循序渐进攻克雅思阅读的词和句

循序渐进攻克雅思阅读的词和句

　　IELTS阅读是考试一大难点，很多考生在阅读上失手。其主要存在以下几个难点：单词、句子阅读、阅读速度和考生主观臆断。下面是小编给大家带来的循序渐进攻克雅思阅读的词和句，希望能帮到大家!

　　循序渐进攻克雅思阅读的词和句

　　单词准备单词卡片，循环背诵

　　一般IELTS阅读中涉及词汇量比较大，但考生具备4000左右即可应考。单词贫乏的考生，一定要及时补充词汇，打下扎实的基础。在应试时很容易遗忘或混淆单词的意义，为了避免类似情况发生，一定要加强单词意义的理解。对此，考生可以制作单词卡片，正反面各写英文和中文解释。制订计划每天背一定量的生词，循环背诵并不断补充。当然，最有效的是阅读文章时记忆单词。

　　句子参考上下文，分析主谓结构

　　在句子理解方面，考生最容易犯的错误就是根据自己已有经验片面理解。IELTS阅读中有的题目考的是对于文章中某一句子的理解，要参考上下文客观地看问题。考生应对一些复合句，尤其是双重否定句、比较句、指代句等有较深了解。特别在遇到复杂句时，应静心思考，从把握句子主干一一主谓结构着手来分析解剖句子结构。

　　阅读扫描全文，做出标记

　　雅思阅读追求速度(speed)与准确度(accuracy)的完美结合。快而不准或准而太慢都会影响考分。考生在勤奋练习的时候掌握一些阅读技巧将达到事半功倍的效果。快速阅读最关键的是在扫描全文的时候把握每段的主旨，并做出标记，在看完全文后对文章的结构主题有大致的了解。此外，考生以单词为单位看文章，遇生词就停顿等坏习惯都要极力避免。

　　总之，考生平时多看、多读、多听、多说、多写，多接触英文(much exposure to English)再运用一些阅读技巧，拿下雅思阅读并非一件难事。

　　雅思阅读题型精炼与答案解析——选择(Multiple Choice)

　　Academic Reading sample task – Multiple Choice

　　[Note: This is an extract from an Academic Reading passage on the subject of government subsidies to farmers. The text preceding this extract explained how subsidies can lead to activities which cause uneconomical and irreversible changes to the environment.]

　　All these activities may have damaging environmental impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause of deforestation; chemical fertilisers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies; more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to exacerbate soil erosion; and the spread of monoculture and use of high-yielding varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests or diseases in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United States, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soil's productivity. The country subsequently embarked upon a program to convert 11 per cent of its cropped land to meadow or forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing much faster than in America.

　　Government policies have frequently compounded the environmental damage that farming can cause. In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense: about 0 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre, a farmer's easiest option is to use more of the most readily available inputs: fertilisers and pesticides. Fertiliser use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960-1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 per cent. The quantity of pesticides applied has risen too: by 69 per cent in 1975-1984 in Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 per cent in the frequency of application in the three years from 1981.

　　In the late 1980s and early 1990s some efforts were made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertiliser subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertiliser use (a fall compounded by the decline in world commodity prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal of subsidies also stopped land-clearing and over-stocking, which in the past had been the principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was the subsidy to manage soil erosion.

　　In less enlightened countries, and in the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it fallow. It may sound strange but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidised - and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops.

　　Questions 10 – 12

　　Choose the appropriate letters A, B, C or D.

　　Write your answers in boxes 10-12 on your answer sheet.

　　10 Research completed in 1982 found that in the United States soil erosion

　　A reduced the productivity of farmland by 20 per cent.

　　B was almost as severe as in India and China.

　　C was causing significant damage to 20 per cent of farmland.

　　D could be reduced by converting cultivated land to meadow or forest.

　　11 By the mid-1980s, farmers in Denmark

　　A used 50 per cent less fertiliser than Dutch farmers.

　　B used twice as much fertiliser as they had in 1960.

　　C applied fertiliser much more frequently than in 1960.

　　D more than doubled the amount of pesticide they used in just 3 years.

　　12 Which one of the following increased in New Zealand after 1984?

　　A farm incomes

　　B use of fertiliser

　　C over-stocking

　　D farm diversification

　　Answers:

　　10 C

　　11 B

　　12 D