阅读类的测试考察的到底是什么能力？

首先要清楚一个问题：阅读类的测试考察的到底是什么能力？

一个最为简单的回答，当然考察的是阅读能力。

那么什么是阅读能力？

就是信息获取的能力。而至少在这个时代，普遍的共识是一个人能获得的信息获取量决定着一个人的价值创造能力。当然坦白讲“一个人能获得的信息获取量” 不仅仅是由阅读能力决定的，还很大程度上取决于这个人的社会资源。所以学校在申请的时候会要求提交的一些除成绩以外的材料，基本用来衡量的就是一个人的社会资源（最直观的就是推荐信或各种活动）。

当人类社会的历史让我们发现单靠社会资源选拔（比如比较极端的就是“世袭”）对于社会的整体进步是不好的，所以有了靠能力选拔（这种能力选拔当然还是有不完美的地方，但比世袭还是进步了）。

有点说远了，不管怎样，就是选拔性的考试里面，不管是用什么语言测试的，都有了阅读这么一个考察人信息获取能力的测试。

那么怎么去测试一个人的信息获取能力呢？

就是一个限定时间里，给你一篇文字，看你能不能读懂。

为了公平，当然这个“读懂”肯定是要能客观衡量的，所以阅读篇章后面加的一般都是客观题。而对于考生来说这种设置给我们的启示是，所以题目答案，不管是宏观的还是细节的，不管是结构的还是态度的，都是一定来自于文章的，千万不要有“一千个人有一千个哈姆雷特”的想法。

但是在有限的时间内，如何从文本里面高效的获得信息呢？

最重要的一步是要做“信息归纳”，就是要知道读到的句子，哪些是新信息（前文没有提到过的），哪些是旧信息（全文出现过的）。如果是旧信息就和之前的归纳到一起就好，如果是新信息，当然需要特别的留意下。这个过程是我们自己阅读时候在做“信息归纳”。

但也有时候是文本在帮我们做“信息归纳”。 这就回到了标题说的“这些词后面的内容一定要读懂”，因为“这些词” 出来，说明作者要帮我们做信息归纳了，那对于我们高效读懂文本是很有帮助的。

比如这个文本 [例子来自于 SAT/GRE 考场题]

The continued viability of the kiva itself in Spanish mission settlements has also been underestimated by historians. Freestanding kivas discovered in the ruins of European-style missionary communities have been explained by some historians as examples of “superposition”. Under this theory, Christian domination over indigenous faiths is dramatized by surrounding the kiva with Christian buildings. However, as James Ivey points out, such superposition was unlikely, since historical records indicate that most Spanish missionaries, arriving in the Southwest with little or no military support, wisely adopted a somewhat conciliatory attitude toward the use of the kiva at least initially. This fact, and the careful, solitary placement of the kiva in the center of the mission-complex courtyards, suggests an intention to highlight the importance of the kiva rather than to diminish it.

To determine whether nest sites were limiting, Wong and colleagues experimentally removed the existing nest site used by breeding pairs within the coral. In all cases of removal, the pair simply picked another branch and laid their eggs, which suggests that nest sites were not limiting.

The high proportion of ground foragers in Dryandra might be explained by the openness of habitats there, that is, the absence of dense ground vegetation, and the lack of a continuous shrub layer. Ground foraging appears to be facilitated by an open habitat with area of bare ground. However, the researchers found that the Tablelands were also open with sparse to dense litter layers, abundant in woody debris, and had discontinuous or absent ground and shrub layers. Thus, differences in habitat structures between these areas and Dryandra cannot entirely explain the greater abundance of ground foragers in Dryandra. 

Online reviews can play a big role in influencing people’s purchase decisions, but what makes a review most persuasive one way or the other? Certainly bad reviews can dissuade customers, but it turns out that some good reviews can too. Our research on persuasion and marketing is the first to find that a moderately positive review can be more persuasive than an extremely positive review. We found that a moderately positive review is even more persuasive when the default review selection is extremely positive. This is because reviews that deviate from a default review selection are perceived to be more thoughtful—and thus more accurate—than reviews that conform to the default.

类似的词还有 conclude/ result/ show/ demonstrate, 以及因果表达里面表示结果的therefore, thus 等词

基于以上词汇在阅读时候给我们带来的帮助，遇到的时候可以习惯性的圈圈画画下（特别是那些纸质的测试）。