当前位置:首页 > 机经下载



发布人:环美出国    发布时间:2016-07-16

  • 2016年7月9日雅思阅读真题回顾,此为雅思写作A类考题回顾,正在雅思备考的同学可做参考。
  •   2016年7月9日雅思阅读真题回顾,此为雅思写作A类考题回顾,正在雅思备考的同学可做参考。

      Reading Passage 1


      Question types:配对题9个,简答题4个



      Reading Passage 2


      Question types:多选题4(7选4)、摘要填空5、表格填空4



      London Swaying Footbridge


      In September 1996 a competition was organized by the Financial Times in association with the London Borough of Southwark to design a new footbridge across the Thames.The competition attracted over 200 entries and was won by a team comprising Arup(engineers),Foster and Partners(architects)and the sculptor Sir Anthony Caro.


      The bridge opened to the public on 10 June 2000.Up to 100,000 people crossed it that day with up to 2000 people on the bridge at any one time.At first,the bridge was still.Then it began to sway,just slightly.Then,almost from one moment to the next,when large groups of people were crossing,the wobble intensified.This movement became sufficiently large for people to stop walking to retain their balance and sometimes to hold onto the hand rails for support.It was decided immediately to limit the number of people on the bridge,but even so the deck movement was sufficient to be uncomfortable and to raise concern for public safety so that on 12 June the bridge was closed until the problem could be solved.


      The embarrassed engineers found the videotape that day which showed the center span swaying about 3 inches side to side every second.The engineers first thought that winds might be exerting excessive force on the many large flags and banners bedecking the bridge for its gala premiere.What’s more,they also discovered that the pedestrians also played a key role.Human activities,such as walking,running,jumping,swaying,etc.could cause horizontal forces which in turn could cause excessive dynamic vibration in the lateral direction in the bridge.As the structure began moving,pedestrians adjusted their gait to the same lateral rhythm as the bridge.The adjusted footsteps magnified the motion-just like when four people all stand up in a small boat at the same time.As more pedestrians locked into the same rhythm,the increasing oscillations led to the dramatic swaying captured on film.


      In order to design a method of reducing the movements,the force exerted by the pedestrians had to be quantified and related to the motion of the bridge.Although there are some descriptions of this phenomenon in existing literature,none of these actually quantifies the force.So there was no quantitative analytical way to design the bridge against this effect.An immediate research program was launched by the bridge’s engineering designers Ove Arup,supported by a number of universities and research organizations.


      The tests at the University of Southampton involved a person walking‘on the spot’on a small shake table.The tests at Imperial College involved persons walking along a specially built,7.2m-long platform which could be driven laterally at different frequencies and amplitudes.Each type of test had its limitations.The Imperial College tests were only able to capture 7-8 footsteps,and the‘walking on the spot’tests,although monitoring many footsteps,could not investigation normal forward walking.Neither test could investigate any influence of other people in a crowd on the behavior of the individual being tested.


      The results of the laboratory tests provided information which enabled the initial design of a retro-fit to be progressed.However,the limitations of these tests was clear and it was felt that the only way to replicate properly the precise conditions of the Millennium Bridge was to carry out crowd tests on the bridge deck itself.These tests done by the Arup engineers could incorporate factors not possible in the laboratory tests.The first of these was carried out with 100 people in July 2000.The results of these tests were used to refine the load model for the pedestrians.A second series of crowd tests was carried out on the bridge in December 2000.The purpose of these tests was to further validate the design assumptions and to load test a prototype damper installation.The test was carried out with 275 people.


      Unless the usage of the bridge was to be greatly restricted,only two generic options to improve its performance were considered feasible.The first was to increase the stiffness of the bridge to move all its lateral natural frequencies out of the range that could be excited by the lateral footfall forces,and the second was to increase the damping of the bridge to reduce the resonant response.

      Reading Passage 3


      Question types:选择题5、摘要题5(有选项)、判断题4



      The Secrets of Persuasion


      Our mother may have told you the secret to getting what you ask for was to say please.The reality is rather more surprising.Adam Dudding talks to a psychologist who has made a life’s work from the science of persuasion.Some scientists peer at things through high-powered microscopes.Others goad rats through mazes,or mix bubbling fluids in glass beakers.Robert Cialdini,for his part,does curious things with towels,and believes that by doing so he is discovering important insights into how society works.


      Cialdini’s towel experiments(more of them later),are part of his research into how we persuade others to say yes.He wants to know why some people have a knack for bending the will of others,be it a telephone cold-caller talking to you about timeshares,or a parent whose children are compliant even without threats of extreme violence.


      While he’s anxious not to be seen as the man who’s written the bible for snake-oil salesmen,for decades the Arizona State University social psychology professor has been creating systems for the principles and methods of persuasion,and writing bestsellers about them.Some people seem to be born with the skills;Cialdini’s claim is that by applying a little science,even those of us who aren’t should be able to get our own way more often.“All my life I’ve been an easy mark for the blandishment of salespeople and fundraisers and I’d always wondered why they could get me to buy things I didn’t want and give to causes I hadn’t heard of,”says Cialdini on the phone from London,where he is plugging his latest book.


      He found that laboratory experiments on the psychology of persuasion were telling only part of the story,so he began to research influence in the real world,enrolling in sales-training programmes:“I learnt how to sell automobiles from a lot,how to sell insurance from an office,how to sell encyclopedias door to door.”He concluded there were six general“principles of influence”and has,since put them to the test under slightly more scientific conditions.Mostrecently,that has meant messing about with towels.Many hotels leave a little card in each bathroom asking guests to reuse towels and thus conserve water and electricity and reduce pollution.Cialdini and his colleagues wanted to test the relative effectiveness of different words on those cards.Would guests be motivated to co-operate simply because it would help save the planet,or were other factors more compelling?To test this,the researchers changed the card’s message from an environmental one to the simple(and truthful)statement that the majority of guests at the hotel had reused their towel at least once.Guests given this message were 26%more likely to reuse their towels than those given the old message.In Cialdini’s book“Yes!50 Secrets from the Science of Persuasion”,co-written with another social scientist and a business consultant,he explains that guests were responding to the persuasive force of“social proof”,the idea that our decisions are strongly influenced by what we believe other people like us are doing.


      So much for towels.Cialdini has also learnt a lot from confectionery.Yes!cites the work of New Jersey behavioural scientist David Strohmetz,who wanted to see how restaurant patrons would respond to a ridiculously small favour from their food server,in the form of an after dinner chocolate for each diner.The secret,it seems,is in how you give the chocolate.When the chocolates arrived in a heap with the bill,tips went up a miserly 3%compared to when no chocolate was given.But when the chocolates were dropped individually in front of each diner,tips went up 14%.The scientific breakthrough,though,came when the waitress gave each diner one chocolate,headed away from the table then doubled back to give them one more each,as if such generosity had only just occurred to her.Tips went up 23%.This is“reciprocity”in action:we want to return favours done to us,often without bothering to calculate the relative value of what is being received and given.


      Geeling Ng,operations manager at Auckland’s Soul Bar,says she has never heard of Kiwi waiting staff using such a cynical(愤世嫉俗的)trick,not least because New Zealand tipping culture is so different from that of the US:“If you did that in New Zealand,as diners were leaving they’d say‘can we have some more?”‘But she certainly understands the general principle of reciprocity.The way to a diner’s heart is“to give them something they’re not expecting in the way of service.It might be something as small as leaving a mint on their plate,or it might be remembering that last time they were in they wanted their water with no ice and no lemon.“In America it would translate into an instant tip.In New Zealand it translates intoa huge smile and thank you.”And no doubt,return visits.



      Reciprocity:People want to give back to those who have given to them.The trick here is to get in first.That is why charities put a crummy pen inside a mail out,and why smiling women in supermarkets hand out dollops of free food.Scarcity:(缺乏)People want more of things they can have less of.Advertisers ruthlessly exploit scarcity(“limit four per customer”,“sale must end soon”),and Cialdini suggests parents do too:“Kids want things that are less available,so say“this is an unusual opportunity;you can only have this for a certain time.”


      Authority:We trust people who know what they are talking about.So inform people honestly of your credentials before you set out to influence them.“You’d be surprised how many people fail to do that,”says Cialdini.“They feel it’s impolite to talk about their expertise.”In one study,therapists whose patients would not do their exercises were advised to display their qualification certificates prominently.They did,and experienced an immediate leap in patient compliance.


      Commitment/consistency:We want to act in a way that is consistent with the commitments we have already made.Exploit this to get a higher sign-up rate when soliciting charitable donations.First ask workmates if they think they will sponsor you on your egg-and-spoon marathon.Later,return with the sponsorship form to those who said yes and remind them of their earlier commitment.


      Liking:We say yes more often to people we like.Obvious enough,but reasons for“liking”can be weird.In one study,people were sent survey forms and asked to return them to a named researcher.When the researcher gave a fake name resembling that of the subject(eg,Cynthia Johnson is sent a survey by“Cindy Johansen”),surveys were twice as likely to be completed.We favour people who resemble us,even if the resemblance is as minor as the sound of their name.


      Social proof:We decide what to do by looking around to see what others just like us are doing.Useful for parents,says Cialdini.“Find groups of children who are behaving in a way that you would like your child to,because the child looks to the side,rather than at you.”More perniciously,social proof is the force underpinning the competitive materialism of“keeping up with the Joneses”.

更多+ 推荐新闻