x名校考研辅导咨询


免费咨询电话

用户名: 密码:

2019考研英语每日一句第153句

作者: 来源:启道考研 日期:2018年9月5日 点击:

  启道贸大考研辅导班,专注对外经济贸易大学考研辅导,电话400-902-7633


  第一百五十三句

  Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

  思考题:

  An argument made by supporters of smoking was that ________.

  [A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

  [B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

  [C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

  [D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

  词汇突破:

  1. correlation 联系

  2. nonsense 胡说八道

  3. argument 论点 (一些语境下也可以是论据;)

  4. inconclusive 无定论的,不确定的,没有说服力的;

  5. lobby 游说团体

  6. buy 相信

  题干中的定位词有两点很关键:

  1. argument: 这个说明需要找观点;

  2. supporters of smoking 这个词说明需要找谁的观点;

  第一句:(第三个小分句是符合题干定位要求的句子)

  Do you remember all those years/when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure?

  切分:

  1. Do you remember all those years?

  还记得那些日子吗?

  2. when scientists argued that smoking would kill us.

  科学家认为吸烟会杀了我们。

  3. But the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure.

  但是怀疑者坚持认为我们还不能确定地知道。

  第二句:(符合题干定位要求的句子)

  That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain?

  切分:

  新闻媒体开头喜欢标新立异,有些用法就不是很规范,比如这里的that其实就是第一句中insist后的that;所以第二句就是doubters的观点:(问号其实还是第一句中第一个小分句的问号,本身这个句子是没有疑问语气的。)

  1. the evidence was inconclusive,

  2. the science(was)uncertain. (并列引起省略,补全!)

  第三句:(符合题干定位要求的句子)

  That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way?

  这句同样是第一句中insist的宾语从句:

  切分:

  1.the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life

  吸烟的游说团体正准备摧毁我们的生活方式。

  2.the government should stay out of the way

  政府应该别插手。

  第四句:(不符合题干定位要求的句子,这是作者观点,不是吸烟支持者的观点。)

  切分:

  1.Lots of Americans bought that nonsense,

  很多美国人都相信了这种胡说八道。

  2.over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

  过去的三十年间,有大约一千万吸烟者过早的死去。

  只能用下面的句子和选项进行比对,和这些句子无关的选项就属于定位错误:

  1.the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure.

  2. the evidence was inconclusive,

  3. the science(was)uncertain.

  4.the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life

  5.the government should stay out of the way

  首先:

  [B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

  过去十年间,由于吸烟死亡的人数微不足道。

  这个选项和以上句子不相关,而且整个段落道都没有insignificant的表达。

  排除!

  [D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

  反对吸烟的人通常在胡说八道

  这个选项和以上句子都不相关。

  而且从原文可以知道是“作者认为支持吸烟的人在胡说八道”

  接着:

  [A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

  这个选项和第2小分句有关:

  2. the evidence was inconclusive,

  证据不确定。

  原文中的evidence是科学家提出的证据,

  所以就可以等于选项中的:scientific evidence

  of the correlation between smoking and death,也是文章中出现的,可以接受。

  但是我们仔细的看一下选项:

  there was no scientific evidence

  (不存在科学证据)

  出题人很狡猾!

  原文说的是证据不确定!

  选项说的是不存在证据!

  这是典型的偷换否定对象啊!

  不确定≠不存在 排除!是不是666!

  [C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

  (人们有选择生活方式的自由。)

  对应句子:

  The antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way

  反对吸烟的游说团体准备摧毁我们的生活方式,政府应该别插手。

  所以该选项是正话反说!正确!

  有同学对于“正话反说”和“未提及”分不太清楚:

  正话反说:一句话的正反表达,不涉及该句外的判断。

  我举例给大家讲一下:

  例子一:

  原文:穷人家的孩子要是犯错了,就只能回到原点。

  选项:穷人家的孩子不太可能去犯错。(正话反说)

  选项:穷人家的孩子比富人家的孩子犯错的可能性小。(未提及)

  例子二:

  原文:这些客户打赢这种官司的可能性不大。

  选项:这些客户打这种官司的可能性不大。(正话反说)

  选项:这些客户更愿意找政府解决问题。(未提及!)

  例子三:

  原文:一个国家有进口车和国产车,国产车的份额下降了。

  选项:这个国家进口车的份额上升了。(正话反说)

  选项:消费者更喜欢进口车。(未提及!)

  例子四:

  原文:竞争对于经济是没有负面影响的。

  选项:竞争对于经济可能有正面影响。(正话反说)

  选项:竞争比合作更能促进经济。(未提及!)

  明天的句子:

  这是今天大西洋月刊的句子。

  Few would deny that parents and teachers should expose children to a wide range of toys and play activities. But what the Swedes are now doing in some of their classrooms goes far beyond encouraging children to experiment with different toys and play styles—they are requiring it. And toy companies who resist the gender neutrality mandate face official censure. Is this kind of social engineering worth it? Is it even ethical?

  思考题:

  What is author’s attitude towards some toy companies in Sweden?

  (A) skeptical (B) less ethical (C) sympathetic (D) critical

   启道教育考研辅导班,专注名校硕博辅导,直播+录播反复巩固,考点重点快速精讲,知识框架快速复习,多目标通关保障,短期快速提分。关注微信公众号上研色(shang-yan-se),考研经验交流,考研学习,更多考研资料分享!
[ 打印本文 ]  [ 返回上级 ]  [ 返回顶部 ]