一、问题型

此类型通常是描述一种社会现象或者某项技术发明，说明他们存在着怎样的问题或者该现象产生的原因。

而听力材料针对其进行反驳的思路主要是这样的：阅读材料中提到的问题根本不算是问题，有解决或者改进的办法。

以Delta第409页的题目为例：

阅读材料和听力材料共同针对的话题是"马尔萨斯人口经济学理论"。

阅读文章对世界的人口经济形势持悲观态度，并认为会产生如下3点问题：

1. 食品供应跟不上人口增长。

2. 人口翻倍增长，相对地粮食生产将会低于维持基本生活的水平。

3. 由于现在没有那么多的疾病、饥荒和战争，人口将迅速增长。

我们分别反驳之，反驳的具体方法：第一，反否定词；第二，反修饰词

阅读材料：食品供应跟不上人口增长→反否定词"跟不上"→"跟得上"→为什么这么说呢？事实胜于雄辩→听力材料：就在马尔萨斯做出这种悲观预计的时候，欧美国家人民的生活水平普遍提高。

阅读材料：粮食生产将低于生活必需水平→典型的反修饰词"低于"→"不低于"（甚至很高）如何做到呢？必然是科技的发展！→听力材料：工业革命，技术进步，使得欧美粮食产量大大增加。

阅读材料：人口将迅速增长→反修饰词"迅速"增长→"并不迅速"（匀速稳定或低速）想到这里，注意听原因或措施→听力材料：科技进步，教育普及，外加人口出生率控制严格，发达国家人口稳定或低速增长。

二、假说型

阅读材料会针对某一现象或事物进行推论和假设，反驳的思路有两种：一是证据来源，二是推导方式。

以OG第三版第278页的题目为例：

阅读材料和听力材料所共同针对的话题是"利他主义"

阅读文章认为利他主义在人类和动物界中普遍存在，根据如下：

1、人类捐献器官，但是本身没有获得任何收益

2、S猫鼬（充当哨兵）不进食就去守卫

3、S猫鼬将自己置于危险境地主动吸引猎食者从而保护同伴

反驳的具体方法：第一，反动词；第二，如果动词引导的事实无法反驳就反内容

我们仍然通过分别反驳来预测听力内容：

阅读材料：人类捐献器官，但是本身没有获得任何收益→"捐献"就是捐献，既定事实无法反驳→反内容"没获得收益"→那么一定获得了某种好处，可能不是物质的而是精神的→听力材料：捐献者获得了感谢和社会认可

这一条是用反驳内容的方法反驳了阅读材料中的证据，用人们有所得的事实来反驳利他主义的存在，接下来

阅读材料：S猫鼬不进食就去守卫→动词"守卫"这一事实也无法改变，但是内容可以质疑→反内容"不进食"→真的没有进食么？那将如何有能力守卫呢？→听力材料：哨兵猫鼬在同伴进食之前先享用了美餐

这一条仍然是用反驳内容的方法反驳阅读文章中的证据，我们继续

阅读材料：S猫鼬主动吸引猎食者从而保护同伴→通过阅读发现，主动"吸引"猎食者这个动作也是一个不可更改的事实，那我们就继续反内容→虽然主动吸引猎食者，但并非为了保护同伴→听力材料：事实上S猫鼬也是第一个躲避猎食者的

刚才这一条是用反驳内容的方法对阅读材料中的推导进行了反驳（S猫鼬第一个跑这一证据相同，但解释不同，属于反驳推导过程）

三、评价型

阅读材料会介绍一些现象或事物，进而评价它们或积极或消极的影响。听力材料将会在观点和态度上否定阅读材料，阅读和听力是这样的关系：前者褒，后者必然贬，反之亦然。

反驳思路很简单——非褒即贬

反驳方式和假说型一样，反动词or反内容

我们以OG第三版第392页的题目为例：

阅读材料和听力材料共同针对的话题是"教授上电视"

阅读材料认为教授成为电视节目的嘉宾发表专家评论拥有如下好处：

1.提升教授的知名度

2.宣传了教授所在的学校

3.大众有机会聆听到前所未闻的的专家观点

我们继续逐一否定：

阅读材料：提升教授的知名度→反动词"提升"→"不能提升"甚至有损该教授的名誉→听力材料：其他教授会认为该教授是娱乐大众的人而非一个严谨的学者

阅读材料：宣传了所在学校→反动词"宣传"→"并非宣传"（和上一点一样）甚至起到反面宣传的效应→听力材料：大学教授把时间都花在了上镜上，应该花在大学里的时间少了

阅读材料：大众能听到学术观点→反动词"能听到"→"听不到/不能听到"那必然表示教授在节目中发表的观点并不涉及深入的学术内容→听力材料：教授一般不会在电视节目中发表学术讲座

小结

问题型→反否定、反修饰

假说型→反动词、反内容（特别是反内容）

评价型→反动词、反内容（特别是反动词）

箭头标记的思维过程看似复杂（这是为了拆解的需要），如果熟练掌握，实际操作中只需要几秒钟，也就是说只需几秒钟就可以让听力材料无所遁形。

来一个题目小试牛刀：

题目选自OG第三版，阅读材料如下，试着自己提炼阅读观点：

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.

接下来是听力文本，仔细对照，你预测对了吗？

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.