《名师分析GRE阅读3种主要易错问题.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《名师分析GRE阅读3种主要易错问题.doc（20页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、名师分析GRE阅读3种主要易错问题 名师分析GRE阅读3种主要易错问题 ,减少阅读扣分请务必了解一下，就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。名师分析GRE阅读3种主要易错问题 减少阅读扣分请务必了解一下GRE阅读易犯错误：不看*先看问题不知道从何时起，所谓做阅读最效率的方式是先看题目选项再看*的说法成为了很多GRE考生在阅读时遵循的方法。而这种方法，看似追求快速解题，实际上却往往会耽误考生更多的时间，对于解题的正确率也毫无帮助。且不论只看问题的话如何快速回到*中做好定位，很多题目往往会问及和*整体思想乃至结构相关的内容，不看*仅凭只言片语进行判断想得出正确答案根本难以做到。这种误人子弟的所谓技巧方法，希
2、望考生还是能够谨慎对待，做阅读无论如何都应该先从*入手，如果觉得时间来不及可以学习提升阅读速度的方法，而不是使用投机取巧本末颠倒的所谓“技巧”。GRE阅读易犯错误：陷入生词困扰前面说到了GRE词汇量大，在阅读中也常有体现，实际上，由于GRE*的选文特点，往往会有一些比较专业的科学人文等*，这些*中也经常会冒出一些冷僻的生词，许多把GRE词汇背的烂熟的考生也不一定认识。不少考生因为不认识生词而影响了做题甚至整个考试状态。实际上，考生在面对这些生词时不认识的情况十分正常，需要做的不是绞尽脑汁想它的意思，而是在不影响阅读理解的前提下绕开这些词汇进行解题。即便是需要理解，生词的上下文中也往往会带有辅助
3、解释的说明性文字。所以，考生在考试时大可不必因遭遇生词而惊慌失措，冷静对待并找到解决办法才是关键所在。GRE阅读易犯错误：回读的不良习惯回读就是一段话，一遍不行两遍，两遍不行三遍，直到自以为读懂为止，这是典型的以“句子”为单位阅读的特征，因为读者虽然有可能最终读懂每一句话，但是却不可能有效区分主题句和支持句，导致其不可能掌握段落主旨，体现在考场上的表现就是一篇*反复读了数遍却还是没看明白是在讲什么。从心理学角度讲，这是不自信和不放心的表现，担心自己有内容遗漏，一而再再而三地读，其实掌握了雅思*出题的思路，熟悉西方人表达上的思维模式，例如开门见山式，重要信息前置等原则，就可以大胆的在阅读时有“舍
4、”有“得”。GRE填空题目原文：经典物理理论介绍以下是来自The New Atlantis的One Mans Quantum Culture，作者是Jeremy Axelrod。Quantum theory is known largely for being unknown known, in other words, for how it departs from the world of common experience, how it cannot be explained or grasped, how it defies reason and intuition, and how
5、 it toys with the laws of classical physics. It is a science of head-scratching. Matter appears in two places at once. Light acts as a wave and a particle (both, and neither). Multiple possibilities superimpose on the same moment. Particles separated by miles seem directly connected. Electrons seem
6、to act differently when they are watched up close.For most of us, these bewilderments must be taken nearly as an article of faith, bolstered by the men and women of science who explain the phenomena with broad strokes and clever thought experiments. To refine these illustrations into the actual theo
7、ry is to point down a path out of the cave, up the mountain, down the rabbit hole; take your pick that few can follow. As a consequence, the fact that the universe is so mysterious has been more influential in popular culture than any of the particular mysteries that scientists have described. What
8、has been really compelling is the credibility quantum physics lends to the bizarre. Nearly any pseudo-scientific craziness can seem to fall under the fields umbrella by virtue of the gap separating it from common sense.Each new generation of students grows up immersed in the world of classical physi
9、cs, with its mostly intuitive, billiard-ball causality; that is the everyday vantage from which we approach the alien world of quantum physics, which has for this reason never lost its air of radicalism. But there was a time when little of todays credibility attended that edginess, and when talk of
10、the field, whether vague or precise, was the stuff of rumor and outrage, even among the minds who understood it best. “Princeton is a madhouse,” J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote his brother in 1935, “its solipsistic luminaries shining in separate helpless desolation. Einstein is completely cuckoo.”Quantu
11、m Leaps, by the physicist and science writer Jeremy Bernstein, looks at the daring progress of this subject since its fitful beginnings in chalk-dusted gossip. Quantum theory has always been, at best, a twilit field, and Bernstein chronicles those who found the darkness irresistible. Bernstein hasnt
12、 set out to guide readers through this tiny dimension of oddities so much as to show the circles of thinkers in which that dimension was discovered, and out of which it radiated into public consciousness. His chapters do not offer linear stories; they wander through personalities, moments, and exper
13、iments of importance, chatting in a wistful, memoiristic tone. Scientific explanations inQuantum Leaps mostly serve to aid this grander story to sketch a background for the disputes and discoveries that excited the books cast of geniuses.Where did it all begin? Circa 1900, Max Planck theorized that
14、energy was made up of discrete units, or “quanta.” This was an idea Einstein later applied to light, arguing that it travels in what we now call photons the smallest units into which light divides. (Hence the latest James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, uses the still-hip term to describe the tiniest
15、portion of solace possible though solace in the form of champagne, fast cars, and fetching European women would in fact involve many quanta. What other new words from the early 1900s can you think of that still sound Bond-worthily modish today?)The word “quantum” derives from the Latin for “how much
16、,” an etymology that suggests the very challenge quantum physics directs toward classical physics at what size does it hold true? One paradox of quantum physics is that our exploration of ever-smaller particles has made our world seem not larger but somehow smaller, since its laws or our perception
17、of them are confined to a human scale. We are creatures of the macro universe, and as we sharpened our view of the atomic scale, we dizzied our sense of time, space, and reason.Einsteins theory of special relativity drastically changed our understanding of physics, too, but at least this change left
18、 us with reason intact, offering a new and better account of the universes architecture. Things remained predictable and consistent. Quantum physics has been more unsettling. Its revelations show just how little we can predict, and how few of our intuitions make sense when we consider how quanta beh
19、ave.One well-known example of this counterintuitiveness is the uncertainty principle developed by Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s, which tells us that we cant know a particles momentum and position at the same time. The more certain we can be about one part, the less certain we can be about the other
20、. Heisenbergs principle rose out of the discovery that particles, in some cases, act like waves. As a particles wavelength gets shorter, we can be more sure of where the particle is but less sure about its momentum. With longer wavelengths, its the other way around. Something is always uncertain.Sci
21、entists spend their careers trying to become certain about things, so its understandable that some would be dissatisfied with all this subatomic caprice. In 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen derived a paradox (the EPR paradox) from quantum theory to suggest something was wrong, or at
22、least missing, from its view of things. The paradox starts with the discovery that if a pair of particles, an electron and a positron, splits up, they will spin in opposite directions (one “up,” the other “down”), even if they get miles apart. This is called “entanglement.” If we know that one parti
23、cle is spinning up, we can be sure that the other particle, wherever it might be, is spinning down. Somehow they are connected, as though the distance of space were arbitrary perhaps illusory. Whats jaw-dropping is that the math, followed to its conclusions, tells us that each particle spins both up
24、 and down until it is observed. In other words, until someone checks, two different possibilities exist at the same time.Erwin Schr?dinger famously enlivened this paradox by making it a life-or-death scenario (really, a life-and-death scenario): He imagined a radioactive solution that had an even ch
25、ance of decaying or breaking down and releasing energy within an hour. Then he imagined a machine that would release poison if it detected the decay. What if we put a cat in a box with the machine and the solution, Schr?dinger asked, and waited an hour? The cats life would depend on whether the solu
26、tion decayed, since any decay would trigger the poison. Quantum mechanics, said Schr?dinger, tells us that the solution has both decayed and not decayed until we check, which means that the poor cat is both dead and alive until we look in the box. (Bernstein tells us he once had tea with Schr?dinger
27、; one thing he learned during their visit is that Schr?dinger was not fond of cats.)The EPR paradox was meant to show that quantum theory contradicts itself: that it suggests freakish ideas no reasonable person would accept. Its legacy as an illustration of quantum theory, rather than as a refutatio
28、n of it, reflects a major transition: reason buckled, not the theory.The strangest illustration of paradox in quantum physics may be the double-slit experiment, which is rooted in Thomas Youngs work with light in around 1801. In 1974, scientists carried out a version of the experiment with electrons
29、, and that is the version we think of today. For a hopelessly simple sketch akin to explaining that cubism involves cubes imagine that two walls are facing each other, and that the first wall has a couple slits. When scientists fired electrons at those slits, the ones that got through struck the sec
30、ond wall. The patterns on the second wall looked like waves had rippled through the slits and collided with each other in a wave interference pattern, like water would. Scientists figured that shooting one electron at a time would make it impossible for any of the waves to interfere with each other.
31、 A wave wont make an interference pattern if there are no other waves around to interfere with it. But over time, the electrons landed, one by one, as though they were bumping into other waves. They left the same interference pattern. But why?The quantum mechanical explanation is that as an electron
32、 travels, all different possibilities exist at once it passes through the right slit and the left slit and it misses both slits, and so on. With all those possibilities happening at once, the electron wave bumps into another version of itself. Then the different possibilities collapse back into just
33、 the one electron, now traveling as though another electron had interfered with it. Yet this is garden-variety strangeness compared to the next discovery: When people used instruments to check which slit each electron passed through, the electrons stopped making a wave pattern. They just landed in r
34、oughly two clumps, one for each slit, the way marbles would (in other words, like electrons traveling as particles). As with Schr?dingers cat, watching electrons seems to make them choose a single possibility.The notion that to see is to influence, that observation changes the world of the observer,
35、 can make a few palms sweaty. The eighteenth-century philosopher George Berkeley was one of many to suggest that all truth could be reduced to perceptions, since it was meaningless to talk about a world that existed beyond them we never experience things, he reminded us, only our perceptions of them
36、. Out walking one day, the great critic Samuel Johnson famously responded to Berkeleys philosophy by kicking a large stone and shouting, “I refute it thus.” Johnson didnt mean this as a subtle argument. But he did demonstrate that off paper and out of the armchair, these notions are untenable in act
37、ual life, regardless of whether they are true.One sweaty-palmed thinker was Vladimir Lenin. His Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908) railed against Ernst Mach, an Austrian whose work in physics Einstein considered a precursor to his own theory of relativity. Machs philosophy of science, meanwhil
38、e, was a precursor to the school of logical positivism, which held that no fact is meaningful unless it can be verified in terms of sense impressions. Mach worried that scientific laws and theories turn reality into a set of abstractions that can never contain reality itself; science describes our p
39、erception of an experiment, not the truths that underlie its outcome. Something like an anti-atomist, Mach liked to say “show me” when scientists insisted that atoms were real. He didnt object to the raw science so much as to the comfort others had that they were drawing meaningful conclusions by wa
40、y of abstractions.To place truth in the hands of observation does not play well with the Marxist notion (dialectical materialism) that matter is what matters, and Lenin struck some early blows in the long “ideological struggle for the soul of the quantum theory,” as Bernstein puts it. A 1952 letter
41、from Belgian physicist Lon Rosenfeld to Frdric Joliot-Curie, the Nobel laureate and husband of Marie Curies daughter, shows how far this “ideological struggle” penetrated the seemingly innocent sphere of equations. In the letter, Rosenfeld complained of his disagreements with a group of brilliant yo
42、ung physicists: “I have taken pains to do an explicit Marxist analysis. As the only response, French astrophysicist ?vry Schatzman sent me a polemical writing full of incorrect physics and quotations from Stalin.” Around the same time, Bernstein leafed through newly translated Russian texts on quant
43、um physics and found, on every few pages, some commentary that related the subject matter to dialectical materialism friendly political asides that Bernstein charmingly calls “little commercial messages from the ?sponsor.”As Bernstein points out, the “good clean fun” of Lenin-era dissent evaporated
44、during the Great Purge in the Soviet Union and the Nazi invasions that soon followed. Not every scientist was so lucky to be caught up in, rather than destroyed by, the times. Matvei Petrovich Bronstein, “a physicist and astrophysicist of great promise,” was one such scholar, added in 1938 to Stalin
45、s long execution list and killed soon after. Occasionally, however, Stalin seems to have thought science ought to progress if only for the sake of nuclear weaponry without too much intervention. When the chief of the Soviet secret police warned Stalin that some of the scientists in the nuclear weapo
46、ns program werent on message, Stalin is said to have replied, “Leave my physicists alone. We can always shoot them later.”Not surprisingly, the fourteenth (current) Dalai Lama was far more congenial to the notion that observation might affect the universe. In fact, both he and his predecessor grew u
47、p with a strong interest in science, and the current Dalai Lamas The Universe in a Single Atom (2005) deals eloquently with its relation to Buddhism. The Dalai Lama was well prepared to write such a book. In 1979 he invited two eminent philosopher-physicists, David Bohm and Carl Friedrich von Weizs?
48、cker, to tutor him about quantum physics. Bohm was a star quantum physicist whose doctoral work had been classified for use on the Manhattan Project. Of particular interest, the Dalai Lama wrote, were Bohms thoughts about the incorporation of consciousness into a physics “in which both matter and co
49、nsciousness manifest according to the same principles.”When the Dalai Lama and a group of Tibetan monks visited a major research laboratory near Geneva in 1983, Bernsteins friend John Bell (he of Bells Theorem, a keystone in quantum theory) gave a talk on quantum physics. Might the Big Bang, Bell asked the Dalai Lama or perhaps a Bang-and-Crunch cycle of collapse and explosion be reconciled with th
