ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2123|回复: 6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[原始] 9.16上海考场 没准备好直接按了cancel TAT

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-9-17 21:52:31 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
准备的实在不好就干脆Cancel了orz 前来放几只狗攒人品

坐稳:
讲一个国家Sacchar陷入了贸易困境,可以通过降低糖的价格来解决。因为该国主要出口糖。并且降价可以使销售增加,抢占其他国家的市场。最后还有一句,这个措施可以sustainable解决困境。

爱啊:
只记得第一题有三张选项卡,好像是讲环境问题的,第一张有12个目标,其他忘了,挺简单的。
还有一题是一张一年12个月的就业量的柱状图,但是横坐标的月份标错了,告诉你8月是10月的两倍(也可能反过来),然后8月还等于五六七的和,问你第一个柱子和最后一个柱子分别表示几月份。最左边是三月,最右边是第二年2月,顺序是第一年3月到第二年2月这12个月。
其他忘了……

腧穴:
觉得都比较简单,没有印象特别深刻的……

洛基和预发:
几乎没看题,状态很不好根本不想看,随便瞎选过去了……

月度:
有一篇是讲美国妇女选举权。
还有一篇好像是一些化石,一开始像是HOMO这种远古族类,第二段又说有的地方又不符合HOMO的特点。

攒RP,下次好好准备再去吧
收藏收藏1 收藏收藏1
沙发
发表于 2013-9-17 21:55:09 | 只看该作者
lz加油! 现在很多学校都是取最高的一次分数了 个人觉得应该看一下自己实战多少分 (其实我一直不理解就算gmat寄成绩是寄5年内所有的 有什么影响。。。)
板凳
发表于 2013-9-17 22:02:52 | 只看该作者
加油!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
地板
发表于 2013-9-17 23:06:18 | 只看该作者
原始人
1.      主题思路:
1)Neanderthal消失的两个旧观点+反驳:
观点** N种族不如现代人类innovative和adaptive。
反驳   N族人其实adaptability也很强
观点** N族没有自己的语言language abilities,不利于沟通,所以灭绝了。
反驳   另一个研究者发现N族人有发展语言的基因
2)Neanderthal消失的新观点:
N族人的metabolism rate新陈代谢率太高了,冰川石器气候fluctuate剧烈变化导致食物减少food shortage,古代人无法获得足够的胡萝卜素,N族人就抵抗不了灭绝了

2.      段落大意:
第一段:现象+原因 (Neanderthal灭绝和他的两个原因)
Neanderthal被认为是高度发达的,本不应该disappeared的,然而oddly,它们整个族群却在冰河时期消失了,被modern humans from Europe所取代。给出几个N族人灭绝原因,然后都给否定了。
**N种族不如现代人类innovative和adaptive。反驳:N族人其实adaptability也很强(会捕鱼啊之类的)讲到了N族人的一个big hunting game。
**N族没有自己的语言language abilities,不利于沟通,所以灭绝了。反驳:另一个研究者发现N族人有发展语言的基因(一个专有名词,和现代人种一样),这表明N族是可以发展语言的(这里有个考题,LZ届时再细看)。
第二段:提出新观点   胡萝卜素的摄取不足导致N人灭绝
给出作者认同的新解释,生理学家们研究表明,N族人的metabolism rate新陈代谢率太高了,跟modern humans 相比需要更多的食物,需要消耗更多的热量,所以在事物稀缺的时候不如human能扛。并不是因为现代人捕猎能力比他们强,而是现代人不需要那么多食物。虽然他们猎取猎物的能力很强,但是本身体积太大,需要消耗很多的食物,基因决定他们饮食里需要摄入更多的胡萝卜素而在冰川石器气候fluctuate剧烈变化导致食物减少food shortage,所以无法获得足够的胡萝卜素,N族人就抵抗不了灭绝了(有题,选项很容易迷惑,多留心)


3.       注意
1)      新观点原因的发展:新陈代谢率高,胡萝卜素
2)      两个解释和有点还有缺点
5#
发表于 2013-9-17 23:07:32 | 只看该作者
[V1]
  还有一篇是考古,美洲大陆的原始人移居
  [V2]
  主旨:讨论最早欧洲人到美洲大陆是坐船过去的还是走过去的
  结构:长篇,三段:提出一个theory(考古学家一直反驳的),但说这个theory近来得到了support —> 提出一个验证这个theory的方法—> 又分析了这个方法难以实现
  关键词:【Europeans, America…by boat… 】
  (1) 最早的欧洲人是怎么到美洲大陆的问题一直是科学家讨论的….有一个Theory说欧洲人最早是by boat 到的美洲,这个观点考古学家一直不接受。但是近来这个观点得到了一些支持。。。 (中间什么什么。。。忘了) 有人说了欧洲人可能是by boat怎样怎样,走到一个食物充足的地方歇一会儿,再上路,然后再到一个地儿歇一会儿再上路。。。,就这样到了美洲大陆;因为如果不是by boat的话,欧洲人早在15000年前就横跨了什么什么大陆,但这个大陆那个时候是cover all by ices,所以导致步行到美洲的方法不成立。。。而且欧洲人不可能在15000年前到的美洲,因为如果在15000年欧洲人就到了美洲,那就说明他们在短短1000年之间横跨了那个什么什么大陆,这与考古学家的观点是相悖的。
  (2) 第二段有个人提出了一个人验证欧洲人by boat的方法。。。 (具体的记不清楚了。。。)
  (3) 第三段又说这个方法难以验证,因为当年欧洲人的路线,就是可考证的sites现在都deep buried in ocean。。。【貌似有题Q3】
  问题:
  Q1. 问了文章的主旨:
  Q2. 问了文章的结构:
  我选得是就是我上面写的那个:一个长期不被认可的观点得到了一些support; 然后又提出验证这个support的一些方法及困难
  注:Q1和Q2 有点像,大家到考场上仔细辨别。。。我记得这篇考了两道很像的题
  Q3. 好像问的是为什么这个方法难以验证?
  记不清楚了。。。。
  [V3]
  说的是美国1830年到。。。。年(记不得了)这段时期里面人口从农村往城市转移的一个trend,老的观点认为这个移民潮中,黑人和白人的情况是差不多的,但是作者认为不是这样的。作者分析了移民潮出现之前,黑人和白人的不同。黑人由于在移民潮之前有拥有更少(可能还是更差)的土地,后来人口越来越多,黑人的经济状况就更差了。所以在这个移民潮中,黑人更多的迁往大城市。(这篇没什么看懂,所以印象也不深刻)。
  考古已确认:
  33*. American Native Origin的研究
  说是由于坐船去美洲大陆的说法太不靠谱,科学家在多少年以前一直对此不以为然,普遍认为是在冰川时期从阿拉斯加走过去的。
  然后根据研究,在多少年之前,不具备走过去的条件。然后在多少年(大概1000年左右吧)之后,就有证据表明美洲有人啦。
  所以他们得在这段时间从北走到南。作者认为这样是feat(还是什么词的),大概就是说这个速度很不靠谱。
  于是第二段就开始讨论,有人就觉得从海上划船过去挺好,不过划船的话,很难找到证据来证明。(这边是有题的,好像是个细节题)
  因为有当初证据的地方被水淹了,成深海区啦。在最后就说什么,就挺有必要去探索深海区,发掘证据什么的。
  Q1. 主旨题
  其中有一项就是给理由,要去探索深海区什么的,不过狗主没选这个,大家可以讨论下。
  Q2. 针对黄色部分的细节题
  考古
  人类何时到达美洲,还有争议。考古的发现显示的最早时间的14,700年前。
  第 一个假说是,通过陆路。说人们可以通过COASTAL JOURNEY 沿海岸走,因为爱斯基摩皮船(kayak)太小不太可能做跨海的交通工具。由于ice age,人类不可能于15,700年前通过陆路到达美洲(讲了原因“冰呀,海呀什么的”)。还讲了什么向南走,一个月可以走20里。多少年后到了南美。但是旧观点有个问题,就是人移动的速度太快了不合理
  第二个假说是,学者F提出的新观点:通过海路,支持的理由是坐船移动的速度合理。但是因为冰河融化,当时沿岸可住人的地区现在都在海底,即使有证据也被淹没了。转折,最新海底考古有证据支持沿岸的确有住人,但是这个证据对於支持海路说还是薄弱的。结论是陆路或海路尚无定论,但对於F学者提出的海路迁移开始时间点(14,000~15,000年前)是普遍被接受的。
  Q1. 有主旨题。
  Q2. 第二段全(假说部分)highlight了,问作用。
  Q3. 好像有个15,000到15,500的数字题~
  参考文献:
  Transportation to the New World is a big topic for debate. 提出问题If the early Americans did cruise巡航 around the continent in canoes and kayaks, might the first settlers have arrived by boat as well? For decades the archaeological community rejected this notion (Ice Agehunters could never have carried all their weapons and left over mammoth meat in such tiny boats!), but in recent years the idea has gathered more support.旧观点反对经由海路假说
  One reason for the shift: the nagging困扰的 problem of just how fast people can make the journey from Alaska toTierra del Fuego. 旧观点的问题症结点Consider Dillehay's 14,700-year-old Monte Verde site. According to the previously accepted timeline, people could have made the journey from Asia on foot no earlier than 15,700 years ago(before this time, the ice sheets extending from the North Pole covered Alaskaand Canada completely, making a land passage impossible). If this entry date is correct, the Monte Verde find would indicate that the first settlers had to make the 12,000 -mile trip through two continents in only 1,000 years. In archaeological time, that's as fast as Marion Jones(地球上跑得最快的女人). 提出反对旧观点的理由:行走速度太快? One way to achieve this pace , however,would be by traveling along the Pacific coastlines of North and SouthAmerica in boats. 转折, F提出海路假说新观点Knut Fladmark, a professor of archaeology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC, first suggested this possibility in the 1970s and remains an advocate of a coastal entry into the Americas. If people had a reason to keep moving, he says, they could have traversed both continents in 100 years. 支持理由:速度符合Fladmark estimates that traveling at a rate of 200 miles a month would have been quite reasonable; the settlers no doubt stopped during winter months and probably stayed in some spots for a generation or so if the local resourceswere particularly tempting. Fladmark's theory, though enticing won't be easy to prove. 让步,提出缺陷Rising sea levels from the melting Ice Age glaciers in undated thousands of square miles along the Pacific coasts of both continents. Any early sites near the ocean that were inhabited before 13,000 years ago would now be deep underwater. 新观点的弱点Recently a few enterprising researchers have attempted to dredge挖出 up artifacts from below the Pacific. In 1997, for example, Daryl Fedje, an archaeologist with Parks Canada (which runs that country's national parks system), led a team that pulled up a small stone tool from 160 feet underwater just off the coast of British Columbia. 提出证据证明新观点The single tool, which Fedje estimates to be around 10,200 years old, does establish that people once lived on the now submerged land but reveals little about the culture there. Excavating underwater sites might turn out to be the only way to prove when humans first arrived on this continent.提出对证据的质疑? And for many researchers this is still a very open question 因为证据力不足,海路说尚未定论, with answers ranging from 15,000 years ago to as far back as 50,000 years ago. When Fladmark first proposed the idea of a coastal migration, the entry date of 14,000 or 15,000 years ago was orthodoxy.公认的,持普遍赞同的
  结论是有关F的新观点的开始时间点(14,000~15,000年前)是被普遍接受
6#
发表于 2013-9-17 23:08:46 | 只看该作者
56. 古代人类的研究:
※ 主题思路:
原始人的思维成型于什么时候;新旧观点驳斥;
旧观点:大多数人认为人类智力发生在4W年前;
新观点:人类的智力远早于4W年前发展出来;

※ 段落大意:
第一段:传统观点认为人类智力发生在4W年前;
说科学家在非洲发现的化石(还是骨骼遗骸?)证明16,500年之前的人类大脑结构已经和当代人类的大脑结构非常相似了。但是科学家所知的人类实际运用大脑以进行抽象思维等比较“高级”的思维活动的能力的时间与该年份不同。一般认为是在40,000年前,Neanderthals来到了欧洲,和当地的人类产生了竞争,在竞争中人类大脑的思维能力突然爆发;
第二段:新观点认为人类的智力远早于4W年前;
然而,最近在非洲发现了一些项链之类的东西是xxxxx年以前的,远早于40,000年前,证明人类早就存在审美观这样的抽象思维能力,所以很可能大脑结 构的进化和实际思维能力的进化不存在很大的timegap
第三段:没怎么看懂 说所以modern mind和抽象思维是同一时期发生的 
因此作者最后有一句话,原始人的抽象思维可能和他们的现代身体结构(大概是这个意思,这个词在文章开始出现过,引出了抽象思维何时成型的问题)成型于同一时期,即大约175000年前。最后一句话有题,问你选项哪句话,如果是真的,可以强烈支持这句话。

※ 题目:
1)有道题是说一下哪个可以反对40000年前人类是突然学会了技巧;
2)在文章发布之时人们是怎么认为演化时间的,
有答案是认为欧洲的这个时间是最早的。
3)这篇文章写的时候大家认为人类的抽象思维是什么时候发展起来的?
选4000年前突然学会的
4)还有一题问那个可以支持第二段的观点?
选发现了一副画(这画是早于4000年前的画的)
5)题目:以下哪个选项说明人类的思维能力和大脑结构不存在time gap。
正确选项是发现了16,000年前(跟文章里那个大脑结构进化完成的年份差500年)的壁画(还是项链之类的装饰品,不记得了)
6)主旨题,问了老观点是什么,另外一个问题也跟这个有关
7)文章作者暗示荷兰人什么
有个选项是说荷兰人在AD40,000年前没有装饰过这个东西 应该是答案 其他忘了

※ 引申:
认识阅读第二段的细节和对第一段内容的反驳;
第三段提出的结论;
7#
发表于 2013-9-17 23:15:26 | 只看该作者
Recent discoveries in New World archaeology along with new scientific         methods for analyzing data have led to new ideas regarding the origin         of the first peoples of the Americas and their time of arrival.
      The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land         bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an         "ice-free corridor" between two large Canadian ice sheets (the         Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These         first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North         and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town         in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth         were first found in 1932.
      There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date         earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America.         Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central         Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants         of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points,         and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle         this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now         gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving         on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska         and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats         moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and         eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps         much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan         indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago.         Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and         faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated         at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several         early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and         Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal         sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.
      If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points         are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant         early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis         but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found         in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such         the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists         are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.      
      So far scientists have found no technological affinities to relate Clovis         to the Asian Paleolithic. However, Europe may have possible lithic precursors         to Clovis. The Solutrean culture of western Europe, dating between 24,000         and 16,500 years ago, shows a similar lithic technology to that used to         produce Clovis tools. The two cultures also share bone-shaping techniques,         pebble-decorating artistry, the unusual tradition of burying stone tools         in caches filled with red ocher, and other traits.
      In addition to archaeological research on ancient human sites, ancient         skeletal remains show a range of physical attributes suggesting separate         migrations of different populations of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)         from Asia. The handful of human skeletons dated over 8,000 years ago show         some regional variation, but as a group their skulls differ markedly from         the broad faces, prominent cheekbones, and round cranial vaults that characterize         modern–day American Indians. These ancient specimens have long and         narrow cranial vaults with short and relatively gracile faces. Two examples         are the 9,400-year-old Spirit Cave Man from Nevada and the most recently         discovered 8.900-year-old Kennewick Man found in Washington State in 1996.         Physical anthropologists see a greater similarity in these crania to certain         Old World populations such as Polynesians, Europeans, and the Ainu of         Japan. Only one early specimen, Wizards Beach Man, a Nevada skeleton dated         to 9,200 years ago, falls within the range of variability of contemporary         American Indians, an exception that requires further scientific validation.         Crania with American Indian morphology appears by at least 7,000 years         ago.
      The similarity of the ancient crania to Polynesians suggests that one         early source of migrants to the Americas was Asian circumpacific populations.         These populations were succeeded in Asia by the recent expansion of modern         Mongoloids (i.e., Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc.), and in America by         the ancestors of recent Native Americans. Whether individual skeletons         or specific early groups were directly related to later peoples is unknown.         Early migrants may have been replaced through competition or changed through         gene flow by later arrivals. At this time, scientists are not ruling out         the possibility of a migration from Europe.
      Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial         DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies         have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent         populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics,         which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA         lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian         populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating         from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage         named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric         remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first         variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia.         Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine         would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further         work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire         genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA,         will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and         New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common         ancestor.
      Studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be         extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families,         some consisting of a single isolated language. Further research is expected         to reduce this number, but the degree of diversity is thought to have         required tens of millennia to develop through a combination of immigration         into the New World and diversification through the accumulation of normal         linguistic changes through time. Claims that these languages descend from         only three (or even fewer) separate linguistic stocks at a time depth         of only a dozen millennia are regarded by most specialists as extremely         unlikely. Newer proposals have explored deep structural affinities among         American Indian languages with circum-Pacific Old World languages. Unraveling         the linguistic history of the New World poses a highly complex set of         problems that will be under investigation for years to come.
      In summary, scientists are examining archaeological, biological, and         linguistic evidence to determine who the first Americans were, when they         arrived in the New World, and what happened subsequently. New discoveries         in one field of study can cause reinterpretations of evidence not only         from the same field but also from other fields. There is no doubt that         future discoveries and analyses, unbound from the Clovis limit, will shed         more light on a changing picture of New World prehistory.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-5 18:28
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部