ChaseDream

标题: 1108 三战终于上7，放狗（罗技愈发月度苏雪更新） [打印本页]

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 00:06
标题: 1108 三战终于上7，放狗（罗技愈发月度苏雪更新）
语文前十题做得非常不顺，上来两道SC就不确定（下面会说考点），第三题就是一篇长阅读，难，考前JJ没看到这篇，CR还可以，属于读懂题了就确定做对了，读不懂的选一个最像的。今天pace控制的不错，30几题的时候发现落后了几分钟，果断跳了一道CR。最后提前了半分钟结束。总之非常感谢CD！构筑晚上考的，虽然明天还要上班

但还是想赶紧来放狗造福大家。祝大家都能考出好成绩，申到理想学校！

以下放小小狗——

SC1.thrifty名词形式
promote thriftiness of food / promote thrift for food
纠结了好久到底哪个才是thrifty的名词形式，最后选了thrift，应该对。

2.强调句
It is the human presence itself that damages environment that 对保护文物有利（大概意思，记不太清了）
Human presences themselves damage environment that 对保护文物有利。
纠结了很久到底要不要用强调句型，因为强调句+定从感觉很累赘，而且不需要强调句也能表达清楚意思。但构筑最后很无奈的选了第一个，怕强调句是考点...

CR难易各半，也许因为后面我掉库了吧...我想一想再来放。
1.某公司traders violate ethical rules比例很高，管理层决定送trader去training。问plan success的evaluation还是assumption，不管问什么，原理一样。选traders本来不知道所作所为是violation，因为如果是故意而为之，training就没用啦。正确选项里有unknowingly violate。

2.charity donation，发现捐款的人比不捐款的人更开心。conclusion题，结论就是捐款让人开心以及开心的人更容易捐款。把因果两个方向补全了。

3. 调查2组人overall diary consumption within 10 days与caught cold后sinus(?) congestion的关系，发现more diary consumption led to low congestion。问加强/削弱？选了因果不相干的选项，好像是less diary consumption的人本来就很少catch cold

RC考了0814老库的超市44超市食品试吃sampling，考前没看这篇，刚看了JJ挺全了（楼下有近似原文）；1103阅读JJ24二氧化碳和大气，JJ里给的不是疑似，就是原文！可惜考前再次没有看。。。做得不好，楼主这次几篇阅读好几道逻辑题型的问法，不太好答。另外考到了性别歧视，估计最后掉低分库了，比较简单，还有一篇失忆。。。

数学和20161015旧库重合率很高，感谢发现的同学无私分享。大家有时间最好刷完！说两道昨天一个构筑放的疑问题：（1103苏雪原始稿113题：20%选项没有那道），其实题目问的是both占business的比例。所以就是20%/40%=50%；（1103苏雪原始稿111题）题干数字和楼主回忆的不一样，所以选项没有问题。

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 00:12
一并更新在一楼了~

作者: andrewliu.htl 时间: 2017-11-9 00:23
感谢楼主无私分享

作者: yubiying15 时间: 2017-11-9 00:41
感谢分享！

作者: gar_bbbbb 时间: 2017-11-9 00:45
恭喜！！！替你开心！！！！撒花！！

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 00:51

gar_bbbbb 发表于 2017-11-9 00:45
恭喜！！！替你开心！！！！撒花！！

谢谢小仙女！！！你下次也一定会分手成功的，加油！！！

作者: gar_bbbbb 时间: 2017-11-9 01:14

Shanni 发表于 2017-11-9 00:51
谢谢小仙女！！！你下次也一定会分手成功的，加油！！！

哈哈哈承你贵言！

话说那个二氧化碳的原文好长啊TAT。。。。。哈哈我赶快去读读。

作者: gar_bbbbb 时间: 2017-11-9 01:16
shanni来看看试吃这个是原文么？

Consider an experience that most people are familiar with: sampling food items in a grocery
store. If a food sample tastes good, the following question arises: Is the pleasure that
consumers experience, and therefore their subsequent preference for the sample, stronger if
they are distracted while tasting the item than if they are paying attention while tasting the
item? Thus, from marketers' perspectives, the following question arises: Would it be better to
have a protocol at the sampling station that distracts consumers, or should marketers try to
focus consumers' attention on the experience while they taste the food product?
Although the focus of this research is on pleasure rather than on pain, several researchers have
noted the overlap in neural substrates that are activated by pleasurable and aversive stimuli.
Therefore, it is possible that findings in the domain of pain apply to the domain of pleasure as
well. A robust but counterintuitive finding in research on pain is that that the intensity of the
somatosensory experience is actually greater when a person is distracted rather than paying
attention to specific aspects of the experience. If such findings in the domain of pain also apply
to the domain of pleasure, the effects of distraction in the domain of pleasure may also run
counter to intuition and to the opinions of the marketing experts whom we surveyed. Specifically,
if findings in the domain of pain are consistent with those in the domain of pleasure, distraction
(versus paying attention) while tasting a food sample should actually increase the intensity of the
pleasure experienced and therefore increase subsequent preferences for the sampled option.
A major goal of this research was to identify the key influences on the choice of a sampled food
item. We did this by focusing on a common issue in food sampling, namely, that the consumer is
often distracted (e.g., by others, looking at information, his or her own thoughts) while tasting
the sampled product. In examining how distractions could affect whether the sampled item was
or was not chosen, we found support for a dual-process model of food sampling, which derives
from work on the interplay of affect and cognition in decision making. This model proposes that
two major components influence the choice of a sampled food item: an informational component
and an affective component. These two inputs combine to influence the amount of pleasure that
a person experiences when tasting a food sample, and this pleasure can then translate into
choice. According to this model, the affective component is associated with automatic processes
and is not affected by levels of distraction. In contrast, the informational component is
associated with controlled processes and is affected by distractions.

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 01:24

gar_bbbbb 发表于 2017-11-9 01:16
shanni来看看试吃这个是原文么？

Consider an experience that most people are familiar with: sampling ...

前面好像不太像，但这部分几乎是原文"A robust but counterintuitive finding in research on pain is that that the intensity of the
somatosensory experience is actually greater when a person is distracted rather than paying
attention to specific aspects of the experience. If such findings in the domain of pain also apply
to the domain of pleasure, the effects of distraction in the domain of pleasure may also run
counter to intuition and to the opinions of the marketing experts whom we surveyed. Specifically,
if findings in the domain of pain are consistent with those in the domain of pleasure, distraction
(versus paying attention) while tasting a food sample should actually increase the intensity of the
pleasure experienced and therefore increase subsequent preferences for the sampled option.
A major goal of this research was to identify the key influences on the choice of a sampled food
item. We did this by focusing on a common issue in food sampling, namely, that the consumer is
often distracted (e.g., by others, looking at information, his or her own thoughts) while tasting
the sampled product. In examining how distractions could affect whether the sampled item was
or was not chosen, we found support for a dual-process model of food sampling, which derives
from work on the interplay of affect and cognition in decision making. This model proposes that
two major components influence the choice of a sampled food item: an informational component
and an affective component. These two inputs combine to influence the amount of pleasure that
a person experiences when tasting a food sample, and this pleasure can then translate into
choice. According to this model, the affective component is associated with automatic processes
and is not affected by levels of distraction. In contrast, the informational component is
associated with controlled processes and is affected by distractions." 这篇我做的很糟糕，题目很绕，我记得有一题问如果taste出来是bitter的，但那个food nutritious，商家应该怎么做来吸引购买？

作者: gar_bbbbb 时间: 2017-11-9 01:29

Shanni 发表于 2017-11-9 01:24
前面好像不太像，但这部分几乎是原文"A robust but counterintuitive finding in research on pain is th ...

收到了！感谢！

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 01:52

gar_bbbbb 发表于 2017-11-9 01:29
收到了！感谢！

hug:

作者: 杀G曼巴 时间: 2017-11-9 08:41
哇！楼主棒！

作者: 杀G曼巴 时间: 2017-11-9 08:42
promote thriftiness of food / promote thrift for food 有什么区别呀？
查了一下好像都是名词诶

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 08:57

发表于 15分钟前
promote thriftiness of food / promote thrift for f...

选thrift那个，问过老师了

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 09:07

发表于 26分钟前
哇！楼主棒！

祝你今天考试成功！

作者: cellur_ 时间: 2017-11-9 10:12
谢谢楼主！

作者: DWUW 时间: 2017-11-9 11:29

发表于 10小时前
shanni来看看试吃这个是原文么？

Consider an experience that ...

同意！

作者: danyuchn 时间: 2017-11-9 15:08
哇哇哇恭喜你！！！

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 19:46

发表于 4小时前
哇哇哇恭喜你！！！

谢谢Dustin！！感谢你给我一战ESR详尽的解答，按照你的思路和方法去复习很有帮助！

作者: 澜Sabrina 时间: 2017-11-9 20:21
楼主。conclusion 题，结论就是捐款让人开心以及开心的人更容易捐款。把因果两个方向补全了。这个的意思是这个题的答案是开心的人更容易捐款？？还是说题干里的结论是开心的人更容易捐款答案需要我把把因果两个方向补全了？？？

作者: Shanni 时间: 2017-11-9 22:33

发表于 2小时前
楼主。conclusion 题，结论就是捐款让人开心以及开心的人更容易捐款。把因果两个方向补全了...

划线部分是我填的，和划线前的内容把两个方向的因果关系补全了。

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)