Question

We are often unable to pay close attention to what we hear. Just like when we try to grab a sponge(海绵) that is full of water, some water will run out of it. But sometimes we try to remember everything a speaker says and try to take in a speaker’s every word as if every word was equally important. We try to remember all the names, all the dates, and all the places. In the process we often miss the speaker’s main point.

Erik Waldman works at a design company. Knowing he had never been good at budgeting his money, he was determined to begin thinking about his economic future. When his employer circulated an e-mail announcing a financial planning workshop(研讨会), Erik signed up right away.

The first session was about retirement planning. Simone Fisher, the lecturer, explained that 7 of 10 Americans between the ages of 22 and 35 do not have a regular savings plan. Erik wrote down every number Simone mentioned.

"If you want to have a retirement income equal to 75 percent of your current salary," Simone continued, "you will need to save at least of 6 percent of your present earnings, taking into account future inflation rates(通货膨胀率). In the meantime, I want to stress that the most important thing is to start saving now."

Erik recorded all the statistics Simone used. When she opened the floor(自由发言) for question, Erik raised his hand and said, "I have two question. When is the best time to start saving for retirement? And how can I figure out my savings target if I don’t know what inflation rates will be in the future?"

This is a typical example of losing the speaker’s point by concentrating on details. Erik had fixed his mind on remembering all the statistics in Simone’s presentation, but he blocked out the man message. Rather than trying to remember everything, we should concentrate on main ideas and evidence.

1.What does the author mean by saying "Just like when we ... run out of it."?

A. We tend to reject what others say.

B. We always try to remember all details.

C. It is difficult for us to remember all things.

D. We often fail to focus on what we are listening to.

2.During the workshop, Erik         .

A. got Simone Fisher 's main idea

B. focused on the lecture's details

C. showed little interest in the lecture

D. didn't agree with what Simone had said

3.When hearing Erik's questions, Simone would most probably think      .

A. they are very good questions

B. Erik was an excellent listener

C. it was hard to answer the questions

D. his questions were meaningless

4.The passage is written to help those who want to be        .

A. a good listener    B. a financial planner

C. an excellent lecturer    D. a successful employee

Answer

1.C

2.B

3.D

4.A

【解析】本文主要讲述了我们经常无法密切关注我们听到的，就好像当我们试图去抓一块充满水的海绵，一些水就会从海绵里流出来。作为一名好的倾听者不是将听到的所有内容记下来而是将注意力集中在主要的观点和论据上。

1.推理判断题。根据“Just like when we try to grab a sponge(海绵) that is full of water, some water will run out of it.”就像当我们试图去抓一块充满水的海绵，一些水就会从海绵里流出来。以及“We try to remember all the names, all the dates, and all the places. In the process we often miss the speaker’s main point.” 我们试图记住所有的名字，所有的日期，和所有的地方。在这个过程中，我们经常错过演讲者的要点。可推知不可能记住所有所听到的内容。故选C。

2.细节理解题。根据“This is a typical example of losing the speaker’s point by concentrating on details.” 这是只关注细节丢失发言人的观点的一个典型的例子。故选B。

3.推理判断题。根据“This is a typical example of losing the speaker’s point by concentrating on details.” 这是只关注细节丢失发言人的观点的一个典型的例子。可推知Erik没有抓住发言人已经提出的观点，发言人会认为他提出的问题没有任何意义。故选D。

4.作者意图题。根据最后一段“Rather than trying to remember everything, we should concentrate on main ideas and evidence.”不要试图去记住所有一切，而是应该在主要观点跟论据上集中精力。作者写这篇文章主要是强调做一个好的听者。故选A。

【名师点睛】推理判断型

推理判断题属于高层次阅读理解题。这种题型包括判断题和推理题。这两类题常常相互依存，推理是为了得出正确的判断，正确的判断又依赖于合乎逻辑的推理。做好该题型要从整体上把握语篇内容，在语篇的表面意义与隐含意义、已知信息与未知信息间架起桥梁，透过字里行间，去体会作者的“弦外之音”。推理判断题常常可以分为如下几类：(1)细节推断。如时间、地点、人物关系等；(2)逻辑推断。根据已知的结果推断导致结果产生的可能原因；(3)目的、意图、态度推断。根据文章的论述，推断作者的写作目的以及作者的情感态度；(4)预测想象推断。文章没有明确说明，要求根据语篇对文章可能涉及的内容进行预测判断。例如：本题中的第3小题：

【解题剖析】此题属于推理判断型中的(3)目的、意图、态度推断。根据文章的论述，推断作者的写作目的以及作者的情感态度。

【答案定位】根据根据“This is a typical example of losing the speaker’s point by concentrating on details.” 这是只关注细节丢失发言人的观点的一个典型的例子。可推知Erik没有抓住发言人已经提出的观点，发言人会认为他提出的问题没有任何意义。