雅思阅读题的顺序与逆序出题规律

雅思阅读题的顺序与逆序出题规律一览 ,14种题型一一拆解,小编给大家带来了雅思阅读题的顺序与逆序出题规律，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。

雅思阅读题的顺序与逆序出题规律一览 14种题型一一拆解

雅思阅读的题型设置非常多，我们熟悉的“multiple choice”仅仅是雅思阅读14种题型中的一种。不过Ieltser们不要担心，实际上这么多种题型所考察的你的subskill是共通的。虽然题型很多，但只要你掌握基本的阅读技巧，以不变应万变还是很轻松的。

下面进入正题，雅思14种题型到底哪些遵循顺序出题的套路呢?

雅思阅读出题规律之判断题

首先，这两种题型可不是考官随心所欲的产物。T/F/NG题型多出现在前两篇阅读中，而Y/N/NG大多出现在第三篇中。为啥?因为T/F/NG一般是根据所有的facts，也就是事实判断来出题，Y/N/NG是根据idea或者argument，也就是观点来出题。而我们在“三篇文章难度是否一致”那期文章中讲到过，前两篇文章大多是说明类事实陈述文章，而第三篇文章相对来说观点类的会更多一点。大家懂了吗，可以找出剑桥真题检验一下哦。这两种题型很nice，一般都是顺序出题的。

雅思阅读出题规律之summary题型

这种题型又可能分成两种，一种是带选项的，一种是不带选项的。宝宝们猜猜哪一种会更简单?答案是不带选项的会更简单一点。因为不带选项的意味着你可以把文章中的原词直接写上，这里面是不需要太多的同义替换技巧的，找到原文，抄下来原词，搞定。

至于带选项的summary，你会发现题目中会设置同义替换，也有可能会有一些归纳总结。也就是原文当中三句话的内容，对应到题目summary里的浓缩成了一句话描述，甚至最后选的词有可能是一个归纳总结性的词。这对大家的理解概括能力以及同义词掌握程度要求就比较高。(再次强调同意替换词的重要性，宝宝们一定坚持背我们的同义替换打卡计划)。这种题型还很任性，有可能是顺序有可能是乱序。

雅思阅读出题规律之list of headings

这种题型平时我们用中文说的话就是小标题题或者段落标题题。这种题型肯定是乱序出题的，毕竟如果matching headings是顺序出题的话，这题就没法做了，直接一段对一个标题。(虽然大家很希望如此对吧)

雅思阅读出题规律之multiple choice

这其实是我们做的比较多的一种题型，这里面又包含了两种题型，一种是四选一的，一般来说会在第3篇文章中出现;还有一种是五选二或者多选多的。这些题目一般来讲会是顺序出题。

雅思阅读出题规律之matching information

就是会有几句话放在一个地方，然后题目描述会问你“哪一个段落包含以下信息?”这种问法熟悉吧。这个题型是乱序出题的。另外要注这information里有一个技巧，所有的这些的题干在开始会有一个抽象词，比如说adscription，example，或者是figure类似的。你在定位原文的时候要注意这些提示词。

雅思阅读出题规律之matching features

给你几个人物让你在原文当中找他的观点，或者几个年代让你在原文中在不同年代发生的事情。大家注意一下这种题目一定是乱序出题的，如果是顺序的话也就没有matching的意义了，所以所有的matching题一点是乱序的。

这里提醒大家额外注意，matching features的选项是顺序的。举个例子，题目要求你把5个人名和他们的观点进行配对，那么这5个人的观点，也就是选项部分，在原文当中是顺序出现的。所以这种题型的解题技巧是按照选项顺序对照原文，然后再对应这些基本观点是出自哪些人。所以matching features是乱序出题，但是选项是顺序出现在原文中的。

雅思阅读出题规律之matching sentence endings

就是每个题干都是半句话，下面选项中有很多后半句，让你做一个基本的对应。这种题型是乱序出题的。

雅思阅读出题规律之table completion，也就是表格填空。它的顺序不一定，有可能顺序也有可能乱序。

雅思阅读出题规律之sentence completion，就是一句话中间给你挖出一个空填上就行。也有时候会挖两个空，一般来讲这两个空会有并列关系，它们两个算一道题计一次分。这种题型一般是顺序出题的。

雅思阅读出题规律之notes completion，题型设置和table completion很相似，不一定顺序还是乱序。

雅思阅读出题规律之labeling diagram。给你一个diagram然后你在原文中找到对应说明段落再把空填好。这种题目同样有可能会顺序也有可能会乱序。另外这个题型在OG里面或者剑11里面都出现过，所以大家关注一下。

雅思阅读出题规律之short answer question，就是简答题。直接给你一个题目，你用一两个或者两三个单词回答。这种题型是顺序出题的，每个题的题干在原文当中和自然段的顺序是对应的。

雅思阅读出题规律之flow chart completion，这个和diagram比较像，大家在做的时候直接看题目描述就可以了。题目描述是怎么说的，它就对应哪一种题型。同样，这种题型有可能顺序出题，也有可能乱序。

简单总结一下雅思阅读的14种题型，一定会顺序出题的有5种，一定会乱序出题的有4种，剩下5种不太好说，以顺序为主，可能夹杂着一两题出现乱序的情况。

雅思阅读素材积累：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.

雅思阅读题的顺序与逆序出题规律相关文章：

★ 雅思阅读简答题解题技巧

★ 雅思阅读高分解题技巧

★ 雅思阅读解题技巧

★ 雅思阅读主旨题技巧分享