雅思閱讀題的順序與逆序出題規(guī)律
雅思閱讀題的順序與逆序出題規(guī)律一覽 ,14種題型一一拆解,小編給大家?guī)?lái)了雅思閱讀題的順序與逆序出題規(guī)律，希望能夠幫助到大家，下面小編就和大家分享，來(lái)欣賞一下吧。
雅思閱讀題的順序與逆序出題規(guī)律一覽 14種題型一一拆解
雅思閱讀的題型設(shè)置非常多，我們熟悉的“multiple choice”僅僅是雅思閱讀14種題型中的一種。不過(guò)Ieltser們不要擔(dān)心，實(shí)際上這么多種題型所考察的你的subskill是共通的。雖然題型很多，但只要你掌握基本的閱讀技巧，以不變應(yīng)萬(wàn)變還是很輕松的。
下面進(jìn)入正題，雅思14種題型到底哪些遵循順序出題的套路呢?
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之判斷題
首先，這兩種題型可不是考官隨心所欲的產(chǎn)物。T/F/NG題型多出現(xiàn)在前兩篇閱讀中，而Y/N/NG大多出現(xiàn)在第三篇中。為啥?因?yàn)門(mén)/F/NG一般是根據(jù)所有的facts，也就是事實(shí)判斷來(lái)出題，Y/N/NG是根據(jù)idea或者argument，也就是觀點(diǎn)來(lái)出題。而我們?cè)凇叭恼码y度是否一致”那期文章中講到過(guò)，前兩篇文章大多是說(shuō)明類(lèi)事實(shí)陳述文章，而第三篇文章相對(duì)來(lái)說(shuō)觀點(diǎn)類(lèi)的會(huì)更多一點(diǎn)。大家懂了嗎，可以找出劍橋真題檢驗(yàn)一下哦。這兩種題型很nice，一般都是順序出題的。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之summary題型
這種題型又可能分成兩種，一種是帶選項(xiàng)的，一種是不帶選項(xiàng)的。寶寶們猜猜哪一種會(huì)更簡(jiǎn)單?答案是不帶選項(xiàng)的會(huì)更簡(jiǎn)單一點(diǎn)。因?yàn)椴粠нx項(xiàng)的意味著你可以把文章中的原詞直接寫(xiě)上，這里面是不需要太多的同義替換技巧的，找到原文，抄下來(lái)原詞，搞定。
至于帶選項(xiàng)的summary，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)題目中會(huì)設(shè)置同義替換，也有可能會(huì)有一些歸納總結(jié)。也就是原文當(dāng)中三句話的內(nèi)容，對(duì)應(yīng)到題目summary里的濃縮成了一句話描述，甚至最后選的詞有可能是一個(gè)歸納總結(jié)性的詞。這對(duì)大家的理解概括能力以及同義詞掌握程度要求就比較高。(再次強(qiáng)調(diào)同意替換詞的重要性，寶寶們一定堅(jiān)持背我們的同義替換打卡計(jì)劃)。這種題型還很任性，有可能是順序有可能是亂序。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之list of headings
這種題型平時(shí)我們用中文說(shuō)的話就是小標(biāo)題題或者段落標(biāo)題題。這種題型肯定是亂序出題的，畢竟如果matching headings是順序出題的話，這題就沒(méi)法做了，直接一段對(duì)一個(gè)標(biāo)題。(雖然大家很希望如此對(duì)吧)
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之multiple choice
這其實(shí)是我們做的比較多的一種題型，這里面又包含了兩種題型，一種是四選一的，一般來(lái)說(shuō)會(huì)在第3篇文章中出現(xiàn);還有一種是五選二或者多選多的。這些題目一般來(lái)講會(huì)是順序出題。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之matching information
就是會(huì)有幾句話放在一個(gè)地方，然后題目描述會(huì)問(wèn)你“哪一個(gè)段落包含以下信息?”這種問(wèn)法熟悉吧。這個(gè)題型是亂序出題的。另外要注這information里有一個(gè)技巧，所有的這些的題干在開(kāi)始會(huì)有一個(gè)抽象詞，比如說(shuō)adscription，example，或者是figure類(lèi)似的。你在定位原文的時(shí)候要注意這些提示詞。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之matching features
給你幾個(gè)人物讓你在原文當(dāng)中找他的觀點(diǎn)，或者幾個(gè)年代讓你在原文中在不同年代發(fā)生的事情。大家注意一下這種題目一定是亂序出題的，如果是順序的話也就沒(méi)有matching的意義了，所以所有的matching題一點(diǎn)是亂序的。
這里提醒大家額外注意，matching features的選項(xiàng)是順序的。舉個(gè)例子，題目要求你把5個(gè)人名和他們的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行配對(duì)，那么這5個(gè)人的觀點(diǎn)，也就是選項(xiàng)部分，在原文當(dāng)中是順序出現(xiàn)的。所以這種題型的解題技巧是按照選項(xiàng)順序?qū)φ赵模缓笤賹?duì)應(yīng)這些基本觀點(diǎn)是出自哪些人。所以matching features是亂序出題，但是選項(xiàng)是順序出現(xiàn)在原文中的。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之matching sentence endings
就是每個(gè)題干都是半句話，下面選項(xiàng)中有很多后半句，讓你做一個(gè)基本的對(duì)應(yīng)。這種題型是亂序出題的。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之table completion，也就是表格填空。它的順序不一定，有可能順序也有可能亂序。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之sentence completion，就是一句話中間給你挖出一個(gè)空填上就行。也有時(shí)候會(huì)挖兩個(gè)空，一般來(lái)講這兩個(gè)空會(huì)有并列關(guān)系，它們兩個(gè)算一道題計(jì)一次分。這種題型一般是順序出題的。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之notes completion，題型設(shè)置和table completion很相似，不一定順序還是亂序。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之labeling diagram。給你一個(gè)diagram然后你在原文中找到對(duì)應(yīng)說(shuō)明段落再把空填好。這種題目同樣有可能會(huì)順序也有可能會(huì)亂序。另外這個(gè)題型在OG里面或者劍11里面都出現(xiàn)過(guò)，所以大家關(guān)注一下。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之short answer question，就是簡(jiǎn)答題。直接給你一個(gè)題目，你用一兩個(gè)或者兩三個(gè)單詞回答。這種題型是順序出題的，每個(gè)題的題干在原文當(dāng)中和自然段的順序是對(duì)應(yīng)的。
雅思閱讀出題規(guī)律之flow chart completion，這個(gè)和diagram比較像，大家在做的時(shí)候直接看題目描述就可以了。題目描述是怎么說(shuō)的，它就對(duì)應(yīng)哪一種題型。同樣，這種題型有可能順序出題，也有可能亂序。
簡(jiǎn)單總結(jié)一下雅思閱讀的14種題型，一定會(huì)順序出題的有5種，一定會(huì)亂序出題的有4種，剩下5種不太好說(shuō)，以順序?yàn)橹?，可能夾雜著一兩題出現(xiàn)亂序的情況。
雅思閱讀素材積累：Difference Engine: Volt farce
FOR General Motors, a good deal of the company's recovery from its brush with bankruptcy is riding on the Chevrolet Volt (Opel or Vauxhall Ampera in Europe), its plug-in hybrid electric vehicle launched a year ago. Not that GM expects the sleek four-seater to be a cash cow. Indeed, the car company loses money on every one it makes. But the $41,000 (before tax breaks) Chevy Volt is a "halo" car designed to show the world what GM is capable of, and to lure customers into dealers' showrooms—to marvel at the vehicle's ingenious technology and its fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon (3.9litres/100km)—and then to drive off in one or other of GM's bread-and-butter models.
So, it is no surprise that GM should bend over backwards to mollify customers concerned by recent news of the Volt's lithium-ion battery catching fire following crash tests. GM is offering to loan cars to Volt owners worried about their vehicle's safety while an official investigation is underway and modifications made if deemed necessary. The company has
Even offered to buy vehicles back from owners who have lost confidence in the technology. There have not been many takers. As of December 5th, fewer than three dozen owners—out of 6,400 Volts sold to date in North America—had requested loan cars. And only a couple of dozen had asked for their Volts to be bought back. At a suitable price, your correspondent would have welcomed the chance to buy one of those secondhand buy-backs for himself, had they not already been snapped up by employees. Dan Akerson, GM's chief executive, is believed to have bought one for his wife.
The trouble all started in May, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carried out a routine 20 mph (32km/h) crash test on a Volt—to simulate a sideways impact with a tree or telegraph pole followed by a rollover. Three weeks after the test, the car's 16 kilowatt-hour battery pack caught fire in NHTSA's car park, destroying the vehicle and several others nearby.
Shortly thereafter, both NHTSA and the carmaker repeated the side-impact and rollover test on at least two other cars, all to no effect. However, in subsequent tests—carried out in November by experts from the energy and defence departments as well as GM—the investigators deliberately damaged the battery packs and ruptured their coolant lines. One battery pack behaved normally. Another emitted smoke and sparks hours after it was flipped on its back. And a third exhibited a temporary increase in temperature, but then burst into flames a week later.
GM claims the initial fire in June would never have happened if the NHTSA's engineers had drained the Volt's battery immediately after the impact. It is odd that they did not. When crash testing a conventional petrol-powered car, the standard procedure is to drain the fuel tank to prevent any chance of fire. It would seem reasonable to do the equivalent with an electric vehicle.
But, then, GM did not adopt a "depowering" protocol for the Volt until after the June fire. Even when it did, it failed to share the procedure with the safety agency until embarking on the November tests. In the wake of the latest findings, GM is now working with the Society of Automotive Engineers, NHTSA and other vehicle manufacturers, as well as fire-fighters, tow-truck operators and salvage crew, to implement an industry-wide standard for handling battery-powered vehicles involved in accidents.
Toyota ran into similar troubles when its Prius hybrid car was introduced over a decade ago. Though the Prius's battery pack is considerably smaller than the Volt's, fire-fighters and other first-responders had to learn how to disarm the vehicle following an accident—by removing fuses from under the bonnet and pulling a catch beneath the rear storage area to isolate the high-voltage system. Until they had done so, they were warned, they were on no account to take a metal cutter to an overturned Prius to extricate trapped occupants. Lurking beneath the floor was a big orange cable carrying a heavy current that would have fried anyone slicing through it.
The lithium-ion cells used in the Volt's battery pack have many virtues. They are much lighter and operate at a higher voltage than other rechargeable cells—and can therefore store more energy for a given weight. In addition, they have no "memory effect" (the tendency to accept less and less charge each time they are recharged) and can also hold their charge far longer than, say, the nickel-metal hydride cells used in the Prius. For good reason, all plug-in electric vehicles, including the Nissan Leaf and the forthcoming Ford Focus Electric plus Toyota's long-awaited plug-in Prius, have embraced lithium-ion chemistry.
But lithium is a highly reactive element. If overcharged, physically damaged or allowed to get too hot, lithium-ion cells can experience thermal "runaway" and even explode—as has happened on numerous occasions with the lithium-ion batteries in laptop computers and mobile phones. Also, if allowed to drain completely, they can short-circuit and make recharging dangerous. For these reasons, all lithium-ion rechargeable batteries contain circuitry that shuts them down when their voltage rises above or falls below a certain level.
To help keep the Volt's 435lb (197kg) battery pack at the right temperature, GM designed a sophisticated thermal-management system. This is separate from the main radiator system, which cools the range-extending motor-generator (a 1.4-litre petrol engine) and feeds the car's heater. The battery pack, mounted in a T-shaped steel tray with a plastic cover, runs down the centre of the vehicle.
GM believes the Volt's battery problem was caused by malfunctioning sensors rather than chemical reactions going haywire within the cells themselves. The company is currently developing fixes to make the battery's control systems sturdier. One proposal is to laminate the electrical circuitry. Another involves beefing up the cooling lines. A third is to reinforce the tray containing the battery modules.
Outsiders note that the lithium-ion pack in the Nissan Leaf—the only other mass-produced electric car currently on sale in the United States—is encased in a rigid steel box rather than a plastic framework. The Leaf has come through its crash-testing programme with flying colours. Interestingly, its battery pack manages without any additional cooling system.
Despite GM's experience with the ground-breaking EV1 electric vehicle in the 1990s, the company still has much to learn about the public-safety issues associated with powerful batteries. For instance, both GM and NHTSA kept their mouths shut about the Volt's initial fire for the best part of six months, claiming they needed time to assess the results and to carry out further tests. Others suspect they colluded to protect the Volt's fragile sales. GM hoped to sell a modest 10,000 Volts in its first year, but will be lucky to achieve even three-quarters of its goal.
In November, when GM finally went public about the Volt's fire problems, it warned owners, dealers and first-responders of the need to drain the car's battery pack after a crash. The OnStar communications system onboard every Volt should allow the company to dispatch an engineer to drain a battery anywhere in the country within 48 hours. For its part, NHTSA has now opened a formal safety investigation into the crash-worthiness of the Volt's battery system. Meanwhile, a congressional committee that oversees NHTSA is to hold hearings early in the new year to find out why it took nearly six months for the matter to be made public, and why the committee was not kept informed.
What is left unsaid in all this is the fact that conventional cars with a tank full of petrol are far greater fire hazards than electric cars will ever be. Some 185,000 vehicles catch fire in America each year, with no fewer than 285 people dying as a consequence. But, then, people have been living with the hazard of petrol for over a century. Irrationally, electric-vehicle fires are perceived as somehow more worrisome simply because they are new.
雅思閱讀題的順序與逆序出題規(guī)律相關(guān)文章：
★ 雅思閱讀解題技巧
雅思閱讀題的順序與逆序出題規(guī)律
