考研英語閱讀34分必殺技-段落推理題
段落推理題是考研閱讀理解常用的一種命題方式。這類題目往往選取文章中的某段或是某個句子，或是某人的言論讓考生推斷隱含的意思。有的考生對這種題目很是頭疼。覺得無從下手：文章還是半懂不懂的，更別說探究隱含的意思了。
其實，不盡然。段落推理題的題目很容易識別，常用的命題形式有：What can we infer from the first paragraph? （從第一段中我們能推出什么？）首先明確考研中根本就沒有所謂的推理，推理題的做法和細節(jié)題的做法是一致的，只是這樣設置題干可以擴大命題控制的區(qū)域，一個題目在某些情況下甚至相當于四個細節(jié)題，早年還有更為無恥的命題方式：What can be inferred from the passage? 這樣命題其實就是出題人希望試題涵蓋更多的測試點，對考生來講最大的障礙就是time-consuming（耗時），考生如果每個選項仔細和原文比對應該不難找出答案，哪怕費時稍微多一些。但是有的時候我們卻遇到出題人為我們設置的另外一個困境：選項和原文比對時，我們很難排除。先看一個例題:
2007年Text 4最后一題：
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that___________.
[A] data leakage is more severe in Europe
[B] FTC’s decision is essential to data security
[C] California takes the lead in security legislation
[D] legal penalty is a major solution to data leakage
原文根據：
1. The current state of affaires may have been encouraged—though not justified—by the lack of legal penalty (in America, but not Europe) for data leakage.
2. Until California recently passed a law, American firms did not have to tell anyone, even the victim, when data went astray.
3. That may change fast: lots of proposed data-security legislation is now doing the rounds in Washington, D.C.
4. Meanwhile, the theft of information about some 40 million credit-card accounts in America, disclosed on June 17th, overshadowed a hugely important decision a day earlier by America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that puts corporate America on notice that regulators will act if firms fail to provide adequate data security.
參考譯文：
1. 盡管還沒有得到證實，但目前這類事件的發(fā)生很有可能是因為還沒有相關法律對信息泄漏做出處罰（在美國，不是在歐洲）。
2. 直到最近，加利福尼亞才通過了一項法律，而在此之前，當信息被竊取時，美國的公司不用告知任何人，甚至包括受害人，信息是何時泄露的。
3. 這種情況可能迅速改變：如今，許多信息保護法的議案正在華盛頓被廣泛傳議。
4. 與此同時，6月17日披露的消息表明，美國大約4000萬張信用卡的信息被人盜取，這一情況給美國聯邦貿易委員會在前一天所作的一個重要決定蒙上了陰影，該決定要求美國所有的商業(yè)公司提供充足的數據安全保障，否則監(jiān)管人員就會采取行動。
通過第一句括號中的內容可以排除[A] data leakage is more severe in Europe。
通過第四句我們找到了[B] FTC’s decision is essential to data security的依據。
通過第二句我們又看到了[C] California takes the lead in security legislation的依據。
通過第一句我們也看到了[D] legal penalty is a major solution to data leakage的依據。
在考場上很少同學能篤定地選擇出一個選項，而在一些輔導書的講解中，也是非常牽強的`給出了一些排除B、C選項理由：比如說：C選項中的加州只是走到了美國的前列。(但是在很多時候這樣的表達在其他題目中又是正確的，且本來這篇文章主要就是在說美國的數據泄露問題，筆者不認為這樣的表述有問題)，B選項中的決定只是重要而已而不是essential (這就更是不懂出題人的又一佐證了，essential和important在很多時候都是可以替換的)。
這就是考研出題人為了體現考研選拔性考試特征而動用的潛規(guī)則了：主題為王，結論為王；在文中第一句是論點和結論，而二、三、四句都是論據， 之所以選擇D是源自結論而由于B和C是源自論據，出生和血統就不一樣，一切的掙扎都是徒勞。答案只能是D。
這樣的題目在段落推理中很是常見，再如：
47. What can we infer from the first three paragraphs?
[A] In both East and West, names are essential to success.
[B] The alphabet is to blame for the failure of Zo Zysman.
[C] Customers often pay a lot of attention to companies' names.
[D] Some form of discrimination is too subtle to recognize.
Over the past century, all kinds of unfairness and discrimination have been condemned or made illegal. But one insidious form continues to thrive: alphabetism. This, for those as yet unaware of such a disadvantage, refers to discrimination against those whose surnames begin with a letter in the lower half of the alphabet.
It has long been known that a taxi firm called AAAA cars has a big advantage over Zodiac cars when customers thumb through their phone directories. Less well known is the advantage that Adam Abbott has in life over Zo Zysman. English names are fairly evenly spread between the halves of the alphabet. Yet a suspiciously large number of top people have surnames beginning with letters between A and K.
Thus the American president and vice-president have surnames starting with B and C respectively; and 26 of George Bush's predecessors (including his father) had surnames in the first half of the alphabet against just 16 in the second half. Even more striking, six of the seven heads of government of the G7 rich countries are alphabetically advantaged (Berlusconi, Blair, Bush, Chirac, Chrétien and Koizumi). The world's three top central bankers (Greenspan, Duisenberg and Hayami) are all close to the top of the alphabet, even if one of them really uses Japanese characters. As are the world's five richest men (Gates, Buffett, Allen, Ellison and Albrecht).
這三個段落中，第一段是結論，而二三段是論據。
A、B、C選項且不去討論其表述正確與否，只需從In both East and West，Zo Zysman，companies' names這樣的字詞中即可判定出其源自論據的出生，他們一開始就注定了不能成為正確答案的宿命，無需步步驚心。
段落性的推理題在按照常規(guī)的解題思路完成后，和主題相關選項大于和細節(jié)相關的選項，和結論相關的選項大于和論據相關的選項。這就是又一考研的特色。因此在解題的過程中一定要關注觀點和結論，和觀點表達相關的動詞在必殺技一中已經列出。
2006年26題
From the first two paragraphs, we learn that_________.
[A] the townsfolk deny the RSC‘s contribution to the town’s revenue
[B] the actors of the RSC imitate Shakespeare on and off stage
[C] the two branches of the RSC are not on good terms
[D] the townsfolk earn little from tourism
答案為A選項，解題思路就是第一段是事實的論述，而第二段第一句就出現了觀點，對應A選項。
2008年37題
We may infer from the second paragraph that____________.
[A] DNA technology has been widely applied to history research
[B] in its early days the U.S. was confronted with delicate situations
[C] historians deliberately made up some stories of Jefferson’s life
[D] political compromises are easily found throughout the U.S. history
答案為B選項，正是對應于歷史學家們著作中的結論，而其他幾個選項都是從論據入手的，且是錯誤的表述。
【考研英語閱讀34分必殺技-段落推理題】相關文章：
2.小學英語閱讀段落