雅思阅读方法之结构阅读法

　　其实雅思阅读并没你想象中那么难，你只要详细阅读高分技巧，并且有针对性的练习，伸手拨开迷雾，早日找到核心本质，就一定能顺利过关。下面是小编给大家带来的雅思阅读方法之结构阅读法，希望能帮到大家!

　　雅思阅读方法之结构阅读法

　　雅思考题的设计思路不仅是为了测试考生的语言水平，更在于帮助考生培养起一套适合英联邦大学教学观念的学习方法。在英国念文科的同学都会有这样一种共识，那就是一学期要看很多书，写很多essay，有的同学虽然很刻苦，整日地泡在图书馆里做书虫，但还是读不完readinglList中的必读书。再对比周围英国同学，他们不见得比我们刻苦，却很能掉书袋，写出的essay理论功底更深。学习效率的高低正是由阅读方法的差异造成的。

　　中国学生从小接受英语精读教学，咬文嚼字，看书喜欢一页页地细嚼慢咽。就个人阅读习惯而言，这种读法无可厚非，但若是做学问，这就不是正确的方法了。而英国学生读书，总是先浏览目次、摘要等信息，然后阅读索引，找寻需要的信息，所以他们一本书通常读甚至于几小时就够了。同样雅思的文章，也没必要逐字逐句的读，而是要了解作者行文时的构思以及写文章要达到的目的。如果做题前就能对文章的思路了如指掌，那就好比站在了作者的高度，定位时也就不会出现无的放矢的碰运气了。

　　有的同学也许会有这样的疑问，雅思文章题材五花八门，行文艰深晦涩，要看懂都不容易，如何能在几分钟内，梳理出作者的写作思路呢?对于这个问题我们知道，雅思文章的学术性虽然决定了它的深度，但另一方面也决定了相对固定的文章结构。因为学术是严谨的，在形式上它有一套严格的规范(the established academic caliber)。就学术范畴的文章而言，其观点可以犀利独到，但论证必须缜密，所以文章层次结构相比起他体裁是稳定的。换言之，学术文章有点八股文的味道。那么我们就可以利用这点迅速掌握文章结构继而掌握思路了。

　　雅思阅读材料：the Innovation of Ameirica

　　这篇雅思阅读材料的主要内容是虽然美国的经济正在复苏，但是，美国人的信心仍然深陷在经济危机当中没有回复。在2月份的一次对于世界经济的领导力量的调查中，大多数人选择了中国。所以美国的经济复苏虽然充满了想法，但是还需付出实践。

　　Still full of ideas, but not making jobs

　　America needs to share the benefits of innovation more widely

　　THE economy is recovering, yet American confidence remains mired at levels more commonly seen in recessions. For that blame unemployment, petrol prices and a deeper, nagging feeling that America is in decline. A Gallup poll in February asked Americans to name the world’s leading economic power. By a significant margin, they said China.

　　Barack Obama has exploited this anxiety. America, he has said, faces a new “Sputnik moment” and must “compete for the jobs and industries of our time” by spending more on research, education and infrastructure. But the notion that America is on the verge of being vanquished by cleverer, more innovative competitors is flawed. First, competitiveness is a woolly concept that wrongly supposes countries, like football teams, win only when another team loses. But one country’s economic growth does not subtract from another’s. Second, America’s ability to innovate and raise productivity remains reasonably healthy. The problem is that the benefits of that innovation and productivity have become so narrowly concentrated that workers’ median wages have stagnated.

　　Towards the end of the last decade American productivity began to slump, a sign to some that the pay-off from new information technology had largely been exhausted. But coming out of the recession productivity surged; it rose by 3.9% last year, the fastest rate since 2002. This was largely cyclical, since business output has recovered more quickly than hiring. Long-term productivity growth will be more modest, and its rate will depend on investment, human capital and innovation.

　　After collapsing during the recession, investment in business equipment has bounced back, rising 17% in the last quarter of 2010 from the figure a year earlier. Human capital is more of a challenge. Americans once led the world in educational attainment, but this is now barely rising while other countries have caught up (see article). That is a key reason why Dale Jorgenson, an economist at Harvard University, reckons overall productivity growth will average 1.5% in the coming decade, down from 2% in the previous two.

　　Innovation is what preoccupies Mr Obama. He worries that the next breakthroughs in energy, transport and information technology will occur elsewhere. His advisers fret that federal research and development has fallen sharply since the Sputnik era. But the picture is more encouraging once private R&D is included. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, total R&D was 2.8% of GDP, near the top of its historical range (see chart). American patent applications tailed off during the recession, but only after doubling in the decade before.

　　Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think-tank backed by the technology industry, acknowledges that America starts from an impressive level, but says other countries are catching up as their growth in R&D and the number of their scientists and engineers gradually approaches, or overtakes, America’s. China has doubled the share of its GDP devoted to R&D, although it remains below America’s. In 2000 Americans filed six times as many patent applications as Chinese residents did. By 2009, however, China had surpassed the American total.

　　American companies have begun to build more R&D facilities in emerging countries, both in response to local government pressure and to be closer to customers. General Electric, which already has research centres in China, India and Germany, announced last year that it would put one in Brazil. This, it says, has not come at America’s expense: GE plans to add two more research centres in the United States to the one it runs in upstate New York. Mark Little, the head of GE Global Research, the company’s in-house research division, says putting scientists and researchers into other countries enables GE to come up with products it would not have thought of before. For rural Chinese hospitals, more used to doing things manually than in America and Europe, GE designed less-automated MRI machines.

　　Adam Segal, author of “Advantage: How American Innovation can Overcome the Asian Challenge”, says Asia’s threat to American technological leadership is overstated. China’s research output is soaring, but much of it is poor-quality or based on plagiarism. Chinese companies are seizing market share in solar panels and wind turbines largely because of low manufacturing wages, says Mr Segal: “They have made no major breakthroughs in any of the underlying technologies.” R&D spending in India is minuscule.

　　The real problem for America is not its innovative capacity, but the fact that its benefits go to relatively few. This is illustrated by a recent paper by Michael Spence and Sandile Hlatshwayo, both of New York University. They divided jobs among tradable and non-tradable sectors. Tradable sectors include manufacturing, commodities and services such as finance and engineering that compete globally. Value-added per person, a proxy for productivity, rose sharply in this sector, but the number of jobs actually declined between 2000 and 2008. The opposite was true in the non-tradable services such as government and health care. There real value-added rose only sluggishly, but employment expanded significantly. Behind this, says Mr Spence, is the trend of American multinationals to keep the highest value-added activities at home while shifting lower value-added activities, such as manufacturing, abroad.

　　Qualcomm, a developer of mobile-phone chips and technology based in San Diego, earns roughly 40% of its revenue from licensing and royalty fees for technology developed primarily in America, where three-quarters of its employees work. Last year it spent

　　其实雅思阅读并没你想象中那么难，你只要详细阅读高分技巧，并且有针对性的练习，伸手拨开迷雾，早日找到核心本质，就一定能顺利过关。下面是小编给大家带来的雅思阅读方法之结构阅读法，希望能帮到大家!

　　雅思阅读方法之结构阅读法

　　雅思考题的设计思路不仅是为了测试考生的语言水平，更在于帮助考生培养起一套适合英联邦大学教学观念的学习方法。在英国念文科的同学都会有这样一种共识，那就是一学期要看很多书，写很多essay，有的同学虽然很刻苦，整日地泡在图书馆里做书虫，但还是读不完readinglList中的必读书。再对比周围英国同学，他们不见得比我们刻苦，却很能掉书袋，写出的essay理论功底更深。学习效率的高低正是由阅读方法的差异造成的。

　　中国学生从小接受英语精读教学，咬文嚼字，看书喜欢一页页地细嚼慢咽。就个人阅读习惯而言，这种读法无可厚非，但若是做学问，这就不是正确的方法了。而英国学生读书，总是先浏览目次、摘要等信息，然后阅读索引，找寻需要的信息，所以他们一本书通常读甚至于几小时就够了。同样雅思的文章，也没必要逐字逐句的读，而是要了解作者行文时的构思以及写文章要达到的目的。如果做题前就能对文章的思路了如指掌，那就好比站在了作者的高度，定位时也就不会出现无的放矢的碰运气了。

　　有的同学也许会有这样的疑问，雅思文章题材五花八门，行文艰深晦涩，要看懂都不容易，如何能在几分钟内，梳理出作者的写作思路呢?对于这个问题我们知道，雅思文章的学术性虽然决定了它的深度，但另一方面也决定了相对固定的文章结构。因为学术是严谨的，在形式上它有一套严格的规范(the established academic caliber)。就学术范畴的文章而言，其观点可以犀利独到，但论证必须缜密，所以文章层次结构相比起他体裁是稳定的。换言之，学术文章有点八股文的味道。那么我们就可以利用这点迅速掌握文章结构继而掌握思路了。

　　雅思阅读材料：the Innovation of Ameirica

　　这篇雅思阅读材料的主要内容是虽然美国的经济正在复苏，但是，美国人的信心仍然深陷在经济危机当中没有回复。在2月份的一次对于世界经济的领导力量的调查中，大多数人选择了中国。所以美国的经济复苏虽然充满了想法，但是还需付出实践。

　　Still full of ideas, but not making jobs

　　America needs to share the benefits of innovation more widely

　　THE economy is recovering, yet American confidence remains mired at levels more commonly seen in recessions. For that blame unemployment, petrol prices and a deeper, nagging feeling that America is in decline. A Gallup poll in February asked Americans to name the world’s leading economic power. By a significant margin, they said China.

　　Barack Obama has exploited this anxiety. America, he has said, faces a new “Sputnik moment” and must “compete for the jobs and industries of our time” by spending more on research, education and infrastructure. But the notion that America is on the verge of being vanquished by cleverer, more innovative competitors is flawed. First, competitiveness is a woolly concept that wrongly supposes countries, like football teams, win only when another team loses. But one country’s economic growth does not subtract from another’s. Second, America’s ability to innovate and raise productivity remains reasonably healthy. The problem is that the benefits of that innovation and productivity have become so narrowly concentrated that workers’ median wages have stagnated.

　　Towards the end of the last decade American productivity began to slump, a sign to some that the pay-off from new information technology had largely been exhausted. But coming out of the recession productivity surged; it rose by 3.9% last year, the fastest rate since 2002. This was largely cyclical, since business output has recovered more quickly than hiring. Long-term productivity growth will be more modest, and its rate will depend on investment, human capital and innovation.

　　After collapsing during the recession, investment in business equipment has bounced back, rising 17% in the last quarter of 2010 from the figure a year earlier. Human capital is more of a challenge. Americans once led the world in educational attainment, but this is now barely rising while other countries have caught up (see article). That is a key reason why Dale Jorgenson, an economist at Harvard University, reckons overall productivity growth will average 1.5% in the coming decade, down from 2% in the previous two.

　　Innovation is what preoccupies Mr Obama. He worries that the next breakthroughs in energy, transport and information technology will occur elsewhere. His advisers fret that federal research and development has fallen sharply since the Sputnik era. But the picture is more encouraging once private R&D is included. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, total R&D was 2.8% of GDP, near the top of its historical range (see chart). American patent applications tailed off during the recession, but only after doubling in the decade before.

　　Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think-tank backed by the technology industry, acknowledges that America starts from an impressive level, but says other countries are catching up as their growth in R&D and the number of their scientists and engineers gradually approaches, or overtakes, America’s. China has doubled the share of its GDP devoted to R&D, although it remains below America’s. In 2000 Americans filed six times as many patent applications as Chinese residents did. By 2009, however, China had surpassed the American total.

　　American companies have begun to build more R&D facilities in emerging countries, both in response to local government pressure and to be closer to customers. General Electric, which already has research centres in China, India and Germany, announced last year that it would put one in Brazil. This, it says, has not come at America’s expense: GE plans to add two more research centres in the United States to the one it runs in upstate New York. Mark Little, the head of GE Global Research, the company’s in-house research division, says putting scientists and researchers into other countries enables GE to come up with products it would not have thought of before. For rural Chinese hospitals, more used to doing things manually than in America and Europe, GE designed less-automated MRI machines.

　　Adam Segal, author of “Advantage: How American Innovation can Overcome the Asian Challenge”, says Asia’s threat to American technological leadership is overstated. China’s research output is soaring, but much of it is poor-quality or based on plagiarism. Chinese companies are seizing market share in solar panels and wind turbines largely because of low manufacturing wages, says Mr Segal: “They have made no major breakthroughs in any of the underlying technologies.” R&D spending in India is minuscule.

　　The real problem for America is not its innovative capacity, but the fact that its benefits go to relatively few. This is illustrated by a recent paper by Michael Spence and Sandile Hlatshwayo, both of New York University. They divided jobs among tradable and non-tradable sectors. Tradable sectors include manufacturing, commodities and services such as finance and engineering that compete globally. Value-added per person, a proxy for productivity, rose sharply in this sector, but the number of jobs actually declined between 2000 and 2008. The opposite was true in the non-tradable services such as government and health care. There real value-added rose only sluggishly, but employment expanded significantly. Behind this, says Mr Spence, is the trend of American multinationals to keep the highest value-added activities at home while shifting lower value-added activities, such as manufacturing, abroad.

　　Qualcomm, a developer of mobile-phone chips and technology based in San Diego, earns roughly 40% of its revenue from licensing and royalty fees for technology developed primarily in America, where three-quarters of its employees work. Last year it spent $2.5 billion, or roughly 20% of revenue, on R&D for such projects as developing Mirasol, an easy-to-read, energy-efficient phone display. Paul Jacobs, the company’s boss, complains about high corporate-tax rates and the difficulty of getting immigrant visas for foreign-born engineers and scientists, but maintains that America is not about to be superseded as a centre for innovation. In California Qualcomm has access to the best college graduates and a pool of ideas and recruits generated by a nexus of established and start-up companies.

　　But Qualcomm has done no manufacturing of its own since selling its last handset plant in 2000. Although Mirasol was developed in America, the displays will be made in Taiwan, which has the skills, the suppliers and the economies of scale.

　　These findings present a dilemma for America’s policymakers. Raising federal R&D spending and easing immigration for foreign-born PhDs would boost innovation and company successes, but would not produce many jobs. Mr Spence and Mr Atkinson would like to see government incentives aimed at strategic manufacturing sectors. But such policies have a poor track record. And in any case Congress is in no mood to pay for them, no matter what Mr Obama says.

.5 billion, or roughly 20% of revenue, on R&D for such projects as developing Mirasol, an easy-to-read, energy-efficient phone display. Paul Jacobs, the company’s boss, complains about high corporate-tax rates and the difficulty of getting immigrant visas for foreign-born engineers and scientists, but maintains that America is not about to be superseded as a centre for innovation. In California Qualcomm has access to the best college graduates and a pool of ideas and recruits generated by a nexus of established and start-up companies.

　　But Qualcomm has done no manufacturing of its own since selling its last handset plant in 2000. Although Mirasol was developed in America, the displays will be made in Taiwan, which has the skills, the suppliers and the economies of scale.

　　These findings present a dilemma for America’s policymakers. Raising federal R&D spending and easing immigration for foreign-born PhDs would boost innovation and company successes, but would not produce many jobs. Mr Spence and Mr Atkinson would like to see government incentives aimed at strategic manufacturing sectors. But such policies have a poor track record. And in any case Congress is in no mood to pay for them, no matter what Mr Obama says.