2020GRE閱讀的高分經(jīng)驗
怎樣才能高效備考GRE閱讀呢?今天小編給大家?guī)砹薌RE閱讀的高分經(jīng)驗，希望能夠幫助到大家，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE閱讀的高分經(jīng)驗
(一) 縱向看選項：
若有共同之處，拿公共元素回文章定位。If the essay doesn‘t have the common element， the choice is wrong.
(二)明確六種題型：
1、主題題型 2、態(tài)度題 3、類比題 4、細(xì)節(jié)題 5、邏輯題 6、結(jié)構(gòu)題。
(三)根據(jù)定位排除答案
熟練運用各種基本方法定位之后選項與定位所在處無關(guān)的必錯。
(四)選項是復(fù)合句的情況
如果選項是主從復(fù)合句，先處理主句，再處理從句。
(五) 如果選項含有明確的最高級、唯一性、比較級
則如果選項正確，原文就必定有其相對應(yīng)的說法(但在否定句和疑問句中還要注意句子的意思)。
三、GRE閱讀解題步驟：
第一步：題目的定位一定要發(fā)現(xiàn)題目的focus
若focus關(guān)系到全文，則如下步驟：
1、 用特征詞定位特征詞包括：時間、地點狀語，定語。
2、 若無特征詞，則找focus首次出現(xiàn)的地方。
關(guān)鍵：先找到focus所在的一段(only)。
第二步：進(jìn)行答案的通用排除
在看一遍后即有2~3個選項可排除。
依靠：
1、 排除法：如排除不含關(guān)鍵詞的選項，排除完全和主態(tài)度相反的選項等。
2、 做題的感覺。
第三步：答案的定位
而后將答案與文章中對應(yīng)句作同義改寫，選意思最相近的。
注：所以在平時練習(xí)時要注意找出處。
答案直選法：原文重現(xiàn) 同義修改 定狀不變即找到對應(yīng)的句子后，與答案一起分析句子結(jié)構(gòu)，主、謂、賓、補均可以變，只有定、狀這些限制時間發(fā)生唯一性的標(biāo)志不能變。
GRE閱讀材料練習(xí)：幫你解密年齡與智慧的關(guān)系
Americans get wiser with age. Japanese are wise from the start
美國人年齡越大越聰明。日本人從小就聰明
ONE stereotype of wisdom is a wizened Zen-master smiling benevolently at
the antics of his pupils, while referring to them as little grasshoppers or some
such affectation, safe in the knowledge that one day they, too, will have been
set on the path that leads to wizened masterhood.
提到智慧的時候，人們腦海里總會出現(xiàn)這樣一個老套的畫面：一個削瘦的禪宗大師面容慈祥的對他的弟子微笑著，一邊叫他們小不點，心中十分確定他們遲早會走上這條通往智慧的禪宗之道。
But is it true that age brings wisdom?
但是智慧真的與年齡有關(guān)嗎?
A study two years ago in North America, by Igor Grossmann of the University
of Waterloo, in Canada, suggested that it is.
兩年前，加拿大滑鐵盧大學(xué)Igor Grossmann博士的研究顯示情況的確如此。
In as much as it is possible to quantify wisdom, Dr Grossmann found that
elderly Americans had more of it than youngsters.
由于智慧可以標(biāo)準(zhǔn)量化，他發(fā)現(xiàn)年長的美國人的確比年輕人要聰明。
He has, however, now extended his investigation to Asia—the land of the
wizened Zen-master—and, in particular, to Japan.
但是，如今他將調(diào)查擴展至整個亞洲—這個擁有禪宗大師的神奇土地—特別是日本。
There, he found, in contrast to the West, that the grasshoppers are their
masters' equals almost from the beginning.
在那里他發(fā)現(xiàn)，與西方相比，幾乎從一開始，這些弟子與大師在智力方面難分伯仲 。
Dr Grossmann's study, just published in Psychological Science, recruited
186 Japanese from various walks of life and compared them with 225
Americans.
Grossmann博士研究結(jié)果剛發(fā)表在《心理科學(xué)》。他招募了186個來自各行各業(yè)的日本人并且與225個美國人做對比研究。
Participants were asked to read a series of pretend newspaper articles.
他要求參與者閱讀一些假裝在報紙上發(fā)表的文章。
Half des cribed conflict between groups, such as a debate between residents
of an impoverished Pacific island over whether to allow foreign oil companies to
operate there following the discovery of petroleum.
其中一半描述了一些團(tuán)體斗爭，比如太平洋小島上當(dāng)?shù)鼐用耜P(guān)于是否允許外國石油公司開發(fā)剛發(fā)現(xiàn)的石油資源。
The other half took the form of advice columns that dealt with conflicts
between individuals: siblings, friends and spouses.
另一半文章以專欄的方式提供兄弟姐妹、朋友、配偶之間的個人斗爭解決建議。
After reading each article, participants were asked What do you think will
happen after that? and Why do you think it will happen this way? Their responses
were recorded and transc ribed.
在閱讀完文章之后，研究人員會問參與者兩個問題，分別是此事發(fā)生后，你認(rèn)為事態(tài)將會如何發(fā)展??和為什么你認(rèn)為事態(tài)會這樣發(fā)展?然后研究人員會記錄他們的答案。
Dr Grossmann and his colleagues removed age-related information from the
transc ripts, and also any clues to participants' nationalities, and then passed
the edited versions to a group of assessors.
Grossmann博士和同事們會在記錄中剔除與他們年齡和國籍相關(guān)的信息，然后將處理過的記錄版本交給經(jīng)過培訓(xùn)的一組評委，他們都對答案的有一致的評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
These assessors were trained to rate trans cribed responses consistently,
and had been tested to show that their ratings were statistically comparable
with one another.
這些評估成員經(jīng)過訓(xùn)練，能夠始終以相同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對紙上答案進(jìn)行評分;并且已通過測試表明其評出的分?jǐn)?shù)在統(tǒng)計方面相互具有可比性。
The assessors scored participants' responses on a scale of one to three.
This attempted to capture the degree to which they discussed what psychologists
consider five crucial aspects of wise reasoning: willingness to seek
opportunities to resolve conflict; willingness to search for compromise;
recognition of the limits of personal knowledge; awareness that more than one
perspective on a problem can exist; and appreciation of the fact that things may
get worse before they get better.
評委將參與者的答案按1至3分進(jìn)行評分。他們想通過這種方法把握心理學(xué)家認(rèn)為的五個有關(guān)于智慧方面的重要程度，分別是：尋求解決爭端機會的意愿;尋求折中方法的意愿;對個人知識有限的認(rèn)識度;對問題存在多個方面的意識程度;和對事情在往好的方向發(fā)展前的趨壞傾向的估計程度。
A score of one on any aspect indicated a participant gave no consideration
to it.
1分代表參與者根本就沒有考慮過，
A score of two indicated some consideration.
2分代表參與者有了些思考但并不深入，
A score of three indicated a great deal of consideration.
3分代表參與者對這些問題有深入的思考。
Each participant's scores were then added up and mathematically transformed
to create an overall value within a range of zero to 100 for both interpersonal
and intergroup wisdom.
將參與者的每個問題的得分相加，再把總分從人際關(guān)系及團(tuán)體關(guān)系兩方面分別轉(zhuǎn)換為百分制。
The upshot was that, as Dr Grossmann had found before, Americans do get
wiser with age.
與Grossmann博士以前的結(jié)果一樣，美國人隨著年齡的增長智慧增加。
Their intergroup wisdom score averaged 45 at the age of 25 and 55 at
75.
25歲的美國人社會群體的判斷力平均數(shù)是45而75歲的美國人平均數(shù)是55。
Their interpersonal score similarly climbed from 46 to 50.
他們?nèi)穗H關(guān)系的判斷力平均數(shù)同樣隨年齡由46攀升至50。
Japanese scores, by contrast, hardly varied with age.
但是與美國人的結(jié)果相反，日本人的分?jǐn)?shù)與年齡并無太大關(guān)系。
Both 25-year-olds and 75-year-olds had an average intergroup wisdom of
51.
25歲和75歲的人的社會群體的判斷力平均數(shù)都是51;
For interpersonal wisdom, it was 53 and 52.
對于人際關(guān)系判斷力反而是25歲的是53,75歲的人是52.
Taken at face value, these results suggest Japanese learn wisdom faster
than Americans.
這些結(jié)果顯示日本人比美國人更早變聰明一些。
One up, then, to the wizened Zen-masters. But they also suggest a
paradox.
年輕人以一分的優(yōu)勢險勝那些削瘦的禪宗大師們。但是卻有一個悖論：
Generally, America is seen as an individualistic society, whereas Japan is
quite collectivist.
通常說來美國被視為是一個充滿了個人主義的社會，然而日本則更推崇集體主義。
Yet Japanese have higher scores than Americans for the sort of
interpersonal wisdom you might think would be useful in an individualistic
society.
但是日本人在人際關(guān)系能力這一項上的得分卻比美國人要高，而人際關(guān)系判斷力是大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為在個人主義社會中十分受用的能力。
Americans, by contrast—at least in the maturity of old age—have more
intergroup wisdom than the purportedly collectivist Japanese.
相反，美國人—至少在年齡比較高的那一組中—在群體判斷力的得分上比據(jù)稱崇尚集體主義的日本人要高。
Perhaps, then, you need individual skills when society is collective, and
social ones when it is individualistic.
也許，當(dāng)社會推崇集體主義的時候你也需要人際關(guān)系技巧，在推崇個人主義的社會里你同樣需要社交技巧。
All of which goes to show that the real root of wisdom is this: do not
assume, little grasshopper, that your prejudices are correct.
所有的這一切都表明，智慧的真正根源是：別事先假定你的成見是正確的，也別輕看了那些小不點。
2020GRE閱讀的高分經(jīng)驗相關(guān)文章：
★ GRE備考如何參考學(xué)習(xí)高分經(jīng)驗