考試概述：
    本次考試包括填空題、選擇題、主旨題、判斷題，對(duì)于學(xué)生的細(xì)節(jié)把握和概括能力比較有要求，整體閱讀新題比例很大，主要考察學(xué)生的基本功和有效搜索信息的能力。不論新題舊題，都無(wú)需慌張，因?yàn)閷?duì)大多數(shù)考生來(lái)說(shuō)，機(jī)經(jīng)沒(méi)看完，考試中遇到的就都是新題，心態(tài)放平，沉著應(yīng)對(duì)。
    二、具體題目分析
    Passage 1
    題型：選擇1+填空4+填空4+選擇4
    文章大意：新題，大意為深海里的新發(fā)現(xiàn)以及其帶來(lái)的影響。
    參考文章(待回憶)
    參考答案(待回憶)
    Passage2
    題型：主旨7+填空5+選擇1
    文章大意：新題，大意為看到廣告，孩子與成人的不同，可能沒(méi)有足夠的語(yǔ)言來(lái)表達(dá)自己的想法，并通過(guò)實(shí)驗(yàn)證明正反觀點(diǎn)，列舉其他人使用理論整理實(shí)驗(yàn)的缺陷等，最后提到了廣告對(duì)社會(huì)的其他影響。
    參考文章(待回憶)
    參考答案(待回憶)
    Passage3
    題型：判斷6+填空7+選擇1
    文章大意：科技類文章，倫敦英國(guó)科學(xué)研究所的辯論會(huì)匯集了全世界科學(xué)家對(duì)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的討論，科學(xué)家們的正反觀點(diǎn)以及原因，列舉其中的關(guān)鍵性問(wèn)題，統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)并不是人們?cè)诤饬匡L(fēng)險(xiǎn)時(shí)的考慮因素。
    參考文章
    Assessingthe Risk
    How do wejudge whether it is right to go ahead with a new technology? Applying
    Theprecautionary principle property and you won’t go far wrong, says Colin Tudge.
    Section 1
    A
    As atitle for a supposedly unprejudiced debate on scientific progress,
    "Panicattack: interrogating our obsession with risk" did not bode well. Heldlast week at the Royal Institution in London, the event brought togetherscientists from across the world to ask why society is so obsessed with riskand to call for a "more rational" approach. "We seem to beorganising society around the grandmotherly maxim of ''better safe than sorry''" exclaimed Spiked, the online publication that organised the event."What are the consequences of this overbearing concern with risks?"
    B
    Thedebate was preceded by a survey of 40 scientists who were invited to describehow awful our lives would be if the "precautionary principle" hadbeen allowed to prevail in the past. Their response was: no heart surgery orantibiotics, and hardly any drugs at all; no aeroplanes, bicycles orhigh-voltage power grids; no pasteurisation, pesticides or biotechnology; noquantum of America.
    C
    Theyhave absolutely missed the point. The precautionary principle is a subtle idea.It has various forms, but all of them generally include some notion ofcost-effectiveness. Thus the point is not simply to ban things that are notknown to be absolutely safe. Rather, it says: "Of course you can make noprogress without risk. But if there is no obvious gain from taking the risk,then don’t take it."