剑桥雅思阅读test1 p2 哪位有雅思剑5test1passage2的原文和答案？谢谢

今天雅思无忧小编整理了剑桥雅思阅读test1 p2 哪位有雅思剑5test1passage2的原文和答案？谢谢相关信息，希望在这方面能够更好的大家。

本文目录一览：

• 1、剑桥雅思10test1阅读解析
• 2、哪位有雅思剑5test1passage2的原文和答案？谢谢
• 3、2020年8月1日雅思阅读考试真题答案

剑桥雅思10test1阅读解析

您好，我是专注留学考试规划和留学咨询的小钟老师。在追寻留学梦想的路上，选择合适的学校和专业，准备相关考试，都可能让人感到迷茫和困扰。作为一名有经验的留学顾问，我在此为您提供全方位的专业咨询和指导。欢迎随时提问！
剑桥雅思是很多同学会选择的一本资料，同学们做得怎么样呢？下面就和小钟老师一起来了解一下剑桥雅思10test1阅读解析。

一、题型
以文章为单位分析：
Passage one 中包含了判断题，简单题和表格填空题；Passage two 中包含了List of Headings和判断题；Passage three中包含四选一的选择题，半句式的matching题和判断题。
其实从以上分析中就会明显发现，判断题的考察比重是非常之大的，在三篇文章中均有涉及，共有十五道题，占总题数种的37.5%。
除此之外，LoH共8题，占20%；
表格填空5题，占15%；
Maching5题， 占15%；
选择题4题，占10%；
简答题3题，占3%。
其中LOH在passage two中作为第一个题，以8个小题的数量让它显得非常与众不同。要知道在剑桥真题3-9中要找到能在同类题型中题目个数上与此媲美的少之又少。值得引起我们重视，尤其在我们都以为LOH考察力度不会过于集中的今天。
二、题型内在变化
Test 1 中的题型特征和往年真题相比并没有太大的变化。其中需要注意的是判断题中NOT GIVEN的个数明显增多，三篇文章共15个判断题，其中每篇文章分别出现2个共6个NOT GIVEN，占总题数的40%。这个比例无论是从什么角度来看都是非常之高的。因此这对于复习阶段的同学们具有非常明确的指导意义--务必要花大力气复习理解NOT GIVEN的若干种情况，并能够轻易区分其与TRUE/YES或者和FALSE/NO的区别。
特别注意：在本套题判断题中，共出现了
1. The few existing stepwells in Delhi are more attractive than those found elsewhere.
2. It is easier for *aller companies to be innovative.
3. A manager’s approval of an idea is more persuasive than that of a colleague.
三处横向比较的句子，其中两句话符合我们的规律总结为NOT GIVEN，另外一句话为NO。因此，能够正确快速判断出横向比较依然不失为经济省时的判断方法。
三、难度
总体而言，剑十TEST 1的难度并不是特别大，难度是低于今年（2023）大部分时候考试的难度的，具体来说：
Passage one 中2题难度相对较大，其余题难度均为简单和中等难度的题型，定位词明显，好定位，也好判断。
Passage two就由两个题型组成。其中LOH有一道题难度有些大，其余题均可在规则的段落主题句分布的首句、第二句、最后一句三句话中找到答案。这篇文章的判断题非常简单，因为LOH是全文型的，所以其实在做LOH时就已经对于大部分文章内容有了比较清晰的把握了。
Passage three 选择题简单，matching题有些许难题，判断题较难。
因此，综上所述，此套阅读题对于基础扎实的同学，作对28道题，拿7分以上的分数问题应该不是特别大。

希望以上的答复能对您的留学申请有所帮助。如果您有任何更详细的问题或需要进一步的协助，我强烈推荐您访问我们的留学官方网站 ，在那里您可以找到更多专业的留学考试规划和留学资料以及*的咨询服务。祝您留学申请顺利！

哪位有雅思剑5test1passage2的原文和答案？谢谢

Nature or Nurture?

A) A few years ago. in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioral psychology. Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a 'leader' in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer 'teacher-subject' that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to learn.

B) Milgram's experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from '15 volts of electricity (slight shock)' to '450 volts (danger - severe shock)' in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed 'pupil' was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writhing together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for. as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.

C) As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering The higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning looks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil's cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end His final argument was, 'You have no other choice. You must go on." What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment.

D) Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that 'most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts' and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1.000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.

E) What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative teachers' actually do in the laboratory of real life?

F) One's first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram's teacher-subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.

G) An alternative to this notion of genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects' actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out. Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society - the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting."

H) Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority.

I) Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modern sociobiology - to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.

答案：
14. F
15. A
16. B
17. D
18. I
19. C
20. B
21. D
22. C
23. Not Given
24. True
25. False
26. False

2020年8月1日雅思阅读考试真题答案

8月1号进行了八月初的第一场雅思的考试，相信大家对真题以及答案会非常的感兴趣、今天就由的我为大家介绍2020年8月1日雅思阅读考试真题答案。

一、考题解析

P1 土地沙漠化

P2 澳大利亚的鹦鹉

P3 多重任务

二、名师点评

1.8月份首场考试的难度总体中等，有出现比较多的配对题，没有出现Heading题，其余主要以常规的填空，判断和选择题为主。文章的话题和题型搭配也是在剑桥真题中都有迹可循，所以备考重心依然还是剑桥官方真题。

2. 整体分析：涉及环境类（P1）、动物类（P2）、社科类（P3）。

本次考试的P2和P3均为旧题。P2是动物类的话题，题型组合为：段落细节配对+单选+summary填空，难度中等。题型上也延续19年的出题特点，出现配对题，考察定位速度和准确度。P3也出现了段落细节配对，主要是段落细节配对+单选+判断。三种题型难度中等，但是文章理解起来略有难度。

3. 部分答案及参考文章：

Passage 1：土地沙漠化

题型及答案待确认

Passage 2：澳大利亚的鹦鹉

题型：段落细节配对+单选+Summary填空

技巧分析：由于段落细节配对是完全乱序出题，在定位时需要先做后面的单选题及填空题，最大化利用已读信息来确定答案，尽量避免重复阅读，以保证充分的做题时间。

文章内容及题目参考：

A 概况，关于一个大的生物种类

B 一些物种消失的原因，题干关键词：an example of one bird species extinct

C 一种鹦鹉不能自己存活，以捕食另一种鸟为生，吃该鸟类的蛋。题干关键词：two species competed at the expense of oneanother

D 吸引鹦鹉的原因以及鹦鹉嘴的特点。题干关键词：*ysis of reasons as Australian landscapeattract parrots

E 植物是如何适应鹦鹉。题干关键词：plants attract birds which make the animal adaptto the environment

F 南半球对英语的影响

G 两种鹦鹉从环境改变中获益并存活下来。题干关键词：two species of parrots benefit fromm theenvironment change

H 外来物种及本地鹦鹉

I 鸟类栖息地被破坏以及人类采取的措施

J 作者对于鹦鹉问题的态度

单选题：

why parrots in the whole world are lineal descendants of

选项关键词：continent split from Africa

the writer thinks parrots species beak is for

选项关键词：adjust to their suitable diet

which one is not mentioned

选项关键词：should be frequently maintained

填空题：分布在文章的前两段

one-sixth

16th century

mapmaker

John Gould

Passage 3：多重任务

题型：段落细节配对+单选+判断

参考答案及文章

28 F

29I

30C

31B

32G

33C

34B

35A

36YES

37YES

38NO

39NOT GIVEN

40NO

Passage3： multitasking

Multitasking Debate—Can you do them at the same time？

Talking on the phone while driving isn＇t the only situationwhere we＇re worse at multitasking than we might like to think we are. Newstudies have identified a bottleneck in our brains that some say means we arefundamentally incapable of true multitasking. If experimental findings reflectreal-world performance， people who think they are multitasking are probablyjust underperforming in all-or at best， all but one -of their parallelpursuits. Practice might improve your performance， but you will never be asgood as when focusing on one task at a time.

The problem， according to René Marois， a psychologist atVanderbilt University in Nashville， Tennessee， is that there＇s a sticking pointin the brain. To demonstrate this， Marois devised an experiment to locate nteers watch a screen and when a particular image appears， a red circle，say， they have to press a key with their index finger. Different colouredcircles require presses from different fingers. Typical response time is about half a second， and thevolunteers quickly reach their peak performance. Then they learn to listen todifferent recordings and respond by making a specific sound. For instance， whenthey hear a bird chirp， they have to say ＂ba＂； an electronic soundshould elicit a ＂ko＂， and so on. Again， no problem. A normal personcan do that in about half a second， with almost no effort. The trouble comeswhen Marois shows the volunteers an image， then almost immediately plays them asound. Now they＇re flummoxed. ＂If you show an image and play a sound atthe same time， one task is postponed，＂ he says. In fact，if the second taskis introduced within the half-second or so it takes to process and react to thefirst， it will simply be delayed until the first one is done. The largestdual-task delays occur when the two tasks are presented simultaneously； delaysprogressively shorten as the interval between presenting the tasks lengthens（See Diagram）.

There are at least three points where we seem to getstuck， says Marois. The first is in simply identifying what we＇re looking  can take a few tenths of a second， during which time we are not able tosee and recognise a second item. This limitation is known as the＂attentional blink＂： experiments have shown that if you＇re watchingout for a particular event and a second one shows up unexpectedly any timewithin this crucial window of concentration， it may register in your visualcortex but you will be unable to act upon it. Interestingly， if you don＇texpect the first event， you have no trouble responding to the second. Whatexactly causes the attentional blink is still a matter for debate.

A second limitation is in our short-term visual ＇s estimated that we can keep track of about four items at a time， fewer ifthey are complex. This capacity shortage is thought to explain， in part， our astonishinginability to detect even huge changes in scenes that are otherwise identical，so-called ＂change blindness＂. Show people pairs of near-identicalphotos -say， aircraft engines in one picture have disappeared in the other -andthey will fail to spot the differences （if you don＇t believe it， check out theclips at /~rensink/flicker/download）. Here again， though， thereis disagreement about what the essential limiting factor really is. Does itcome down to a dearth of storage capacity， or is it about how much attention aviewer is paying？

A third limitation is that choosing a response to astimulus -braking when you see a child in the road， for instance，or replyingwhen your mother tells you over the phone that she＇s thinking of leaving yourdad -also takes brainpower. Selecting a response to one of these things willdelay by some tenths of a second your ability to respond to the other. This iscalled the ＂response selection bottleneck＂ theory， first proposed in1952.

Last December， Marois and his colleagues published apaper arguing that this bottleneck is in fact created in two different areas ofthe brain： one in the posterior lateral prefrontal cortex and another in thesuperior medial frontal cortex （Neuron， vol 52， p 1109）. They found this byscanning people＇s brains with functional MRI while the subjects struggled tochoose among eight possible responses to each of two closely timed tasks. Theydiscovered that these brain areas are not tied to any particular sense but aregenerally involved in selecting responses， and they seemed to queue theseresponses when presented with multiple tasks concurrently.

Bottleneck？ What bottleneck？

But David Meyer， a psychologist at the University ofMichigan， Ann Arbor， doesn＇t buy the bottleneck idea. He thinks dual-taskinterference is just evidence of a strategy used by the brain to prioritisemultiple activities. Meyer is known as something of an optimist by his  has written papers with titles like ＂Virtually perfect time-sharing indual-task performance： Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck＂（Psychological Science， vol 12， p101）. His experiments have shown that withenough practice -at least 2000 tries -some people can execute two taskssimultaneously as competently as if they were doing them one after the  suggests that there is a central cognitive processor that coordinates allthis and， what＇s more， he thinks it uses discretion： sometimes it chooses todelay one task while completing another.

Even with practice， not all people manage to achieve thisharmonious time-share， however. Meyer argues that individual differences comedown to variations in the character of the processor -some brains are just more＂cautious＂， some more ＂daring＂. And despite urban legend，there are no noticeable

differences between men and women. So， according to him，it＇s not a central bottleneck that causes dual-task interference， but rather＂adaptive executive control＂， which ＂schedules task processesappropriately to obey instructions about their relative priorities and serialorder＂.

Marois agrees that practice can sometimes eraseinterference effects. He has found that with just 1 hour of practice each dayfor two weeks， volunteers show a huge improvement at managing both his tasks atonce. Where he disagrees with Meyer is in what the brain is doing to achievethis. Marois speculates that practice might give us the chance to find lesscongested circuits to execute a task -rather like finding trusty back streetsto avoid heavy traffic on main roads -effectively making our response to thetask subconscious. After all， there are plenty of examples of subconsciou*ultitasking that most of us routinely manage： walking and talking， eating andreading， watching TV and folding the laundry.

But while some dual tasks benefit from practice， otherssimply do not. ＂Certain kinds of tasks are really hard to do two atonce，＂ says Pierre Jolicoeur at the University of Montreal， Canada， whoalso studies multitasking. Dual tasks involving a visual stimulus andskeletal-motor response （which he dubs ＂in the eye and out the hand＂）and an auditory stimulus with a verbal response （＂in the ear and out themouth＂） do seem to be amenable to practice， he says. Jolicoeur has foundthat with enough training such tasks can be performed as well together asapart. He speculates that the brain connections that they use may be somehowspecial， because we learn to speak by hearing and learn to move by looking. Butpair visual input with a verbal response， or sound to motor， and there＇s nodramatic improvement. ＂It looks like no amount of practice will allow youto combine these，＂ he says.

For research purposes， these experiments have to be keptsimple. Real-world multitasking poses much greater challenges. Even the upbeatMeyer is sceptical about how a lot of us live our lives. Instant-messaging andtrying to do your homework？ ＂It can＇t be done，＂ he says. Conducting ajob interview while answering emails？ ＂There＇s no way you wind up being asgood.＂ Needless to say， there appear to be no researchers in the area ofmultitasking who believe that you can safely drive a car and carry on a phoneconversation. In fact， last year David Strayer at the University of Utah inSalt Lake City reported that people using cellphones drive no better thandrunks （Human Factors， vol 48， p 381）. In another study， Strayer found thatusing a hands-free kit did not improve a driver＇s response time. He concludedthat what distracts a driver so badly is the very act of talking to someone whoisn＇t present in the car and therefore is unaware of the hazards facing thedriver.

“No researchers believe it＇s safe to drive a car andcarry on a phone conversation”

It probably comes as no surprise that， generallyspeaking， we get worse at multitasking as we age. According to Art Kramer atthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign， who studies how ageing affectsour cognitive abilities， we peak in our 20s. Though the decline is slow throughour 30s and on into our 50s， it is there； and after 55， it becomes moreprecipitous. In one study， he and his colleagues had both young and oldparticipants do a simulated driving task while carrying on a conversation. Hefound that while young drivers tended to miss background changes， older driversfailed to notice things that were highly relevant. Likewise， older subjects hadmore trouble paying attention to the more important parts of a scene than youngdrivers.

It＇s not all bad news for over-55s， though. Kramer alsofound that older people can benefit from practice. Not only did they learn toperform better， brain scans showed that underlying that improvement was achange in the way their brains become active.

Whileit＇s clear that practice can often make a difference， especially as we age， thebasic facts remain sobering. ＂We have this impression of an almightycomplex brain，＂ says Marois， ＂and yet we have very humbling andcrippling limits.＂ For most of our history， we probably never needed to domore than one thing at a time， he says， and so we haven＇t evolved to be ableto. Perhaps we will in future， though. We might yet look back one day on peoplelike Debbie and Alun as ancestors of a new breed of true multitaskers.

以上就是雅思无忧小编给大家带来的剑桥雅思阅读test1 p2 哪位有雅思剑5test1passage2的原文和答案？谢谢全部内容，希望对大家有所帮助！

雅思培训
免责声明：文章内容来自网络，如有侵权请及时联系删除。