原标题：疫情之下，怎么高分打破2021考研英语阅览09
作者原创：葛天命
今日，咱们持续谈疫情之下，怎么高分打破考研英语阅览”的论题， 我在5月1日份发布的文章《疫情之下，怎么高分打破2021考研英语阅览01》中谈过了关怀当时疫情和考研英语有直接的联系；也介绍了我自主研制的考研英语“飞速阅览-高分打破法”，详细请拜见我5月1日该文章，以便了解的连贯性和了解全貌，在此不再重复，扼要回忆如下：
“飞速阅览-高分打破法”的施行有三条阵线
· 榜首阵线 “精读精研”，60%
· 第二阵线 “爱好阅览”，20%
· 第三阵线 “实战演练”，20%
榜首阵线 “精读精研”，即胸中自有“词-句-文3法”，阅览堡垒将百战百胜，百战百胜。我知道，咱们甘愿拼命刷题几遍，也很不甘愿潜下心来做精读精研，这几乎是一切选手的单薄之处，也是阅览堡垒久攻不克，分数难以进步的深层原因，所以我就带领咱们一同前行，高分打破的功夫60%取决于这一阵线。
榜首阵线精读精研怎么做？ 主张咱们咱们先从简化版开端，那什么是简化版？简化版归纳来说：便是碾碎长难句；领会每段的要害与文中效果；掌握文章主题和整体结构。
这一步，我说过，不要那么急于求成，仓促去做题，而是不做题，留在今后去做；现在是要透彻滴正确了解文章，不仅是看懂了，并且要看出文章的中心与骨架；做到对任何阅览文章都充溢自傲，文章织造的根本套路逃不出你的手心，树立好文章的坐标体系，那么不论出什么题，都能敏捷原文精准定位。
现在，我再以2018年的一篇真题阅览为例，带领咱们进行“榜首阵线精读精研”，侧重于句法和文法。请咱们先把下面的原文通读一遍，时刻设定为3-5分钟；然后再仔细读，不限时刻，看看终究哪里模糊不清；最终看我的解说，你是否都能想到了呢？好好用心领会一下为盼。
好，开端快速通读全文，时刻限制3-5分钟，80%正确了解率。
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients In 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.
DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements- and there may be many-between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind merely “processed" it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.
解说
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.
· 长难句
· It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth
主语从句 主语
Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under
谓语 宾语 后置定语
the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015
定语从句
on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients'
定语从句
rights and their expectations of privacy. （长难句）
· 榜首段 开宗明义陈说事情，英国医疗服务局与DeepMind 人工智能公司的协议被判违法侵犯了患者的隐私权。
DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements- and there may be many-between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind merely “processed" it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.
· 长难句
Further arrangements- and there may be many-between the NHS and
主语 插入语 后置定语
DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have
谓语 状语 宾语从句-状语内部
been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned.
宾语从句-状语内部
· 第二段 英国医疗服务局与DeepMind公司对判定的反响，信息委员会主任的情绪；作者给出谈论和观念A：信息委员会主任仅聚集隐私权，具有数据与处理数据的区分没有能认识到业务的实质。
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.
· 第三段 持续阐明作者的观念B：业务的实质是，谁应从剖析咱们日子的数据获 得利益？政府信息委员会没有监管到要害点上。
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.
· 长难句
If software promises to save lives on the scale that dugs now can, big data may be
主语 谓语 宾语 定语从句
expected to behave as a big pharm has done.
as方法状语
· 第四段 作者观念C-“主意”，公共资源数据被科技巨子独占是真实令人担忧的事。对政府信息委员会的判定进行点评，有积极意义，也有缺乏。作者情绪，审慎对待大数据和长时间尽力。
· 文章主题： 科技巨子独占大数据根本问题，政府应采纳审情绪和长时间尽力
· 整体结构： “ 事情/业务-实质“ 型，
借此判定事情串联全文，
作者提出了3个观念，逐渐递进，即对实质的认知
· 文章体裁： 阐明+论说/谈论
· 文章体裁： 科技信息业+法令范畴+健康范畴 的结合部分
责任编辑：
