雅思阅读如何面对满篇的生词

词汇量对于雅思考试来说很重要，如果词汇量不足，就会难以看懂雅思阅读，生词太多怎么办？下面是小编给大家带来的雅思阅读如何面对满篇的生词，希望能帮到大家!

1、“全文尽带生僻词”

笔者发现，很多上雅思阅读课的学生经常忽视词汇量的积累，另外有一部分学生在词汇上下了一定的功夫，但是碰到的问题是，一旦所学的一个特定的词放到一个特定的语言环境、词组里去的时候，学生往往会觉得自己所记的中文意思放到句子里却理解不通，因此，在定位到答案所在文章段落某一句的时候，还是不能解答题目，这个是相当可惜的。笔者认为，总结雅思阅读里出现的词汇，词组，以及每天花一定时间记忆雅思阅读高频词汇是相当重要的，但是，这个过程要注意方法：记忆词汇结合一定的语言环境去记，通过一定的语言环境，去理解单词的内涵，甚至是其表达方式的文化背景。

在这里，笔者先举个简单的例子，大家都知道work是工作，劳动的意思，而在“The new method worked”这个句子里，work的意思却是奏效的意思。太简单了?那好，我们再来看个例子，deny这个词，很多人都知道是否认，拒绝的意思，大家甚至于列出一大堆同义词来，比如，refuse, decline, reject 等， 这是个好现象，但是很多学生当碰到 “In the old times, a lot of girls were denied the right of education.”这样的句子的时候就开始犯难了。否认，拒绝套进去似乎都解释不通。其实，这个句子里的deny没像大家想象的那么神秘，各位可以用be deprived of 这个词组来理解它。

在拿到一个单词的时候，在了解了其中文意思，参照了例句之后，大家不妨想一下，如果是我来用这个词造个句子，我会怎么用它。用了主动语态之后，我该怎么把这个词放到被动语态中去，加上时间状语、地点状语、条件状语等等之后又是怎么样的，如果我是外国人，我会怎么运用它。每个人遣词造句的思路其实是大同小异的(当然也不乏思维特异的人，不过雅思考试毕竟针对的是广大的人民群众，而不是针对爱因斯坦这样级别的学生的)，因此雅思阅读文章的作者也是如此，如果，你在记忆雅思词汇的时候，能够灵活运用，注意词汇的外延，那势必会对你理解不同的句型，文章带来好处。

2、紧张、恐惧。

水有源，树有根，任何面对雅思阅读的紧张、恐惧心理也是有原因的。笔者认为考生的这种紧张、恐惧心理最主要有以下几点：(1)、平日做逍遥游，不把时间精力放在备考上，因此在上考场的时候，心情无比紧张，拿到“阅读天书”后，不知如何是好，接着从无比紧张，恐惧发展到“全身心放松”，俗称---放弃;(2)平日还算用功，但是由于时间紧促，备考内容有限，因此学生在上考场的时候，心里惦记着平时是不是什么地方没下好工夫，很多东西貌似都看到过，但是没把握，因而紧张;(3)平日相当用功，这类考生紧张主要属于“这终于到了，我一定要考出好成绩，不过，万一。。。。。。，那我的努力岂不白费”型。

　　雅思阅读材料：debt of America

为大家整理了一篇关于经济方面的雅思阅读材料，这篇雅思阅读材料的主要内容是介绍了美国两大党派关于债务危机达成的相关协议和其他对债务问题的处理办法。下面是详细内容，供大家参考，希望给大家带来帮助。

THE closer the federal government comes to hitting the limit imposed by Congress on its borrowing and thus defaulting on some of its obligations, the more frantically members of Congress churn out schemes to avert the impending disaster. As The Economist went to press, the House of Representatives was poised to vote on the latest plan, put forward by John Boehner, the speaker and leading Republican voice in the debate about the debt ceiling. But the measure’s prospects seem uncertain in the House and even bleaker in the Senate. Several more plans wait in the wings, but all face the same difficulty: passing muster both with the Republican scourges of government who run the House and the more reluctant budget-cutters from the Democratic Party in charge of the Senate and the White House. Meanwhile, the Treasury insists it will run out of money after August 2nd, whereupon it will have to stop paying at least some bills.

Since Republicans took control of the House at the beginning of the year, they have given warning that they will not simply wave through an increase in the debt ceiling, as Congress has usually done in the past. Never mind that in April a majority of them voted for an interim budget that assumed that the debt ceiling would be lifted, and for a longer-term budget resolution that would require it to leap by almost $9 trillion over the next decade. America’s deficits, they argued, were unsustainable, and the bargaining power conferred on them by the need to raise the debt ceiling presented a wonderful opportunity to stop the rot.

In a speech in May Mr Boehner explained that he would want dramatic reductions in government spending in exchange for an increase. “We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions. They should be actual cuts and programme reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.” As recently as last week he was discussing just such a deal with Barack Obama, who despite having presented a spendthrift budget earlier in the year had professed a willingness to trim future deficits by as much as $4 trillion. On July 22nd, however, Mr Boehner withdrew from the negotiations, saying that Mr Obama was too eager to raise taxes—something that almost all Republicans in the House had sworn not to do. (By most accounts, Mr Obama was talking chiefly about eliminating or reducing loopholes and exemptions in the tax code, albeit on a grand scale.)

Even as Messrs Boehner and Obama were falling out, the Senate rejected a bill passed by the House that would have slashed spending next year, capped it in future and prevented the debt ceiling from being lifted until Congress approved an amendment to the constitution that barred the federal government from running deficits even as it made it harder to raise taxes. That, the Democrats complained, was far too draconian. The harried Mr Boehner responded on July 25th with a lesser measure that he said would cut spending by $915 billion, and raise the debt ceiling by a little less—only enough to keep the government going for about six months. The bill would also set up a panel of 12 congressmen to recommend another $1.8 trillion of cuts, which if enacted would prompt another $1.6 trillion rise in the debt ceiling. Tax rises would be ruled out from the start.

Many of Mr Boehner’s foot-soldiers in the House are unhappy with this proposal. They complain that it abandons the principles he laid out in May, by resorting to committees and spending caps rather than detailed reforms. Thirty-nine of them have vowed not to vote for any increase in the debt ceiling unless it is accompanied by a balanced-budget amendment—something that Mr Boehner’s bill only offers a vote on. Worse, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) declared on July 26th that his sums did not add up, prompting him to delay a vote on the bill while he rejigged it.

Even if Mr Boehner’s plan scrapes through the House, Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, says it is “dead on arrival” in his chamber: his entire caucus has signed a letter opposing it. Not only does it set the stage for another crisis just a few months from now, Democrats complain, but it also rigs future negotiations on reducing the deficit in the Republicans’ favour. The White House, too, is threatening a veto.

That is the state of play. The fact that Mr Boehner’s plan is too extreme for the Democrats in the Senate and too mild for many Republicans in the House shows how hard it will be to get any other scheme approved by both chambers. Mr Reid has proposed one, which would cut spending by $2.4 trillion or so and raise the debt ceiling by the same amount, enough to keep the government going past next year’s elections. But Republicans don’t like it because almost half of the savings come from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—something that was already on the cards. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, has a scheme to transfer the authority to raise the debt ceiling to the president, which would at least spare Republicans the embarrassment of voting for an increase, even if it does not cut the deficit at all. And there is lots of talk about a short-term increase, if no lasting plan can be agreed on.

In the end, the leaders of the two chambers are likely to put some sort of amalgam of all these plans to a vote, and can probably wring enough votes out of their underlings to secure passage. Mr Obama, for his part, would presumably sign any bill that had won the approval of the Democrats in the Senate. The alternative, most observers assume, is simply too horrible: payments withheld from pensioners, soldiers, government contractors and the like, higher interest rates, chaos in the financial markets and the harm to an already sickly economy that all this would bring.

So far the markets have shown only muted signs of disquiet. Stock prices have continued their slow but steady downward drift of the past week. The dollar slipped against some safer currencies, especially the Swiss franc. The price of insuring against an American default rose. And in auctions of government debt this week, the cost the American government pays to borrow ticked up ever so slightly. But these mild movements seem predicated on the assumption that Congress will pull a rabbit out of a hat within the next few days. The longer the rabbit takes to appear, however, the less quiescent the markets will become. And even if the debt ceiling is raised, ratings agencies are still threatening to downgrade America’s debt—because the long-term fiscal outlook is so grim.

以上就是关于美国债务危机的雅思阅读材料的全部内容，非常详细的介绍了相关事件及其发展，包括了一幅数字统计分析图片。大家可以在备考雅思阅读考试和雅思小作文的时候，对这篇文章进行适当的参考和阅读。