学会这一招，GRE阅读辨析选项的速度翻倍！
文摘
教育
2024-10-27 19:37
北京
![]()
稍微了解一点我们“双线阅读法”的同学都应该听说过“视角”这个概念。
在文章中看到任何一个判断我们都会去思考其蕴含的视角问题，即作者对这个判断有自己的明确态度么，还是作者只是在呈现一个自己并不见得认可的判断。
“Try to distinguish ideas that the author is advancing from those he or she is merely reporting”
（虽然我很想把“读视角”的方法归功给我自己，但这并不是我原创的，这是ETS早就教给我们要做的了。）这篇文章我不想赘述相关的问题，毕竟我们青山学堂公众号之前已经推送过很多篇相关文章了。今天这1篇我想专门谈一谈视角判断对排除阅读错误选项的影响。题目的正确答案视角必须与原文一致。
如果原文的某个判断作者没态度，选项不能出现作者态度；同理，如果原文的某个判断仅仅是作者的态度，不知道他人怎么看待，则选项不能出现除作者以外其他人的态度。
这个道理说起来容易，操作起来很多人都会疏忽。我们直接用几个真实题目来训练一下大家对选项视角的敏感度吧。Favorable environments do not necessarily lead to the occurrence of plant cultivation. South China is warmer and moister than North China and the Yangtze Basin, with wild rice and highly abundant natural resources. Yet archaeological data indicate that cereal cultivation did not occur in this region until approximately 7,000 to 6,500 years ago. This cultivation was likely a result of cultural contact with and expansion from the Yangtze Basin. Clearly, environmental factors were important for the occurrence of cultivation in China, but were not the absolute determining factors. While incipient cultivation might occur in areas of relatively abundant resources, it may not occur in areas of very abundant resources, such as South China, where foraging might be a more efficient way of life.
1. The author implies which of the following about natural resources in South China prior to 6,500 years ago?A.Their abundance may have actually served to discourage the development of plant cultivation.B.They were not as abundant as most archaeologists have maintained.C. They led indirectly to cultural contact with peoples from the Yangtze Basin.D. Their importance has been downplayed by scholars studying the beginnings of plant cultivation in South China.E. They had little influence on the types of plants that were eventually cultivated in South China.这道题的答案是A。但我在这里想谈一谈BD两个选项如何最快的排掉。很简单，这两个选项的内容我根本没仔细看，我只注意到了选项形式，B选项看到not as … as most archaeologists maintained和D选项看到downplayed by scholars，这两个选项在这篇文章中就不可能有对应。因为，全文一直都是作者在陈述自己的看法，从来没有在任何一个地方提到过任何其它人有任何看法。所以，这篇文章中不存在scholars，不存在archaeologists，只存在作者本人，正确选项不可能涉及到他人的看法。
Paintings of things were condemned by 18th century critics since these “individualized” objects would attract our desire to own and enjoy them, whereas “generalized” objects in other paintings were no longer merely things but abstract ideas. To collect paintings not concerned with materiality was considered by these commentators as a mark of taste and civic virtue, the ability to subordinate private material interests to the abstract, public interest.
如果题目问，根据文章以下说法是否成立，那下面这个选项你会选吗？选项：“Generalized” paintings demonstrated the collectors’ degree of taste and civic virtue
显然，这个选项是在试图让我们对应 “to collect paintings not concerned with materiality … mark of taste and civic virtue”，而确实，paintings not concerned with materiality根据前文就是generalized paintings。但千万注意文章中的 “was considered by these commentators”，这意味着作者是没有给出自己的看法的，只是在报告commentators的看法。于是，根据文章，我们是没有办法判断实际上generalized paintings是否demonstrate collectors’ taste and civic virtue。There is mounting evidence that the frequency and magnitude of landsliding is changing in many parts of the world in response to climate change. This is not surprising, given that raining is one of the two external triggering mechanisms involved in the formation of landslides. Evidence from the past clearly indicates that cycles of landsliding is generally correlated with climate changes.
现在题目问文章谈论 “evidence from the past” 的目的是什么？选项：to highlight a scientific consensus.
整个段落思路其实都是顺着一个方向写的，都是在展开论证第一句话的landslide与climate change之间的关系，所以我们可以说，evidence from the past在文章中的作用，是为了体现 that the frequency and magnitude of landsliding is changing in many parts of the world in response to climate change. 问题是，我们如何用一个词去表述概括这一串英文。这可以是一个relationship，是一个statement，是一个claim，等等。但反正不可能是consensus。很多人误选了上面这个选项，因为他们没有思考什么算consensus。consensus是共识，意味着它不能只是作者的看法，必须有其他很多人，甚至是大部分人的想法，才有可能是共识。但根据整个这一段，我们会发现一直只有作者在说话，作者从来没有提到其他人有过任何想法，那我们如何判断什么是或不是consensus呢？其实，我很理解大家为什么会选出这些错误选项，背后的原因是：大家没有意识到GRE阅读是严格的evidence-based reading，文章信息与逻辑不能直接严格支持的东西，就是不能选的。
大家可能下意识的揣摩“哎呀，虽然只有作者在说话，但有没有可能作者其实表达的是一个主流想法？”主流观点认为万蜀黍很帅。但是，最近Monica等学者提出了新的看法，她们认为其实万蜀黍特别丑。
很多学生上课都回答“丑”，但其实没答案，因为文章没有作者态度，只有陈述别人的想法。那同学们为什么会答“丑”呢？因为很多人潜意识觉得“一篇文章应该把重点放在后面，所以后面的应该就是作者认同的想法吧”。那么，现在通过我写的这篇文章，我希望大家以后彻底打住类似的思维模式！你猜得很好，下次不要再猜了![]()
严格的evidence-based reading，不需要你去做这种揣摩。文章没有某人的看法，则选项就不能出现这个人的看法。就这么直接、简单、暴力、有效。而这本来也是最严谨的学术阅读态度。当然，除了“视角”之外，GRE阅读还有很多可以帮助我们系统性提高阅读效率、解题效率及正确率的方法和技巧，这些全部都会包含在万蜀黍的GRE阅读全程班中，一网打尽所有你需要掌握的知识点和方法技巧！想要了解万炜老师GRE全程班详细的同学可咨询助教↓
