从大方向上说，阅读文章的工作，可以分成词汇和句法。翻译其实也可以看作阅读。
句法的内容，相对比较简单，但是在学校学习的理论语法体系，侧重于理论体系构建。可能会出现下面的问题。

对于多数人来说，词汇需要一起背诵到最后。
一篇文章中的词汇，大概有60%-70%是重复的。大家读文章的过程，也是在通过主动使用，复习单词。这个的学习过程中，可能会有这个状态。

每个人最终都需要自己来决定复习的规划。了解自己，是一个比较重要的环节。
这片测试，是利用了2010英语一的Text1。
我把它改写成了两篇文章。
一篇保留句式不变，把其中那些可能难住大家的词汇，替换成了最基本的日常词汇。
另一篇保留词汇不动，把比较复杂的句子，拆分成了比较简单的。
每个人对于句法的掌握程度不同，所以我对于复杂句子的选择标准，大概并不适合所有的人，这个还希望见谅。
同样的，我把句子拆分到了现在的程度，而没有写成更简单的句子，也是根据经验对于“常见”程度，做了一个估计。
词汇的替换，我会在后面附上对比图。
句子的改写，原理部分可能参考我主贴中讲简明句法的那个。因为之后，我要写一个句法应用，里面会用到2010英语一句子做例子，在这里就不重复写内容了。

这个是使用简单词汇的版本
Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past 25 years, perhaps the most important has been the unstoppable decrease in the range and seriousness of their arts articles.
It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when very good arts articles could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a very big number of the best groups of such articles published in the 20th century were basically newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to be amazed by the fact that their knowledgeable contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation newspapers.
We are even farther removed from the wide range of newspaper reviews published in England between the start of the 20th century(1900) and the start of World War II(1939), at a time when newsprint was very cheap and great arts articles were considered an good addition to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the writers of major papers would write long articles about the things they talked about. Theirs was a serious job, and even those reviewers who were not too proud of their knowledge, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a serious job, and were proud to be published in the daily newspapers. “So few authors are clever enough or good enough at writing to keep their own end up in journalism, ” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define ‘journalism’ as ‘a term of dislike used by writers who are not read to writers who are ’.”
Unfortunately, these critics are almost forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the sport of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s best classical-music writers, and a very good writer so widely loved that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown and only some experts know it.
Is there any chance that Cardus’s articles will be popular again? It seems unlikely. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and readers now have little use for the richly complex Victorian(1837-1901) and Edwardian(1901-1914) style at which he was good. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music articles has been unpopular for a long time.

这个是使用简单句子的版本
Many changes have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century. One is the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage. This is perhaps the most far-reaching of all the changes.
In the past, high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. It is difficult for the average reader under the age of forth to imagine such a time. It is difficult to the poit of impossibility. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. Their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies. If you read these books today, you will have to marvel at this fact.
Between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, newsprint was dirt-cheap. At that time, stylish arts criticism appeared in publications and were considered an ornament to them. And the newspaper reviews published in England were unfocused. We are even farther removed from these reviews. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business. Reviewers like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman wore their learning lightly. We could still trust they knew what they were about.These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gifts enough to keep their own end up in journalism. This makes me define 'journalism' as 'a term of contempt'. Writers who are not read, applies this term to writers who are.", Newman wrote.
Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975. He is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, and was the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.
Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death. He specialized in richly upholstered Vicwardian prose but postmodern readers have little use for this. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.

设计了一个 一个测试。。。
标题太尴尬了
没法改了