求劍橋雅思7 test2 閱讀第1、 6、33、37、39 詳解（2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶）

今天大學(xué)路小編整理了求劍橋雅思7 test2 閱讀第1、 6、33、37、39 詳解（2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶）相關(guān)內(nèi)容，希望能幫助到大家，一起來(lái)看下吧。

本文目錄一覽：

• 1、求劍橋雅思7 test2 閱讀第1、 6、33、37、39 詳解
• 2、2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶
• 3、劍橋雅思17和12難度對(duì)比

求劍橋雅思7 test2 閱讀第1、 6、33、37、39 詳解

前者是在過(guò)去的1400年里，后者是 最后的1400年。原文是說(shuō)：記錄表明，在1400看里只有兩個(gè)寶塔倒塌，是對(duì)原文的同意轉(zhuǎn)述//
6、答案選 A，通過(guò)選用更加沉重的陶瓦，而非中國(guó)塔所用的瓷瓦來(lái)鋪蓋伸出來(lái)的屋檐。
33、一般的家庭平均花7小時(shí)用于個(gè)人交通和貨物運(yùn)輸，題目是說(shuō)交能方面的支出，與原文信息相反了。。
37、答案I 原文說(shuō)是提高現(xiàn)存交通服務(wù)效率方面的工作不是非常 成功，原因是大多數(shù)汽車(chē)出現(xiàn)故障，但是沒(méi)有維修資源，選項(xiàng)中的efficient 是對(duì)原文的efficiency 是原文的同意轉(zhuǎn)述。
39、答案E，選項(xiàng)中的improved 對(duì)應(yīng)原文的improvement 又是一種改寫(xiě)：道 路的改善和相關(guān)的維修系統(tǒng)已幫助馬克特中心地區(qū)全年都容易進(jìn)入，來(lái)自外地的生活必需品在市 場(chǎng) 上可以很容易*到，價(jià)格也不像過(guò)去那樣波動(dòng)不定。。

2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶

您好，我是專(zhuān)注留學(xué)考試規(guī)劃和留學(xué)咨詢(xún)的小鐘老師。在追尋留學(xué)夢(mèng)想的路上，選擇合適的學(xué)校和專(zhuān)業(yè)，準(zhǔn)備相關(guān)考試，都可能讓人感到迷茫和困擾。作為一名有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的留學(xué)顧問(wèn)，我在此為您提供全方位的專(zhuān)業(yè)咨詢(xún)和指導(dǎo)。歡迎隨時(shí)提問(wèn)！
閱讀考試一直是不少學(xué)生比較頭疼的部分，那么2月份的雅思閱讀考試真題如何呢？這估計(jì)是不少人士感興趣的話(huà)題，和小鐘老師一起來(lái)看看2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶，歡迎閱讀。
2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶
權(quán)威點(diǎn)評(píng)
這次考試閱讀部分的第1篇文章不論是從主題和題型來(lái)看都比較簡(jiǎn)單，是建議盡可能在15分鐘內(nèi)高效完成的類(lèi)型。第3篇重復(fù)考到了以前的舊題。3篇文章的內(nèi)容，人文社科類(lèi)的偏多。總體而言，這次的閱讀難易程度居中。
Passage 1
題目
英國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)
話(huà)題分類(lèi)
社會(huì)科學(xué)
題型及對(duì)應(yīng)數(shù)量
填空題:7題
判斷題：6題
內(nèi)容回憶
本文講英國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)問(wèn)題，農(nóng)作物對(duì)環(huán)境的影響，以及糧食不足的問(wèn)題。
文章一部分講在非洲進(jìn)口糧食會(huì)更加環(huán)保，節(jié)省歐洲用地和降低對(duì)環(huán)境的影響，但后面又說(shuō)在歐洲本地種植農(nóng)作物也挺好，不過(guò)成本較高。
題目回憶
暫缺
參考閱讀
C12T6P1
Passage 2
題目
古埃及壁畫(huà)
話(huà)題分類(lèi)
人文科學(xué)
題型及數(shù)量
人名觀點(diǎn)匹配題、填空題
內(nèi)容回憶
在古埃及壁畫(huà)上發(fā)現(xiàn)海運(yùn)，由此列出4個(gè)科學(xué)家對(duì)此的觀點(diǎn)和研究成果。
題目回憶
暫缺
參考閱讀
C7T4P1
Passage 3
題目
Communication in science/科學(xué)界交流
話(huà)題分類(lèi)
人文科學(xué)
題型及數(shù)量
選擇題（5）、判斷題（4）、Summary填空題（5）
內(nèi)容回憶
參考原文：
AScience plays an increasingly significant role in people’s lives, making the faithful communication of scientific developments more important than ever.Yet such communication is fraught with challenges that can easily distort discussions, leading to unnecessary confusion and misunderstandings.

BSome problems stem from the esoteric nature of current research and the associated difficulty of finding sufficiently faithful terminology. Abstraction and complexity are not signs that a given scientific direction is wrong, as some commentators have suggested, but are instead a tribute to the success of human ingenuity in meeting the increasingly complex challenges that nature presents. They can, however, make communication more difficult. But many of the biggest challenges for science reporting arise because in areas of evolving research, scientists themselves often only partly understand the full implications of any particular advance or development. Since that dynamicapplies to most of the scientific developments that directly affect people’s lives global warming, cancer research, diet studies—learning how to overcome it is critical to spurringa more informed scientific debate among the broader public.

CAmbiguous word choices are the source of some misunderstandings. Scientists often employ colloquial terminology, which they then assign a specific meaning that is impossible to fathomwithout proper training.The term “relativity,” for example, is intrinsically misleading. Many interpret the theory to mean that everything is relative and there are no absolutes. Yet although the measurements any observer makes depend on his coordinates and reference frame, the physical phenomena he measures have an invariant description that transcends that observer’s particular coordinates. Einstein’s theory of relativity is really about finding an invariant description of physical
phenomena. True, Einstein agreed with the idea that his theory would have been better named “Invariantentheorie.” But the term “relativity” was already entrenched at the time for him to change.

D“The uncertainty principle” is another frequently abused term. It is sometimesinterpreted as a limitation on observers and their ability to make measurements.

E But it is not about intrinsic limitations on any one particular measurement;it is about the inability to precisely measure particular pairs of quantitiessimultaneously? The first interpretation is perhaps more engaging from aphilosophical or political perspective. It’s just not what the science is about.

FEven the word “theory” can be a problem. Unlike most people, who usethe word to describe a passing conjecture that they often regard as suspect,physicists have very specific ideas in mind when they talk about theories.For physicists, theories entail a definite physical framework embodied in aset of fundamental assumptions about the world that lead to a specific set ofequations and predictions—ones that are borne out by successful predictions.Theories aren’t necessarily shown to be correct or complete immediately.Even Einstein took the better part of a decade to develop the correct versionof his theory of general relativity. But eventually both the ideas and themeasurements settle down and theories are either proven correct, abandoned orabsorbed into other, more encompassing theories.

G“Global warming” is another example of problematic terminology.Climatologists predict more drastic fluctuations in temperatureandrainfall— not necessarily that every place will be warmer. The namesometimes subverts the debate, since it lets people argue that their winter wasworse, so how could there be global warming? Clearly “global climate change”would have been a better name. But not all problems stem solely from poorword choices. Some stem from the intrinsically complex nature of much ofmodern science. Science sometimes transcends this limitation: remarkably,chemists were able to detail the precise chemical processes involved in thedestruction of the ozone layer, making the evidence that chlorofluorocarbongases (Freon, for example) were destroying the ozone layer indisputable.

HA better understanding of the mathematical significance of results and lessinsistence on a simple story would help to clarifymany scientific discussions.For several months, Harvard was tortured months, Harvard was torturedby empty debates over the relative intrinsic scientific abilities of men andwomen. One of the more amusing aspects of the discussion was that thosewho believed in the differences and those who didn’t used the same evidenceabout gender-specific special ability. How could that be? The answer is that thedata shows no substantial effects. Social factors might account for these tinydifferences, which in any case have an unclear connection to scientific ability.Not much of a headline when phrased that way, is it? Each type of sciencehas its own source of complexity and potential for miscommunication. Yetthere are steps we can take to improve public understanding in all cases. Thefirst would be to inculcate greater understanding and acceptance of indirectscientific evidence. The information from an unmanned space mission is noless legitimate than the information from one in which people are on board.

IThis doesn’t mean never questioning an interpretation, but it also doesn’tmean equating indirect evidence with blind belief, as people sometimessuggest. Second, we might need different standards for evaluating science withurgent policy implications than research with purely theoretical value. Whenscientists say they are not certain about their predictions, it doesn’t necessarilymean they’ve found nothing substantial. It would be better if scientists weremore open about the mathematical significance of their results and if thepublic didn’t treat math as quite so scary; statistics and errors, which tell us theuncertainty in a measurement, give us the tools to evaluate new developmentsfairly.

JBut most important, people have to recognize that science can be complex.If we accept only simple stories, the description will necessarily be distorted.When advances are subtle or complicated, scientists should be willing to gothe extra distance to give proper explanations and the public should be morepatient about the truth. Even so, some difficulties are unavoidable. Mostdevelopments reflect work in progress, so the story is complex because no oneyet knows the big picture.
題目回憶

27.why the faithful science communication important?
Answer:
AScience plays an increasingly significant role in people's lives.
28.what is the reason that the anthor believe for the biggest challenges for science reporting?
Answer:
C Scientists do nottotallycomprehend the meaning of certain scientific evolution.
29.according to the 3th paragraph, the reference to the term and example of“theory of relativity ”is to demonstrate
answer:
B common people may be misled by the inaccurate choice of scientific phrase
30.which one is a good example of appropriate word choice
answer:
D Freon's destructive process on environmental
31.what is surprising finding of the harvard debates in the passage?
answer:
B The proof applied by both sides seemed to be of no big difference

32.True
33.Not given
34.Notgiven
35.False
36.wordchoices
37.colloquial terminology
38.observer
39.description
40.general relativity
參考閱讀
C12T8P2
以上是小編整理的2月1日雅思真題，謝謝瀏覽。

希望以上的答復(fù)能對(duì)您的留學(xué)申請(qǐng)有所幫助。如果您有任何更詳細(xì)的問(wèn)題或需要進(jìn)一步的協(xié)助，我強(qiáng)烈推薦您訪(fǎng)問(wèn)我們的留學(xué)官方網(wǎng)站 ，在那里您可以找到更多專(zhuān)業(yè)的留學(xué)考試規(guī)劃和留學(xué)資料以及*的咨詢(xún)服務(wù)。祝您留學(xué)申請(qǐng)順利！

劍橋雅思17和12難度對(duì)比

劍橋雅思17更難。
干擾信息比較多,對(duì)學(xué)生的閱讀理解能力的考察提高多選題中出現(xiàn)很多同義替換,需要在做題時(shí)認(rèn)真分析有學(xué)生反映聽(tīng)力很難做,需要聽(tīng)兩遍才行。相比以往難度稍有提升。
雅思劍橋系列是劍橋大學(xué)考試委員會(huì)外語(yǔ)考試部的雅思考試唯一官方指南，也是各位考生備考過(guò)程中必不可少的的參考書(shū)。里面收錄的題目都是歷年考場(chǎng)上出現(xiàn)過(guò)的題目，具有權(quán)威性。接下來(lái)為大家整理一下，劍17的題型，難度，詞匯，場(chǎng)景，變化。

以上就是求劍橋雅思7 test2 閱讀第1、 6、33、37、39 詳解（2023年2月1日雅思閱讀真題回憶）全部?jī)?nèi)容，更多相關(guān)信息，敬請(qǐng)關(guān)注大學(xué)路。