雅思阅读选择题解题技巧

雅思阅读选择题解题技巧这篇文章系统地给大家讲解一下雅思阅读当中选择题这种题型的有关知识点，其中包括雅思阅读选择题的题型要求和特点，做题步骤和解题技巧。下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

雅思阅读选择题解题技巧

雅思阅读选择题解题技巧为大家带来雅思阅读中最常见的一种题型之一——选择题的解题方法和技巧的总结。选择题是我们非常熟悉也是雅思阅读的高频常客之一。虽说选择题无论随便乱选一个选项都有25%的正确率，如果掌握了正确的做题方法和步骤，就有机会达到100%正确率。

Multiple Choice(选择题)

题型要求

这是一个传统题型，大家都很熟悉。但就是这种大家都熟悉的题型，IELTS考试也要弄出新花样：四选一和多选多两种。

四选一，选项肯定是四个。即要求从A、B、C、D四项中选择一个最符合题意的选项。

多选多，选项肯定是五个或五个以上，而正确答案的数目肯定在两个以上。

哪个更难呢?很多同学会好不犹豫地说是多选多。实际上，多选多很容易，是一种简单题型。它具有以下几个特点：

(1) 正确答案的数目是已知的。在题目的要求中会告诉你要选出几个选项。题目要求中常WHICH FOUR， WHICH THREE 等字样。

(2) 答案在原文中是集中出现的，对应原文中的例举。找着一个答案，其余几个就在它的前后不远处。

我们举一个中文阅读的例子来说明。文章如下：

帕金森症是一种顽症。它是由大脑中缺乏一种叫多巴胺的化学物质引起的。(后面删减100字)很多名人深受其苦。比如，我们的改革的总设计师邓小平、拳王阿里、以故数学家陈景润等等。(后面删减100字)

题目是：以下哪三个人得过帕金森症?

A. 邓小平

B. 里根

C. 拳王阿里

D. 布什

E. 陈景润 答案：ACE

四选一在考试中，一般比较难。它的特点是：四个选项，哪个都像。好像在原文中都提到了，但又都和原文的叙述不太一样。很容易选错。

选择题和问答题的区别在于：问答题要求你自己从原文中找答案。而选择题给你四个选项，让你选择，在给你提示的同时，也给了你一个陷阱。有些选择题，如果改为回答题，你可能能够做对，但给了你四个选项，反而选错了。

考试中，四选一，A类和G类一般都是每次必考，考一组，共3题左右。多选多，不是每次必考。

雅思阅读选择题的题型特点

1. 考察内容多为细节

除了通常位于文章末尾的 Global multiple choice 题型考察考生对全文大意的理解之外，其余的都是要建立在对文章细节的理解之上的。做这种题型时，考生没有必要对全文进行通读进行理解，而只需要对文章的一句话或者是几句话进行理解便可。

2. 多项选择题答案集中

纵观雅思所有的真题，不难发现绝大多数多项选择题的答案都是出现在 1-2 个小段之内(最多不超过 4 段)，而不是分散在全文。考生只要定位到了相关的段落并进行略读，根据语言转换便不难找到答案。

3. 选择项都有较大的同义转换

雅思阅读在很大程度上就是考察考生的语言水平，而这一步是通过题目跟文章的语言转换进行的。语言转换主要通过同义词和同义句型来实现，而在选择题中，由于选项绝大多数都是一个短语，不是完整的句子，因此语言转换主要是通过同义词来进行的。

4. 题目间有顺序原则

跟绝大多数题型一样，选择题的题号之间都基本遵循顺序原则。这意味着一旦一道题目定位不出来，可以根据相邻的题目，把范围推出来。

雅思阅读选择题的解题步骤

(1) 找出题干中的关键词，最好先定位到原文中的一个段落。

将题干中的关键词与原文各段落的小标题或每段话的第一句相对照。有些题目能先定位到原文中的一个段落，着必将大大加快解题时间，并提高准确率。但并不是每个题目都能先定位到原文中的一个段落的。

如果题目中的关键词难以确定答案的位置，选项中的关键词也可以作为定位的参考依据。

(2) 从头到尾快速阅读该段落，根据题干中的其他关键词及选项确定正确答案。正确选项常常是原文相关词句的改写。

确定一个段落后，答案在该段落中有的具体位置是未知的。所以，需要从头到尾快速阅读该段落，确定正确答案。短问答的答案常常是原文原词，而选择题的答案常常是原文相关词句的改写。

(3) 有些题目比较简单，可以直接选择。对于难题，可以用排除法确定正确答案。

有些题目比较简单，从原文很快找到对应答案。这时可以直接选择不必看其它选项。既可以节省时间，同时也避免受干扰选项的误导。

有些题目比较难，看每个选项都有点像，但又都不太象。这时，可以用排除法，先排除掉肯定不对的选项，然后在剩下的选项中再做出选择。通常，有两个选项必有好排除，另外两个有一定的难度。请参见本题型的注意事项部分，其中分析了干扰选项的特点。

(4) 要注意顺序性，即题目的顺序和原文的顺序基本一致。

题目是有顺序性的。第一题的答案应在文章的前部，第二题的答案应在第一题的答案之后。这个规律也有助于同学们确定答案的位置。

NOTICE

1. 如果一个选项合乎题意，还要看其它选项中是否有both…and、all of the above的字样。

我们举一个中文阅读的例子：

原文：如果你随便停车，要罚你款，还要把你的车拖走。

题目：如果你随便停车，将：

A. 被罚款

B. 你的车被拖走

C. 没事儿

D. both被罚款and你的车被拖走 答案：D

如果选项中有一个是all of the above，它是正确选项的可能性很大。Both…and是正确选项比all of the above小一些。总之，如果一个选项合乎题意，不要马上选。看一眼其余选项中是否有both…and, all of the above的字样。

2. 注意题干中是否有not, except的字样。

题干中有这些词时，通常是将它们大写并使用黑体，特别醒目。如果不注意看，必然答错题。

如前面的关于帕金森症的中文阅读文章，可能出一道四选一的题目：

题目：下面的人得过帕金森症EXCEPT

A. 邓小平

B. 里根

C. 拳王阿里

D. 陈景润 答案：B

3. 干扰选项的特点

做选择题的过程就是与干扰选项做斗争的过程。清楚干扰选项的特点，就能做到百战百胜。干扰选项特征如下：

A. 无：选项中所讲的内容在原文中根本不存在，或找不到语言依据。要注意，答题的唯一依据是原文，不能凭借自己的知识或主观想象。

B. 反：与原文相矛盾的选项。这时要注意题干或原文中是否有NOT、EXECPT等词，也要注意反义词。

C. 满：含有“绝对意义”的词汇如must、always、all、will的选项，一般为错误选项。选项中含有“相对意义”的词汇如can、may、sometimes、some、not always，一般为正确答案。也就是说，越是模棱两可、含含糊糊，越可能是正确答案，因为它适用的范围更广。这条规律的适用性很强，实践证明它的准确率在90%以上。

D. 偏：似是而非，与原句部分相似的选项。这是不太容易排除的。

E. 混：张冠李戴，有时题干是主语，选项是谓语，要留心题干的主语和选项的谓语构成的主谓结构是否张冠李戴。这种干扰项规律也比较明显，常常是这样的：

原文：甲事物的特征是X。乙事物的特征是Y。

题干是甲事物，选项中肯定有特征Y，但肯定没有特征X。为什么呢?特征Y就是让你选的干扰项，如果选项中有特征X，你肯定会选它，就不会选错了。也就是出题者为了这个精心布置的陷阱成功，他会舍弃特征X，而在文章的其它地方谈到甲事物的时候，出现一个正确答案。

4. 正确选项应是原文的改写，与原文特别一致的选项应引起怀疑。

正确选项应是原文相关词句的改写，所以与原文特别一致的选项是正确选项的可能性不大。

雅思阅读考前必看文章之经济类

雅思阅读：Whose lost decade?

Japan's economy works better than pessimists think—at least for the elderly.

THE Japanese say they suffer from an economic disease called "structural pessimism". Overseas too, there is a tendency to see Japan as a harbinger of all that is doomed in the economies of the euro zone and America—even though figures released on November 14th show its economy grew by an annualised 6% in the third quarter, rebounding quickly from the March tsunami and nuclear disaster.

Look dispassionately at Japan's economic performance over the past ten years, though, and "the second lost decade", if not the first, is a misnomer. Much of what tarnishes Japan's image is the result of demography—more than half its population is over 45—as well as its poor policy in dealing with it. Even so, most Japanese have grown richer over the decade.

In aggregate, Japan's economy grew at half the pace of America's between 2001 and 2010. Yet if judged by growth in GDP per person over the same period, then Japan has outperformed America and the euro zone (see chart 1). In part this is because its population has shrunk whereas America's population has increased.

Though growth in labour productivity fell slightly short of America's from 2000 to 2008, total factor productivity, a measure of how a country uses capital and labour, grew faster, according to the Tokyo-based Asian Productivity Organisation. Japan's unemployment rate is higher than in 2000, yet it remains about half the level of America and Europe (see chart 2).

Besides supposed stagnation, the two other curses of the Japanese economy are debt and deflation. Yet these also partly reflect demography and can be overstated. People often think of Japan as an indebted country. In fact, it is the world's biggest creditor nation, boasting ¥253 trillion ($3.3 trillion) in net foreign assets.

To be sure, its government is a large debtor; its net debt as a share of GDP is one of the highest in the OECD. However, the public debt has been accrued not primarily through wasteful spending or "bridges to nowhere", but because of ageing, says the IMF. Social-security expenditure doubled as a share of GDP between 1990 and 2010 to pay rising pensions and health-care costs. Over the same period tax revenues have shrunk.

Falling tax revenues are a problem. The flip side, though, is that Japan has the lowest tax take of any country in the OECD, at just 17% of GDP. That gives it plenty of room to manoeuvre. Takatoshi Ito, an economist at the University of Tokyo, says increasing the consumption tax by 20 percentage points from its current 5%—putting it at the level of a high-tax European country—would raise ¥50 trillion and immediately wipe out Japan's fiscal deficit.

That sounds draconian. But here again, demography plays a role. Officials say the elderly resist higher taxes or benefit cuts, and the young, who are in a minority, do not have the political power to push for what is in their long-term interest. David Weinstein, professor of Japanese economy at Columbia University in New York, says the elderly would rather give money to their children than pay it in taxes. Ultimately that may mean that benefits may shrink in the future. "If you want benefits to grow in line with income, as they are now, you need a massive increase in taxes of about 10% of GDP," he says.

Demography helps explain Japan's stubborn deflation, too, he says. After all, falling prices give savers—most of whom are elderly—positive real yields even when nominal interest rates are close to zero. Up until now, holding government bonds has been a good bet. Domestic savers remain willing to roll them over, which enables the government to fund its deficits. Yet this comes at a cost to the rest of the economy.

In short, Japan's economy works better for those middle-aged and older than it does for the young. But it is not yet in crisis, and economists say there is plenty it could do to raise its potential growth rate, as well as to lower its debt burden.

Last weekend Yoshihiko Noda, the prime minister, took a brave shot at promoting reform when he said Japan planned to start consultations towards joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is an American-backed free-trade zone that could lead to a lowering of tariffs on a huge swath of goods and services. Predictably it is elderly farmers, doctors and small businessmen who are most against it.

Reforms to other areas, such as the tax and benefit system, might be easier if the government could tell the Japanese a different story: not that their economy is mired in stagnation, but that its performance reflects the ups and downs of an ageing society, and that the old as well as the young need to make sacrifices.

The trouble is that the downbeat narrative is deeply ingrained. The current crop of leading Japanese politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen are themselves well past middle age. Many think they have sacrificed enough since the glory days of the 1980s, when Japan's economy seemed unstoppable. Mr Weinstein says they suffer from "diminished-giant syndrome", nervously watching the economic rise of China. If they compared themselves instead with America and Europe, they might feel heartened enough to make some of the tough choices needed.

雅思阅读考前必看文章之经济类

雅思阅读：The magic of diasporas

Immigrant networks are a rare bright spark in the world economy. Rich countries should welcome them

THIS is not a good time to be foreign. Anti-immigrant parties are gaining ground in Europe. Britain has been fretting this week over lapses in its border controls. In America Barack Obama has failed to deliver the immigration reform he promised , and Republican presidential candidates would rather electrify the border fence with Mexico than educate the children of illegal aliens. America educates foreign scientists in its universities and then expels them, a policy the mayor of New York calls "national suicide".

This illiberal turn in attitudes to migration is no surprise. It is the result of cyclical economic gloom combined with a secular rise in pressure on rich countries' borders. But governments now weighing up whether or not to try to slam the door should consider another factor: the growing economic importance of diasporas, and the contribution they can make to a country's economic growth.

Old networks, new communications

Diaspora networks—of Huguenots, Scots, Jews and many others—have always been a potent economic force, but the cheapness and ease of modern travel has made them larger and more numerous than ever before. There are now 215m first-generation migrants around the world: that's 3% of the world's population. If they were a nation, it would be a little larger than Brazil. There are more Chinese people living outside China than there are French people in France. Some 22m Indians are scattered all over the globe. Small concentrations of ethnic and linguistic groups have always been found in surprising places—Lebanese in west Africa, Japanese in Brazil and Welsh in Patagonia, for instance—but they have been joined by newer ones, such as west Africans in southern China.

These networks of kinship and language make it easier to do business across borders. They speed the flow of information: a Chinese trader in Indonesia who spots a gap in the market for cheap umbrellas will alert his cousin in Shenzhen who knows someone who runs an umbrella factory. Kinship ties foster trust, so they can seal the deal and get the umbrellas to Jakarta before the rainy season ends. Trust matters, especially in emerging markets where the rule of law is weak. So does a knowledge of the local culture. That is why so much foreign direct investment in China still passes through the Chinese diaspora. And modern communications make these networks an even more powerful tool of business.

Diasporas also help spread ideas. Many of the emerging world's brightest minds are educated at Western universities. An increasing number go home, taking with them both knowledge and contacts. Indian computer scientists in Bangalore bounce ideas constantly off their Indian friends in Silicon Valley. China's technology industry is dominated by "sea turtles" (Chinese who have lived abroad and returned).

Diasporas spread money, too. Migrants into rich countries not only send cash to their families; they also help companies in their host country operate in their home country. A Harvard Business School study shows that American companies that employ lots of ethnic Chinese people find it much easier to set up in China without a joint venture with a local firm.

Such arguments are unlikely to make much headway against hostility towards immigrants in rich countries. Fury against foreigners is usually based on two (mutually incompatible) notions: that because so many migrants claim welfare they are a drain on the public purse; and that because they are prepared to work harder for less pay they will depress the wages of those at the bottom of the pile.

The first is usually not true (in Britain, for instance, immigrants claim benefits less than indigenous people do), and the second is hard to establish either way. Some studies do indeed suggest that competition from unskilled immigrants depresses the wages of unskilled locals. But others find this effect to be small or non-existent.

Nor is it possible to establish the impact of migration on overall growth. The sums are simply too difficult. Yet there are good reasons for believing that it is likely to be positive. Migrants tend to be hard-working and innovative. That spurs productivity and company formation. A recent study carried out by Duke University showed that, while immigrants make up an eighth of America's population, they founded a quarter of the country's technology and engineering firms. And, by linking the West with emerging markets, diasporas help rich countries to plug into fast-growing economies.

Rich countries are thus likely to benefit from looser immigration policy; and fears that poor countries will suffer as a result of a "brain drain" are overblown. The prospect of working abroad spurs more people to acquire valuable skills, and not all subsequently emigrate. Skilled migrants send money home, and they often return to set up new businesses. One study found that unless they lose more than 20% of their university graduates, the brain drain makes poor countries richer.

Indian takeaways

Government as well as business gains from the spread of ideas through diasporas. Foreign-educated Indians, including the prime minister, Manmohan Singh (Oxford and Cambridge) and his sidekick Montek Ahluwalia (Oxford), played a big role in bringing economic reform to India in the early 1990s. Some 500,000 Chinese people have studied abroad and returned, mostly in the past decade; they dominate the think-tanks that advise the government, and are moving up the ranks of the Communist Party. Cheng Li of the Brookings Institution, an American think-tank, predicts that they will be 15-17% of its Central Committee next year, up from 6% in 2002. Few sea turtles call openly for democracy. But they have seen how it works in practice, and they know that many countries that practise it are richer, cleaner and more stable than China.

As for the old world, its desire to close its borders is understandable but dangerous. Migration brings youth to ageing countries, and allows ideas to circulate in millions of mobile minds. That is good both for those who arrive with suitcases and dreams and for those who should welcome them.

雅思阅读选择题解题技巧相关文章：

1.雅思托福gre词汇量多少