CLASSIFY 题型要求考生根据文章内容来确定问题中的句子属于哪一类。有时是根据人物分类，比如，文章中可能会列举几位科学家就某一问题的不同研究和发现，请你按照人物的观点来将其分类;有时是按照特征来归类，如，文章中会列出几种事物的一些特征进行对比，请你根据事物的属性特征来分类;或者，还可以根据时间、地点、事件来分类等等。总之，要按照事物发生、发展的某一个特征来分类，缕出线条，把属于同一类的句子找出来。

　　做分类练习要掌握这样一个要领：即先读文章后面的问题，找到分类的标准，也就是说，看题目要求你按照什么标准来分类，再去阅读找答案。假设题目的问题是按照三个人物来分类的，那么，阅读时，就要有意识地将与这三个人物有关的关键句子和内容用不同的符号标出来。这样，文章的脉络就自然地分成了三个部分，根据问题中各个句子的内容来判断其所属类别也就容易多了。又如，题目如果要求根据年代来分类，就可通过找文中的时间入手来定位要找的信息点。

　　但是，要注意，有的特征可能既属于A 又属于B，所以在做题时一定要认真阅读，包括题目要求，把握住关键的词语，这样才不会有疏漏。

　　下面，让我们一起来做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 题型要求考生根据文章内容来确定问题中的句子属于哪一类。有时是根据人物分类，比如，文章中可能会列举几位科学家就某一问题的不同研究和发现，请你按照人物的观点来将其分类;有时是按照特征来归类，如，文章中会列出几种事物的一些特征进行对比，请你根据事物的属性特征来分类;或者，还可以根据时间、地点、事件来分类等等。总之，要按照事物发生、发展的某一个特征来分类，缕出线条，把属于同一类的句子找出来。

　　做分类练习要掌握这样一个要领：即先读文章后面的问题，找到分类的标准，也就是说，看题目要求你按照什么标准来分类，再去阅读找答案。假设题目的问题是按照三个人物来分类的，那么，阅读时，就要有意识地将与这三个人物有关的关键句子和内容用不同的符号标出来。这样，文章的脉络就自然地分成了三个部分，根据问题中各个句子的内容来判断其所属类别也就容易多了。又如，题目如果要求根据年代来分类，就可通过找文中的时间入手来定位要找的信息点。

　　但是，要注意，有的特征可能既属于A 又属于B，所以在做题时一定要认真阅读，包括题目要求，把握住关键的词语，这样才不会有疏漏。

　　下面，让我们一起来做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.