雅思閱讀長難句分析

雅思閱讀中所謂的對長句的處理就是指能清楚地知道這個長句的主幹在是什麼呢，基本上指的就是這個長句的主謂賓或主謂表是什麼。這樣的話，就大大減輕了考生的負擔和壓力。因爲主幹的單詞往往都相對而言比較簡單，並且，主幹上的意思基本上就是作者的要表達的意義。當然，還有一個點是能弄懂長句的比較有立竿見影的好處就是出題者的出題特點。下面是小編爲您收集整理的雅思閱讀長難句分，供大家參考!

我們先來看幾個例子

1. 題目：Research completed in 1982 found that in the United States soil erosion……(C3T2P2)

A reduced the productivity of farmland by20 per cent

B was almost as severe as in India and China

C was causing significant damage to 20 per cent of farmland

D could be reduced by converting cultivated land to meadow or forest

原文：The United States, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soil’s productivity.

很明顯，原文是一個長句，而對於長句的處理就是找出主幹，我們可以看出來，這個句子的主幹是The United States discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil。所以答案就非常明顯應該選擇C。所以你會發現很多考生都會選的A項經過對此長句的分析，它根本就不在此長句的主幹，也就是說這是對作者要表達的意思的補充說明。從這裏我們可以看出，出題者對干擾項的出題思路，干擾項所在的位置都是定位句子的非主幹部分。

2. 題目：Paragraph B How the port changes a city’s infrastructure (C2T2P3)

原文：Port cities become industrial, financial and service centers and political capitals because of their water connections and the urban concentration which arises there and later draws to it railway, highways and air routes. Water transport means cheap access, the chief basis of all port cities. Many of the world’s biggest cities, for example, London, New York, Shanghai, Istanbul, Buenos Aries, Tokyo, Jakarta, Calcutta, Philadelphia and San Francisco began as ports—that is, with land-sea exchange as their major function—but they have since grown disproportionately in other respects, so that their port functions are no longer dominant. They remain different kinds of places from non-port cities and their port functions account for that difference.

做這一道題的時候，考生只要知道出題者的出干擾項的思路，就不會選How the port changes a city’s infrastructure這個小標題。很多考生之所以會選這個答案，很大程度上是因爲句：Port cities become industrial, financial and service centers and political capitals because of their water connections and the urban concentration which arises there and later draws to it railway, highways and air routes. city’s infrastructure想對應的就是railway, highways and air routes。然而我們可以看到這個長句的主幹是：Port cities become industrial, financial and service centers and political capitals。故這個小標題是個干擾項。

3. 題目：Paragraph B Ottawa International Conference on Health Promotion

Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (C2T1P2)

原文：At the Ottawa Conference in 1986, a charter was developed which outlined new directions for health promotion based on the socio-ecological view of health. This charter, known as the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, remains as the backbone of health action today. In exploring the scope of health promotion it states that:

Good health is a major resource for social, economic and personal development and an important dimension of quality of life. Political, economica, social, cultural, environmental, behavioural and biological factors can all favour health or be harmful to it.(WHO, 1986)

The Ottawa Charter brings practical meaning and action to this broad notion of health promotion. It presents fundamental strategies and approaches in achieving health for all. The overall philosophy of health promotion which guides these fundamental strategies and approaches is one of ‘enabling people to increase control over and to improve their health’ (WHO, 1986).

同樣的道理，我們之間看到，這裏的句：At the Ottawa Conference in 1986, a charter was developed which outlined new directions for health promotion based on the socio-ecological view of health.這個句子的主幹就是：a charter was developed。所以小標題中的Ottawa International Conference on Health Promotion 就是干擾項的常用的招數。

可以發現出題者的出題特點，基本上，正確答案一定是主幹上的同意轉化，而干擾項上的答案都出自定語上。所以這也就是爲什麼烤鴨若能完全掌握長句的處理，短期內會有一定的提高。

從以上整理的雅思閱讀長難句實例講解中就不難看出，這部分對於雅思閱讀中長難句把握不好的學生問題多半都處在語法結構分析不清晰，所以要加強的話，語法基礎還是重點。

　　雅思閱讀素材：北京空氣污染

前幾天北京的空氣污染，讓市民都不敢出門，這也是個時事新聞，有心的同學們應該準備相關素材，以更加全面的進行準備。以下就是關於環境類的雅思閱讀素材，供大家參考：

2013年1月15日雅思閱讀精選：北京空氣污染——最黑暗的

From：The Economist, Jan 14th 2013, 4:49 by T.P. | BEIJING

Beijing's air pollution

Blackest day

ON January 12th of last year, in an article in the print edition of The Economist, we reported that the public outcry over Beijing’s atrocious air quality was putting pressure on officials to release more data about more kinds of pollutants. We also noted that Chinese authorities had already embarked on a wide range of strategies to improve air quality, and that they probably deserve more credit than either foreign or domestic critics tend to give them. But we concluded with the sad reality that such work takes decades, and that “Beijing residents will need to wait before seeing improvements.”

On January 12th of this year, Beijing residents got an acrid taste of what that wait might be like, as they suffered a day of astonishingly bad air. Pollution readings went, quite literally, off the charts. Saturday evening saw a reading of 755 on the Air Quality Index (AQI). That index is based on the recently revised standards of the American Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA), which nominally maxes out at 500. For more perspective, consider that any reading above 100 is deemed “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and that anything above 400 is rated “hazardous” for all.

Like many Beijing residents, your correspondent has mobile-phone apps that keep up with the pollution readings. At an otherwise pleasant Saturday-evening meal with friends, he joined his companions in compulsively checking for updates.

Those previously unseen numbers were hard to believe, but they did seem to match up well enough with the noxious soup we could see, smell and taste outside. We are all far more familiar with the specifics of air-quality measurement than we would like to be. Apart from the AQI readings above 700, we were quite struck to see the readings for the smallest and most dangerous sort of particulate matter, called PM 2.5, which can enter deep into the respiratory system. These are named for the size, in microns, of the particles. A reading at a controversial monitoring station run by the American embassy showed a PM 2.5 level of 886 micrograms per cubic metre; Beijing’s own municipal monitoring centre acknowledged readings in excess of 700 micrograms.

For perspective on that set of figures, consider that the guideline values set by the World Health Organisation regard any air with more than 25 micrograms of PM 2.5 per cubic metre as being of unacceptable quality.

Chinese authorities have complained about the American embassy's insistence on independently monitoring—and publicly reporting—Beijing’s air quality. And sometimes much is made of the vast differences between those readings and China’s own official ones, which are often less dire. Indeed, a key feature of one of those mobile-phone apps is the side-by-side comparison of those competing data-sets. (It is of course a bad sign that people here need more than one app to keep up with all this.)

But on a day like Saturday, the discrepancy between official readings and independent ones hardly seemed to matter; you didn't need a weatherman to know which way the ill wind blew. Or failed to blow, as the case may have been. One expert quoted by Chinese media attributed this spike in pollution to a series of windless days that allowed pollutants to accumulate.

But wind can be a problem when it does blow, too. In the outlying provinces that are part of Beijing’s airshed, there is a great deal of heavy industry. Pollution regulations are much harder to enforce there. And, in this colder-than-average winter, people have been burning more coal and wood than usual.

It is likely to be many more Januarys to come before China gets the upper hand on its air-pollution problems. Indeed, as we mentioned last January 12th, after nearly sixty years of trying and a vast amount of progress, the city of Los Angeles has yet to meet America's federal air-quality standards. If there is any consolation to what Beijing had to endure this January 12th, it is that it should lend urgency to the public outcry, and help speed things in the right direction.

The other consolation is that readings like the ones showing now on Monday midday (in the mid 300s, merely “hazardous” and “severely polluted”) feel fine by comparison.

(Picture credit: AFP)

北京空氣污染——最黑暗的

去年1月12日，我們在印刷版的《經濟學人》中報道了公衆關於北京惡劣空氣質量的呼籲迫使官方發佈更多種類污染物數據一事。我們也注意到中國政府開始着手於採用多種策略來提高空氣質量，因此他應該受到來自國外或者國內評論家更多的信任。但令人沮喪的現實是，這些工作需要花費數十年來完成，“在情況有所改觀以前，北京居民還需等待些許時日。”

今年1月12日，北京居民的等待換來的卻是辛辣的感覺，因爲他們經歷了空氣質量出奇惡劣的。毫不誇張地，污染物讀數飆升，超過了記錄。星期六晚上，空氣質量指數爲755.這個指數是基於美國環境保護署最近修改的標準，名義上的值爲500.有更多觀點認爲，指數只要高出100就會“不利於敏感人羣的健康”，高出400的話，就會對所有人“有危險”。

像很多北京居民一樣，我們記者的移動手機應用程序可以時刻更新污染指數。本應該是一次和朋友相聚其樂融融的週六晚餐，他卻與同伴們不斷地檢查着數據的更新。

先前沒有看到的那些數字有些難以置信，但是從我們看到聞到外面濃厚的毒霧來判斷，應該也差不多。雖然我們不願承認，但我們對測量空氣質量的細節心知肚明。除了空氣質量指數超過700之外，PM 2.5——空氣中最小但最危險並可以進入呼吸系統的一種懸浮顆粒——的讀數讓我們十分震驚。它們是按照粒子微米下的體積來命名的。來自一座有爭議的美國大使館監測站的數據顯示，PM 2.5的水平達到了886微克每立方米;北京市當地檢測中心承認數據超過了700微克。

基於這一組數據，有觀點認爲，根據世界衛生組織指定的指導值，凡是PM 2.5高於25微克每立方米，即被認爲是不能接受的空氣質量。

中國官方一直就美國大使館對北京空氣質量堅持獨自檢測併發布表示抱怨。有時候，美國的指數會與中國官方的有很大差異，中國的通常會相對緩和一些。的確，移動手機應用的主要特徵之一就是那些相互競爭的數據收集站的平行比較。(當然，這裏的人們需要不止一個應用程序來更新這些數據，這並不是個好的現象。)

但是在這樣一個星期六，官方的數據與獨立監測站之間的差異也顯得不重要了;你也不需要氣象員來告訴你渾濁的氣體是朝哪邊吹的。或者說，事實上是根本沒有在流動。引用中國媒體的報道，一位專家將這次污染指數爆表歸罪於連續幾天無風導致的污染物積聚。

但是當起風的時候，也會出現問題。在北京氣流區域的邊遠省份有很多重工業。這些地區的污染管理更難實施。此外，在這個比平時要寒冷的冬季，人們燒了更多的煤和木柴。

看來，中國還需要很多年才能在空氣質量問題上有所成效。確實，正如我們在去年1月12日提到的那樣，洛杉磯通過大約六十年的努力和大量進展才達到了美國聯邦空氣標準。如果說對北京在這個1月12日必須承受的壓力有些許安慰的建議，那就是北京應該更爲緊迫地應對民衆呼籲，並且促進事物往正確的方向發展。

另一個慰藉就是像星期一中午發佈的指數(大概300過半，僅僅是“對人危險的”和“嚴重污染”)在相比之下就容易接受多了。

以上就是講述近日來北京空氣重度污染的雅思閱讀材料全部內容，非常詳細的介紹了相關的話題，大家可以在備考雅思閱讀考試和雅思小作文的時候，對這篇文章進行適當的參考和閱讀。