7.31 换库第二天，寂静放狗

强悍小妮 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:10:37

换库的第二天，本来就是数学学渣的我，数学考得极差。知道换库已经猜到自己要再考一次了。放狗来攒人品吧。

数学竟然只记得一道题

   集合共有6个数｛a,b,c,d,e,f,g} ，问这个集合下面有多少个至少含有3个数的子集。

阅读

第一篇。PSR 1257+12--超新星爆炸-- 感恩新一位放狗的楼主，幸好我提前把那篇研究了一下。至少没被单词吓到而紧张
   第一段发现PR 12那颗星，用脉冲去测，发现周围3个planet，
   第二段 PR星的形成原理，3颗星跟pr星的距离比地球到太阳diatance还大
   第三段太阳系中有类似disc .  标黄，similar process 指的是

第二篇：南非钻石
p1，现在南非是全球第4大钻石原石出口国，但加工都在中国等国家。政府希望增加原石加工的就业人口，提高出口额。
p2。政府要采取一个措施来改变downtream industry( 这标黄了，为指的啥)预计会增加多少就业。同时还有另一个举错（这里也标黄了）
p 3，研究人员不这么认为，这个措施会让很多开矿的人失业。。

第三个阅读语法书的2个类型descriptive和prescriptive
P1-P2 . descritive的书是基于现实中人们使用语言的情况
   pres是语法的正式用法，经常是出manual，告诉读者怎么使用语法才对。但有一个致命的缺点（忘了具体是啥
p3，对比这个缺点，举了2个例子，说明有些用法虽然不是gramaTically corrct，但是人们也常用。
总结段，不管是哪种语法要基于现实

逻辑
forest 要减少砍树。因为卡车载木材要开路，砍更多树，而直升飞机不用。建议用直升飞机运，不用卡车。问哪个选项undermine还是evaluate

作文
药店H的CEO说：A地区一共2家连锁药店，Kirby做得比较好，市场占有率大，有忠实顾客。而Kirby 一开始是在A地方的city开了一家店，而后又在A地方的其他地方开了3家店。我们只要在Kirby 开店的附近开店，且我们在national brands上因为大宗购买药价比较低，长久下来，我们可以吸引Kirby的忠实顾客到我们店里来。我们将成功A地区的领头羊。

asdf2011 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:11:56

顶楼主

mry1027813841 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:16:49

感谢分享！

强悍小妮 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:20:58

IR有一道。

一个人一般是从A店买建材，但突然发现A很贵。于是他找了B,C,D,E, 对比了3种不同建材的价格。问，在_____建材里，A的价格比其他高 ___%-5%

强悍小妮 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:27:21

IR.

* A, B（有名字）两个人一共做10次举重练习，一个表格： upper body 5次，lower body 5次。分别是XX重量。 3 个计算题，选对应

* 工作人员onsite inspect 防火工具，会有2个结果：一个是要继续做test, 一个要修。如果要做test的话，需要government permit, 还要有一个有经验的修理工。 Test完了，才能做xxx的事情。题目：以上这些事情，哪个要先做，哪个才能做。（就是上面这些action, 有2个是有先后的）

billyisfragile! · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:38:37

https://www.economist.com/news/business/5091044-controversial-bill-keep-more-rocks-home-rough-and-tumble

第二篇：南非钻石
p1，现在南非是全球第4大钻石原石出口国，但加工都在中国等国家。政府希望增加原石加工的就业人口，提高出口额。
p2。政府要采取一个措施来改变downtream industry( 这标黄了，为指的啥)预计会增加多少就业。同时还有另一个举错（这里也标黄了）
p 3，研究人员不这么认为，这个措施会让很多开矿的人失业。。

CAN South Africa put more shine on the diamonds that it mines? It is the world's fourth-largest producer by value, with 12% of global output. Yet its cutting and polishing sector is small, employing about 2,000 people. Most of its stones get exported in rough form, to be cut in Belgium, China, India or Israel.

Now the government is keen to create jobs and add value to the country's diamond exports by boosting the local cutting and polishing industry, and by having more jewellery-makers at home. This seems like a good idea. But the way it is planning to go about it is raising eyebrows in the industry. A bill now before parliament includes provisions to set up a state diamond trader and exchange, which would manage imports and exports, buying a share of local production for the local cutting market. An export levy on rough diamonds is also being planned.

The mining industry argues that this is likely to hurt extraction and do little to develop the downstream diamond industry, which needs incentives such as tax breaks, rather than regulation, to flourish. Meanwhile, the export levy would hit diamond mining. The Chamber of Mines of South Africa reckons that the proposed law could create up to 1,000 jobs in cutting and polishing diamonds, but destroy 12,000 in mining them. Small diamond producers are likely to suffer most.

Critics also say that the private sector is doing a good job of buying and selling diamonds, and that the government should not meddle. De Beers, which extracts about 90% of South Africa's diamonds, says that more than nine out of ten carats produced locally are of relatively low value, in which South African buyers are not showing great interest. The mining giant points out that the mix of rough diamonds that get sold back in South Africa—after having been sorted and pooled in London by its Diamond Trading Company—are on average better and more expensive than those produced at home.

Small producers sell their production on local diamond exchanges, but most of it still does not get cut and polished in South Africa. The Chamber of Mines points out that labour costs are much lower in India or China. It estimates that, with a 15% export levy, less than 5% of the local production could be cut profitably at home.

The government is not convinced that this is indeed the case. It wants to make more diamonds available and monitor the local appetite for them. At this stage, the level of the export levy, and how much the state trader will actually buy, are still to be decided. The government is keen to have the bill passed by early November. If it meets that deadline, it will be a rough and unpolished piece of legislation.

强悍小妮 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:41:47

看到别人整理的逻辑寂静还想起来了一道：
一个考古队去探一个古船遗址，从船上拿下3块木头，用碳素法，测出一块是AD 30， AD 120, AD 400 (数值不完全准），而碳测法的误差在70-100年间，所以说有2块木头是属于同一条船的。选一个undermine。我好像选了老木头可能是再利用，才到修到这个船上的。

强悍小妮 · 发表于 2018-7-31 19:45:27

bzy! 发表于 2018-7-31 19:38
https://www.economist.com/news/business/5091044-controversial-bill-keep-more-rocks-home-rough-and-tu ...

厉害了。真的是一模一样。最后2段是省掉的哈。我这里重新加工一下。

考题标黄的是下面2个地方。

CAN South Africa put more shine on the diamonds that it mines? It is the world's fourth-largest producer by value, with 12% of global output. Yet its cutting and polishing sector is small, employing about 2,000 people. Most of its stones get exported in rough form, to be cut in Belgium, China, India or Israel.

Now the government is keen to create jobs and add value to the country's diamond exports by boosting the local cutting and polishing industry, and by having more jewellery-makers at home. This seems like a good idea. But the way it is planning to go about it is raising eyebrows in the industry. A bill now before parliament includes provisions to set up a state diamond trader and exchange, which would manage imports and exports, buying a share of local production for the local cutting market. An export levy on rough diamonds is also being planned.

The mining industry argues that this is likely to hurt extraction and do little to develop the downstream diamond industry, which needs incentives such as tax breaks, rather than regulation, to flourish. Meanwhile, the export levy would hit diamond mining. The Chamber of Mines of South Africa reckons that the proposed law could create up to 1,000 jobs in cutting and polishing diamonds, but destroy 12,000 in mining them. Small diamond producers are likely to suffer most.

下面好像还有一段，根你的原文不太一样。没有提到De beers。

billyisfragile! · 发表于 2018-7-31 20:18:16

第三个阅读语法书的2个类型descriptive和prescriptive
P1-P2 . descritive的书是基于现实中人们使用语言的情况
pres是语法的正式用法，经常是出manual，告诉读者怎么使用语法才对。但有一个致命的缺点（忘了具体是啥
p3，对比这个缺点，举了2个例子，说明有些用法虽然不是gramaTically corrct，但是人们也常用。
总结段，不管是哪种语法要基于现实

Alongside Standard English there are many robust local, regional, and social dialects of English that are clearly and uncontroversially non-standard. They are in many cases familiar to Standard English speakers from plays and films and songs and daily conversations in a diverse community. In [1] we contrast two non-standard expressions with Standard English equivalents, using an exclamation mark () to indicate that a sentence belongs to a non-standard dialect, not the standard one.

有一个例子：讲 standard dialect与nonstandard dialect的区别并且讲了formal与informal的区别；例子如下（原文中也是这么排版的）
A1：I do it by myself
A2: I done it by myself

STANDARD a. I did it myself.
NON -STANDARD b. I done it myself.

https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1326557-1-1.html

閱讀1
講prescription與discription對英文文法的影響
第一段說prescription偏向給指導怎麼用才是對的,discription則是偏生活上的使用比較重
第二段主要講prescription不太好
第三段舉例子（有考題）
1a I did it yesterday
1b I done it yesterday
2a blahblah than I
2b blahblah than me
第四段說綜合以上還是discription好

The distinction between standard and non-standard dialects of English is quite different from the distinction between formal and informal style, which we illustrate in [2] :
[2] FORMAL
a. He was the one with whom she worked.
a. She must be taller than I.

INFORMAL
b. He was the one she worked with.
b. She must be taller than me.

Descriptive books try to describe the grammatical system that underlies the way people actually speak and write the language. That's what our book aims to do: we want to describe what Standard English is like.

Prescriptive books aim to tell people how they should speak and write - to give advice on how to use the language. They typically take the form of usage manuals, though school textbook treatments of grammar also tend to be prescriptive.

In principle you could imagine descriptive and prescriptive approaches not being in conflict at all: the descriptive grammar books would explain what the language is like, and the prescriptive ones would tell you how to avoid mistakes when using it. Not making mistakes would mean using the language in a way that agreed with the descriptive account. The two kinds of book could agree on the facts. And indeed there are some very good usage books based on thorough descriptive research into how Standard English is spoken and written. But there is also a long tradition of prescriptive works that are deeply flawed: they simply don't represent things correctly or coherently, and some of their advice is bad advice.

小可爱1 · 发表于 2018-7-31 20:19:21

感谢楼主！！

[原始] 7.31 换库第二天，寂静放狗

本帖子中包含更多资源

本帖子中包含更多资源

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()