there for another three.
而這位加拿大籍英國銀行行長馬克·卡尼于本周作出相關(guān)回應(yīng)，即再次利用他于本月前幾日提出的相關(guān)明細(xì)著手處理該事——盡管卡尼先生首次提出該提議時在說服相關(guān)市場方面收效甚微。他于8月28日在諾丁漢的演說中宣稱，將放寬銀行的貨幣流通需求以此來刺激借貸，但該演說似乎并未打消投資方的疑慮，他們不斷質(zhì)疑銀行的基本利率在四年之內(nèi)一直保持三百年來的最低態(tài)勢——0.5%仍將持續(xù)至下一個三年。
Mr Carney's task is tricky because the bank's forward guidance is about as clear as an insurance policy once the small print has been read. The crucial pledge is that the bank's monetary-policy committee (MPC) will not think about raising interest rates until the unemployment rate, currently 7.8%, falls to 7%. Since the bank's own forecast shows this will take until well into 2016, the MPC is in effect promising to sit on its hands for another three years. But that seemingly straightforward commitment comes with “knockout” clauses. If inflation becomes a threat or financial stability is being endangered, forward guidance will no longer apply.
鑒于英國銀行之前的明細(xì)規(guī)定，與用極難閱讀的小字印刷的保險(xiǎn)理賠條款一般“清晰明確”，卡尼先生的該項(xiàng)策略實(shí)屬明智之舉，最為關(guān)鍵的是，英國銀行下屬的貨幣政策委員會(monetary-policy committee—MPC)在國家失業(yè)率由目前的7.8%下降至7%之前，將不會再提高利率，而由于銀行預(yù)測顯示該形式預(yù)計(jì)在2016年才會有所好轉(zhuǎn)，若貨幣政策委員會(MPC)履行承諾，那么他們將會在接下來的三年內(nèi)不再插手該事，然而委員會卻道貌岸然地提出了所謂“淘汰”條款，即當(dāng)通貨膨脹構(gòu)成威脅或國家經(jīng)濟(jì)穩(wěn)定形勢岌岌可危時，之前的規(guī)定將不再作數(shù)。
GRE雙語閱讀：心理學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)證明時間不等于金錢
Psychology——Time is not money
心理學(xué)：時間不等于金錢
Thinking about it makes you a better person, not a worse one
時間觀念只會提升人格，絕無裨益
“THE love of money”, St Paul memorably wrote to his protégé Timothy, “is the root of all evil.” “All” may be putting it a bit strongly, but dozens of psychological studies have indeed shown that people primed to think about money before an experiment are more likely to lie, cheat and steal during the course of that experiment.
圣保爾曾在給其親信蒂莫西的信中寫到“金錢是萬惡之源”?；蛟S，“萬惡”一詞說的過于嚴(yán)重，但無數(shù)心理研究表明實(shí)驗(yàn)前被灌輸金錢觀念的人更容易在實(shí)驗(yàn)過程中撒謊、作弊并行竊。
Another well-known aphorism, ascribed to Benjamin Franklin, is “time is money”. If true, that suggests a syllogism: that the love of time is a root of evil, too. But a paper just published in Psychological Science by Francesca Gino of Harvard and Cassie Mogilner of the University of Pennsylvania suggests precisely the opposite.
另一名言—“時間就是金錢”，出自本杰.富蘭克林。如果他說的有理，那么就可以推斷出：對時間的珍愛也是萬惡之源。然而，哈佛商學(xué)院的弗蘭切斯卡· 吉諾(Francesca Gino)和賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)的凱?！つ獌?nèi)爾(Cassie Mogilner)教授共同撰寫發(fā)表在《心理科學(xué)》的論文則持有完全相反的結(jié)論。
Dr Gino and Dr Mogilner asked a group of volunteers to do a series of what appeared to be aptitude tests. As is often the case in such experiments, though, what the volunteers were told, and what the truth was, were rather different things.
他倆召集了一些志愿者，參加一系列類似性向測試的實(shí)驗(yàn)活動。和其它這類實(shí)驗(yàn)一樣，這些志愿者被告知的與事實(shí)往往是不同的。
In the first test they were asked to make, within three minutes, as many coherent sentences as they could out of a set of words they had been presented with. What they were not told was that each of them had been assigned to one of three groups. Some volunteers' word sets were seeded with ones associated with money, such as “dollars”, “financing” and “spend”. Some were seeded with words associated with time (e.g., “clock”, “hours”, “moment”). And some were seeded with neither. Thus unknowingly primed, the volunteers were ready for the second test.
第一輪測驗(yàn)要求他們用所給詞匯在限定的三分鐘內(nèi)盡可能造出更多連貫的句子。但他們并不知道，所有參與者已被悄悄分為三組。第一組所給詞匯主要是金錢類的，如“美元”、“融資”、“消費(fèi)”等。第二組則與時間相關(guān)，如“鐘表”、“小時”、“一刻”等。第三組則為中性詞匯，完全不同于前兩組。就這樣毫無知覺地，志愿者們進(jìn)入了下一輪測試。
This was mathematical. They were given a sheet of paper with 20 matrices which each contained 12 numbers, two of which added up to ten (for example, 3.81 and 6.19). They had to write down, on a separate answer sheet, how many of these pairs they could manage to find in five minutes. They were also given a packet of money and told they could reward themselves with a dollar for each pair they discovered.
第二場是數(shù)字游戲。每人持有一張印有20個數(shù)陣的試卷，每個數(shù)陣含12個數(shù)字，兩兩相加為10(如3.81和6.19)。要求每人5分鐘內(nèi)在答題紙上寫下所能找到的所有相加為10的配對。同時，每人得到一袋硬幣，且被告知，若找到一對即可獎勵自己一美元。
Crucially, they were not asked to show their workings on the answer sheets—and the matrix sheets, on which those workings might have appeared, carried no identifier and were ostentatiously discarded once the test was done. Nevertheless, by hiding an identification code in a sample matrix on the answer sheet, Dr Gino and Dr Mogilner knew which matrix sheet each candidate had been given and thus who had cheated and who had not. They found that 88% of those who had been primed with money-related words in the first test cheated, as did 67% of those given neutral words. Of those primed with time-related words, though, only42% cheated.
關(guān)鍵是，本次測驗(yàn)并未要求考生上交答卷或在試卷上寫下姓名等身份信息，盡管試卷上可能會有他們的做題思路，但測試一結(jié)束就被狠狠地拋棄了。不過，吉諾教授和莫吉內(nèi)爾教授其實(shí)事先已在答題卷上秘密標(biāo)好對應(yīng)試卷的身份代碼，因此哪些人作弊、哪些人沒作弊，他們是一清二楚的。結(jié)果表明，第一次實(shí)驗(yàn)中接觸金錢相關(guān)詞匯的志愿者有88%的人作弊，接觸中性詞匯的志愿者有67%的人作弊，而接觸時間相關(guān)詞匯的只有42%作弊。
Nor, despite St Paul's aphorism, was the lure of lucre during the experiment (as opposed to the effect of thinking about it as a result of being primed) necessary as a corrupting influence. A similar trial on different participants showed that presenting the matrix as a test of intelligence also caused those primed with the idea of money to cheat more than those primed with the idea of time—though, intriguingly, that did not apply if the matrix was presented as a test of personality.
盡管圣保爾的格言并非毫無道理，但并不一定證明就是試驗(yàn)中的利益誘惑才如此廣泛地腐蝕了人們純潔的心靈(該觀點(diǎn)反對將實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果歸于事先所灌輸?shù)挠^念)。因?yàn)樵诹硪幌嗨频膶?shí)驗(yàn)中(參與者不同)，參與者被告知自己是在做智力測驗(yàn)，最后發(fā)現(xiàn)也是同樣的結(jié)果，即那些有著金錢觀念的比時間觀念的更易作弊——有趣得是，如果只是視為人格測驗(yàn)，結(jié)果卻完全不同。
This led Dr Gino and Dr Mogilner to suspect that self-reflection played a part in controlling unethical behavior during the test. They therefore conducted a third test in which, for half the volunteers, there was a mirror in the cubicle they were sitting in when doing the experiment.
針對以上測試結(jié)果，吉諾教授和莫吉內(nèi)爾教授懷疑測試中的非道德行為是受自我反省控制的。為此，他們又設(shè)計(jì)了第三場試驗(yàn)，其中半數(shù)人在測驗(yàn)過程中眼前是擱有鏡子的。
Volunteers primed to think about money cheated 39% of the time when a mirror was present but 67% when it was not. Those primed to think about time cheated 32% of the time in the presence of the mirror and 36% in its absence—results that are statistically indistinguishable.
被灌輸金錢思想的一組，當(dāng)現(xiàn)場設(shè)有鏡子時，參與者在39%的測試過程中出現(xiàn)作弊行為，而沒有鏡子時，則為67%。相同條件下，被灌輸時間觀念的一組，分別為32%和36%，該組前后結(jié)果基本沒什么變化。
Finally, a fourth experiment asked primed volunteers to fill in a questionnaire before tackling the matrix. In among “filler” questions intended to disguise what was happening this asked them to rate how they felt about self-reflective statements like, “Right now, I am thinking about who I am as a person.”
最后第四場實(shí)驗(yàn)要求每位已有不同思想輸入的參與者在解決數(shù)陣前先完成一份問卷。問卷上設(shè)有掩飾之前不光彩行為的“補(bǔ)充性”問題，調(diào)查他們在看到自我反思表述語句時的想法與感受，如“此時此刻，我在思考著作為人，自己究竟是誰?！?。
As in the previous tests, those primed with money words cheated more often than those primed with neutral words and far more often than those primed with time words. But whether someone cheated was also related to how strongly he felt about the self-reflective statements presented to him in the questionnaire.
之前的實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果顯示，被輸入金錢類詞匯的參與者作弊傾向最高，被輸入中心詞匯的其次，而被輸入時間類詞匯的作弊傾向?yàn)樽钚?。但是，最后一次?shí)驗(yàn)證明，參與者是否作弊也受其在看到問卷上自我反思陳述時的內(nèi)心感受所影響。
It seems, then, that thinking about time has the opposite effect on people from thinking about money. It makes them more honest than normal, rather than less so. Moreover, the more reflective they are, the more honest they become. There must be an aphorism in that.
由此，我們似乎可以得出這樣一個結(jié)論，時間觀念與金錢觀念對人們所產(chǎn)生的影響是截然不同的。時間觀念帶給個人誠信的只會是正能量，絕非負(fù)能量。而且，一個人越懂得反躬自省，那么他就越誠實(shí)。我想，對此必定也有那么一句格言的吧。
GRE閱讀中的常見錯誤解析相關(guān)文章：
GRE閱讀中的常見錯誤解析
