最近经常有小伙伴私信询问请问2023年2月23日雅思阅读考试真题及答案（2023年8月1日雅思阅读考试真题答案）相关的问题，今天，金博宝188官网小编整理了以下内容，希望可以对大家有所帮助。
本文目录一览：
请问2023年2月23日雅思阅读考试真题及答案
您好，我是专注留学考试规划和留学咨询的小钟老师。选择留学是人生重要的决策之一，而作为您的指导，我非常高兴能为您提供最准确的留学解答和规划。无论您的问题是关于考试准备、专业选择、申请流程还是学校信息，我都在这里为您解答。更多留学资讯和学校招生介绍，欢迎随时访问。前两天最新一期的雅思考试圆满结束了，真题及答案也已经新鲜出炉，想必大家都非常感兴趣吧。来和小钟老师看一看2023年2月23日雅思阅读考试真题及答案。
Passage 1
文章题材：说明文（人文历史）
文章题目：丝绸之路
文章难度：★★
文章内容：暂无
题型及数量：7填空题+6判断题
题目及答案：
1、robe
2、taxes
3、gold
4、待补充
5、foreign
6、thread
7、待补充
8、T
9、NG
10、F
11、NG
12、T
13、F
可参考真题：C11T3P1：The Story of Silk
Passage 2
文章题材：说明文（自然动植物）
文章题目：猛犸象
文章难度：★★★★
文章内容：文章介绍了猛犸象及其灭绝的原因猜想。
题型及数量：7填空+6匹配
题目及答案：
14. hunting
15. overkill model
16. disease/hyperdisease
17. empirical evidence
18. climatic instability
19. geographical
20. younger Dryas event
21. A
22. B
23. A
24. B
25. B
26. C
可参考真题：C9T1P3：The History of the Tortoise
考试原文：
Mammoth Kill
Mammoth is any species of the extinct genus Mammuthus， proboscideans commonly equipped with long， curved tusks and in northern species， a covering of long hair. They lived from the Ptiocene epoch from around 5 million years ago， into the Hotocene at about 4，500 years ago， and were members of the family Elephantidae， which contains， along with mammoths， the two genera of modern elephants and their ancestors.
A Like their modern relatives， mammoths were quite large. The largest known species reached heights in the region of 4m at the shoulder and weights up t0 8 tonnes， while exceptionally large males may have exceeded 12 tonnes. However， most species of mammoth were only about as large as a modern Asian elephant. Both sexes bore tusks. A first， small set appeared at about the age of six months and these were replaced at about 18 months by the permanent set. Growth of the permanent set was at a rate of about l t0 6 inches per year. Based on studies of their close relatives， the modem elephants， mammoths probably had a gestation period of 22 months， resulting in a single calf being born. Their social structure was probably the same as that of African and Asian elephants， with females living in herds headed by a matriarch， whilst hulls lived solitary lives or formed loose groups after sexual maturity.
B MEXICO CITY-Although it’s hard to imagine in this age of urban sprawl and automobiles， North America once belonged to mammoths， camels， ground sloths as large as cows， bear-size beavers and other formidable beasts. Some 11，000 years ago， however， these large bodied mammals and others-about 70 species in all-disappeared. Their demise coincided roughly with the arrival of humans in the New World and dramatic climatic change-factors that have inspired several theories about the die-off. Yet despite decades of scientific investigation， the exact cause remains a mystery. Now new findings offer support to one of these controversial hypotheses： that human hunting drove this megafaunal menagerie （ 巨型动物兽群）to extinction. The overkill model emerged in the 1960s， when it was put forth by Paul S. Martin of the University of Arizona. Since then， critics have charged that no evidence exists to support the idea that the first Americans hunted to the extent necessary to cause these extinctions. But at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Mexico City last October， paleoecologist John Alroy of the University of California at Santa Barbara argued that， in fact， hunting-driven extinction is not only plausible， it was unavoidable. He has determined， using a computer simulation that even a very modest amount of hunting would have wiped these animals out.
C Assuming an initial human population of 100 people that grew no more than 2 percent annually， Alroy determined that if each band of， say， 50 people killed 15 to 20 large mammals a year， humans could have eliminated the animal populations within 1，000 years. Large mammals in particular would have been vulnerable to the pressure because they have longer gestation periods than smaller mammals and their young require extended care.
D Not everyone agrees with Alroy’s assessment. For one， the results depend in part on population-size estimates for the extinct animals-figures that are not necessarily reliable. But a more specific criticism comes from mammalogist Ross D. E. MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City， who points out that the relevant archaeological record contains barely a dozen examples of stone points embedded in mammoth bones （and none， it should be noted， are known from other megafaunal remains）-hardly what one might expect if hunting drove these animals to extinction. Furthermore， some of these species had huge rangesthe giant Jefferson’s ground sloth， for example， lived as far north as the Yukon and as far south as Mexicowhich would have made slaughtering them in numbers sufficient to cause their extinction rather implausible， he says.
E MacPhee agrees that humans most likely brought about these extinctions （as well as others around the world that coincided with human arrival）， but not directly. Rather he suggests that people may have introduced hyperlethal disease， perhaps through their dogs or hitchhiking vermin， which then spread wildly among the immunologically naive species of the New World. As in the overkill model， populations of large mammals would have a harder time recovering. Repeated outbreaks of a hyperdisease could thus quickly drive them to the point of no return. So far MacPhee does not have empirical evidence for the hyperdisease hypothesis， and it won’t be easy to come by： hyperlethal disease would kill far too quickly to leave its signature on the bones themselves. But he hopes that analyses of tissue and DNA from the last mammoths to perish will eventually reveal murderous microbes.
F The third explanation for what brought on this North American extinction does not involve human beings. Instead， its proponents blame the loss on the weather. The Pleistocene epoch witnessed considerable climatic instability， explains paleontologist Russell W. Graham of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. As a result， certain habitats disappeared， and species that had once formed communities split apart. For some animals， this change brought opportunity. For much of the megafauna， however， the increasingly homogeneous environment left them with shrinking geographical ranges-a death sentence for large animals， which need large ranges. Although these creatures managed to maintain viable populations through most of the Pleistocene， the final major fluctuation-the so-called Younger Dryas eventpushed them over the edge， Graham says. For his part， Alroy is convinced that human hunters demolished the titans of the Ice Age. The overkill model explains everything the disease and climate scenarios explain， he asserts， and makes accurate predictions about which species would eventually go extinct. “Personally， I’m a vegetarian，” he remarks， “and I find all of this kind of gross-but believable.”
Passage 3
文章题材：说明文（人文研究）
文章题目：大师是怎样炼成的
文章难度：★★★
文章内容：待补充
题型及数量：4选择+6判断+4填空
题目及答案：
27、C
28、C
29、A
30、A
31、NG
32、T
33、NG
34、NG
35、F
36、待补充
37、tuition
38、eight
39、four
40、inherited
可参考真题：C10T2P2：Gifted Children and Learning
以上信息希望能帮助您在留学申请的道路上少走弯路。如果您还有更多问题或需要深入探讨，不要犹豫，您可以在我们的留学官方网站上找到更丰富的考试资讯、留学指导和一对一专家咨询服务。我们的团队始终站在您的角度，为您的留学梦想全力以赴。祝您申请顺利！
2023年8月1日雅思阅读考试真题答案
您好，我是专注留学考试规划和留学咨询的小钟老师。在追寻留学梦想的路上，选择合适的学校和专业，准备相关考试，都可能让人感到迷茫和困扰。作为一名有经验的留学顾问，我在此为您提供全方位的专业咨询和指导。欢迎随时提问！
8月1号进行了八月初的第一场雅思的考试，相信大家对真题以及答案会非常的感兴趣、今天就由小钟老师为大家介绍2023年8月1日雅思阅读考试真题答案。
一、考题解析
P1 土地沙漠化
P2 澳大利亚的鹦鹉
P3 多重任务
二、名师点评
1.8月份首场考试的难度总体中等，有出现比较多的配对题，没有出现Heading题，其余主要以常规的填空，判断和选择题为主。文章的话题和题型搭配也是在剑桥真题中都有迹可循，所以备考重心依然还是剑桥官方真题。
2. 整体分析：涉及环境类（P1）、动物类（P2）、社科类（P3）。
本次考试的P2和P3均为旧题。P2是动物类的话题，题型组合为：段落细节配对+单选+summary填空，难度中等。题型上也延续19年的出题特点，出现配对题，考察定位速度和准确度。P3也出现了段落细节配对，主要是段落细节配对+单选+判断。三种题型难度中等，但是文章理解起来略有难度。
3. 部分答案及参考文章：
Passage 1：土地沙漠化
题型及答案待确认
Passage 2：澳大利亚的鹦鹉
题型：段落细节配对+单选+Summary填空
技巧分析：由于段落细节配对是完全乱序出题，在定位时需要先做后面的单选题及填空题，最大化利用已读信息来确定答案，尽量避免重复阅读，以保证充分的做题时间。
文章内容及题目参考：
A 概况，关于一个大的生物种类
B 一些物种消失的原因，题干关键词：an example of one bird species extinct
C 一种鹦鹉不能自己存活，以捕食另一种鸟为生，吃该鸟类的蛋。题干关键词：two species competed at the expense of oneanother
D 吸引鹦鹉的原因以及鹦鹉嘴的特点。题干关键词：analysis of reasons as Australian landscapeattract parrots
E 植物是如何适应鹦鹉。题干关键词：plants attract birds which make the animal adaptto the environment
F 南半球对英语的影响
G 两种鹦鹉从环境改变中获益并存活下来。题干关键词：two species of parrots benefit fromm theenvironment change
H 外来物种及本地鹦鹉
I 鸟类栖息地被破坏以及人类采取的措施
J 作者对于鹦鹉问题的态度
单选题：
why parrots in the whole world are lineal descendants of
选项关键词：continent split from Africa
the writer thinks parrots species beak is for
选项关键词：adjust to their suitable diet
which one is not mentioned
选项关键词：should be frequently maintained
填空题：分布在文章的前两段
one-sixth
16th century
mapmaker
John Gould
Passage 3：多重任务
题型：段落细节配对+单选+判断
参考答案及文章
28 F
29I
30C
31B
32G
33C
34B
35A
36YES
37YES
38NO
39NOT GIVEN
40NO
Passage3： multitasking
Multitasking Debate—Can you do them at the same time？
Talking on the phone while driving isn＇t the only situationwhere we＇re worse at multitasking than we might like to think we are. Newstudies have identified a bottleneck in our brains that some say means we arefundamentally incapable of true multitasking. If experimental findings reflectreal-world performance， people who think they are multitasking are probablyjust underperforming in all-or at best， all but one -of their parallelpursuits. Practice might improve your performance， but you will never be asgood as when focusing on one task at a time.
The problem， according to René Marois， a psychologist atVanderbilt University in Nashville， Tennessee， is that there＇s a sticking pointin the brain. To demonstrate this， Marois devised an experiment to locate nteers watch a screen and when a particular image appears， a red circle，say， they have to press a key with their index finger. Different colouredcircles require presses from different fingers. Typical response time is about half a second， and thevolunteers quickly reach their peak performance. Then they learn to listen todifferent recordings and respond by making a specific sound. For instance， whenthey hear a bird chirp， they have to say ＂ba＂； an electronic soundshould elicit a ＂ko＂， and so on. Again， no problem. A normal personcan do that in about half a second， with almost no effort. The trouble comeswhen Marois shows the volunteers an image， then almost immediately plays them asound. Now they＇re flummoxed. ＂If you show an image and play a sound atthe same time， one task is postponed，＂ he says. In fact，if the second taskis introduced within the half-second or so it takes to process and react to thefirst， it will simply be delayed until the first one is done. The largestdual-task delays occur when the two tasks are presented simultaneously； delaysprogressively shorten as the interval between presenting the tasks lengthens（See Diagram）.
There are at least three points where we seem to getstuck， says Marois. The first is in simply identifying what we＇re looking can take a few tenths of a second， during which time we are not able tosee and recognise a second item. This limitation is known as the＂attentional blink＂： experiments have shown that if you＇re watchingout for a particular event and a second one shows up unexpectedly any timewithin this crucial window of concentration， it may register in your visualcortex but you will be unable to act upon it. Interestingly， if you don＇texpect the first event， you have no trouble responding to the second. Whatexactly causes the attentional blink is still a matter for debate.
A second limitation is in our short-term visual ＇s estimated that we can keep track of about four items at a time， fewer ifthey are complex. This capacity shortage is thought to explain， in part， our astonishinginability to detect even huge changes in scenes that are otherwise identical，so-called ＂change blindness＂. Show people pairs of near-identicalphotos -say， aircraft engines in one picture have disappeared in the other -andthey will fail to spot the differences （if you don＇t believe it， check out theclips at /~rensink/flicker/download）. Here again， though， thereis disagreement about what the essential limiting factor really is. Does itcome down to a dearth of storage capacity， or is it about how much attention aviewer is paying？
A third limitation is that choosing a response to astimulus -braking when you see a child in the road， for instance，or replyingwhen your mother tells you over the phone that she＇s thinking of leaving yourdad -also takes brainpower. Selecting a response to one of these things willdelay by some tenths of a second your ability to respond to the other. This iscalled the ＂response selection bottleneck＂ theory， first proposed in1952.
Last December， Marois and his colleagues published apaper arguing that this bottleneck is in fact created in two different areas ofthe brain： one in the posterior lateral prefrontal cortex and another in thesuperior medial frontal cortex （Neuron， vol 52， p 1109）. They found this byscanning people＇s brains with functional MRI while the subjects struggled tochoose among eight possible responses to each of two closely timed tasks. Theydiscovered that these brain areas are not tied to any particular sense but aregenerally involved in selecting responses， and they seemed to queue theseresponses when presented with multiple tasks concurrently.
Bottleneck？ What bottleneck？
But David Meyer， a psychologist at the University ofMichigan， Ann Arbor， doesn＇t buy the bottleneck idea. He thinks dual-taskinterference is just evidence of a strategy used by the brain to prioritisemultiple activities. Meyer is known as something of an optimist by his has written papers with titles like ＂Virtually perfect time-sharing indual-task performance： Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck＂（Psychological Science， vol 12， p101）. His experiments have shown that withenough practice -at least 2000 tries -some people can execute two taskssimultaneously as competently as if they were doing them one after the suggests that there is a central cognitive processor that coordinates allthis and， what＇s more， he thinks it uses discretion： sometimes it chooses todelay one task while completing another.
Even with practice， not all people manage to achieve thisharmonious time-share， however. Meyer argues that individual differences comedown to variations in the character of the processor -some brains are just more＂cautious＂， some more ＂daring＂. And despite urban legend，there are no noticeable
differences between men and women. So， according to him，it＇s not a central bottleneck that causes dual-task interference， but rather＂adaptive executive control＂， which ＂schedules task processesappropriately to obey instructions about their relative priorities and serialorder＂.
Marois agrees that practice can sometimes eraseinterference effects. He has found that with just 1 hour of practice each dayfor two weeks， volunteers show a huge improvement at managing both his tasks atonce. Where he disagrees with Meyer is in what the brain is doing to achievethis. Marois speculates that practice might give us the chance to find lesscongested circuits to execute a task -rather like finding trusty back streetsto avoid heavy traffic on main roads -effectively making our response to thetask subconscious. After all， there are plenty of examples of subconsciousmultitasking that most of us routinely manage： walking and talking， eating andreading， watching TV and folding the laundry.
But while some dual tasks benefit from practice， otherssimply do not. ＂Certain kinds of tasks are really hard to do two atonce，＂ says Pierre Jolicoeur at the University of Montreal， Canada， whoalso studies multitasking. Dual tasks involving a visual stimulus andskeletal-motor response （which he dubs ＂in the eye and out the hand＂）and an auditory stimulus with a verbal response （＂in the ear and out themouth＂） do seem to be amenable to practice， he says. Jolicoeur has foundthat with enough training such tasks can be performed as well together asapart. He speculates that the brain connections that they use may be somehowspecial， because we learn to speak by hearing and learn to move by looking. Butpair visual input with a verbal response， or sound to motor， and there＇s nodramatic improvement. ＂It looks like no amount of practice will allow youto combine these，＂ he says.
For research purposes， these experiments have to be keptsimple. Real-world multitasking poses much greater challenges. Even the upbeatMeyer is sceptical about how a lot of us live our lives. Instant-messaging andtrying to do your homework？ ＂It can＇t be done，＂ he says. Conducting ajob interview while answering emails？ ＂There＇s no way you wind up being asgood.＂ Needless to say， there appear to be no researchers in the area ofmultitasking who believe that you can safely drive a car and carry on a phoneconversation. In fact， last year David Strayer at the University of Utah inSalt Lake City reported that people using cellphones drive no better thandrunks （Human Factors， vol 48， p 381）. In another study， Strayer found thatusing a hands-free kit did not improve a driver＇s response time. He concludedthat what distracts a driver so badly is the very act of talking to someone whoisn＇t present in the car and therefore is unaware of the hazards facing thedriver.
“No researchers believe it＇s safe to drive a car andcarry on a phone conversation”
It probably comes as no surprise that， generallyspeaking， we get worse at multitasking as we age. According to Art Kramer atthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign， who studies how ageing affectsour cognitive abilities， we peak in our 20s. Though the decline is slow throughour 30s and on into our 50s， it is there； and after 55， it becomes moreprecipitous. In one study， he and his colleagues had both young and oldparticipants do a simulated driving task while carrying on a conversation. Hefound that while young drivers tended to miss background changes， older driversfailed to notice things that were highly relevant. Likewise， older subjects hadmore trouble paying attention to the more important parts of a scene than youngdrivers.
It＇s not all bad news for over-55s， though. Kramer alsofound that older people can benefit from practice. Not only did they learn toperform better， brain scans showed that underlying that improvement was achange in the way their brains become active.
Whileit＇s clear that practice can often make a difference， especially as we age， thebasic facts remain sobering. ＂We have this impression of an almightycomplex brain，＂ says Marois， ＂and yet we have very humbling andcrippling limits.＂ For most of our history， we probably never needed to domore than one thing at a time， he says， and so we haven＇t evolved to be ableto. Perhaps we will in future， though. We might yet look back one day on peoplelike Debbie and Alun as ancestors of a new breed of true multitaskers.
希望以上的答复能对您的留学申请有所帮助。如果您有任何更详细的问题或需要进一步的协助，我强烈推荐您访问我们的留学官方网站 ，在那里您可以找到更多专业的留学考试规划和留学资料以及一对一的咨询服务。祝您留学申请顺利！
剑桥雅思阅读
因为剑桥系列一直是考官和雅思考生的桥梁，也注定会是雅思考试的风向标，剑九的出版，丰富了考生的备考资料。那么，《剑九》中传递了哪样的信息，延续了剑桥家族中哪些不变，又呈现了哪些变化，以及剑九对现在的雅思考试究竟有哪些指导意义?该如何有效而高效的利用起这本真题集，来实现内功与考试高分双增长的目标?
延续阅读经典题型
之前学生中道听途说有很多猜忌，说在留学大潮的当下，雅思考试为了选拔人才，会在2013年有所变革。
纵观《剑九》中收录的四套高水准的剑桥真题，各位考生大可不必慌张，雅思考试在今年，乃至可预见的2014年，这两年题型上应该不会有新题型出现，依然会延续剑桥家族中的经典题型。
雅思官网上把阅读部分题型分成十种，总体上分为五种大题型，和五种小题型。
前者分别是LIST OF HEADINGS 选段意题;MATCHING搭配题;TRUE，FALSE，NOT GIVEN OR YES，NO，NOT GIVEN判断题，MULTIPLE CHOICE选择题 和SUMMARY填空题。
那么五种小题型大部分是大题型SUMMARY的延续，比如填图表，填流程，看图填词，句子填空，和简答题。
大题型不能存在侥幸心里，五个题型都应该将解题思路烂熟于心，以在考场上迅速切换思路，争取速度，力求准确。
《剑九》文章收录最新
《剑四》、《剑五》中的文章主要集中在2001-2003这三年;《剑六》主要来自2004-2005年，《剑七》多数是2006年和2007年这两年，于是《剑八》中收录的文章，主要是考场上2008年考过的文章，部分来自2007年，个别来自2009年，这次《剑九》中收录的文章，比对了以往的考题，主要来自2009年，个别来自2011年和2012年。
其中有两篇文章在考场上考察了不下四次，这次也光荣退休到《剑九》的真题集中：IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE? (《搜索外星生物》 来自2002年，2004年6月26日，2007年1月20日，2009年12月19日)，和另外一篇 Venus in transit 《金星凌日》来自2007年5月19日，2008年6月21日，2009年2月28日和2012年4月28日)这就印证了我们一贯的猜测，考场上依然有很多旧题在用，有的甚至能用到4次才退休。
所以我们点题班上为学员整理的内容，还是十分有用的。虽然剑九中收录的文章较以往剑桥系列已经为最新的了(多为2009年)，但是很多不了解雅思出题动态的同学依然不满足，期待能多出现2012年或2011年的题目。
其实这是并无意义的，在雅思考试中，文章文本只是依托，我们的任务是做题得分。
结合了2012年全年47场考试141篇阅读文章，我们还是能够洞察出这次剑桥大学考试委员会在编篡剑九的时候还是用了心思的，他们侧重了题型的分配，对现在备考有很大的指导作用。
透露题型考察重点
就大题型而言List of headings 题目数量骤降，与2012年全年的7%数字吻合，体现骤降。
Matching题普遍上升，与2012年全年25%的数字，即每次考试近乎10道搭配题，数量一致，其中人名配理论为普通搭配型的重中之重，《剑九》中一共有两道大题是普通型的搭配，通通都是人名配理论。
另外搭配题中的段落配相关信息型飙升(即如下几个信息在原文中哪个自然段有所提及型)，请广大考生注意备考侧重。
其它的题型，判断题仍然占有绝对优势，Multiple choice 单多选题， 并无出众表现。SUMMARY 从数量上较以往剑桥系列有所下降，但是结合了它繁衍成的小题型来看一点都不少。
那么小题型中，《剑九》中虽没有出现表格题，但这对我们丝毫没有影响，因为表格题直接套用填空题的方法即可。
不过有意思的是，简答题象一匹黑马冲了出来，其它的剑桥系列都没怎么出题的简答题，在《剑九》中大量出现，有两点发现：
第一，完善了剑桥系列的阅读题型，针对简答题让考生有题可练，有题能练，而且能够通过剑九练透。
第二，让考生意识到，稍微方法不同与SUMMARY的小题型考察数量在增加，除了简答，完成句子中类似普通MATCHING题的比重也有所增加。
这个趋势已经从2013年的头几个月考试中能够显露出来。
如何高效利用《剑九》?
考前两周当真题冲刺用，结合听力部分，完全利用《剑九》当模拟题来考察自己的能力。
建议模考时间设定在周一和周三，周二和周四进行分析，周五查漏补缺，周六亲临考场。
做题顺序建议：按顺序即可：Test1- Test2-Test3-Test4 等级为： 中——难——难——中。解释一下，第一套用中等水平题目验证一下自己复习的是否充分有效，如果不如预期，停下来分析剑桥6，7，8做过的题目。
分析好了以后再回来操作剑九第二套，而后第三套，经历了难度递增之后，最后临考前加强信心，做第四套。
每每做完套题都不要立刻对答案，这样就不可避免的会对着答案往文章里去思考，从而不能达到能力的提高。
应该采取三步走，第一步，先严格计时做，第二步再可放松时间延时做，最后第三步翻着字典做。
三遍都经历之后，才可核对答案，记录下三次的答案是否有出入，找到自己的不足。
延时后能多对几个的，说明语言还不错，可能方法上有漏洞，以至于一卡时间，语言就发挥不出来了。
查字典后能多对上几个的，说明内功不足，这样短时间大体上就可以找到自己的问题。
然后需要静下心来，认真分析。错题对题都需要回原文，定位分析，推敲答案。
详情，201303/11/3909.html查看。
以上就是金博宝188官网小编整理的内容，想要了解更多相关资讯内容敬请关注金博宝188官网。
