2017年gmat机经,8-9月gmat阅读机经(至8.29)(十一).

　　以下澳际留学为大家更新2011年gmat机经，以下2011年8-9月gmat阅读机经，时间从2011年8月20日至8月29日，目前共62篇。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利!

　　29、二氧化碳

　　V1：by 夏日香水百合

　　一道是关于土地吸收二氧化碳的，说原来科学家们认为随着大气中二氧化碳上升，植物吸收的二氧化碳上升，那土地吸收的二氧化碳(通过植物生成有机物怎么怎么的到土地里)也应该上升，然后后来发现不是这样滴，因为真菌增加了，分解有机物增加了，所以其实土地释放的二氧化碳增加了，然后blabla...

　　V2：byDororo 710 (8.23 22：00)

　　还有一篇是讲二氧化碳的，寂静里有：第一段讲一般认为植物吸收二氧化碳并固定在根里，那植物吸收越多的二氧化碳，那土壤里的二氧化碳会越多，然后一组科学家开始做实验，发现植物大量吸收二氧化碳的同时土壤也释放出更多的二氧化碳。

　　第二段讲科学家开始研究这个现象，原因是有一种fungi，他们会降解已经固定在植物根部的碳，然后以二氧化碳的形式在释放出去，这也就解释了第一段的原因。然后科学家说，这个现在有助于解释温室效应的机制神马的。

　　问题一，一组科学家做实验的目的是啥

　　问题二，第二段的作用是啥

　　V3：by wangxinan90 (8.24 14:00)

　　一个是soil 吸收温室气体的传统的model认为soil吸收了温室气体但是有researchers发现土壤在一定条件下释放了温室气体有主旨题有第二段作用的题

　　V4：byws某某某 V40 Q51 750(8.25 14：30)

　　主要跟soil absorb 二氧化碳有关。有两段，第一段说的是科学家们认为soil can absorb CO2，而且植被越多，soil的absorb能力就会越强，但是后来发现其实并不是这样。第二段就开始解释为什么了。科学家们通过对比roots多的soil和roots少的soil，发现前者含有更多的fungi，而这些fungi能够分解CO2。整体挺简单的。

　　V5：by cassieyu83 710 V38 (8.26 22:00)

　　是讲土地释放二氧化碳的，科学家做实验发现原本的假设有可能错误，原本假设认为植物生长的越快，土地就越容易吸收二氧化碳

　　V6：byzhuhui831002 730 (8.28 21:20)

　　植物吸收和释放carbon dioxide。JJ里也有，其他题目都比较简单，只有其中有一题是讲科学家做实验主要关心什麽?考虑了很久，都不太对，最后选了soli如何吸收cd，现在想来觉得不对。还有一题是主旨，选择质疑原来climate change模型的假设条件。

　　30、摆放商品

　　V1:by 夏日香水百合

　　一道是关于零售商店摆放商品的，零售商都觉得撤掉一些商品会让顾客对他们的好感度下降，但研究发现不是这样的，因为只要顾客喜欢的商品还在，其它的商品其实影响不是很大，相反还会有好处,blablabla...

　　V2: by erica0755(已移到42作为V2)

　　摆放商品，是lz的第一篇，不难，篇幅貌似只有两段，一开头讲将某样商品过细的分类然后小堆小堆的呈现在消费者面前的效果和大堆大堆的呈现效果的比较。作者貌似是认为大堆呈现的更好。举了一个例子，有考点。然后说其实不仅仅是在买东西时会有这种心理，像员工在面临是否选择公司提供的一个什么福利的时候的态度也会有这样的趋向。第二段具体展开讲了一下。

　　LZ碰到的三道题考点都是第一段的那个例子。

　　V3：by lolic Q51+V34=710 (8.26 22:00)

　　第一段就是retailers觉得XXX跟消费者态度很有关系…………见30JJ

　　第二段说其实没那么有关…………………………

　　后面有一段是说 适当的减少商品反而可以提升购买，可能因为shopper更容易找到自己想要的东西

　　下一段说即使减少了购买，也可以通过减少库存降低成本而提升利润。等等………………

　　最后一段说非常复杂的guideline，要认真考虑之类的

　　问题：

　　1except题，问下列那个是作者没有claim的，反正不用选可以提升利润

　　2 主旨题

　　31、(已合并到9的V4)

　　*32、肌肉

　　V1：by knight8912

　　关于muscle的。肌肉会释放神马东西，不太记得了。

　　V2：by nica_liu 750

　　有关人体预防过度消耗体力的反应机制

　　大意是，一直以来科学家认为人体当中有一种acid，当人的体力消耗的时候这种acid的水平会上升，因此会有一个critical level，达到这个水平之后人就感到疲劳过度fatigue了。但是现在有研究表明有的时候运动员已经感到非常疲劳了，但是这种acid的水平并不高。因此新的假设是对于疲劳的判断其实是人大脑的一种主观判断，人的大脑会根据血液当中糖分等因素来判断人是不是接近极限了，和acid的水平并不直接相关，当人的大脑主观判断人的体力消耗过度的时候，就会给出fatigue的信号，来作为人体自我保护的一种机制。

　　考古：(未确认)by VivienneLynn

　　2011年1月GMAT阅读机经(至1.31)(三十一)。

　　2.1.8 肌肉疲劳★△

　　V1(770) 关于肌肉疲劳， 说是一开始科学家认为是产生一种lattice acid导致， 下一段讲好像不是这样， 因为加拿大的研究人员发现在海拔高的地方运动员感觉疲劳， 但那个acid并不多。 然后好像是南非的生理学家又发现了一个什么。 最后一段就提出来好像是大脑的什么信号，其他机制让人疲劳， 而且这个解释可以解释老的理论和新的发现其实并不矛盾云云。

　　V2(740) 还有个讲肌肉fatigue的。说190×还是哪年研究出来肌肉一种酸的含量到一定程度会引发肌肉fatigue.

　　但是198×年研究人员发现blablabla...

　　第三段得出结论说，肌肉fatigue 不一定是acid的原因，有可能是大脑控制各种resource发现你要不行了

　　然后就给你个信号说你不行了，但是其实你还是行的。fatigue很可能只是主观因素造成的

　　V3(720) 2. 肌肉劳累跟acid 神马到底啥关系那篇。以前寂静考古的非常正确。我记得月度寂静附录了一篇全英的文章吧，跟那个几乎一模一样。参考那个没错的。

　　P1：什么有个诺贝尔奖得主提出神马观点，

　　P2：做了个试验

　　P3：总结这个实验的内容说明了什么。

　　V4第三篇是那个muscle fatigue.寂静里头基本上也讲得挺清楚的了，记得有一题是问第二段作者提cannada那个研究有什么作用之类~~~我忘了选什么了~~

　　V5(V39) 4.肌肉疲劳什么的。一开始一个noble prize的人说the function of muscle will brake when muscle detects high level of lactic acid。但是后来有几个Canadian scientist做了个实验发现the muscle acts so even when the level of lactic acid is low，然后又有个什么实验(不记得了)。最后一段说其实第一段的那个theory不是完全的错，但是真正决定什么时候stop the muscle function的是neural system。所以这个过程是subjective而不是Objective(有道题问了这个)。

　　V6(V33)第三篇是肌肉疲劳，一定好好看highlight的类似物，几乎就是原文重现。

　　考古人的肌肉(KG)(【类似原文】)V1：

　　考了一篇第一段说传统观点说人的肌肉劳累是因为肌肉的什么酸acid增加了

　　第二段说但是现在加拿大的一票科学家说运动员劳累的时候这个酸没有增加啊,还有一个地方的科学家(好象是北非的,很神奇)也举出了反例.

　　最后一段说什么传统的观点说的酸增加确实对了但是地方不对.然后用计算机证明再解释了一通.

　　问题考了一个是最后一段的作用,这是我的最后一篇了没大有时间看了.

　　V2：(710)

　　Theory 1: muscles go into automated brake when lactic acid builds up after exhausting exercise, leading to fatigue.

　　Theory Two: psychologists argue central nervous system controls the sense of extreme fatigue to keep body from collapse; psychologists say that theory 1 is right about lactic build up, however wrong in the "location".( location=Central nervous system)

　　V3：(V 40)

　　第一段：1922年有个诺贝尔的理论，人劳累，是因为肌肉释放的酸达到极限，从而让肌肉休息。

　　第二段：加拿大的科学家有异议。而南非的科学家取出反例，在一种特定的情况下(这种情况可以导致肌肉释放的酸不会大幅增加)，对运动员研究发现他们疲劳的时候酸的含量很低，30%的肌肉已经休息了。虽然这些运动员说他们已经很累，达到极限了。

　　第三段：科学家们就提出假设来解决这个问题，指出1922年有个诺贝尔的理论是部分正确的。但是人的劳累其实不是客观事实，而是人的主观情绪。然后这个理论还能够解释部分现象。

　　类似原文：By pipilovelail

　　Interestingly—or unnervingly， depending on how you look at it— someresearchers are uncovering evidence that Stanovnik’s rule of thumb might beright. A spate of recent studies has contributed to growing support for thenotion that the origins and controls of fatigue lie partly， if not mostly， within the brain and the central nervoussystem. The new research puts fresh weight to the hoary coaching cliché： you only think you’re tired.From the time ofHippocrates， the limits of human exertion were thought toreside in the muscles themselves， ahypothesis that was established in 1922 with the Nobel Prize-winning work ofDr. A.V. Hill. The theory went like this： working muscles， pushed to their limit， accumulated lactic acid.When concentrations oflactic acid reached a certain level， so theargument went， the muscles could no longer function. Musclescontained an ‘‘automatic brake，’’ Hillwrote，‘‘carully adjusted by nature.’’

　　Researchers， however， have long noted a link between neurologicaldisorders and athletic potential. In the late 1800’s， the pioneering French doctor Philippe Tissiéobserved that phobias and epilepsy could be benicial for athletic training. Afew decades later， the German surgeon August Bier measured thespontaneous long jump of a mentally disturbed patient， noting that it compared favorably to theexisting world record. These types of exertions seemed to dy the notion ofbuilt-in muscular limits and， Biernoted， were made possible by‘‘powerful mental stimuliand the simultaneous elimination of inhibitions.’’

　　Questionsabout the muscle-centered model came up again in 1989 when Canadian researcherspublished the results of an experiment called Operation Everest II， in which athletes did heavy exercise inaltitude chambers. The athletes reached exhaustion despite the fact that theirlactic-acid concentrations remained comfortably low. Fatigue， it seemed， might be caused by something else.In 1999， three physiologists from the University ofCape Town Medical School in South Africa took the next step. They worked agroup of cyclists to exhaustion during a 62-mile laboratory ride and measured， via electrodes， the percentage of leg muscles they were usingat the fatigue limit. If standard theories were true， they reasoned， the body should recruit more muscle fibers asit approached exhaustion — a natural compensation for tired， weakening muscles.Instead， the researchers observed the opposite result.As the riders approached complete fatigue， the percentage of active muscle fibersdecreased， until they were using only about 30 percent.Even as the athletes felt they were giving their all， the reality was that more of their muscleswere at rest.Was the brain purposely holding back the body?‘‘It was as if thebrain was playing a trick on the body， to save it，’’says Timothy Noakes， head of the Cape Town group. ‘‘Which makes alot of sense， if you think about it. In fatigue， it only feels like we’re going to die. Theactual physiological risks that fatigue represents are essentiallytrivial.’’From this， Noakes and his colleagues concluded that A.V.Hill had been right about the automatic brake， but wrong about its location.

　　这个以下似乎就不一样了。

　　Theypostulated the existence of what they called a central governor:a neural systemthat monitors carbohydrate stores， thelevels of glucose and oxygen in the blood， the rates of heat gain and loss， and work rates. The governor’s job is to holdour bodies safely back from the brink of collapse by creating painfulsensations that we interpret as unendurable muscle fatigue.Fatigue， the researchers argue， is less an objective event than a subjectiveemotion —the brain’s clever，self-interested attempt to scare you into stopping.The way past fatigue， then， is to return the favor： to fool the brain by lying to it， distracting it or even provoking it. (Thatsaid， mental gamesmanship can never overcome a basiclack of fitness. As Noakes says， thebody always holds veto power.)‘‘Athletes and coaches already do a lot of thisinstinctively，’’Noakes says.‘‘What is a coach， after all， but a technique for overcoming thegovernor?’’The governor theory is far from conclusive， but some scientists are focusing on awalnut-size area in the front portion of the brain called the anteriorcingulate cortex. This has been linked to a host of core functions， including handling pain， creating emotion and playing a key role inwhat’s known loosely as willpower. Sir Francis Crick， the co-discoverer of DNA， thought the anterior cingulate cortex to bethe seat of the soul. In the sports world， perhaps no soul relies on it more than JureRobic’s.Some people‘‘have the ability to reprocess the pain signal，’’ says Daniel Galper， a senior researcher in the psychiatrydepartment at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.‘‘It’s not that they don’t feel the pain; they just shift their brain dynamicsand alter their perception of reality so the pain matters less. It’s basicallya purposul hallucination.’’Noakes and his colleagues speculate that thecentral governor theory holds the potential to explain not just feats ofstamina but also their opposite：chronic fatigue syndrome (a malfunctioning， overactive governor， in this view).Moreover， the governor theory makes evolutionary sense.Animals whose brains safeguarded an emergency stash of physical reserves mightwell have survived at a higher rate than animals that could drain their fueltanks at will.The theory would also seem to explain a sports landscape in whichultra-endurance events have gone from being considered medically hazardous tosomething perilously close to routine. The Ironman triathlon in Hawaii —a2.4-mile swim， 112-mile bike ride and marathon-length run—wasthe ne plus ultra in endurance in the 1980’s， but has now been topped by the Ultraman， which is more than twice as long. Once obscure， the genre known as adventure racing， which includes 500-plus-mile wilderness raceslike Primal Quest， has grown to more than 400 events each year.Ultramarathoners， dined as those who participate in runningevents exceeding the official marathon distance of 26.2 miles， now number some 15，000 in the United States alone. The underlyingphysics have not changed， butrather our sense of possibility. Athletic culture， like Robic， has discovered a way to tweak its collectivegovernor.

　　考古：

　　版本1

　　p1， 老观点，肌肉运动后会产大量acid，新观点，不是这样的p2， 新的实验发现cylist运动了一段时间，没有增加acid?，反而减少了，与老观点不符p3，另一个例子，记不清了，然后结论是运动是由大脑主观调节的。

　　版本2

　　p1， 老观点，肌肉运动后会产大量acid，新观点，不是这样的

　　p2， 两个实验：第一个是canada的(有题)，第二个是新的实验发现cylist运动了一段时间，没有增加acid?，反而减少了，与老观点不符

　　p3，另一个例子，记不清了，然后结论是运动是由大脑主观调节的。---评价了老观点和新试验，提出一种model，说老观点有部分是对的，但是老观点里关于作用产生的位置错了

　　版本3

　　第一段，1920诺贝尔奖获得者提出理论疲劳时因为肌肉里的某个酸堆积造成的，第二段，现在观察证明不对，因为给运动员吃了什么东西完全不起作用，还是累。第三段：说明了应该是大脑控制疲劳。1920的理论说的酸的积累并不在肌肉里。当什么累积的时候大脑就觉得累了，给人信号说累了。

　　问题，main idea。如果人要控制疲劳那么应该怎么做，我选的是训练自己，让自己对疲劳没感觉。

　　以下考古 By XYXB

　　V1

　　流行的理论是一种acid的累计，会让人有brake (大概是什么跑到一定距离觉得跑不动了，跑跑又ok了的极限吧，忘记中文是什么=。=)

　　但是加拿大的科学家对跳高运动员研究发现他们疲劳的时候acid的含量很低，然后另一国的专家发现理论上讲部分肌肉累的时候，人应该利用起别的肌肉，但实际上别的肌肉这时候在休息

　　然后说一种新的理论解释这个问题，说是神经系统为了保护人from collapse，这种疲劳是主管感觉而不是客观现象

　　V2

　　第一段，1922年有个诺贝尔大牛有个理论，说肌肉释放的什么酸是自动刹车，让肌肉休息。第二段，1989年加拿大的哥们有小异议，是补充理论，1999，南非三个哥们有新发现(主要内容)。第二段论证南非哥们的理论内容和原理。

　　第三段，总结他们的观点，有他们对1922年理论的评价，部分对，但没有指出，肌肉组织其实不是客观事实，而是受大脑操控的主观情绪影响，这才作用的。

　　考古：byjoyous314 (8.23 22：00)

　　1.1.2

　　Lactic acid *第一段，1922年有个诺贝尔的理论，人劳累，是因为肌肉释放的酸达到极限，从而让肌肉休息。

　　第二段，不是这样，加拿大的科学家有异议，因为加拿大的研究人员发现在海拔高的地方运动员感觉疲劳， 但那个acid并不多。而南非的科学家取出反例，在一种特定的情况下(这种情况可以导致肌肉释放的酸不会大幅增加)，对运动员研究发现他们疲劳的时候酸的含量很低，30%的肌肉已经休息了。虽然这些运动员说他们已经很累，达到极限了。

　　第三段，科学家们就提出假设来解决这个问题，1922年有个诺贝尔的理论是部分正确的，肌肉fatigue不一定是acid的原因(也有acid的原因)，有可能是大脑控制各种resource发现你要不行了，然后就给你个信号说你不行了，但是其实你还是行的，说其实Fatigue其实是一种大脑主观的保护机制，来防止肌肉运行过度，而且这个解释可以解释老的理论和新的发现其实并不矛盾。

　　1、最后一段说其实第一段的那个theory不是完全的错，但是真正决定什么时候stopthe muscle function的是neural system。所以这个过程是subjective而不是Objective(有道题问了这个)。

　　2、问第二段作者提cannada那个研究有什么作用

　　3、问题考了一个是最后一段的作用 给第二段的现象一个科学模型?总结了前面

　　4、问题，main idea。如果人要控制疲劳那么应该怎么做?训练自己，让自己对疲劳没感觉。

　　5、以总结题为主

　　6、第2段澳大利亚科学家说得第一段的内容不对暗示着神马，然后选项有说是神马肌肉导致了疲劳等

　　注意highlight的部分

　　Interestingly —or unnervingly, depending on how you look at it— some researchers are uncovering evidence thatStanovnik’s rule of thumb might beright. A spate of recent studies has contributed to growing support for the notion that theorigins and controls of fatigue liepartly, if not mostly, within the brain and the central nervous system. The new research puts freshweight to the hoary coaching cliché: youonly think you’re tired.Fromthe time of Hippocrates, the limits of human exertion were thought to reside in the muscles themselves,a hypothesis that was established in1922 with the Nobel Prize-winning work of Dr. A.V. Hill. The theory went like this: workingmuscles, pushed to their limit,accumulated lactic acid.When concentrations of lactic acid reached a certain level, so the argumentwent, the muscles could no longerfunction. Muscles contained an ‘‘automatic brake,’’ Hill wrote,‘‘carully adjusted bynature.’’Researchers, however, have long noted a link between neurological disorders and athletic potential. In the late1800’s, the pioneering French doctor Philippe Tissié observed thatphobias and epilepsy could be benicialfor athletic training. A few decades later, the German surgeon August Bier measured the spontaneous long jump of a mentally disturbed patient, noting that itcompared favorably to the existing worldrecord. These types of exertions seemed to dy the notion of built-in muscular limits and, Biernoted, were made possible by‘‘powerfulmental stimuli and the simultaneous elimination of inhibitions.’’Questions about the muscle-centered model came up again in 1989when Canadian researchers published theresults of an experiment called Operation Everest II, in which athletes did heavy exercise in altitude chambers. The athletes reachedexhaustion despite the fact that theirlactic-acid concentrations remained comfortably low. Fatigue, it seemed, might be caused bysomething else.In 1999, three physiologists from the University of Cape TownMedical School in South Africa

　　took the next step.They worked a group of cyclists to exhaustionduring a 62-mile laboratory ride and measured, via electrodes, the percentage of leg muscles they were using atthe fatigue limit. If standard theorieswere true, they reasoned, the bodyshould recruit more muscle fibers as it approached exhaustion — a natural compensation for tired, weakeningmuscles.Instead, the researchers observed the opposite result. As the riders approached complete fatigue, the percentageof active muscle fibers decreased, untilthey were using only about 30 percent. Even as the athletes felt they were giving their all, thereality was that more of their muscleswere at rest.Was the brain purposely holding back the body?‘‘It was as if the brain was playinga trick on the body, to save it,’’saysTimothy Noakes, head of the Cape Towngroup. ‘‘Which makes a lot of sense, ifyou think about it. In fatigue, it onlyfeels like we’re going to die. The actual physiological risks that fatigue represents are essentiallytrivial.’’From this,Noakes and his colleagues concluded that A.V. Hill had been right about the automatic brake, butwrong about its location.They postulated the existence of what they called acentral governor:a neural system that monitors carbohydrate stores, thelevels of glucose and oxygen in theblood, the rates of heat gain and loss, and work rates. The governor’s job is to hold our bodies safely back from the brink of collapse by creatingpainful sensations that we interpret asunendurable muscle fatigue.Fatigue,the researchers argue, is less an objective event than a subjective emotion —the brain’s clever,self-interested attempt to scare youinto stopping.The way past fatigue, then, is to return the favor: to fool the brain by lying to it,distracting it or even provoking it.(That said, mental gamesmanship can never overcome a basic lack of fitness. As Noakes says, thebody always holds veto power.)‘‘Athletesand coaches already do a lot of this instinctively,’’Noakes says.‘‘What is a coach, after all, but a technique for overcoming the governor?’’Thegovernor theory is far from conclusive, but some scientists are focusing on a walnut-size area in the frontportion of the brain called the anteriorcingulate cortex. This has been linked to a host of core functions, including handling pain,creating emotion and playing a key rolein what’s known loosely as willpower. Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, thought theanterior cingulate cortex to be the seatof the soul. In the sports world, perhaps no soul relies on it more than Jure Robic’s.Some people‘‘have the abilityto reprocess the pain signal,’’ saysDaniel Galper, a senior researcher in the psychiatry department at the University of Texas SouthwesternMedical Center at Dallas. ‘‘It’s not that they don’t feel the pain; theyjust shift their brain dynamics andalter their perception of reality so the pain matters less. It’s basically a purposul hallucination.’’Noakes and his colleaguesspeculate that the central governor theory holds the potential to explain not just feats of stamina but also their opposite: chronic fatigue syndrome (amalfunctioning, overactive governor, inthis view).Moreover, the governor theory makes evolutionary sense. Animals whose brains safeguarded an emergency stash of physical reserves mightwell have survived at a higher rate thananimals that could drain their fuel tanks at will.The theory would also seem toexplain a sports landscape in which ultra-endurance events have gone from being considered medically hazardous to something perilously close toroutine. The Ironman triathlon in Hawaii —a 2.4-mile swim,112-mile bike ride and marathon-lengthrun—was the ne plus ultra in endurance in the 1980’s, buthas now been topped by the Ultraman, which is more than twice as long. Once obscure, the genre knownas adventure racing, which includes500-plus-mile wilderness races like Primal Quest, has grown to more than 400 events each year.Ultramarathoners, dined as those whoparticipate in running events exceeding the official marathon distance of 26.2 miles, now numbersome 15,000 in theUnited Statesalone. The underlying physics have not changed, but rather our sense of possibility. Athletic culture, likeRobic, has discovered a way to tweak itscollective governor.

　　V3： by Allyson1990 740 (8.25 23:30)

　　最后一篇是JJ上的关于疲劳和乳酸以及脑袋神经系统的关系，考古已经很全了，题目也很简单。记得有个题是问，最后一段的行为思路，我选的是create a model to accommodate the problem

　　以上2011gmat机经工薪，2011年8-9月gmat阅读机经，时间从2011年8月20日至8月29日，目前共62篇。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利!

　　以下澳际留学为大家更新2011年gmat机经，以下2011年8-9月gmat阅读机经，时间从2011年8月20日至8月29日，目前共62篇。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利!

　　29、二氧化碳

　　V1：by 夏日香水百合

　　一道是关于土地吸收二氧化碳的，说原来科学家们认为随着大气中二氧化碳上升，植物吸收的二氧化碳上升，那土地吸收的二氧化碳(通过植物生成有机物怎么怎么的到土地里)也应该上升，然后后来发现不是这样滴，因为真菌增加了，分解有机物增加了，所以其实土地释放的二氧化碳增加了，然后blabla...

　　V2：byDororo 710 (8.23 22：00)

　　还有一篇是讲二氧化碳的，寂静里有：第一段讲一般认为植物吸收二氧化碳并固定在根里，那植物吸收越多的二氧化碳，那土壤里的二氧化碳会越多，然后一组科学家开始做实验，发现植物大量吸收二氧化碳的同时土壤也释放出更多的二氧化碳。

　　第二段讲科学家开始研究这个现象，原因是有一种fungi，他们会降解已经固定在植物根部的碳，然后以二氧化碳的形式在释放出去，这也就解释了第一段的原因。然后科学家说，这个现在有助于解释温室效应的机制神马的。

　　问题一，一组科学家做实验的目的是啥

　　问题二，第二段的作用是啥

　　V3：by wangxinan90 (8.24 14:00)

　　一个是soil 吸收温室气体的传统的model认为soil吸收了温室气体但是有researchers发现土壤在一定条件下释放了温室气体有主旨题有第二段作用的题

　　V4：byws某某某 V40 Q51 750(8.25 14：30)

　　主要跟soil absorb 二氧化碳有关。有两段，第一段说的是科学家们认为soil can absorb CO2，而且植被越多，soil的absorb能力就会越强，但是后来发现其实并不是这样。第二段就开始解释为什么了。科学家们通过对比roots多的soil和roots少的soil，发现前者含有更多的fungi，而这些fungi能够分解CO2。整体挺简单的。

　　V5：by cassieyu83 710 V38 (8.26 22:00)

　　是讲土地释放二氧化碳的，科学家做实验发现原本的假设有可能错误，原本假设认为植物生长的越快，土地就越容易吸收二氧化碳

　　V6：byzhuhui831002 730 (8.28 21:20)

　　植物吸收和释放carbon dioxide。JJ里也有，其他题目都比较简单，只有其中有一题是讲科学家做实验主要关心什麽?考虑了很久，都不太对，最后选了soli如何吸收cd，现在想来觉得不对。还有一题是主旨，选择质疑原来climate change模型的假设条件。

上12345下

共5页