и ԭt
1 Ҋʲôxʲôԭt
ԓԭt顰TOEFL ʮSԭt֮ŴԭtĻA֮ϡ
(bеĵطy,ԓԭtmѭ.)
2؏ԭt
ӕrҪeעЩ؏ʸߵ~؏ʸߵĖ|҂ ߵעиĜyԇ҂@ЩӢZڶZԵˣETSĿcҲֻЩ҂ԣͨ^Ŭ ĵط
Bonus:
С؏ߵ~ܾܿ@ӵ}TOPIC
3hԭt
ӕrҪeעЩнhx~YoՓ߀njԒhĵطhc
Multiply:
vTOEFL ĽhYR
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 {ԭt
է ȥ{ԭt@úܻ\y䌍wɷ֞ɴZx{ZZ{{
Zx{x{ጏ{e{e{YՓ{ȏ{N
ZZ{{{ͣD{{N
҂́һһՓvZx{֧
1x{
ӕrҪeעЩxϾͽo҂|ӵ~Y磺Especiallyһ~ăһǿcͱʾ ǡwFETSġ˼롱ٱ磺new theory܇Ҳһڿc@wFETSġ˼롱ЕrETS鏊{ij߀һЩO@Ҋı_ʽ҂ 磺indeedãcertainlyȻJust rememberһҪӛAnd again.fһ飩special featureMost importantlyҪǣOne thing I should mentionґԓἰǡMake / Be sure toһҪȵĺx{~߀Լeۺw
2ጏ{
ӕrҪeעЩxώ |~Y磺, which is / that isǾf@Ȼwhich is / that isĶZľETSֹ҂ ǰăݣƧ~ȥÁMһԽጵ@NԵĶZľ Ȼͳˏ{cڵҪ־ƵĽY硰What I mean isAll that means isȵȲöe
3e{
ӕrҪeעЩee|~Y磺for example硭ӿȵöETS֪˺eȻҲǰĸȻٿǰĸ Ҳ@c@Ȼԭt@NeeʽĽYҲˏ{cڵҪ־ƵĽY硰for instancesuch asnamelyas an exampletake example for ȵȲöe
4e{
ӕrҪeעЩмe^^|~Y磺much higher thanȡߵöࣩб^^c^cǿc@Nмe^^|~YҲ˱cڵҪ ־ƵĽY߀С-er-estmoremostmostlyfirstlastmajority ɣminorityٔɣabove allҪǣȵee
5YՓ{
ӕrҪeע ЩнYՓY|~Y磺I concluded thatҵĽYՓǡɷJYՓZﶼҪ@NнYՓY|~YҲ־cĴƵĽY߀ conclusionsummarizemake a summaryYin brieffin short֮in a word֮in a conclusionfinallyall in allto sum upȵee
6ȏ{
ӕr߀ҪeעЩЌ|`~Y 磺compare tocȣ@NЌ|~YҲ־c܇ƵĽY߀Сunlikesimilar tocƣin contrast tocգdifferentlyalikeresembleƣon the other handinsteadlikewisein the same wayȵȡ
vZZ{{֧
1{
ӕr҂ Rע Щxص~Ygot our attentionץס҂ע@ETS{ͻwFڱ؞鿼c
2ͣD{
һxúúõͻȻһͣD^һNŻ֏^@NȻֹĬFe҂עͬҲ_ETS get attentionĿģɞ鱾{һͻwFͣDڱ؞鿼c
3{
ԓ {ʽ[һNֵ뷨J ĵطЩƧy֮̎Բϧrg;ȥ yycxs·ŗѽ ĵطҪӛTOEFLǵڶZԜyԇ]ԡƧڡԑ҂ҕ߀Щ x֮̎ӛ֮̎һǿc
5ԭt
ӕrҪeעЩx~YoՓ߀njԒĵطhc־~ֿɼ֞ԭͽY
Multiply:
vTOEFL YR
ԭ:
1because
2because of
3due to
4since
5as
6for
7The reason is
8Thats why
9By reason of
10 Owing to
Y:
1so
2so that
3therefore
4thereby
5hereby
6thus
7As a result
8consequently
9hence
10accordingly
6Dԭt
ӕr߀ҪeעЩDۺx~YoՓ߀njԒD۵ĵطhc
Multiply:
vTOEFL DYR
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}͕鿼}}Ļشǿc_𰸵ij̎
8_^ԭt
ӕrҪeע 塰_^һɾԒTOPIC}@һF}؞鿼c
9βԭt
ͬ߀Ҫeע 塰ӽYrһɾԒCONCLUSIONYՓ@һFYՓҲ؞鿼c
10ԭt
ӛ ӕrՓĿƶ߀ƶֻҪFĵطcһ}@˵ĵλúؕIʺ֮̎؞鿼c
ʮԭtҴvcՄĸX҂ԇ\һȽoһՈ60ȣͨ^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.
OKҰѿcôwӰ˳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{ԭtto reach the North Pole. What I neglected to mentionx{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, DԭtPierres 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 Dԭtcritics 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 YՓ{ԭtPierre and his companions did in factDԭt 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
Ϻ҂_ʼ֮ǰһϹnһλͬWoһ} _^ԭtゃ߀ӛϹnf^Robert E. Pierreǵһe{ԭt_Oқ]ᵽ^x{ԭtPierre@ΚvUɾ͵ĠՓ1910һҵWСM ˡComeydore Pierre190946յϱOcĈ棬lF]ɑijɹ@Q1911ͺˌȻDԭ tPierreijɾͅsɆ@飨ԭtFrederic CooktPierre4굽_OcԺPierreٍˑɵıǣDԭtu҈Գ߷߾x ɆԣԭtI12µyrgPierreĚvUļ֧Pierre·̵˴X PierreڱOcĵƬԺYՓYՓ{ԭtPierreĻ邃HϵĴ_Dԭt190946յ_˱Oc ã҂ҪӑՓһOc̽Ҳゃx^еĵԺһEmersonScott@ɂֲİ˰βԭt
и ԭtP£
и 俼ԭt11-22
и }ԭtͽ}˼·11-21
Pи ߴԭt11-23
и }·c}ԭtЩ11-22
2017и }ԭt08-20
и yԇߴԭt11-21
и 08-23
и ָ08-17
иZԭt06-16