放狗

伊蔓达

狗主遇到的阅读是这篇么，谢谢~~~~


【V1】
全球变暖，降雨和二氧化碳，农作物的影响 （长，4段，但结构清晰）
由于越来越多的二氧化碳被排放到大气，使得全球气候在变暖，海水受暖使得更多的水分蒸发到大气，从而使得局部地区降水大大增加。但是，大部分的农业作物的区域面临降水不足的问题。（这里面有一句circle什么的，后面有题,）
科学家A研究出一个模型，得出结论农作物区域降水要减少，等等。然后好象春天土壤解冻(thaw)的早（这部分重要），什么的。
另外一些科学家B警告上述的科学家，认为问题不在降水的多少，而在于土壤的湿度。最后 他contend if, ……, 也是针对土壤解冻的观点。
最后，一些农业学家却远不如那些模型家们悲观，他们认为，实际上问题不会有这么严重。
Q1： 具体题意不清楚，好象是问第一段这个circle 怎么了？回第一段定位即可。
Q2： 科学家B同意以下对于科学家A的观点的陈述？这题目一开始看成“B同意A以下的那个观点”。我选的是认为A的观点建立在unsupported assumptions. 别的选项还有，refuted, false等。
Q3： 农业科学家这段的意思是什么？简单：就是“实际问题没有这么严重，不如模型家悲观”的改写。
Q4：主题题，我选的是a phenomenon advanced, and three different explanation of possible consequences discussed

【V2】
第一段：讲一个phenomenon.并指出一些effect。气候学家(climatologic/气象学者meteorologist)认为导致全球气候变暖.因为二氧化碳的排放导致温室效应,进而影响precipitation cycle(降雨cycle),很多水还没变成地下水就蒸发了,某些地方降雨量多了40.50%但是重要的crop产区降雨量反而变少。

第二段：两位气候学家认为全球变暖加速蒸发与precipitation之间的转换频率,很多水没来得及流进地下就被蒸发了,因此不利地下水形成.因此导致很多耕地沙漠化. 在某些crop产区降雨量变少了,而且温室效应导春天时snow melting变多,而且土地还在结冻时,即使雪水融了,也只会流过土壤表面而不会被吸到土里去。

第三段：有一位叫Mi的科学家, 反对前两位科学家的关点，认为雪水流过春土还是会被吸收

第四段：一些农作物学家(agriculturist/农业气候学家agro climatology) 不同于二、三段的观点认为事情没有这么悲观, 因为随着气候变暖,农作物就不那么需要水,减少了对地下水的需求

Q1考文章架构:
答：给出一个议题phenomenon,然后接着提出三方不同的看法
Q2:哪一个可以从文章得知:
答：是某些地方降雨量变多了
Q3下面哪个选项是作者同意Mi的科学家:Mi question前面那两位科学家...
有两个错误选项:It fail开头的不要选(因为作者没有表态)
Q4:题目忘了:应该是问最后一段在问啥或是作者同意什么
答：应该是温室效应对农作物的影响没有像之前想的那么严重
(....less than....expected/stated/等同义字)

Aquaflow

顶上去，能不能放几条数学啊？谢谢啦

popup

楼主你好，谢谢你的机经哈！！

请问下微动眼那篇阅读，以下这篇文章和你考到的文章有什么出入吗？还是就完全是考试原文哈？

And yet only recently have researchers come to appreciate the profound importance of such “fixational” eye movements. For five decades, a debate has raged about whether the largest of these involuntary movements, the so-called microsaccades, serve any purpose at all. Some scientists have opined that microsaccades might even impair eyesight by blurring it. But recent work has made the strongest case yet that these minuscule ocular meanderings separate vision from blindness when a person looks out at a stationary world.

Indeed, animal nervous systems have evolved to detect changes in the environment, because spotting differences promotes survival. Motion in the visual field may indicate that a predator is approaching or that prey is escaping. Such changes prompt visual neurons to respond with electrochemical impulses. Unchanging objects do not generally pose a threat, so animal brains – and visual systems – did not evolve to notice them. Frogs are an extreme case. A fly sitting still on the wall is invisible to a frog, as are all static objects. But once the fly is aloft, the frog will immediately detect it and capture it with its tongue.

Frogs cannot see unmoving objects because, as Helmholtz hypothesized, an unchanging stimulus leads to neural adaptation, in which visual neurons adjust their output such that they gradually stop responding. Neural adaptation saves energy but also limits sensory perception. Human visual system does much better than a frog’s at detecting unmoving objects, because human eyes create their own motion. Fixational eye movements shift the entire visual scene across the retina, prodding visual neurons into action and counteracting neural adaptation. They thus prevent stationary objects from fading away.

The results of these experiments, published in 2000 and 2002, showed that microsaccades increased the rate of neural impulses generated by both LGN and visual cortex neurons by ushering stationary stimuli, such as the bar of light, in and out of a neuron’s receptive field, the region of visual space that activates it. This finding bolstered the case that microsaccades have an important role in preventing visual fading and maintaining a visible image. And assuming such a role for microsaccades, our neuronal studies of microsaccades also began to crack the visual system’s code for visibility. In our monkey studies we found that microsaccades were more closely associated with rapid bursts of spikes than single spikes from brain neurons, suggesting that bursts of spikes are a signal in the brain that something is visible.

In our experiments, we asked volunteers to perform a version of Troxler’s fading task. Our subjects were to fixate on a small spot while pressing or releasing a button to indicate whether they could see a static peripheral target. The target would vanish and then reappear as each subject naturally fixated more – and then less – at specific times during the course of the experiment. During the task, we measured each person’s fixational eye movements with a high-precision video system.

As we had predicted, the subjects’ microsaccades became sparser, smaller and slower just before the target vanished, indicating that a lack of microsaccades– leads to adaptation and fading. Also consistent with our hypothesis, microsaccades became more numerous, larger and faster right before the peripheral target reappeared. These results, published in 2006, demonstrated for the first time that microsaccades engender visibility when subjects try to fix their gaze on an image and that bigger and faster microsaccades work best for this purpose. And because the eyes are fixating – resting between the larger, voluntary saccades – in the vast majority of the time, microsaccades are critical for most visual perception.