不能3分钟解决一篇GRE短文章的方法，都是耍流氓！
2023-03-28 9:41:35
1627 阅读
最近，很多同学都来反应，在考场上，做题时间不够，一篇文章想很久。但是我们知道，一篇短文章只有4分钟的解题时间。也就是我们建议3分钟看文章，1分钟做2题。有的同学觉得不太可能，30秒钟做一道阅读题？我怕我题干都还没有看完呢！下面，喜多老师带你一步步看看，如何用【双线阅读笔记法】3分钟盘懂一篇Medium+Hard题目难度的文章，1分钟内，妥妥做出2道题！Let's go!Research shows that people often retain beliefs based on prior incorrect understanding when reading texts that contradict those beliefs. Yet readers do not reliably call upon accurate prior knowledge when reading false statements. Prentice, Gerrig, and Bailis asked subjects to read a narrative that included some obviously false statements presented as though true. Participants were later asked to verify the truth of various statements and took longer than expected to reject false ones. Studies of this type suggest that readers may initially accept everything they read as true and only afterward reconcile false propositions with respect to their prior knowledge. In some cases, this reconciliation may be far from perfect, such that readers believe new false information may have actually been derived from their prior knowledge.这个笔记，就是3分钟之内写出来的，看不懂笔记？我来解释一下。Research shows that people often retain beliefs based on prior incorrect understanding when reading texts that contradict those beliefs.第一句是一个事实（SS）。人们会保留自己基于以前错误理解的想法，当读到的信息和自己的想法相违背时。（
说人话就是：喜多以前认为节食可以减肥，但是有一天刷抖音，发现有人说节食不可以减肥。但喜多还是retain保留了他之前错误地认为节食可以减肥的想法。再直接一点：【人都不听劝！】）所以信息线，我简单写下：人（保留）belief/(基于)incorrent 理（解）Yet readers do not reliably call upon accurate prior knowledge when reading false statements.因为第一句是事实，所以Yet不能反驳前面的事实，在这里功能相当于怪事（GS），怪在哪呢？我继续看，在读错误的信息时，读者却不会提取之前的准确知识来辨别错信息。噢，我立马知道了，之前不听劝，保留错误的想法。现在错误的信息在眼前，却调不动之前正确的信息，不就怪了嘛？所以信息我继续写：人X (调动) accurate（的信息）（当读到）false（信息的时候）。Prentice, Gerrig, and Bailis asked subjects to read a narrative that included some obviously false statements presented as though true.什么逻辑词都没有，那就是继续展开（ZK）前面的怪事。还没读后文，我就形成了一个预期：这一句一定会继续说x accurate/false（在读错误信息时不会调动准确信息）。所以，我就在第三句里，快速的用false statements验证了false的预判，继续往下读。Participants were later asked to verify the truth of various statements and took longer than expected to reject false ones.继续展开（ZK）。继续验证x accurate。当我读到读者辨别，排除错误的时间比预测更长。我就知道，这个（Longer reject false）就验证了x accurate/false（在读错误信息时不会调动准确信息）的预判。Studies of this type suggest that readers may initially accept everything they read as true and only afterward reconcile false propositions with respect to their prior knowledge.终于，前面那么多事实展开，得到了作者的观点（ZZ）:读者会把所有读到的信息先全盘接受，之后才会根据他们之前的知识协调错误的信息.和前面的预判x accurate/false（在读错误信息时不会调动准确信息）一致。所以信息写上：（人）起（先认为所有的都是）True/（之）后 （纠正）false（的信息）,（用）prior（知识）。In some cases, this reconciliation may be far from perfect, such that readers believe new false information may have actually been derived from their prior knowledge.继续作者观点的展开（ZK）。其实我根本不需要知道最后一句说了什么意思，因为Far from perfect就已经验证了上文的x accurate/false（在读错误信息时不会调动准确信息），所以都是一致的顺承逻辑，就够了。所以整篇文章的逻辑就是给一个怪事，还给了Prentice, Gerrig, and Bailis的实验来展开怪事（人不听劝，依靠旧的信息，但是，遇到错误的信息也不会用旧的正确信息来辨别）。得出作者的观点（是因为我们把新的都当成对的，然后才后知后觉来分辨对错），最后给作者观点一个展开就完了。⭕ Which of the following best describes the purpose of the highlighted sentence?A.It presents evidence to support a claimB.It points out a common misconception.C.It calls attention to a flaw in certain kinds of studiesD.It presents a speculative explanation of an observed behavior.E.It clarifies a distinction made in the previous sentence.根据笔记，高亮句是作者的观点，观点的功能就是给主观的看法/原因的解释/结果的预测等。所以表达展开功能的A(presents evidence)，排除。Flaw和B的misconception一样，未提及，排除。speculative explanation对应到作者推这个怪事形成的原因观点，符合预期。直接选。observed behavior对应前面三个人做的实验。Clarify需要文章有个ambiguity才需要澄清，没有，直接排除。⭕ Which of the following can be inferred about the study conducted by Prentice. Gemig, and Bailis?
- They set out to study one phenomenon and ended up examining a phenomenon that was related but different.
- They conducted their study by asking participants to read texts that discussed subject matter on which the participants were unlikely to have strong views.
- They found evidence that people are more likely to retain incorrect beliefs that are contradicted by a written text than to reject false statements in a written text.
- They designed their study to test a particular hypothesis that their findings did not ultimately support.
- They began with an estimate of the time that participants would take to evaluate and reject false statements that were contrary to participants' prior knowledge
这是一道信息细节题，题目问能从这三人的研究里推出什么。看笔记，这三个人的研究就是对应3，4两个句子，我们预判就是x accurate/false（在读错误信息时不会调动准确信息）。能对应上我们的预判的，就是E选项。E的participants would take to evaluate and reject false statements，对应false。另外，E的 an estimate of the time ，对应我们笔记信息线的Longer reject false。这道题不久做出来啦。1.说他们研究一个现象，结果以相关但不同的一个现象结束，不对应我们的预判。没提到，不选。2.participants were unlikely to have strong views不符合预判，不选。3.糅杂，文章没有这个比较的关系，跟预判不符，不选。4.文章此处的逻辑都是展开的同向逻辑。没有说结果和最初的结论不相符。反而后文和我们的预判x accurate/false是一致的，所以不选。所以大家发现没有，无论是功能题还是信息细节题，我们都需要一个可实操的工具，把文章的逻辑和信息串联起来。不然我们就会“只看树木，不见森林”。越读文章就越读不懂。而双线阅读笔记法，正可以帮到你。下面都是经过双线阅读笔记法训练后的学员练习笔记截图，是不是很清晰明了的就把文章的功能和信息结合到一起了？
京公网安备 11010502039141号