雅思阅读选择题答题技巧.doc

雅思阅读选择题答题技巧 雅思阅读题难度不高，但还是经常有很多考生做不对。今天给大家带来了雅思阅读高分技巧之抓住数字找答案,希望能够帮助到大家，下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧【阅读题型讲解】雅思阅读选择题答题技巧雅思阅读选择题目前在每周一次的考试趋势中，还是相当重要的。如此高频的题目，却又被认为是“特别好定位，总是做不对”，继四大主流题型之后的又一“让人会呼吸的疼”。小站老师将在*中以真题为例帮大家详细讲解做选择题的方法和步骤。我们一起来看看雅思专家来分析一道雅思六Test 4 Reading Passage 3的第32题：Until recently, not much was known about the topic, and little help was available to teachers to deal with bullying. Perhaps as a consequence, schools would often deny the problem. “There is no bullying at this school” has been a common refrain, almost certainly untrue. Fortunately more schools are now saying,” there is not much bully here, but when it occurs we have a clear policy for dealing with it.”The writer thinks that the declaration “There is no bullying at this school”A. is no longer true in many schoolsB. was not in fact made by many schoolsC. reflected the schools lack of concernD. reflected a lack of knowledge and resources第一，明确一点，雅思阅读选择题是顺序原则的题。通常来说，一个段落定位一道题，最多一个段落会出现两道选择题的定位点。第二，先读题干，通过题干到文中定位，题干中的话加上了引号，说明是引用，发现在文中显而易见，在该段的第三行，很多学生习惯性的看该句的后面，很快遇到了生词refrain,然后再往下看，看到了untrue, 发现和第一个选项很相像，所以毫不犹豫选A。其实选择题里最具有干扰的、最具有迷惑性的就是选项和文中的句子长得相似，多半是错误答案。还有一部分学生是往前看了，看到了schools deny the problem, 学校否认问题，立马产生联想，学校一定是缺乏关心，才否认问题，所以立刻选C, 这样的学生犯了最大的错，就是过度推断，雅思阅读只考察字面意义上的同义转换。其实deny the problems的前面，出现了很重要的逻辑关系词as a consequence, 这一词组后面接的是结果，前面是原因，题干定位在as a consequence的后面，说明这道题是想考察产生这件事的原因，所以答案是这段第一句话的同义改写。第三，定位到确切的句子，找同义改写not much was known about the topic, and little help was available to teachers to deal with bullying. 这句话中出现了两个否定，一是对欺负不了解，二是得到老师的帮助来处理欺负很少，符合D选项中的否定词lack, knowledge and resources.雅思考试阅读模拟试题及答案解析1 Theres a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100，000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our stars core.2 Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax， Virginia， modelled the effect of temperature fluctuations in the suns interior. According to the standard view， the temperature of the suns core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion. However， Ehrlich believed that slight variations should be possible.3 He took as his starting point the work of Attila Grandpierre of the Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In 2005， Grandpierre and a collaborator， Gbor goston， calculated that magnetic fields in the suns core could produce small instabilities in the solar plasma. These instabilities would induce localised oscillations in temperature.4 Ehrlichs model shows that whilst most of these oscillations cancel each other out， some reinforce one another and become long-lived temperature variations. The favoured frequencies allow the suns core temperature to oscillate around its average temperature of 13.6 million kelvin in cycles lasting either 100，000 or 41，000 years. Ehrlich says that random interactions within the suns magnetic field could flip the fluctuations from one cycle length to the other.5 These two timescales are instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with Earths ice ages： for the past million years， ice ages have occurred roughly every 100，000 years. Before that， they occurred roughly every 41，000 years.6 Most scientists believe that the ice ages are the result of subtle changes in Earths orbit， known as the Milankovitch cycles. One such cycle describes the way Earths orbit gradually changes shape from a circle to a slight ellipse and back again roughly every 100，000 years. The theory says this alters the amount of solar radiation that Earth receives， triggering the ice ages. However， a persistent problem with this theory has been its inability to explain why the ice ages changed frequency a million years ago.7 "In Milankovitch， there is certainly no good idea why the frequency should change from one to another，" says Neil Edwards， a climatologist at the Open University in Milton Keynes， UK. Nor is the transition problem the only one the Milankovitch theory faces. Ehrlich and other critics claim that the temperature variations caused by Milankovitch cycles are simply not big enough to drive ice ages.8 However， Edwards believes the small changes in solar heating produced by Milankovitch cycles are then amplified by feedback mechanisms on Earth. For example， if sea ice begins to form because of a slight cooling， carbon dioxide that would otherwise have found its way into the atmosphere as part of the carbon cycle is locked into the ice. That weakens the greenhouse effect and Earth grows even colder.9 According to Edwards， there is no lack of such mechanisms. "If you add their effects together， there is more than enough feedback to make Milankovitch work，" he says. "The problem now is identifying which mechanisms are at work." This is why scientists like Edwards are not yet ready to give up on the current theory. "Milankovitch cycles give us ice ages roughly when we observe them to happen. We can calculate where we are in the cycle and compare it with observation，" he says. "I cant see any way of testing Ehrlichs idea to see where we are in the temperature oscillation."10 Ehrlich concedes this. "If there is a way to test this theory on the sun， I cant think of one that is practical，" he says. Thats because variation over 41，000 to 100，000 years is too gradual to be observed. However， there may be a way to test it in other stars： red dwarfs. Their cores are much smaller than that of the sun， and so Ehrlich believes that the oscillation periods could be short enough to be observed. He has yet to calculate the precise period or the extent of variation in brightness to be expected.11 Nigel Weiss， a solar physicist at the University of Cambridge， is far from convinced. He describes Ehrlichs claims as "utterly implausible". Ehrlich counters that Weisss opinion is based on the standard solar model， which fails to take into account the magnetic instabilities that cause the temperature fluctuations.Questions 1-4Complete each of the following statements with One or Two names of the scientists from the box below.Write the appropriate letters A-E in boxes 1-4 on your answer sheet.A. Attila GrandpierreB. Gbor gostonC. Neil EdwardsD. Nigel WeissE. Robert Ehrlich1. .claims there a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall in periods as long as those between ice ages on Earth.2. .calculated that the internal solar magnetic fields could produce instabilities in the solar plasma.3. .holds that Milankovitch cycles can induce changes in solar heating on Earth and the changes are amplified on Earth.4. .doesnt believe in Ehrlichs viewpoints at all.Questions 5-9Do the following statements agree with the information given in the reading passage?In boxes 5-9 on your answer sheet writeTRUE if the statement is true according to the passageFALSE if the statement is false according to the passageNOT GIVEN if the information is not given in the passage5. The ice ages changed frequency from 100，000 to 41，000 years a million years ago.6. The sole problem that the Milankovitch theory can not solve is to explain why the ice age frequency should shift from one to another.7. Carbon dioxide can be locked artificially into sea ice to eliminate the greenhouse effect.8. Some scientists are not ready to give up the Milankovitch theory though they havent figured out which mechanisms amplify the changes in solar heating.9. Both Edwards and Ehrlich believe that there is no practical way to test when the solar temperature oscillation begins and when ends.Questions 10-14Complete the notes below.Choose one suitable word from the Reading Passage above for each answer.Write your answers in boxes 10-14 on your answer sheet.The standard view assumes that the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusions hold the temperature .10.in the suns interior， but the slight changes in the earths .11. alter the temperature on the earth and cause ice ages every 100，000 years. A British scientist， however， challenges this view by claiming that the internal solar magnetic .12. can induce the temperature oscillations in the suns interior. The suns core temperature oscillates around its average temperature in .13. lasting either 100，000 or 41，000 years. And the .14. interactions within the suns magnetic field could flip the fluctuations from one cycle length to the other， which explains why the ice ages changed frequency a million years ago.Answer keys and explanations：1. ESee the sentences in paragraph 1(Theres a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100，000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our stars core.) and para.2 (Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax， Virginia， modelled the effect of temperature fluctuations in the suns interior.)2. A BSee para.3： ?i style=normalGrandpierre and a collaborator， Gbor goston， calculated that magnetic fields in the suns core could produce small instabilities in the solar plasma.3. CSee para.8： Edwards believes the small changes in solar heating produced by Milankovitch cycles are then amplified by feedback mechanisms on Earth.4. DSee para.11： Nigel Weiss， a solar physicist at the University of Cambridge， is far from convinced. He describes Ehrlichs claims as "utterly implausible".5. FalseSee para.5： for the past million years， ice ages have occurred roughly every 100，000 years. Before that， they occurred roughly every 41，000 years.6. FalseSee para.7： "In Milankovitch， there is certainly no good idea why the frequency should change from one to another，" . Nor is the transition problem the only one the Milankovitch theory faces.7. Not GivenSee para.8： if sea ice begins to form because of a slight cooling， carbon dioxide?is locked into the ice. That weakens the greenhouse effect. (The passage doesn抰 mention anything about locking Co2 into ice artificially.)8. TrueSee para.9： there is no lack of such mechanisms. "If you add their effects together， there is more than enough feedback to make Milankovitch work，"?"The problem now is identifying which mechanisms are at work." This is why scientists like Edwards are not yet ready to give up on the current theory.9. TrueSee the sentences in para.9 (According to Edwards， 卙e says. "I cant see any way of testing Ehrlichs idea to see where we are in the temperature oscillation.") and para.10 (Ehrlich concedes this. "If there is a way to test this theory on the sun， I cant think of one that is practical).10. constantSee para.2： According to the standard view， the temperature of the suns core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion.11. orbitSee para.6： Most scientists believe that the ice ages are the result of subtle changes in Earths orbit， 匛arths orbit gradually changes shape from a circle to a slight ellipse and back again roughly every 100，000 years.12. instabilitiesSee para.3： ?i style=magnetic fields in the suns core could produce small instabilities in the solar plasma. These instabilities would induce localised oscillations in temperature.13. cyclesSee para.4： allow the suns core temperature to oscillate around its average temperature of 13.6 million kelvin in cycles lasting either 100，000 or 41，000 years.14. randomSee para.4： Ehrlich says that random interactions within the suns magnetic field could flip the fluctuations from one cycle length to the other雅思考试阅读理解提分训练试题及答案1. The failure of a high-profile cholesterol drug has thrown a spotlight on the complicated machinery that regulates cholesterol levels. But many researchers remain confident that drugs to boost levels of good cholesterol are still one of the most promising means to combat spiralling heart disease.2. Drug company Pfizer announced on 2 December that it was cancelling all clinical trials of torcetrapib， a drug designed to raise heart-protective high-density lipoproteins (HDLs)。 In a trial of 15000 patients， a safety board found that more people died or suffered cardiovascular problems after taking the drug plus a cholesterol-lowering statin than those in a control group who took the statin alone.3. The news came as a kick in the teeth to many cardiologists because earlier tests in animals and people suggested it would lower rates of cardiovascular disease. "There have been no red flags to my knowledge，" says John Chapman， a specialist in lipoproteins and atherosclerosis at the National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) in Paris who has also studied torcetrapib. "This cancellation came as a complete shock."4. Torcetrapib is one of the most advanced of a new breed of drugs designed to raise levels of HDLs， which ferry cholesterol out of artery-clogging plaques to the liver for removal from the body. Specifically， torcetrapib blocks a protein called cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP)， which normally transfers the cholesterol from high-density lipoproteins to low density， plaque-promoting ones. Statins， in contrast， mainly work by lowering the bad low-density lipoproteins.Under pressure5. Researchers are now trying to work out why and how the drug backfired， something that will not become clear until the clinical details are released by Pfizer. One hint lies in evidence from earlier trials that it slightly raises blood pressure in some patients. It was thought that this mild problem would be offset by the heart benefits of the drug. But it is possible that it actually proved fatal in some patients who already suffered high blood pressure. If blood pressure is the explanation， it would actually be good news for drug developers because it suggests that the problems are specific to this compound. Other prototype drugs that are being developed to block CETP work in a slightly different way and might not suffer the same downfall.6. But it is also possible that the whole idea of blocking CETP is flawed， says Moti Kashyap， who directs atherosclerosis research at the VA Medical Center in Long Beach， California. When HDLs excrete cholesterol in the liver， they actually rely on LDLs for part of this process. So inhibiting CETP， which prevents the transfer of cholesterol from HDL to LDL， might actually cause an abnormal and irreversible accumulation of cholesterol in the body. "Youre blocking a physiologic mechanism to eliminate cholesterol and effectively constipating the pathway，" says Kashyap.Going up7. Most researchers remain confident that elevating high density lipoproteins levels by one m