如何理清科技文章种多重论据和论点的关系？

chamhow

读科技论文会出现一句主题句，然后下面就开始分别展开论据1，论据2 ，试验3 论述，可是经常是看不清楚论据1，论据2 和主题句的关系，从大牛的经验来看基本是读完文章，主题清楚，论据和主题的关系清晰。所以我读的时候一直尝试着在读的过程中着理清论据和主题的关系（推理关系），结果有时候读到最后也没有看出论据和主题的关系。反而因为过于关注这种关系的存在，导致其他方面的注意力减少。

具体举个例子来说：

这篇文章第二段一开始就说这个新理论对实践很重要，所以后面的论据应该围绕这个主题---这个理论怎么如何重要了？但后面开始说黄金贮藏现在不容易发现（就像是我上面所说的论据1），第三段开始描述
        现在探明黄金的方法（论据2），同时说
        这些方法有效性范围是要有mineralization 存在(论据3），如何选择mineralized的ground的得依靠一个模型 （论据4），最后一段说明这个模型得依靠
        那个理论。因为中间被绕了太多，所以后来等终于回归主题的时候，已经想不起这个论据和主题的关系了？
        对于这类文章，只有读完后才知道，中间很大部分是间接论据。但是实践过程中，经常读到不知所云，心中无底，感觉像走盲道，不知道和主题有什么关系，想请教，是不是克服这类问题就一定要始终带着主题去读文章，分清论据，直到最后出现直接论据，还是有别的方法来解决？请教大家。

 Passage 32

According to a recent theory, Archean-age gold-quartz

vein systems were formed over two billion years ago from

magmatic fluids that originated from molten granitelike

bodies deep beneath the surface of the Earth. This theory is

 (5) contrary to the widely held view that the systems were

deposited from metamorphic fluids, that is, from fluids that

formed during the dehydration of wet sedimentary rocks.

he recently developed theory has considerable practical

importance. Most of the gold deposits discovered during

(10)the original gold rushes were exposed at the Earth’s surface

and were found because they had shed trails of alluvial

gold that were easily traced by simple prospecting methods.

Although these same methods still lead to an occasional

discovery, most deposits not yet discovered have gone

(15) undetected because they are buried and have no surface

expression.

The challenge in exploration is therefore to unravel the

subsurface geology of an area and pinpoint the position of

buried minerals. Methods widely used today include

(20) analysis of aerial images that yield a broad geological

overview; geophysical techniques that provide data on the

magnetic, electrical, and mineralogical properties of the

rocks being investigated; and sensitive chemical tests that

are able to detect the subtle chemical halos that often

(25) envelop mineralization. However, none of these high-

technology methods are of any value if the sites to which

they are applied have never mineralized, and to maximize

the chances of discovery the explorer must therefore pay

particular attention to selecting the ground formations most

(30) likely to be mineralized. Such ground selection relies to

varying degrees on conceptual models, which take into

account theoretical studies of relevant factors.

These models are constructed primarily from empirical

observations of known mineral deposits and from theories

35) of ore-forming processes. The explorer uses the models to

identify those geological features that are critical to the

formation of the mineralization being modeled, and then

tries to select areas for exploration that exhibit as many of

the critical features as possible.