и ԭt
1 Ҋʲôxʲôԭt
ԓԭt顰TOEFL ʮSԭt֮ף?yn)ŴԭtĻA(ch)֮
(bеĵطy,ԓԭtm(dng)ѭ.)
2؏(f)ԭt
ӕrҪeעЩ؏(f)ʸߵ~?yn)؏?f)ʸߵĖ|҂ ߵעиĜyԇ҂@ЩӢZڶZԵETSĿc(din)ҲֻЩ҂ԣͨ^Ŭ ĵط
Bonus:
С؏(f)ߵ~ܾܿ@ӵ}TOPIC
3hԭt
ӕrҪeעЩнhx~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)oՓ߀njԒhĵطh(yun)c(din)
Multiply:
vTOEFL ĽhY(ji)(gu)R
1You should
2I suggest / I propose / I recommend
3proposal / tips / suggestion / advice/ recommedation
4had better do sth. / be better off doing sth.
5How about? / What about?
6Why not? / Why dont you?
7If I were you, I would/ I wouldnt
8Would it make things go faster if you?
9Maybe / Perhaps you
10) How does sound?
4 (qing){(dio)ԭt
է ȥ(qing){(dio)ԭt@úܻ\y(tng)䌍(sh)wɷ֞ɴZx(qing){(dio)ZZ{(dio)(qing){(dio)
Zx(qing){(dio)x(qing){(dio)ጏ(qing){(dio)e(qing){(dio)e(qing){(dio)Y(ji)Փ(qing){(dio)ȏ(qing){(dio)N
Z⡢Z{(dio)(qing){(dio)(qing){(dio)ͣD(qing){(dio)(qing){(dio)N
҂́һһՓvZx(qing){(dio)֧
1x(qing){(dio)
ӕrҪeעЩxϾͽo҂|ӵ~Y(ji)(gu)磺Especiallyһ~ă(ni)һǿc(din)?yn)ͱʾ?ǡwF(xin)ETSġ˼롱ٱ磺new theory܇Ҳһڿc(din)?yn)@wF(xin)ETSġ˼롱ЕrETS鏊(qing){(dio)ij߀һЩO@Ҋı_(d)ʽ҂ 磺indeedãcertainly(dng)ȻJust rememberһҪӛAnd again.fһ飩special featureMost importantlyҪǣOne thing I should mentionґ(yng)ԓἰǡMake / Be sure toһҪȵĺx(qing){(dio)~߀Լeۺw
2ጏ(qing){(dio)
ӕrҪeעЩxώ |(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺, which is / that isǾf@Ȼwhich is / that is(do)ĶZľETSֹ҂ ǰă(ni)ݣƧ~ȥÁM(jn)һԽጵġ@NԵĶZľ (dng)Ȼͳˏ(qing){(dio)c(din)ڵҪ(bio)־ƵĽY(ji)(gu)硰What I mean isAll that means isȵȲöe
3e(qing){(dio)
ӕrҪeעЩee|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺for example硭?yn)ӿȵöETS֪˺eȻҲǰĸȻٿǰĸ Ҳ@c(din)@Ȼԭt@NeeʽĽY(ji)(gu)Ҳˏ(qing){(dio)c(din)ڵҪ(bio)־ƵĽY(ji)(gu)硰for instancesuch asnamelyas an exampletake example for ȵȲöe
4e(qing){(dio)
ӕrҪeעЩмe^^|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺much higher thanȡߵöࣩ?yn)б^^c(din)^c(din)ǿc(din)@Nмe^^|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)Ҳ˱c(din)ڵҪ(bio) ־ƵĽY(ji)(gu)߀С-er-estmoremostmostlyfirstl(f)astmajority(sh) ɣminorityٔ(sh)ɣabove allҪǣȵee
5Y(ji)Փ(qing){(dio)
ӕrҪeע ЩнY(ji)ՓY(ji)|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺I concluded thatҵĽY(ji)ՓǡɷJ(rn)Y(ji)ՓZﶼҪ@NнY(ji)ՓY(ji)|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)Ҳ(bio)־c(din)ĴƵĽY(ji)(gu)߀ conclusionsummarizemake a summaryY(ji)in brieffin short֮in a word֮in a conclusionfinallyall in allto sum upȵee
6ȏ(qing){(dio)
ӕr߀ҪeעЩЌ|(zh)`~Y(ji)(gu) 磺compare tocȣ@NЌ|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)Ҳ(bio)־c(din)܇ƵĽY(ji)(gu)߀Сunlikesimilar tocƣin contrast tocգdifferentlyalikeresembleƣon the other handinsteadl(f)ikewisein the same wayȵ
vZZ{(dio)(qing){(dio)֧
1(qing){(dio)
ӕr҂ Rע Щxص~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)got our attentionץס҂ע@ETS(qing){(dio)ͻwF(xin)ڱ؞鿼c(din)
2ͣD(qing){(dio)
һxúúõͻȻһͣD^һNŻ֏(f)^@NȻֹĬF(xin)e҂עͬҲ_(d)ETS get attentionĿɞ鱾(qing){(dio)һͻwF(xin)ͣDڱ؞鿼c(din)
3(qing){(dio)
ԓ (qing){(dio)ʽ[?yn)?sh)һNֵ뷨J(rn) ĵطЩƧy֮̎Բϧrg;ȥ yyc(din)xs·ŗѽ(jng) ĵطҪӛTOEFLǵڶZԜyԇ]ԡƧڡԑ(yng)҂ҕ߀Щ x֮̎ӛ֮̎һǿc(din)
5ԭt
ӕrҪeעЩx~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)oՓ߀njԒĵطh(yun)c(din)(bio)־~ֿɼ(x)֞ԭͽY(ji)
Multiply:
vTOEFL Y(ji)(gu)R
ԭ:
1because
2because of
3due to
4since
5as
6for
7The reason is
8Thats why
9By reason of
10 Owing to
Y(ji):
1so
2so that
3therefore
4thereby
5hereby
6thus
7As a result
8consequently
9hence
10accordingly
6D(zhun)ԭt
ӕr߀ҪeעЩD(zhun)ۺx~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)oՓ߀njԒD(zhun)۵ĵطh(yun)c(din)
Multiply:
vTOEFL D(zhun)Y(ji)(gu)R
1but
2however
3nevertheless
4while
5yet
6unless
7except for
8actually
9in fact
10) To tell you the truth
11)practically
12)virtually
13)as a matter of fact
7ԭt
ӕr߀ҪeעЩһһԆԴʽľӻY(ji)(gu)}͕鿼}}Ļشǿc(din)ڣ_𰸵ij̎
8_^ԭt
ӕrҪeע 塰_^һɾԒTOPIC}@һF(xin)}؞鿼c(din)
9βԭt
ͬ߀Ҫeע 塰ӽY(ji)rһɾԒCONCLUSIONY(ji)Փ@һF(xin)Y(ji)ՓҲ؞鿼c(din)
10ԭt
ӛ ӕrՓĿƶ߀ƶΣֻҪF(xin)ĵطc(din)?yn)һ}@˵ĵλúؕI(xin)ʺ֮̎؞鿼c(din)
ʮԭtҴvc(din)ՄĸX҂ԇ\(yn)һȽoһՈ60(ni)ͨ^Ѹْѿܕ}ĵطԭЄ_ʼ
[2000.1.4750]
Questions 47-50. Listen to the beginning of a lecture given by a history professor.
Good morning, class. Before we begin today, I would like to address an issue that one of you reminded me of after the last lecture. As you may recall, last time I mentioned that Robert E. Pierre was the first person to reach the North Pole. What I neglected to mention was the controversy around Pierres pioneering accomplishment. In 1910, a committee of the national geographical society examined Comeydore Pierres claim to have reached the North Pole on April 6th 1909 and found no reason to doubt him. This judgment was actually confirmed by a committee of the US congress in 1911. Nevertheless, Pierres claim was surrounded by controversy. This was largely due to the competing claim of Doctor Frederic Cook who told the world he had reached the Pole a four-year earlier. Over the decades Pierre was given the benefit of the doubt, but critics persisted in raising questions about his navigation and the distances he claimed to have covered. So the Navigation Foundation spent an additional 12 months of exhaustive examination of documents relating to Pierres polar expedition. The documents supported Pierres claims about the distances he covered. After also conducting an extensive computer analysis of photos taken by Pierre at the pole, they concluded that Pierre and his companions did in fact reach the near vicinity of the North Pole on April 6th, 1909. OK, today were going to talk about exploration of the opposite end of the world. I assume you all read chapter 3 in our text and are now familiar with the names: Emerson and Scott.
OKҰѿc(din)ôwӰ(bio)ㄝÌ
Good morning, class. Before we begin today, I would like to address an issue that one of you reminded me of after the last lecture._^ԭt As you may recall, last time I mentioned that Robert E. Pierre was the first person e(qing){(dio)ԭtto reach the North Pole. What I neglected to mentionx(qing){(dio)ԭt was the controversy around Pierres pioneering accomplishment. In 1910, a committee of the national geographical society examined Comeydore Pierres claim to have reached the North Pole on April 6th 1909 and found no reason to doubt him. This judgment was actually confirmed by a committee of the US congress in 1911. Nevertheless, D(zhun)ԭtPierres claim was surrounded by controversy. This was largely due to ԭtthe competing claim of Doctor Frederic Cook who told the world he had reached the Pole a four-year earlier. Over the decades Pierre was given the benefit of the doubt, but D(zhun)ԭtcritics persisted in raising questions about his navigation and the distances he claimed to have covered. So ԭtthe Navigation Foundation spent an additional 12 months of exhaustive examination of documents relating to Pierres polar expedition. The documents supported Pierres claims about the distances he covered. After also conducting an extensive computer analysis of photos taken by Pierre at the pole, they concluded that Y(ji)Փ(qing){(dio)ԭtPierre and his companions did in factD(zhun)ԭt reach the near vicinity of the North Pole on April 6th, 1909. OK, today were going to talk about exploration of the opposite end of the world. I assume you all read chapter 3 in our text and are now familiar with the names: Emerson and Scott. βԭt
ągģ
Ϻá҂_ʼ֮ǰһϹ(ji)nһλͬW(xu)oһ} _^ԭtゃ߀ӛϹ(ji)nf^Robert E. Pierreǵһe(qing){(dio)ԭt_(d)Oқ]ᵽ^x(qing){(dio)ԭtPierre@ΚvUɾ͵ĠՓ1910һҵW(xu)СM ˡComeydore Pierre190946յϱOc(din)Ĉ棬l(f)F(xin)]ɑijɹ@Q1911ͺˌ(sh)ȻD(zhun)ԭ tPierreijɾͅsɆ@?yn)飨ԭtFrederic Cookt(y)Pierre4굽_(d)Oc(din)ԺPierreٍˑɵıǣD(zhun)ԭtu҈Գ߷߾x ɆԣԭtI(lng)12µyrgPierreĚvUļ֧Pierre·̵˴X PierreڱOc(din)ĵƬԺY(ji)ՓY(ji)Փ(qing){(dio)ԭtPierreĻ邃(sh)HϵĴ_D(zhun)ԭt190946յ_(d)˱Oc(din) ҂ҪӑՓһOc(din)̽Ҳゃx^еĵԺһEmersonScott@ɂֲİ˰βԭt
и ԭtP(gun)£
и 俼ԭt11-22
и }ԭtͽ}˼·11-21
P(gun)и ߴԭt11-23
и }·c}ԭtЩ11-22
2017и }ԭt08-20
и yԇߴԭt11-21
и 08-23
и ָ08-17
иZ(f)ԭt06-16