CLASSIFY 題型要求考生根據文章內容來確定問題中的句子屬于哪一類。有時是根據人物分類，比如，文章中可能會列舉幾位科學家就某一問題的不同研究和發現，請你按照人物的觀點來將其分類;有時是按照特征來歸類，如，文章中會列出幾種事物的一些特征進行對比，請你根據事物的屬性特征來分類;或者，還可以根據時間、地點、事件來分類等等。總之，要按照事物發生、發展的某一個特征來分類，縷出線條，把屬于同一類的句子找出來。

　　做分類練習要掌握這樣一個要領：即先讀文章后面的問題，找到分類的標準，也就是說，看題目要求你按照什么標準來分類，再去閱讀找答案。假設題目的問題是按照三個人物來分類的，那么，閱讀時，就要有意識地將與這三個人物有關的關鍵句子和內容用不同的符號標出來。這樣，文章的脈絡就自然地分成了三個部分，根據問題中各個句子的內容來判斷其所屬類別也就容易多了。又如，題目如果要求根據年代來分類，就可通過找文中的時間入手來定位要找的信息點。

　　但是，要注意，有的特征可能既屬于A 又屬于B，所以在做題時一定要認真閱讀，包括題目要求，把握住關鍵的詞語，這樣才不會有疏漏。

　　下面，讓我們一起來做sample exercise。

　　Sample exercise

　　The Nature of Things

　　There is something ethereal about human intelligence, something hard-to-pin-down. Its hard even to define. Is intelligence the ability to reason? Does it have to do with memory? Is it aptitude with language? With mathematics? All of the above? Plenty of folks would go so far as to say that you just cant measure intelligence. Take the man credited with creating modern intelligence testing, French psychologist Alfred Binet, who wrote: Intellectual qualities are not superposable and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured. This business is complex and complicated, warned Binet, not a thing, like the hundred yard dash, to have an objective outcome.

　　According to others, however, our picture of intelligence is perfectly lucid. Many scientists believe that we long ago deciphered intelligence testing, thanks to a pair of early-century scientists, Karl Pearson and Charles Spearman, whose work created a means of quantification.

　　Modern intelligence testing is coming up on its one-hundredth birthday, but unlike many of the landmark scientific ideas of a century ago, the idea of testing intelligence, though it has certainly enjoyed moments of prosperity during the twentieth century, has failed to gain a consensus of believers in the sciences. In fact, those scientists who most focus their attention on intelligence are more fractured now than ever about our ability to measure itand our methods of doing so. Where we are, finally, is really where weve been from the outset: confronting the dubious nature of testing, its misuse and sometimes sordid history, and its uncertain future.

　　CLASSIFY 題型要求考生根據文章內容來確定問題中的句子屬于哪一類。有時是根據人物分類，比如，文章中可能會列舉幾位科學家就某一問題的不同研究和發現，請你按照人物的觀點來將其分類;有時是按照特征來歸類，如，文章中會列出幾種事物的一些特征進行對比，請你根據事物的屬性特征來分類;或者，還可以根據時間、地點、事件來分類等等。總之，要按照事物發生、發展的某一個特征來分類，縷出線條，把屬于同一類的句子找出來。

　　做分類練習要掌握這樣一個要領：即先讀文章后面的問題，找到分類的標準，也就是說，看題目要求你按照什么標準來分類，再去閱讀找答案。假設題目的問題是按照三個人物來分類的，那么，閱讀時，就要有意識地將與這三個人物有關的關鍵句子和內容用不同的符號標出來。這樣，文章的脈絡就自然地分成了三個部分，根據問題中各個句子的內容來判斷其所屬類別也就容易多了。又如，題目如果要求根據年代來分類，就可通過找文中的時間入手來定位要找的信息點。

　　但是，要注意，有的特征可能既屬于A 又屬于B，所以在做題時一定要認真閱讀，包括題目要求，把握住關鍵的詞語，這樣才不會有疏漏。

　　下面，讓我們一起來做sample exercise。

　　Sample exercise

　　The Nature of Things

　　There is something ethereal about human intelligence, something hard-to-pin-down. Its hard even to define. Is intelligence the ability to reason? Does it have to do with memory? Is it aptitude with language? With mathematics? All of the above? Plenty of folks would go so far as to say that you just cant measure intelligence. Take the man credited with creating modern intelligence testing, French psychologist Alfred Binet, who wrote: Intellectual qualities are not superposable and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured. This business is complex and complicated, warned Binet, not a thing, like the hundred yard dash, to have an objective outcome.

　　According to others, however, our picture of intelligence is perfectly lucid. Many scientists believe that we long ago deciphered intelligence testing, thanks to a pair of early-century scientists, Karl Pearson and Charles Spearman, whose work created a means of quantification.

　　Modern intelligence testing is coming up on its one-hundredth birthday, but unlike many of the landmark scientific ideas of a century ago, the idea of testing intelligence, though it has certainly enjoyed moments of prosperity during the twentieth century, has failed to gain a consensus of believers in the sciences. In fact, those scientists who most focus their attention on intelligence are more fractured now than ever about our ability to measure itand our methods of doing so. Where we are, finally, is really where weve been from the outset: confronting the dubious nature of testing, its misuse and sometimes sordid history, and its uncertain future.