и (tng)ԭt
1 (tng)Ҋ(jin)ʲôxʲôԭt
ԓԭt顰TOEFL (tng)ʮSԭt֮?yn)ŴԭtĻA(ch)֮
(bеĵطy,ԓԭtm(dng)ѭ.)
2؏(f)ԭt
(tng)ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩ؏(f)ʸߵ~?yn)؏?f)ʸߵĖ|҂ (tng)ߵע⡣иĜy(c)ԇ(du)҂@ЩӢZ(y)ڶZ(y)ԵETSĿc(din)ҲֻЩ(du)҂ͨ^(gu)Ŭ (tng)ĵط
Bonus:
С؏(f)ߵ~ܾܿ@(g)ӵ}TOPIC
3hԭt
(tng)ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩнhx~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)o(w)Փ߀nj(du)Ԓhĵطh(yun)c(din)
Multiply:
vTOEFL (tng)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 (tng)ȥ(qing){(dio)ԭt@úܻ\y(tng)䌍(sh)wɷ֞ɴZ(y)x(qing){(dio)Z(y)⡢Z(y){(dio)(qing){(dio)
Z(y)x(qing){(dio)x(qing){(dio)ጏ(qing){(dio)e(qing){(dio)(j)e(qing){(dio)Y(ji)Փ(qing){(dio)(du)ȏ(qing){(dio)N
Z(y)Z(y){(dio)(qing){(dio)(qing){(dio)ͣD(qing){(dio)(qing){(dio)N
҂́(li)һһՓvZ(y)x(qing){(dio)֧
1x(qing){(dio)
(tng) ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩxϾͽo҂|(dng)~Y(ji)(gu)磺Especiallyһ~ă(ni)һǿc(din)?yn)ͱʾ?ǡwF(xin)ETSġ˼롱ٱ磺new theory܇Ҳһڿc(din)?yn)@wF(xin)ETSġ˼롱Еr(sh)ETS鏊(qing){(dio)ij߀һЩO@Ҋ(jin)ı_(d)ʽ҂ 磺indeedãcertainly(dng)ȻJust rememberһҪӛAnd again.f(shu)һ飩special featureMost importantlyҪǣOne thing I should mentionґ(yng)ԓἰǡMake / Be sure toһҪȵĺx(qing){(dio)~߀Լeۺw(hu)
2ጏ(qing){(dio)
(tng)ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩxώ |(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺, which is / that isǾf(shu)@Ȼwhich is / that is(do)ĶZ(y)ľETSֹ҂ (tng)ǰă(ni)ݣƧ~ȥÁ(li)M(jn)һԽጵġ@NԵĶZ(y)ľ (dng)Ȼͳˏ(qing){(dio)c(din)ڵҪ(bio)־ƵĽY(ji)(gu)硰What I mean isAll that means isȵȲöe
3e(qing){(dio)
(tng) ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩee|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺for example硭?yn)ӿȵ?jin)öࡣETS֪˺eȻҲǰĸȻٿǰĸ Ҳˡ@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
4(j)e(qing){(dio)
(tng) ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩм(j)e^^(j)(j)|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺much higher thanȡߵöࣩ?yn)б^^c(din)^c(din)ǿc(din)@Nм(j)e^^(j)(j)|(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)
(tng)ӕr(sh)Ҫeע ЩнY(ji)ՓY(ji)|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)磺I concluded thatҵĽY(ji)ՓǡɷJ(rn)Y(ji)ՓZ(y)ﶼҪģ@NнY(ji)ՓY(ji)|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)Ҳ(bio)־c(din)ĴƵĽY(ji)(gu)߀ conclusionsummarizemake a summaryY(ji)in brieff(shu)in short(jin)֮in a word(jin)֮in a conclusionfinallyall in allto sum upȵee
6(du)ȏ(qing){(dio)
(tng)ӕr(sh)߀ҪeעЩЌ(du)|(zh)`~Y(ji)(gu) 磺compare tocȣ@NЌ(du)|(zh)~Y(ji)(gu)Ҳ(bio)־c(din)܇ƵĽY(ji)(gu)߀Сunlikesimilar tocƣin contrast toc(du)գdifferentlyalikeresembleƣon the other handinsteadl(f)ikewisein the same wayȵȡ
(li)vZ(y)Z(y){(dio)(qing){(dio)֧
1(qing){(dio)
(tng)ӕr(sh)҂ (tng)(hu)R(sh)ע (tng)Щxص~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)got our attentionץס҂ע@ETS(qing){(dio)ͻwF(xin)ڱ؞鿼c(din)
2ͣD(qing){(dio)
һ(g)xúúõͻȻһ(g)ͣD^(gu)һNŻ֏(f)^(gu)(li)@NȻֹĬF(xin)e҂עͬҲ_(d)ETS get attentionĿģɞ鱾(qing){(dio)һͻwF(xin)ͣDڱ؞鿼c(din)
3(qing){(dio)
ԓ (qing){(dio)ʽ[?yn)?sh)һNֵ뷨J(rn) (tng) (tng)ĵط(hu)(hu)ЩƧy֮̎Բϧr(sh)g;ȥ y(c)yc(din)xs·ŗѽ(jng) (tng)ĵطҪӛTOEFLǵڶZ(y)Ԝy(c)ԇ(hu)](mi)ԡƧڡԑ(yng)҂ҕ߀Щ x֮̎ӛ֮̎һǿc(din)
5ԭt
(tng)ӕr(sh)ҪeעЩx~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)o(w)Փ߀nj(du)Ԓĵطh(yun)c(din)(bio)־~ֿɼ(x)֞ԭͽY(ji)
Multiply:
vTOEFL (tng)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
(tng)ӕr(sh)߀ҪeעЩD(zhun)ۺx~Y(ji)(gu)?yn)o(w)Փ߀nj(du)ԒD(zhun)۵ĵطh(yun)c(din)
Multiply:
vTOEFL (tng)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
7(wn)ԭt
(tng)ӕr(sh)߀ҪeעЩһ(wn)һԆ(wn)ԴʽľӻY(ji)(gu)(wn)}͕(hu)鿼}(du)(wn)}Ļشǿc(din)_𰸵ij̎
8_^ԭt
(tng)ӕr(sh)Ҫeע (tng)塰_^һɾԒTOPIC}(hu)@һF(xin)}؞鿼c(din)
9βԭt
ͬӣ߀Ҫeע (tng)塰ӽY(ji)r(sh)һɾԒCONCLUSIONY(ji)Փ(hu)@һF(xin)Y(ji)ՓҲ؞鿼c(din)
10ԭt
ӛ (tng)ӕr(sh)ՓĿƶ߀ƶֻҪF(xin)ĵطc(din)?yn)һ}(hu)(wn)@(g)˵ĵλúؕI(xin)ʺ֮̎؞鿼c(din)
ʮԭtҴvc(din)ՄĸX(ju)҂ԇ\(yn)һȽoһ(g)Ո(qng)?jin)?0(ni)ͨ^(gu)Ѹْѿܕ(hu)}ĵطԭЄ(li)_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(du)
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 (j)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(g)(wn)} _^ԭtゃ߀ӛϹ(ji)nf(shu)^(gu)Robert E. Pierreǵһ(g)(j)e(qing){(dio)ԭt_(d)Oқ](mi)ᵽ^(gu)x(qing){(dio)ԭt(du)Pierre@ΚvU(xin)ɾ͵Ġ(zhng)Փ1910꣬һ(g)(gu)ҵW(xu)(hu)СM ˡComeydore Pierre190946յϱOc(din)Ĉ(bo)l(f)F(xin)](mi)ɑijɹ@(g)Q(gu)(gu)(hu)1911ͺˌ(sh)ȻD(zhun)ԭ tPierreijɾͅsɆ(wn)@?yn)飨ԭtFrederic Cookt(y)Pierre4굽_(d)Oc(din)ԺPierreٍˑɵıˣǣD(zhun)ԭtu(png)҈(jin)(du)߷߾x Ɇ(wn)ԭtI(lng)(hu)12(g)µyr(sh)g(li)PierreĚvU(xin)ļ֧Pierre(du)·̵˴X PierreڱOc(din)ĵƬԺY(ji)ՓY(ji)Փ(qing){(dio)ԭtPierreĻ邃(sh)HϵĴ_D(zhun)ԭt190946յ_(d)˱Oc(din) ҂ҪӑՓ(du)һ(g)Oc(din)̽Ҳゃ?c)x^(gu)еĵԺһ(du)EmersonScott@ɂ(g)ֲİ˰βԭt
и (tng)ԭtP(gun)£
и (tng)俼ԭt11-22
и (tng)}ԭtͽ}˼·11-21
P(gun)и (tng)ߴԭt11-23
и (tng)}·c}ԭtЩ11-22
2017и (tng)}ԭt08-20
и (tng)y(c)ԇߴԭt11-21
и (tng)08-23
и (tng)ָ08-17
иZ(y)(f)ԭt06-16