雅思阅读中误解了的词汇

雅思阅读中误解了的词汇 ,你中枪了吗?下面小编给大家带来了雅思阅读中误解了的词汇 ，希望能够帮助到大家，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

雅思阅读中误解了的词汇 你中枪了吗?

1 argument .n. 1 论点，论证，观点 2争论

argument这个词是雅思阅读中绝对的高频词语，几乎每篇文章都能见到它，而且不止一次。它在我们的印象中也绝对的根深蒂固，根据笔者的教学经验，几乎所有学生看到这个词的第一反应就是争论，争吵。要说这样的理解对吗，非常正确，因为argument确实有争论，争吵的意思，但是放在雅思这个考试中，这样的理解十次有九次是错的。比起其他考试来，雅思阅读的题材是偏正式的书面语，而在这种文体中，观点的表达就是常有的事儿了。我们经常见到文中说 argues that…，或’s argument…，如果理解为吵架，争论，那么一个人怎么吵得起来呢，因此，argument在雅思阅读中基本上就只解释为“论点，论据”这个意思。与之类似的还有assume, assumption, hypothesize, hypothesis, suspect这些词，可以统统解释为观点的表达，并没有太多猜测的意思，因为论文本身就是一种十分直白的文体，是不能把它当电影剧本来分析的。

2 rather 而是 instead 而是 rather than 而不是 instead of 而不是

通常学生们见到这其中的任何一个都会不假思索地说比较或是替代，这是生搬硬套字典或词汇书上的翻译，其实在实际理解句子上会造成极大的困惑和不便，因为，到底是谁替代了谁呢?先不说像I didn’t go to school, instead, I went to the cinema.这样的句子，用“替代”来解释就已经很难理解了，什么叫我不去学校替代了我去电影院，亦或是我去电影院替代了我不去学校，很显然都不像人话。而在雅思阅读里我们碰到的基本上都是这样级别的句子Perhaps the most fundamental step in developing a sense of number is not the ability to count, but rather to see that a number is really an abstract idea instead of a simple attachment to a group of particular objects.那基本上就抓瞎了。其实只要我们把rather, rather than, instead, instead of串起来，用而是，而不是去理解，就可以让这些“小身材”的词发挥巨大威力，像上面这句长难句，立马就可以看出前后之间的转折关系，而重点在后半句。

3 little .adj. .adv. 少到几乎没有 few .adj. 少到几乎没有

大家一定不是清晰就是模糊地记得老师跟我们讲过a little和little，a few和few，第一反应往往是前者修饰不可数名词，后者修饰可数名词。非常正确，但雅思阅读其实并不太考单复数搭配，这种理解也就无多大意义。事实上，雅思阅读更多得是考语句理解，而由于英语和汉语在语言思维上的极大不同，对native speaker来说轻而易举就能理解的意思，我们中国人很可能要想好一会儿，结果要么会心地点点头，要么依然搞不清楚。比如few of us know him.我们会翻译成我们中恨很恨少的人知道他，但对于这句话中最关键的信息“know him”，我们仍然不太清楚“我们”到底是“知道还是不知道他”。而其实对这句话地道的理解其实就是我们不知道他，但如果 A few of us know him.那么就是我们知道他

4 desperately adv 极度，极其，绝地挣扎，奋力一搏

很多学生往往会拿这个词来炫耀自己的词汇量，因为这个词其实并不难背，字典里的解释是绝望，非常具体，一点也不抽象，况且还有美剧Desperate Housewife《绝望主妇》的应用，比用without hope高大上多了。但其实desperate的意思根本就不是without hope，可以说一点关系都没有。比如we desperately need better social knowledge. 难道是我们绝望地需要社会知识吗?那看来社会知识还是没有的好。其实只要大家留意一下词典里的英英翻译(当然是权威，可信的词典)，desperate的正确解释应该是孤注一掷，奋力一搏，在绝境作最后挣扎的意思。所以此举句应解释为我们极度需要更好的社会知识。

5 disproportionately adv 不成比例地(表示大，多) Unparallel adj 不平行的(表示大，多)

剑5里有一句句子说countries still trade disproportionately with their geographical neighbours.这句句子没什么难词，但难就难在这个不成比例根本无法帮助我们理解这句话，但根据与之对应的判断题countries prefer to trade with nearby nations的正确答案选TURE，就不难得知其实disproportionately就是大，多的意思，这样理解起来既地道又方便。同样的道理，剑5的另一句句子Bakelite enjoyed unparallel popularity.就是Bakelite十分受欢迎。

雅思阅读无限仿真模拟题详解：Lighting Up The Lies

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1-13 which are based on Reading Passage below.

Last year Sean A. Spence, a professor at the school of medicine at the University of Sheffield in England, performed brain scans that showed that a woman convicted of poisoning a child in her care appeared to be telling the truth when she denied committing the crime. This deception study, along with two others performed by the Sheffield group, was funded by Quickfire Media, a television production company working for the U.K.'s Channel 4, which broadcast videos of the researchers at work as part of a three-part series called "Lie Lab." The brain study of the woman later appeared in the journal European Psychiatry.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) purports to detect mendacity by seeing inside the brain instead of tracking peripheral measures of anxiety—such as changes in pulse, blood pressure or respiration —measured by a polygraph. Besides drawing hundreds of thousands of viewers, fMRI has pulled in entrepreneurs. Two companies—Cephos in Pepperell, Mass., and No Lie MRI in Tarzana, Calif.—claim to predict with 90 percent or greater certitude whether you are telling the truth. No Lie MRI, whose name evokes the casual familiarity of a walk-in dental clinic in a strip mall, suggests that the technique may even be used for “risk reduction in dating”.

Many neuroscientists and legal scholars doubt such claims—and some even question whether brain scans for lie detection will ever be ready for anything but more research on the nature of deception and the brain. An fMRI machine tracks blood flow to activated brain areas. The assumption in lie detection is that the brain must exert extra effort when telling a lie and that the regions that do more work get more blood. Such areas light up in scans; during the lie studies, the illuminated regions are primarily involved in decision making.

To assess how fMRI and other neuroscience findings affect the law, the Mac-Arthur Foundation put up $10 million last year to pilot for three years the Law and Neuroscience Project. Part of the funding will attempt to set criteria for accurate and reliable lie detection using fMRI and other brain-scanning technology. “I think it's not possible, given the current technology, to trust the results,” says Marcus Raichle, a neuroscientist at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis who heads the project's study group on lie detection. “But it’s not impossible to set up a research program to determine whether that’s possible.” A major review article last year in the American Journal of Law and Medicine by Henry T. Greely of Stanford University and Judy Illes, now at the University of British Columbia, explores the deficiencies of existing research and what may be needed to move the technology forward. The two scholars found that lie detection studies conducted so far (still less than 20 in all) failed to prove that fMRI is “effective as a lie detector in the real world at any accuracy level.”

Most studies examined groups, not individuals. Subjects in these studies were healthy young adults—making it unclear how the results would apply to someone who takes a drug that affects blood pressure or has a blockage in an artery. And the two researchers questioned the specificity of the lit-up areas; they noted that the regions also correlate with a wide range of cognitive behaviors, including memory, self- monitoring and conscious self-awareness.

The biggest challenge for which the Law and Neuroscience Project is already funding new research—is how to diminish the artificiality of the test protocol. Lying about whether a playing card is the seven of spades may not activate the same areas of the cortex as answering a question about whether you robbed the corner store. In fact, the most realistic studies to date may have come from the Lie Lab television programs. The two companies marketing the technology are not waiting for more data. Cephos is offering scans without charge to people who claim they were falsely accused if they meet certain criteria in an effort to get scans accepted by the courts. Allowing scans as legal evidence could open a potentially huge and lucrative market. “We may have to take many shots on goal before we actually see a courtroom.” says Cephos chief executive Steven Laken. He asserts that the technology has achieved 97 percent accuracy and that the more than 100 people scanned using the Cephos protocol have provided data that have resolved many of the issues that Greely and Illes cited.

But until formal clinical trials prove that the machines meet safety and effectiveness criteria, Greely and Illes have called for a ban on non-research uses. Trials envisaged for regulatory approval hint at the technical challenges. Actors, professional poker players and sociopaths would be compared against average Joes. The devout would go in the scanner after nonbelievers. Testing would take into account social setting. White lies—“no, dinner really was fantastic”—would have to be compared against untruths about sexual peccadilloes to ensure that the brain reacts identically.

There potential for abuse prompts caution. “The danger is that people’s lives can be changed in bad ways because of mistakes in the technology,” Greely says. “The danger for the science is that it gets a black eye because of this very high profile use of neuroimaging that goes wrong.” Considering the long and controversial history of the polygraph, gradualism may be the wisest course to follow for a new diagnostic that probes an essential quality governing social interaction.

Question 1-7

Use the information in the passage to match the people (listed A-D) with opinions or deeds below. Write the appropriate letters A-D in boxes 1-7 on your answer sheet.

NB you may use any letter more than once

A Henry T. Greely &Judy Illes

B Steven Laken

C Henry T. Greely

D Marcus Raichle

1 The possibility hidden in a mission impossible

2 The uncertain effectiveness of functional magnetic resonance imaging for detecting lies

3 The hazard lying behind the technology as a lie detector

4 The limited fields for the use of lie detection technology

5 Several successful cases of applying the results from the lie detection technology

6 Cons of the current research related to lie-detector tests

7 There should be some requested work to improve the techniques regarding lie detection

Question 8-10

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?

In boxes 8-10 on your answer sheet, write

TRUE if the statement is true

FALSE if the statement is false

NOT GIVEN if the information is not given in the passage

8 The lie detection for a convicted woman was first conducted by researchers in Europe.

9 The legitimization of using scans in the court might mean a promising and profitable business.

10 There is always something wrong with neuroimaging.

Question 11-13

Summary

Complete the following summary of the paragraphs of Reading Passage, using No More than Three words from the Reading Passage for each answer. Write your answers in boxes 11-13 on your answer sheet.

It is claimed that functional magnetic resonance imaging can check lies by observing the internal part of the brain rather than following up 11 to evaluate the anxiety as 12 does. Audiences as well as 13 are fascinated by this amazing lie-detection technology.

文章题目：谎言揭秘

题材：论说文

结构：A:Sean A. Spence关于毒死孩子的妇女的测谎实验

B:fMRI的测试方法及引起的关注

C:人们的怀疑及fMRI测谎的理论依据

D:为fMRI设立的研究项目，Henry T. Greely 和Judy Illes不信任fMRI

E:fMRI的研究对象令Henry T. Greely 和Judy Illes提出质疑

F:fMRI所面临的最大问题，企业却急于应用fMRI技术

G:fMRI的安全性和有效性标准设置有许多技术问题要解决

H:Henry T. Greely对于fMRI的警告及作者的建议

试题分析：

Question 1-7

题目类型：List of opinions and deeds

参考译文：

去年，英国谢菲尔德大学医学院教授Sean A. Spence 在对一位将自己照顾的孩子毒死的妇女的大脑进行扫描时发现，这位被定罪的妇女在否认自己的犯罪事实时，看起来像是在说真话。这项关于欺骗的研究，连同其它两个由谢菲尔德小组领导的研究是由Quickfire Media赞助的，Quickfire Media是一家电视节目制作公司，播出频道为英国的第4频道，该频道播放这些研究人员在工作时的视频，构成一个由三部分组成的系列节目的一部分，该系列叫做“谎言实验室”。对该妇女大脑的研究之后出现在欧洲精神病学杂志上。

功能磁共振成像仪(fMRI)声称能通过看到大脑的内部来进行测谎，而不是通过追踪焦虑的外在表现:如通过测谎仪测出的脉搏，血压或呼吸的变化，功能磁共振成像技术除了吸引成百上千的观众外，还吸引着企业家的目光。两家公司——马萨诸塞州Pepperell市的 Cephos 公司和加利福尼亚州Tarzana市的No Lie MRI 公司声称对人们是否在说实话的预测的准确率可以达到90%甚至更高。No Lie MRI 这家公司的名字本身就会让人想起一个熟悉的情景——就像走进一家位于商业区的牙科诊所，表明该技术甚至可能被 用于“降低约会的风险。”

许多神经科学家和法律学者却怀疑此说法，有的甚至质疑对谎言的探测而进行大脑扫描测谎是否真的有用，还是只是一些对谎言的性质和大脑所做的更多的研究罢了。功能磁共振成像仪追踪到达大脑激活区的血流的行踪。测谎背后的假设是，当大脑在说谎时，它需要额外的运作并且负责这些额外运作的大脑区域需要更多的血液供给，而这些区域在被扫描时就会亮起，在对谎言进行研究时，这些被照亮的区域就是主要参与决策的区域。

为了评估功能磁共振成像仪和其他神经科学的发现如何影响法律，麦克阿瑟基金去年出资1,000万元来资助一个将耗时三年的“法律和神经科学项目”。部分资金将会用来尝试设置使用功能磁共振成像仪和其它脑部扫描技术来进行测谎的准确性和可靠性的标准。华盛顿大学圣路易斯医学院负责该项目测谎研究小组的神经学家 Marcus Raichle 认为“在现有的技术前提下，很难完全相信测谎的结果，但是建立一个项目以确定测谎结果的可能性这项提议是可行的。”斯坦福大学的 Henry T. Greely 和英国哥伦比亚大学的 Judy Illes 在去年发表在美国《法律与医学杂志》上的一篇评论文章中探讨了现行研究的不足之处以及为了推进技术进步可能需要改进之处。两位学者发现，迄今为止进行的测谎研究(总数仍低于20)还不能证明磁共振成像仪作为测谎仪在现实世界中的任何的精度水平上都是有效的。

大多数的研究都是以团体而不是以个人为对象。这些研究的对象是健康的年轻成年人——所以不清楚如果对象变成因为服用了药物而影响了血压或是导致动脉堵塞的人时，这些研究结果是否还适用。两位研究人员质疑了这些发亮的区域，他们指出，该区域也和一系列认知行为具有相关性，包括记忆，自我检测和自我意识。

最大的挑战——同时也是“法律和神经枓学项目”为其资助了新的研究项目——是如何减少测试协议的人为干预程度。关于一张扑克牌是否是黑桃7的谎言可能无法激活与回答你是否抢劫了街角的一家商店时的大脑皮质的同一区域。事实上，迄今为止最现实的研究，有可能是来自“谎言实验室”这个电视节目。两家经营这样技术的公司不是再等待更多的数据。Cephos公司提供的免费的扫描是针对一些符合特定标准由法院准许的声称自己是无罪的人。允许对大脑的扫描作为法律证据可能会打开一个潜在的巨大和利润丰厚的市场。Cephos公司的首席执行官Steven Laken说道“在上法庭之前，可能需要进行若干的测试”。他声称该技术已达到97%的准确率，并且有超过100个使用Cephos公司扫描的人已经通过获得数据解决了许多Greely and Illes提到过的问题。

但是，Greely 和 Illes的呼吁在正式的临床试验证明该仪器能够满足安全性和有效性的标准前，该仪器不可用在非研究领域。要面对监管部门的批准的试验要面对技术上的挑战。演员，专业扑克玩家和反社会的人会和普通人进行比较。虔诚的人会跟在怀疑论者的后面接受扫描。测试将需要考虑到社会环境。善意的谎言——“不，晚餐真是太棒了”——将会和有关性过失这样的谎言进行比对，以保证大脑对不同的谎言有相同的反应。

人们要小心这项技术被滥用的危险。Greely 认为“危险在于人们的生活可能会因为技术中的错误往不好的方向改变。科学的危险之处在于它有很多未知性，因为它很大程度上使用了错误的神经影像学。”鉴于漫长且有争议的测谎仪的历史，循序渐进

来使用它作为一个新的诊断手段来检测社会治理的质量。

参考答案：

可能是最明智的选择，

雅思阅读中误解了的词汇 相关文章：

★ 如何提升雅思阅读整体做题速度

★ 雅思写作考试这些词汇要慎用

★ 雅思写作考试使用哪些词汇容易拿高分

★ 雅思写作如何看待词汇语法和逻辑

★ 雅思哪本阅读词汇书好

★ 雅思阅读超高频词汇整合

★ 如何快速记忆雅思阅读词汇

★ 雅思口语如何用词汇凸显亮点