ChaseDream

标题: 阅读考古 穷国家借钱&植物与河 [打印本页]

作者: 宋痂岛__    时间: 2018-3-9 17:17
标题: 阅读考古 穷国家借钱&植物与河
穷国家借钱
Poor countries and wealth
countries 的借贷(已确认)
【v1】两段很短
第一段讲富裕的国家可以向贫困的国家贷款,刺激贫困国家经济发展。然而事实往往不是这
样,这是为什么呢
第二段:一个可能的解释是poor countries 无法吸引外来的投资,于是老百姓们没有更多的
收入去存到银行,反而要向银行贷很多款,导致Poor countries 的还贷能力低下。(有题:
Compared to 向银行贷款的poor countries,老百姓不向银行贷款的Poor countries 会怎样,我
选的是富裕的国家会贷款给Poor countries)后面还有一小半段不记得说什么啦。
By 楠的车辙 V30
考古:(狗主反映考古类似 但不完全相同)
版本一、snowwarm 710
第一篇,很短很简单,经济学的。先说某理论认为,应该rich country 对外投资,poor country
吸收投资。但是实际情况是poor country 对外投资反而多。给出解释是,poor country 的financial system 不发达,那些钱放在自己国家回报不高,所以就流向了富国。
版本二、 fionajin66
分三段,第一段是说一般情况下,资金投资应该是从发达国家投入到发展中国家。但是事实
上确是相反的,资金往往是逆向流动--从发展中国家流入发达国家;第二段放佛讲的是关于
资金流动的原理;最后一段是写发展中国家应该通过发展本国的经济体制来解决这个问题。
版本三、fayeviva 720
先说了正常来讲,资本应该向穷国流动,因为他们的人力成本低,资本回报率大;但是事实
却正好相反,穷国向国外投资的量远大于投资于国内的量。
第二段给出解释,说是穷国的Finacial System 有问题,使国内企业没办法有效融资(就
是借loan),所以穷国的人将储蓄都投资到国外去了。并说,经济发展,穷国人民储蓄增加,
虽然投资国外但是不会伤害本国的经济。
最后又说了一遍,解决穷国的Finacial System 是解决问题的方法。
一、段落大意
P1. 传统理论(economy theory),资本投资的方向(capital flow)通常是从发达国家
(richer)流向发展中国家(poorer)。但学者调查发现,正好与事实相反:实际情况是poor
country 进来的钱少,对外的投资反而多。
原因:穷国的人力成本低,资本投资回报率大。
P2. 关于资金流动的原理。虽然有钱投向穷国,他们的状况却没有好转。
穷国的Financial System 有问题,使国内企业没办法有效融资(就是借loan),所以穷国
的人将储蓄都投资到国外去了。并说经济发展,穷国人民储蓄增加,虽然投资国外但是不会
伤害本国的经济。
P3. 解释其中的原因:
(1)穷国的financial system 不好/有问题/欠发达/配套差, 故而很难吸收投资。
因为:国内企业没办法有效融资(loan),市场发展空间不大,放在穷国回报不高/发展中
国家的企业由于信用差,更难直接获得投资,相反他们有大量的储蓄,这些储蓄便流向发达
国家了
所以:穷国人将储蓄(saving)和别国投来的投资(capital from outside)都投资到国外
(financial system 好的国家)
(2)穷国科技不发达,没有技术使得投资者不愿投资
结论:Improving the development of the financial system will reduce the possibility of
such problems
要想进步,就要先改变金融结构(financial structure)和发展技术,使demand 增加。
二、题目
Q1. 主旨题
提出现象然后解释
作者在解释一种矛盾现象 (本月狗主)
Q2. 富裕国家与穷国有什么不一样?/问富国公司/百姓相对穷国的优势?/相比于穷国家,
以下哪种情况在发达国家更可能发生?/ 文章suggest 了发达国家的企业会怎样?
发达国家的企业更容易吸收投资/从外资经营的金融机构获得资金。
Q3. 如果一个发展中国家同时健全了金融制度配套会怎样?
该国会比其他发展中国家更容易拿到投资
Q4. 问作者suggest 穷国的high-tech company?
比low-tech 的容易拿到海外投资
Q5. 问富国的company and people 更有可能做什么?
投资投在国内比在国外多。
Q7. 发达国家和不发达国家对内投资有什么不同?
发达国家容易借钱,多用于投资本国经济
Q8. 问穷国里high-tech 一点的比低的有什么优势?
更容易拿到钱和投资
三、备注
1) 问题解释型文章。题目不难,文章不难懂,基本无生词。
2) 文中几个比较要注意:穷国和富国的比较,穷国中金融系统更好的(发展更快)与穷
国中金融系统不完善的(发展更慢)。文章层次大致是先介绍富国和穷国的资金流向问题。接
着谈到了其原因,是比较明显的问题解释型文章



植物与河:
【v1】 阅读有一个是讲植物对河流形状的形成的影响,四段,特别长,我没怎么看懂……
(bysyl0402)
【v2】关于植物影响河流的形状,4 段长篇,花了好久时间还没太看懂。。。
By orangial v30
【v3】P1 两个科学家发现了植被对河流有影响。
P2,5 百万年年前河流是什么样的。
P3,420 万年前有了植被后河流是什么样的。
P4,还想进一步地看看植被灭绝后河流有没有返璞归真。。
By oleoleole123 730
【v3】第一段:有两个科学家提出了一个长期不被接受的理论:气候和植物改变了河道。
第二段:有个科学家的研究加强了这个理论。在一些5 million 以前的化石中找到了植物改变
河道的证据。
第三段:But 另一些科学家在一些4.5 million 以内的化石中找到了另一些证据。
题目:Q1:文章主旨
Q2:第一二段中科学家理论的关系是什么?
Q3:最后一段是要说明什么?
by rbhuanxiong
【v4】1,JJ05,植被影响河流形状
楼主想说,此篇神长!!!要不是有JJ 知道文章脉络,楼主必须做不完了……讲述的内容和
JJ 差不多,就是一对好基友闲着没事儿研究研究植物对河流形状形成有毛影响……巨无趣有木
有!!!JJ 内容脉络总结都是对的,楼主来补充下题目。1.文章主旨(偏偏都有此题,你懂得~)2.这
个在问下列哪个说法是对的,选项是关于让你判断每段的作用,比如说记得C 选项再说第三段驳斥了
第二段怎样怎样,这个错的比较离谱所以记得好清楚……3.问你这对好基友想证明啥?(关于P 时期)
这个答案在最后一段,楼主当时闹心的找这个P 时期在哪里找了好久……心塞……4.问题问了在第三段
那个C 时期之前哪项是不对的!!!看清楚!!!不对不对不对!!!选的是不对的!!!定位在文章的第二
段后半部分(楼主题都剧透了好么!!!没法说的更详细了!!!) by 巫婆婆 v39
考古:
[V1]
枫叶国的两个好基友科学家G 和N 的故事
P1. 来自枫叶国的G 发现了一个很神奇的现象:河水的形成是受当地植物影响的(貌似
是,记不太清了)
P2. 这时,好基友N 出现了。他们两个一起的发现加强了G 的结论。
P3. 但是,有一小撮科学家发现了C 现象。这个用G 的结论怎么解释呢?
P4. 因此科学家们还需要再做进一步观察
[V2]
河和河床的变化。一屏半。两个加拿大的科学家。说的是虽然我们现在看到的河流是这
样的,但是好多好多年前,才不是这个样子滴。第二段说500m 年前如何如何,第三段说
420m 前发现的一个什么岩石能继续证明他们的观点是正确的。
问题:
主旨题我选的是(to provide evidences to support a claim)
[V3]
plant with root 改变河流的形状,宽度,深度。。。 cambrian 时期之后,发现了什么植
物的化石还有河流的sediment 的变化是同时发生的。
[V4]
有科学家说,植物对河流有影响,然后Oo 科学家支持。按照套路接下来会反对,说有
个阶段,sediment 怎么样的。噢第一段说了个Cambrian 时期怎么样的,那时候洪水冲击
吧。第二段提了个P 阶段这个阶段直接出题了
问题:每段关系是怎么样的
[V5]
还有个阅读是讲河流的形成的,说是河流会不会是受生长在其周围的植物影响,从而变
宽变窄。举了在沉积物当中发现什么植物的化石之类的东西。第三段讲河流的这些变化也可
能是受环境的影响。什么人类居住的原因。
[V6]
第二篇:加拿大的好基友,就是河床那个。
P1,加拿大的某个科学家提出了一个关于河床的在N 年前如何形成什么什么的观点。
P2,第一句话就是说这个观点被另外一个科学家substantiate 了,好像是这样单词,反
正就是支持第一段。
P3,提出了以前的河流在没有植物在岸边还是什么的时候,一般都是很浅,很宽的。
然后有了植物之后怎么怎么样。。。。
P4,最后一段,说着2 个科学家还有一个问题需要研究。在某个地球的某个时期,植
物曾经大范围灭绝了。然后他们想通过这个现象,去证明,如果植物灭绝以后,河流是不是
有恢复到以前的那种又浅又宽的状态。
问题有问这个文章的结构,然后还有一些细节题。
[V7]
River 形成那篇考了第三段作用,记得有fosill 神马的让bank 和什么的界限更清晰了
作者: 宋痂岛__    时间: 2018-3-9 17:17
阅读君~~~
作者: suesser    时间: 2018-3-9 17:18
楼主太棒了 感谢
作者: ziyuenlau    时间: 2018-3-9 20:21
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27859504

作者: blaustein    时间: 2018-3-9 21:05
楼主大大是大神啊!阅读记忆力太强悍了
作者: 小小小悦悦    时间: 2018-3-10 04:53
感谢楼主
作者: Sueleslie    时间: 2018-3-10 18:02
感谢楼主!!
作者: mindymu    时间: 2018-3-10 19:40
 If Not for Plants, Could Rivers Bend?

  Geologists strengthen the case that early rooted plants engineered the look of modern rivers

  Catherine Clabby

  For decades, the Canadian geologist Martin Gibling has been intrigued by the tough-to-prove hypothesis that land plants created the shape of modern rivers hundreds of millions of years ago.

  Plant roots reinforced the ground, the thinking goes, creating stable banks that funneled what once were wide, shallow water flows into narrower and deeper channels. By extension, that set the stage for lots of significant Earth history events, including the rise of human civilizations in modern river basins so many millennia later.

  Now Gibling and postdoctoral scientist Neil Davies, both at Dalhousie University, have strengthened this case. When the pair compared a much-improved plant fossil record with evidence of how rivers changed very long ago, the transitions matched up.

  “As soon as the plants got a foothold on land and rooted vegetation started, that changed the landscape. Basically plants engineered that landscape as they evolved,” says Davies. He and Gibling have published the findings in both Geology and Earth-Science Reviews.

  Back in the Cambrian period, which ended some 500 million years ago, the geologic record indicates that rivers were very shallow but wide things, almost floods that allowed rainwater to wash from largely barren solid ground to sea. Deposits left behind were preserved as sheets of coarse grains, some of which suggest these rivers were 1,000 or more times as wide as they were deep.

  “There is probably nowhere on Earth where rivers form the way they did before vegetation,” Gibling says.

  But by the time of the Silurian- Devonian boundary, some 420 million years ago, the picture found in preserved sedimentary rock changes. The blankets of unconsolidated sediment found in earlier river deposits appear less frequently. It happens just as evidence of land vegetation with root systems also expands in the rock record.

  In addition, more complex and diverse river remains emerge, including more traces of mud, probably due to the enhanced chemical weathering that plants assist; smaller-sized sand grains; and samples of organic remains. Significantly, shapes shift too.

  Organized deposits become visible in the remains of highly sinuous, single-thread channels. Evidence of lateral accretion—the digging away of material at the outer bends of a river and the simultaneous deposition of material at the inner bends—is more abundant.

  There is also variation that appears to be related to the local climate during the times that the rivers flowed. “Before plants evolved, it didn’t matter if a river was in a polar region, a temperate region or an arid region, the rivers looked the same. Later you find differences,” says Davies, who devoted two and a half years to this project.

  Edward Cotter, a geologist long on the faculty of Bucknell University, was among the people arguing 30 years ago that rivers went through a big transition during the same period that Gibling and Davies emphasize. He observed it in sedimentary rocks in the central Appalachian Mountains dating from 450 to 250 million years ago. But unlike Gibling and Davies, he had limited evidence with which to extrapolate globally from his observations.

  “They had a much richer database. They have a much healthier understanding of how rivers run. They went around to different parts of the world and looked with their own eyes,” says Cotter, whose research Gibling and Davies cite in their publications.

  Using funding from the Canadian government, Davies and Gibling reviewed 144 published reports describing river sediment preserved in the rock record, dating from the Cambrian to the Devonian, to build their case. They visited 34 spots themselves in North America and Europe. And they scrutinized experimental results.

  One laboratory finding that impressed Gibling was achieved at St. Anthony Falls Laboratory at the University of Minnesota. Working in a tank, researchers there described how vegetation—in this case alfalfa sprouts that were allowed to germinate on banks—transformed a channel that flowed between multiple sandbars into one that self-organized into a single- thread channel.

  “The strength of the roots of alfalfa was enough to completely change the whole pattern. That generated a meandering river with banks that migrate and are erosion resistant,” Gibling says.

  Dov Corenblit, an associate professor at the University of Paris who describes himself as a biogeomorphologist, says Davies and Gibling have delivered more than just insight into the history of rivers. They have expanded evidence that the biotic and abiotic features of this planet influence one another.

  Their findings “may be considered significant progress in the comprehension of one of the most critical phases in the coupling between physical and biological processes on Earth,” Corenblit says.

  The Dalhousie University geologists aren’t done. They want to explore whether any of the periodic mass extinctions experienced on Earth might have affected the shapes of rivers as well. They are scouring the literature for changes preserved from the end of the Permian, when a lot of plant life was wiped out.

  “We’ll look to see if rivers reverted to the older form,” Davies says.




欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3