即便是这么简单的题目中，我们还是需要发掘出题者的根本思维方式。在这次的新题型的考察中我们惊奇的发现了几个特点：
1)完型填空12道题目的48个选项中，仅仅有5个选项的单词是六级大纲的词汇，分别是decline，rebuild，retrieve，surge和surf，占据了选项的10%，而剩余的90%的单词都是四级的大纲词汇。这充分说明了六级考试始终还是四级的继承与发扬，离不开对于四级的依赖。因此六级的词汇量和四级并没有太大扩充。六级考试实际上不过还是考四级那点东西。
2)本次完型填空总共有198个词，符合六级考试大纲要求。但是在198个单词中，除去12个选项单词，剩余的186个词只有breakthrough, hurricane, willful, delusion, eruption这5个单词不是四级大纲中的单词，而且文章中还给出了delusion的意思。这再次印证了六级单词的考察量与四级区别并不大。
3)本次完型填空中，总共分为两大段共11句话，其中长难句占据了9句话，这是一个很大的比重，因此我们在重视单词的学习时，不能忽视的一点就是对于长难句的拆解分析能力。
4)长难句中再次考察了语法上的一大难点：比较结构。这个东西极端的混淆学生对于长难句的理解和文章意义的分析。作为理解中的难点，比较结构应当成为我们今后在语法学习中的重点。
5)关于完型填空的几个解题技巧是我们需要注意的。第一，连词前后的句意思分析，究竟前后句是转折，并列还是因果关系，需要学生特别注意；第二，文章的感情色彩的掌握，本文明显是一篇感情色彩偏于贬义的文章，因此把握好文章的中心是学生在选择之前要做到的。第三，抓住关键词解决问题，文章中有一些关键词的出现，影响学生对题目的本身进行判断，需要正确理解这些关键词。第四，对于常识性的单词一词多意的分析能力。平时多关注生活便可以对一些熟词做到迅速僻义
附原文：
Floods, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Wildfires, Earthquakes ... Why We Don't Prepare
By AMANDA RIPLEY/ BOULDER
Posted Sunday, Aug. 20, 2006
Every July the country's leading disaster scientists and emergency planners gather in Boulder, Colo., for an invitation-only workshop. Picture 440 people obsessed with the tragic and the safe, people who get excited about earthquake shake maps and righteous about flood insurance. It's a spirited but wonky crowd that is growing more melancholy every year.
After 9/11, the people at the Boulder conference decried the nation's myopic focus on terrorism. They lamented the decline of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). And they warned to the point of clichéthat a major hurricane would destroy New Orleans. It was a convention of prophets without any disciples.
This year, perhaps to make the farce explicit, the event organizers, from the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, introduced a parlor game. They placed a ballot box next to the water pitchers and asked everyone to vote: What will be the next mega-disaster? A tsunami, an earthquake, a pandemic flu? And where will it strike? It was an amusing diversion, although not a hard question for this lot.
Because the real challenge in the U.S. today is not predicting catastrophes. That we can do. The challenge that apparently lies beyond our grasp is to prepare for them. Dennis Mileti ran the Natural Hazards Center for 10 years, and is the country's leading expert on how to warn people so that they will pay attention. Today he is semi retired, but he comes back to the workshop each year to preach his gospel. This July, standing before the crowd in a Hawaiian shirt, Mileti was direct: How many citizens must die? How many people do you need to see pounding through their roofs? Like most people there, Mileti was heartbroken by Katrina, and he knows he'll be heartbroken again. We know exactly--exactly--where the major disasters will occur, he told me later. But individuals under-perceive risk.
f, humans get serious about avoiding disasters only after one has just smacked them across the face. Well, then, by that logic, 2006 should have been a breakthrough year for rational behavior. With the memory of 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, still fresh in their minds, Americans watched Katrina, the most expensive disaster in U.S. history, on live TV. Anyone who didn't know it before should have learned that bad things can happen. And they are made much worse by our own lack of ambition--our willful blindness to risk as much as our reluctance to work together before everything goes to hell.
Granted, some amount of delusion is probably part of the human condition. In A.D. 63, Pompeii was seriously damaged by an earthquake, and the locals immediately went to work rebuilding, in the same spot--until they were buried altogether by a volcano 16 years later. But a review of the past year in disaster history suggests that modern Americans are particularly, mysteriously bad at protecting themselves from guaranteed threats. We know more than we ever did about the dangers we face. But it turns out that in times of crisis, our greatest enemy is rarely the storm, the quake or the surge itself. More often, it is ourselves.
