悦读：
1. P1--19世纪，神经外科方面有个debate，就是两个对立的理论，其中一个（A）说是脑部每个区域的功能都是independent的，也就是说localization什么的（差不多就是位置不同会导致功能不同），当时这个school of thought的领导人貌似是比较受广大人民群众待见的；然后有个对立的(B)说其实脑部更应该看做function as a whole（差不多意思，不是原文）。
P2--186几年的时候，另外一个人(C)向第二个人和学说发起来挑战，他做了一个实验，发现脑部某个受伤的区域会和相关功能联系起来。blablabla。。。(描述实验内容) 再后面一个人（D）也做了一个什么实验，发现啥啥啥。（时间有限，没仔细看，我觉得大意是支持C的）
P3--后来又有一个人（E）也做了什么实验，好像是发现在脑部的受伤的localization能基本决定这个伤的effect？（不要骂楼主，实在是时间不够，而且很多专有名词，楼主不认识T_T）
2. 最后一篇是讲the recruitment of women in teams of political elections，提出一个问题为什么这方面女性recruitment的人数增多但是并没有导致在political office的女性人数增多呢？其中讲到是the political structure的因素，这方面好像是with no regard to sex （不确定是不是在这里，但是这个意思是肯定有的）然后后面有分析，就说因为女性involve的大部分都是low-position election，很少high-position election，本来难度就比较大；而且要竞争的大部分位子上的现任者（incumbent这个词很确定）都是male，现任人员原本就比较占优势，所以female就更没有优势了。文章不长，一屏不到，词汇也不难，我当时做到的时候大概就觉得不好，可能掉库了，但是因为那时候还剩下大概6道题目，剩下不到5分钟，所以也无所谓了~横竖横啦~
另外两篇基本都是一屏半左右，但无奈已失忆，所以对不住各位啦~（容我再想想）
逻辑：
1. 考到一道黑脸，有关于一个bigleaf tree，因为做成furniture很受欢迎，所以生存受到很大威胁。然后谁谁谁就提出一个什么做法的建议（黑脸），好像是发起一个boycott，这样的话就能有效遏制这种趋势，然后作者分析说这样一来那些local residents，他们会forced by the economic necessity to 对这个树干嘛（黑脸），反正意思就是会产生不好的结果。我记得我的选择是第一个是谁谁谁提出的一个做法the question hold in question;第二个是作者认为这种做法会导致的一个结果，其他感觉都不大对
2. 因为专家说，研究表明 less consume of fiber （反正f打头）and low fat的人会less likely to cause heart desease， 那么我们应该倡导这种生活方式，因为each of them will benefit people，问题是问the argument was most vulnerable to which of following? 我记得我选的是both of the two factors will affect并不表示either of them单独会affect （类似这个意思吧）
作文考的是一家airline company雇的一个business analyst说去年利润下降的原因可能是油价上涨和expansion of new flights to five cities；但是因为其他航空公司虽然也受到油价的影响但是还是有一些利润很高，所以应该不是油价的问题，而是expansion导致的，所以我们应该eliminate the added flights。
还有点背景小短文："In each of his patients Broca found that part of the frontal lobe of the cerebral hemispheres had been damaged—on the left side in all of them. This discovery of Broca's area, and the striking evidence for localisation of language function, was followed by a flood of evidence, from neurologists, then physiologists and anatomists, testifying to the segregation of sensory and motor functions in particular parts of the hemisphere (Young, 1970). "
IN THE LAST decade of the 18th century, Franz Joseph Gall of Vienna invented a combination of physiognomy and brain localization that he originally called “craniology” (the science of the head) and later called “organology” (the science of the organs of the brain). Between 1800 and 1812, he worked with Johann Christoph Spurzheim on a variety of important neuroanatomic studies to support this new science. By 1812, when they parted company in Paris, Spurzheim had become intrigued with the psychosocial potential of the undertaking, which he renamed “phrenology” (the science of the mind). Because a phrenological examination (palpation of skull prominences) could provide an analysis of a person's strengths and weaknesses, Spurzheim thought that his system could lead to personal improvement for everyone, including the laboring classes. He was thus a 19th century reformer, generally on the liberal side of the political and social spectrum. Spurzheim spread his gospel to Britain through several long lecture tours, and phrenology became briefly popular through the efforts of other British reformers, especially George Combe. In 1832, Spurzheim came to the United States. Three months later, he died in Boston, a martyr to his cause. Phrenology then spread widely into American popular culture, encouraged by the entrepreneurial efforts of “the phrenological Fowlers” and others like them. By 1843, the entire Western scientific community rejected organology and phrenology. All forms of cerebral localization were lumped with phrenology and similarly repudiated. Nonetheless, Gall's organology was the first comprehensive, premodern statement of a theory of cerebral localization. The early pioneers of modern localization, especially Paul Broca and David Ferrier, were careful to define how their theories differed from phrenology, even as they provided the clinical and scientific data that confirmed some of its basic tenets.
