一、問題型

此類型通常是描述一種社會現象或者某項技術發明，說明他們存在著怎樣的問題或者該現象產生的原因。

而聽力材料針對其進行反駁的思路主要是這樣的：閱讀材料中提到的問題根本不算是問題，有解決或者改進的辦法。

以Delta第409頁的題目為例：

閱讀材料和聽力材料共同針對的話題是"馬爾薩斯人口經濟學理論"。

閱讀文章對世界的人口經濟形勢持悲觀態度，并認為會產生如下3點問題：

1. 食品供應跟不上人口增長。

2. 人口翻倍增長，相對地糧食生產將會低于維持基本生活的水平。

3. 由于現在沒有那么多的疾病、饑荒和戰爭，人口將迅速增長。

我們分別反駁之，反駁的具體方法：第一，反否定詞；第二，反修飾詞

閱讀材料：食品供應跟不上人口增長→反否定詞"跟不上"→"跟得上"→為什么這么說呢？事實勝于雄辯→聽力材料：就在馬爾薩斯做出這種悲觀預計的時候，歐美國家人民的生活水平普遍提高。

閱讀材料：糧食生產將低于生活必需水平→典型的反修飾詞"低于"→"不低于"（甚至很高）如何做到呢？必然是科技的發展！→聽力材料：工業革命，技術進步，使得歐美糧食產量大大增加。

閱讀材料：人口將迅速增長→反修飾詞"迅速"增長→"并不迅速"（勻速穩定或低速）想到這里，注意聽原因或措施→聽力材料：科技進步，教育普及，外加人口出生率控制嚴格，發達國家人口穩定或低速增長。

二、假說型

閱讀材料會針對某一現象或事物進行推論和假設，反駁的思路有兩種：一是證據來源，二是推導方式。

以OG第三版第278頁的題目為例：

閱讀材料和聽力材料所共同針對的話題是"利他主義"

閱讀文章認為利他主義在人類和動物界中普遍存在，根據如下：

1、人類捐獻器官，但是本身沒有獲得任何收益

2、S貓鼬（充當哨兵）不進食就去守衛

3、S貓鼬將自己置于危險境地主動吸引獵食者從而保護同伴

反駁的具體方法：第一，反動詞；第二，如果動詞引導的事實無法反駁就反內容

我們仍然通過分別反駁來預測聽力內容：

閱讀材料：人類捐獻器官，但是本身沒有獲得任何收益→"捐獻"就是捐獻，既定事實無法反駁→反內容"沒獲得收益"→那么一定獲得了某種好處，可能不是物質的而是精神的→聽力材料：捐獻者獲得了感謝和社會認可

這一條是用反駁內容的方法反駁了閱讀材料中的證據，用人們有所得的事實來反駁利他主義的存在，接下來

閱讀材料：S貓鼬不進食就去守衛→動詞"守衛"這一事實也無法改變，但是內容可以質疑→反內容"不進食"→真的沒有進食么？那將如何有能力守衛呢？→聽力材料：哨兵貓鼬在同伴進食之前先享用了美餐

這一條仍然是用反駁內容的方法反駁閱讀文章中的證據，我們繼續

閱讀材料：S貓鼬主動吸引獵食者從而保護同伴→通過閱讀發現，主動"吸引"獵食者這個動作也是一個不可更改的事實，那我們就繼續反內容→雖然主動吸引獵食者，但并非為了保護同伴→聽力材料：事實上S貓鼬也是第一個躲避獵食者的

剛才這一條是用反駁內容的方法對閱讀材料中的推導進行了反駁（S貓鼬第一個跑這一證據相同，但解釋不同，屬于反駁推導過程）

三、評價型

閱讀材料會介紹一些現象或事物，進而評價它們或積極或消極的影響。聽力材料將會在觀點和態度上否定閱讀材料，閱讀和聽力是這樣的關系：前者褒，后者必然貶，反之亦然。

反駁思路很簡單——非褒即貶

反駁方式和假說型一樣，反動詞or反內容

我們以OG第三版第392頁的題目為例：

閱讀材料和聽力材料共同針對的話題是"教授上電視"

閱讀材料認為教授成為電視節目的嘉賓發表專家評論擁有如下好處：

1.提升教授的知名度

2.宣傳了教授所在的學校

3.大眾有機會聆聽到前所未聞的的專家觀點

我們繼續逐一否定：

閱讀材料：提升教授的知名度→反動詞"提升"→"不能提升"甚至有損該教授的名譽→聽力材料：其他教授會認為該教授是娛樂大眾的人而非一個嚴謹的學者

閱讀材料：宣傳了所在學?！磩釉~"宣傳"→"并非宣傳"（和上一點一樣）甚至起到反面宣傳的效應→聽力材料：大學教授把時間都花在了上鏡上，應該花在大學里的時間少了

閱讀材料：大眾能聽到學術觀點→反動詞"能聽到"→"聽不到/不能聽到"那必然表示教授在節目中發表的觀點并不涉及深入的學術內容→聽力材料：教授一般不會在電視節目中發表學術講座

小結

問題型→反否定、反修飾

假說型→反動詞、反內容（特別是反內容）

評價型→反動詞、反內容（特別是反動詞）

箭頭標記的思維過程看似復雜（這是為了拆解的需要），如果熟練掌握，實際操作中只需要幾秒鐘，也就是說只需幾秒鐘就可以讓聽力材料無所遁形。

來一個題目小試牛刀：

題目選自OG第三版，閱讀材料如下，試著自己提煉閱讀觀點：

In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the numbers of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.

Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team.Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by that decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to "shine," to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team's overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.

接下來是聽力文本，仔細對照，你預測對了嗎？

Now I want to tell you about what one company found when it decided that it would turn over some of its new projects to teams of people, and make the team responsible for planning the projects and getting the work done. After about six months, the company took a look at how well the teams performed.

On virtually every team, some members got almost a "free ride" . . . they didn't contribute much at all, but if their team did a good job, they nevertheless benefited from the recognition the team got. And what about group members who worked especially well and who provided a lot of insight on problems and issues? Well . . . the recognition for a job well done went to the group as a whole, no names were named. So it won't surprise you to learn that when the real contributors were asked how they felt about the group process, their attitude was just the opposite of what the reading predicts.

Another finding was that some projects just didn't move very quickly. Why? Because it took so long to reach consensus; it took many, many meetings to build the agreement among group members about how they would move the project along. On the other hand, there were other instances where one or two people managed to become very influential over what their group did. Sometimes when those influencers said "That will never work" about an idea the group was developing, the idea was quickly dropped instead of being further discussed. And then there was another occasion when a couple influencers convinced the group that a plan of theirs was "highly creative." And even though some members tried to warn the rest of the group that the project was moving in directions that might not work, they were basically ignored by other group members. Can you guess the ending to this story? When the project failed, the blame was placed on all the members of the group.