下面新航道雅思频道为大家整理了雅思机经的回忆及解析，供考生们参考，以下是详细内容。
12月1日的
雅思考试已经落下帷幕，“战后归来”的烤鸭们，想对自己的考试成绩和结果一探究竟;“蠢蠢欲动”备战近期考试的烤鸭们，想对的考题和考情辨别水深水浅
。
新航道“雅思梦之队”，时间为你点评12月1日考试，解读
雅思听力、口语、阅读、写作考情。首先我们一起来看一下本次考试雅思阅读部分的内容：
(Reading)
Title：Children Education
Type of Questions：Heading、Matching
【文章概要】
Passage 1
内容回顾：关于儿童教育的(划分了childhood和adulthood, 有了新的政策，很多学者的理论以及发展，幼儿园的发展。从18世纪开始，到19世纪一直到20世纪对children和儿
童教育观点的变化，以及为何18世纪一直到1850s家长都不会对自己的孩子倾注太多的感情和关爱(因为儿童死亡率太高);人是可以通过后天教育改变的并不是出身就注定的;20世纪
幼儿园的建立和蓬勃发展。
英文回顾：We examine the prediction of individuals’ educational and occupational success at age 48 from contextual and personal variables assessed
during their middle childhood and late adolescence. We focus particularly on the predictive role of the parents’ educational level during middle childhood,
controlling for other indices of socioeconomic status and children’s IQ, and the mediating roles of negative family interactions, childhood behavior, and
late adolescent aspirations. Data come from the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, which began in 1960 when all 856 third graders in a semi-rural county in
New York State were interviewed along with their parents; participants were reinterviewed at ages 19, 30, and 48 (Eron et al, 1971; Huesmann et al., 2002).
Parents’ educational level when the child was 8 years old significantly predicted educational and occupational success for the child 40 years later.
Structural models showed that parental educational level had no direct effects on child educational level or occupational prestige at age 48 but had
significant indirect effects that were independent of the other predictor variables’ effects. These indirect effects were mediated through age 19
educational aspirations and age 19 educational level. These results provide strong support for the unique predictive role of parental education on adult
outcomes 40 years later and underscore the developmental importance of mediators of parent education effects such as late adolescent achievement and
achievement-related aspirations.
Parental educational level is an important predictor of children’s educational and behavioral outcomes (Davis-Kean, 2005; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor,
2002; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997). The majority of research
on the ways in which parental education shapes child outcomes has been conducted through cross-sectional correlational analyses or short-term longitudinal
designs in which parents and children are tracked through the child’s adolescent years. Our main goals in the current study were to examine long-term
effects on children’s educational and occupational success of their parents’ educational level while controlling for other indices of family socioeconomic
status and the children’s own intelligence, and to examine possible mediators of the effects of parents’ education on children’s educational and
occupational outcomes. Following theory and research on family process models (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; McLoyd, 1989), we expected that indices of family
socioeconomic status, including parent education, would predict the quality of family interactions and child behavior. Next, based on social-cognitive-
ecological models (e.g., Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Huesmann, 1998; Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987), we expected parental education, the quality of family
interactions, and child behavior would shape, by late adolescence, educational achievement and aspirations for future educational and occupational success.
Finally, following Eccles’ expectancy-value model (Eccles, 1993; Frome & Eccles, 1998), we predicted that late adolescent aspirations for future success
would affect actual educational and occupational success in adulthood. We use data from the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, a 40-year developmental study
initiated in 1960 with data collected most recently in 2000 (Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977; Huesmann, Dubow,
Eron, Boxer, Slegers, & Miller, 2002; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984).
Family Contextual Influences during Middle Childhood
In terms of socioeconomic status (SES) factors, the positive link between SES and children’s achievement is well-established (Sirin, 2005; White, 1982).
McLoyd’s (1989; 1998) seminal literature reviews also have documented well the relation of poverty and low socioeconomic status to a range of negative child
outcomes, including low IQ, educational attainment and achievement, and social-emotional problems. Parental education is an important index of socioeconomic
status, and as noted, it predicts children’s educational and behavioral outcomes. However, McLoyd has pointed out the value of distinguishing among various
indices of family socioeconomic status, including parental education, persistent versus transitory poverty, income, and parental occupational status, because
studies have found that income level and poverty might be stronger predictors of children’s cognitive outcomes compared to other SES indices (e.g., Duncan
et al., 1994; Stipek, 1998). Thus, in the present study, we control for other indices of socioeconomic status when considering the effects of parental
education.
In fact, research suggests that parental education is indeed an important and significant unique predictor of child achievement. For example, in an
analysis of data from several large-scale developmental studies, Duncan and Brooks-Gunn (1997) concluded that maternal education was linked significantly to
children’s intellectual outcomes even after controlling for a variety of other SES indicators such as household income. Davis-Kean (2005) found direct
effects of parental education, but not income, on European American children’s standardized achievement scores; both parental education and income exerted
indirect effects on parents’ achievement-fostering behaviors, and subsequently children’s achievement, through their effects on parents’ educational
expectations.
Thus far, we have focused on the literature on family SES correlates of children’s academic and behavioral adjustment. However, along with those
contemporaneous links between SES and children’s outcomes, longitudinal research dating back to groundbreaking status attainment models (e.g, Blau & Duncan,
1967; Duncan, Featherman, & Duncan, 1972) indicates clearly that family of origin SES accounts meaningfully for educational and occupational attainment
during late adolescence and into adulthood (e.g., Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Johnson et al., 1983; Sobolewski & Amato, 2005; for a review, see
Whitson & Keller, 2004). For example, Caspi et al. reported that lower parental occupational status of children ages 3–5 and 7–9 predicted a higher risk of
the child having periods of unemployment when making the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Johnson et al. (1983) found that mothers’ and fathers’
educational level and fathers’ occupational status were related positively to their children’s adulthood occupational status. Few studies, however, are
prospective in nature spanning such a long period of time (i.e., a 40-year period from childhood to middle adulthood). Also, few studies include a wide range
of contextual and personal predictor variables from childhood and potential mediators of the effects of those variables from adolescence.
Potential Mediators of the Effects of Family Contextual Influences during Childhood on Adolescent and Adult Outcomes
Family process models (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; McLoyd, 1989; Mistry, Vanderwater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002) have proposed that the effects of
socioeconomic stress (e.g., financial strain, unstable employment) on child outcomes are mediated through parenting stress and family interaction patterns
(e.g., parental depressed mood; lower levels of warmth, nurturance, and monitoring of children). That is, family structural variables such as parental
education and income affect the level of actual interactions within the family, and concomitantly, the child’s behavior. It is well established within
broader social learning models (e.g., Huesmann, 1998) that parents exert substantial influence on their children’s behavior. For example, children exposed
to more rejecting and aggressive parenting contexts, as well as interparental conflict, display greater aggression (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Eron et al.,
1971; Huesmann et al., 1984; Lefkowitz et al., 1977) and the effects between negative parenting and child aggression are bi-directional (Patterson, 1982).
Presumably, children learn aggressive problem-solving styles as a result of repeated exposure to such models, and in turn parents use more power assertive
techniques to manage the child’s behavior.
Researchers also have shown that behavioral problems such as early aggression impair children’s academic and intellectual development over time (e.g.,
Hinshaw, 1992; Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987). Stipek (1998) has argued that behavioral problems affect young children’s opportunities to learn because
these youth often are punished for their behavior and might develop conflictual relationships with teachers, thus leading to negative attitudes about school
and lowered academic success. Thus, it is possible that low socioeconomic status (including low parental educational levels) could affect negative family
interaction patterns, which can influence child behavior problems (measured in our study by aggression), and in turn affect lowered academic and achievement
-oriented attitudes over time.
Parent education and family interaction patterns during childhood also might be linked more directly to the child’s developing academic success and
achievement-oriented attitudes. In the general social learning and social-cognitive framework (Bandura, 1986), behavior is shaped in part through
observational and direct learning experiences. Those experiences lead to the formation of internalized cognitive scripts, values, and beliefs that guide and
maintain behavior over time (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Huesmann, 1998). According to Eccles (e.g., Eccles, 1993; Eccles, Vida, & Barber, 2004; Eccles,
Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998), this cognitive process accounts for the emergence and persistence of achievement-related behaviors and ultimately to successful
achievement. Eccles’ framework emphasizes in particular the importance of children’s expectations for success, with parents assuming the role of
“expectancy socializers” (Frome & Eccles, 1998, p. 437).
Thus, for example, a child exposed to parents who model achievement-oriented behavior (e.g., obtaining advanced degrees; reading frequently; encouraging
a strong work ethic) and provide achievement-oriented opportunities (e.g., library and museum trips; after-school enrichment programs; educational books and
videos) should develop the guiding belief that achievement is to be valued, pursued, and anticipated. This belief should then in turn promote successful
outcomes across development, including high school graduation, the pursuit of higher learning, and the acquisition of high-prestige occupations. Not
surprisingly, there are positive relations between parents’ levels of education and parents’ expectations for their children’s success (Davis-Kean, 2005),
suggesting that more highly educated parents actively encourage their children to develop high expectations of their own. Importantly, on the other hand,
McLoyd’s (1989) review found that parents who experience difficult economic times have children who are more pessimistic about their educational and
vocational futures.
In the current study, we assume a broad social-cognitive-ecological (Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group, 2002; also “
developmental-ecological,” Dodge & Pettit, 2003) perspective on behavior development. This view proposes that it is the cumulative influence both of
childhood environmental-contextual factors (e.g., parental education, family interactions, school climate, neighborhood efficacy) and individual-personal
factors (e.g., IQ and aggression) that shapes enduring cognitive styles (e.g., achievement orientation, hostile worldview) in adolescence. Once formed, those
styles allow for the prediction of functioning into adulthood above and beyond the effects of the earlier influences. In this view, then, cognitive factors
such as beliefs and expectations present during adolescence serve as internal links between early contextual and personal factors and later outcomes.
Title：Animals’ self-medication
Type of Questions：T/F/NG、Matching
【文章概要】
Passage 2
内容回顾：动物可以通过吃某些植物来缓解病痛，动物用植物和粘土治病，以及对人类研究药物的启发。鹦鹉吃clay, 为了中和它们食物中不好的东西。某日本科学家发现他
观察的黑猩猩中有个母的生病了在吃个什么植物然后好了，然后他的向导告诉他那个植物是当地部落人用来驱寄生虫的。科学家继而想到多年前的一个事，好像是猴子把另一种植
物卷起来吃。但研究表明那种植物本身并没用药用价值，但把它们刚吃进去的拿来化验发现带有寄生虫，原来是那种植物表面带绒毛还是小刺，可以附着寄生虫，于是把它们gut里
的寄生虫都带走了。类似的研究在那期间有不少，但大家都没有互相了解，所以某机构把它们都统一收集起来(这里有考题)。那就出现了新的问题，动物的这种行为究竟是天生的
还是模仿的?模仿的例子：小老鼠;天生的例子：鹦鹉吃clay, 即使之前并没有见到clay。(旧文V110115的P2)
英文参考：We examine the prediction of individuals’ educational and occupational success at age 48 from contextual and personal variables assessed
during their middle childhood and late adolescence. We focus particularly on the predictive role of the parents’ educational level during middle childhood,
controlling for other indices of socioeconomic status and children’s IQ, and the mediating roles of negative family interactions, childhood behavior, and
late adolescent aspirations. Data come from the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, which began in 1960 when all 856 third graders in a semi-rural county in
New York State were interviewed along with their parents; participants were reinter viewed at ages 19, 30, and 48 (Eron et al, 1971; Huesmann et al., 2002).
Parents’ educational level when the child was 8 years old significantly predicted educational and occupational success for the child 40 years later.
Structural models showed that parental educational level had no direct effects on child educational level or occupational prestige at age 48 but had
significant indirect effects that were independent of the other predictor variables’ effects. These indirect effects were mediated through age 19
educational aspirations and age 19 educational level. These results provide strong support for the unique predictive role of parental education on adult
outcomes 40 years later and underscore the developmental importance of mediators of parent education effects such as late adolescent achievement and
achievement-related aspirations.
Parental educational level is an important predictor of children’s educational and behavioral outcomes (Davis-Kean, 2005; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor,
2002; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997). The majority of research
on the ways in which parental education shapes child outcomes has been conducted through cross-sectional correlational analyses or short-term longitudinal
designs in which parents and children are tracked through the child’s adolescent years. Our main goals in the current study were to examine long-term
effects on children’s educational and occupational success of their parents’ educational level while controlling for other indices of family socioeconomic
status and the children’s own intelligence, and to examine possible mediators of the effects of parents’ education on children’s educational and
occupational outcomes. Following theory and research on family process models (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; McLoyd, 1989), we expected that indices of family
socioeconomic status, including parent education, would predict the quality of family interactions and child behavior. Next, based on social-cognitive-
ecological models (e.g., Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Huesmann, 1998; Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987), we expected parental education, the quality of family
interactions, and child behavior would shape, by late adolescence, educational achievement and aspirations for future educational and occupational success.
Finally, following Eccles’ expectancy-value model (Eccles, 1993; Frome & Eccles, 1998), we predicted that late adolescent aspirations for future success
would affect actual educational and occupational success in adulthood. We use data from the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, a 40-year developmental study
initiated in 1960 with data collected most recently in 2000 (Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977; Huesmann, Dubow,
Eron, Boxer, Slegers, & Miller, 2002; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984).
Family Contextual Influences during Middle Childhood
In terms of socioeconomic status (SES) factors, the positive link between SES and children’s achievement is well-established (Sirin, 2005; White, 1982).
McLoyd’s (1989; 1998) seminal literature reviews also have documented well the relation of poverty and low socioeconomic status to a range of negative child
outcomes, including low IQ, educational attainment and achievement, and social-emotional problems. Parental education is an important index of socioeconomic
status, and as noted, it predicts children’s educational and behavioral outcomes. However, McLoyd has pointed out the value of distinguishing among various
indices of family socioeconomic status, including parental education, persistent versus transitory poverty, income, and parental occupational status, because
studies have found that income level and poverty might be stronger predictors of children’s cognitive outcomes compared to other SES indices (e.g., Duncan
et al., 1994; Stipek, 1998). Thus, in the present study, we control for other indices of socioeconomic status when considering the effects of parental
education.
In fact, research suggests that parental education is indeed an important and significant unique predictor of child achievement. For example, in an
analysis of data from several large-scale developmental studies, Duncan and Brooks-Gunn (1997) concluded that maternal education was linked significantly to
children’s intellectual outcomes even after controlling for a variety of other SES indicators such as household income. Davis-Kean (2005) found direct
effects of parental education, but not income, on European American children’s standardized achievement scores; both parental education and income exerted
indirect effects on parents’ achievement-fostering behaviors, and subsequently children’s achievement, through their effects on parents’ educational
expectations.
Thus far, we have focused on the literature on family SES correlates of children’s academic and behavioral adjustment. However, along with those
contemporaneous links between SES and children’s outcomes, longitudinal research dating back to groundbreaking status attainment models (e.g, Blau & Duncan,
1967; Duncan, Featherman, & Duncan, 1972) indicates clearly that family of origin SES accounts meaningfully for educational and occupational attainment
during late adolescence and into adulthood (e.g., Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Johnson et al., 1983; Sobolewski & Amato, 2005; for a review, see
Whitson & Keller, 2004). For example, Caspi et al. reported that lower parental occupational status of children ages 3–5 and 7–9 predicted a higher risk of
the child having periods of unemployment when making the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Johnson et al. (1983) found that mothers’ and fathers’
educational level and fathers’ occupational status were related positively to their children’s adulthood occupational status. Few studies, however, are
prospective in nature spanning such a long period of time (i.e., a 40-year period from childhood to middle adulthood). Also, few studies include a wide range
of contextual and personal predictor variables from childhood and potential mediators of the effects of those variables from adolescence.
Potential Mediators of the Effects of Family Contextual Influences during Childhood on Adolescent and Adult Outcomes
Family process models (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; McLoyd, 1989; Mistry, Vanderwater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002) have proposed that the effects of
socioeconomic stress (e.g., financial strain, unstable employment) on child outcomes are mediated through parenting stress and family interaction patterns
(e.g., parental depressed mood; lower levels of warmth, nurturance, and monitoring of children). That is, family structural variables such as parental
education and income affect the level of actual interactions within the family, and concomitantly, the child’s behavior. It is well established within
broader social learning models (e.g., Huesmann, 1998) that parents exert substantial influence on their children’s behavior. For example, children exposed
to more rejecting and aggressive parenting contexts, as well as interparental conflict, display greater aggression (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Eron et al.,
1971; Huesmann et al., 1984; Lefkowitz et al., 1977) and the effects between negative parenting and child aggression are bi-directional (Patterson, 1982).
Presumably, children learn aggressive problem-solving styles as a result of repeated exposure to such models, and in turn parents use more power assertive
techniques to manage the child’s behavior.
Researchers also have shown that behavioral problems such as early aggression impair children’s academic and intellectual development over time (e.g.,
Hinshaw, 1992; Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987). Stipek (1998) has argued that behavioral problems affect young children’s opportunities to learn because
these youth often are punished for their behavior and might develop conflictual relationships with teachers, thus leading to negative attitudes about school
and lowered academic success. Thus, it is possible that low socioeconomic status (including low parental educational levels) could affect negative family
interaction patterns, which can influence child behavior problems (measured in our study by aggression), and in turn affect lowered academic and achievement
-oriented attitudes over time.
Parent education and family interaction patterns during childhood also might be linked more directly to the child’s developing academic success and
achievement-oriented attitudes. In the general social learning and social-cognitive framework (Bandura, 1986), behavior is shaped in part through
observational and direct learning experiences. Those experiences lead to the formation of internalized cognitive scripts, values, and beliefs that guide and
maintain behavior over time (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Huesmann, 1998). According to Eccles (e.g., Eccles, 1993; Eccles, Vida, & Barber, 2004; Eccles,
Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998), this cognitive process accounts for the emergence and persistence of achievement-related behaviors and ultimately to successful
achievement. Eccles’ framework emphasizes in particular the importance of children’s expectations for success, with parents assuming the role of
“expectancy socializers” (Frome & Eccles, 1998, p. 437).
Thus, for example, a child exposed to parents who model achievement-oriented behavior (e.g., obtaining advanced degrees; reading frequently; encouraging
a strong work ethic) and provide achievement-oriented opportunities (e.g., library and museum trips; after-school enrichment programs; educational books and
videos) should develop the guiding belief that achievement is to be valued, pursued, and anticipated. This belief should then in turn promote successful
outcomes across development, including high school graduation, the pursuit of higher learning, and the acquisition of high-prestige occupations. Not
surprisingly, there are positive relations between parents’ levels of education and parents’ expectations for their children’s success (Davis-Kean, 2005),
suggesting that more highly educated parents actively encourage their children to develop high expectations of their own. Importantly, on the other hand,
McLoyd’s (1989) review found that parents who experience difficult economic times have children who are more pessimistic about their educational and
vocational futures.
In the current study, we assume a broad social-cognitive-ecological (Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group, 2002; also “
developmental-ecological,” Dodge & Pettit, 2003) perspective on behavior development. This view proposes that it is the cumulative influence both of
childhood environmental-contextual factors (e.g., parental education, family interactions, school climate, neighborhood efficacy) and individual-personal
factors (e.g., IQ and aggression) that shapes enduring cognitive styles (e.g., achievement orientation, hostile worldview) in adolescence. Once formed, those
styles allow for the prediction of functioning into adulthood above and beyond the effects of the earlier influences. In this view, then, cognitive factors
such as beliefs and expectations present during adolescence serve as internal links between early contextual and personal factors and later outcomes.
Title：Art
Type of Questions：T/F/NG、Matching
【文章概要】
Passage 3
内容回顾：关于托尔斯泰的艺术观，即关于艺术的本质问题。讲他对艺术是什么观点。他的贡献不在于给出了艺术的定义，而是在于提出了一系列问题如何去判断一个作
品是否属于art。他认为艺术家应该是业余的，不应该是职业化的，还批判了传统的主流观点关于构成艺术作品的要素，例如beauty, entertainment什么的;然后继续批判很多传统
的艺术品都是counterfeit的，这些作品都有“imitation", "striking"等特点。
英文参考：According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "affects" the viewer. Thus, real art
requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to
widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of
external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy offers an example of this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf
later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel the same fear that he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work
of art. As communication, this is good art, because it is clear, it is sincere, and it is singular (focused on one emotion).
However, genuine "infection" is not the only criterion for good art. The good art vs. bad art issue unfolds into two directions. One is the conception
that the stronger the infection, the better is the art. The other concerns the subject matter that accompanies this infection, which leads Tolstoy to examine
whether the emotional link is a feeling that is worth creating. Good art, he claims, fosters feelings of universal brotherhood. Bad art inhibits such
feelings. All good art has a Christian message, because only Christianity teaches an absolute brotherhood of all men. However, this is "Christian" only in a
limited meaning of the word. Art produced by artistic elites is almost never good, because the upper class has entirely lost the true core of Christianity.
Furthermore, Tolstoy also believed that art that appeals to the upper class will feature emotions that are peculiar to the concerns of that class.
Another problem with a great deal of art is that it reproduces past models, and so it is not properly rooted in a contemporary and sincere expression of the
most enlightened cultural ideals of the artist's time and place. To cite one example, ancient Greek art extolled virtues of strength, masculinity, and
heroism according to the values derived from its mythology. However, since Christianity does not embrace these values (and in some sense values the opposite,
the meek and humble), Tolstoy believes that it is unfitting for people in his society to continue to embrace the Greek tradition of art.
Among other artists, he specifically condemns Wagner and Beethoven as examples of overly cerebral artists, who lack real emotion. Furthermore,
Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 cannot claim to be able to "infect" its audience, as it pretends at the feeling of unity and therefore cannot be considered good
art.