Danh sách câu hỏi
Có 50,580 câu hỏi trên 1,012 trang
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
The word “counterparts” refers to _________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
The word “addressed” can be best replaced by ________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
The word “skepticism” is closest in meaning to ________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
According to the passage, who said that flying was done with no expectation of reward?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
In their efforts to compete with men, early women pilots had difficulty in________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
What can be inferred from the passage about the United States Air Force in 1938?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
According to the passage, women pilots were successful in all of the following EXCEPT ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
No sooner had the first intrepid male aviators safely returned to Earth than it seemed that women. too, had been smitten by an urge to fly. From mere spectators, they became willing passengers and finally pilots in their own right, plotting their skills and daring line against the hazards of the air and the skepticism of their male counterparts. In doing so they enlarged the traditional bounds of a women's world, won for their sex a new sense of competence and achievement, and contributed handsomely to the progress of aviation.
But recognition of their abilities did not come easily. "Men do not believe us capable." the famed aviator Amelia Earhart once remarked to a friend. "Because we are women, seldom are we trusted to do an efficient job." Indeed old attitudes died hard: when Charles Lindbergh visited the Soviet Union in i938 with his wife, Anne-herself a pilot and gifted proponent of aviation - he was astonished to discover both men and women flying in the Soviet Air Force.
Such conventional wisdom made it difficult for women to raise money for the up-to-date equipment they needed to compete on an equal basis with men. Yet they did compete, and often they triumphed finally despite the odds.
Ruth Law, whose 590 - mile flight from Chicago to Hornell, New York, set a new nonstop distance record in 1916, exemplified the resourcefulness and grit demanded of any woman who wanted to fly. And when she addressed the Aero Club of America after completing her historic journey, her plain spoken words testified to a universal human motivation that was unaffected by gender: "My flight was done with no expectation of reward," she declared, "just purely for the love of accomplishment."
Which of the following is the best tittle for this passage?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The word "they" in paragraph 6 refers to ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
According to paragraph 5, why do social media users already act more carefully online?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
It is stated in paragraph 4 that unrecorded events ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
What does the author imply in paragraph 3?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The phrase "a mixed blessing" in paragraph 3 probably means ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
As mentioned in paragraph 2, misbehaviour can be discouraged if potential offenders ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The word "envisage" in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
What does the passage mainly discuss?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.
Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.
Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.
Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some
places it communicates ridicule.
The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully.
Which form of body language is NOT mentioned in the passage?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.
Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.
Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.
Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some
places it communicates ridicule.
The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully.
As stated in the passage, in order to communicate successfully with people from another culture, it is advisable for a person ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.
Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.
Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.
Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some
places it communicates ridicule.
The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully.
The word "it" in paragraph 3 refers to ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.
Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.
Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.
Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some
places it communicates ridicule.
The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully.
The word "intimacy" in paragraph 2 is closest in meaning to ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.
Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.
Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.
Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some
places it communicates ridicule.
The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully.
What is the passage mainly about?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
What picture do you have of the future? Will life in the future be better, worse or the same as now? What do you hope about the future?
Futurologists predict that life will probably be very different in 2050 in all the fields, from entertainment to technology. First of all, it seems that TV channels will have disappeared. Instead, people will choose a program from a 'menu' and a computer will send the program directly to the television. Today, we can use the World Wide Web to read newspaper stories and see pictures on a computer thousands of kilometers away. By 2050, music, films, programs, newspapers and books will come to us by computer.
In what concerns the environment, water will have become one of our most serious problems. In many places, agriculture is changing and farmers are growing fruit and vegetables to export. This uses a lot of water. Demand for water will increase ten times between now and 2050 and there could be serious shortages. Some futurologists predict that water could be the cause of war if we don't act now.
In transport, cars running on new, clean fuels will have computers to control the speed and there won't be any accidents. Today, many cars have computers that tell drivers exactly where they are. By 2050, the computer will control the car and drive it to your destination. On the other hand, space planes will take people halfway around the world in two hours. Nowadays, the United States Shuttle can go into space and land on Earth again. By 2050, space planes will fly all over the world and people will fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in just two hours.
In the domain of technology, robots will have replaced people in factories. Many factories already use robots. Big companies prefer robots - they do not ask for pay rises or go on strike, and they work 24 hours a day. By 2050, we will see robots everywhere - in factories, schools, offices, hospitals, shops and homes.
Last but not least, medicine technology will have conquered many diseases. Today, there are electronic devices that connect directly to the brain to help people hear. By 2050, we will be able to help blind and deaf people see and hear again. Scientists have discovered how to control genes. They have already
produced clones of animals. By 2050, scientists will be able to produce clones of people and decide how they look, how they behave and how much intelligence they have.
What may NOT be true about life in 2050?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
What picture do you have of the future? Will life in the future be better, worse or the same as now? What do you hope about the future?
Futurologists predict that life will probably be very different in 2050 in all the fields, from entertainment to technology. First of all, it seems that TV channels will have disappeared. Instead, people will choose a program from a 'menu' and a computer will send the program directly to the television. Today, we can use the World Wide Web to read newspaper stories and see pictures on a computer thousands of kilometers away. By 2050, music, films, programs, newspapers and books will come to us by computer.
In what concerns the environment, water will have become one of our most serious problems. In many places, agriculture is changing and farmers are growing fruit and vegetables to export. This uses a lot of water. Demand for water will increase ten times between now and 2050 and there could be serious shortages. Some futurologists predict that water could be the cause of war if we don't act now.
In transport, cars running on new, clean fuels will have computers to control the speed and there won't be any accidents. Today, many cars have computers that tell drivers exactly where they are. By 2050, the computer will control the car and drive it to your destination. On the other hand, space planes will take people halfway around the world in two hours. Nowadays, the United States Shuttle can go into space and land on Earth again. By 2050, space planes will fly all over the world and people will fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in just two hours.
In the domain of technology, robots will have replaced people in factories. Many factories already use robots. Big companies prefer robots - they do not ask for pay rises or go on strike, and they work 24 hours a day. By 2050, we will see robots everywhere - in factories, schools, offices, hospitals, shops and homes.
Last but not least, medicine technology will have conquered many diseases. Today, there are electronic devices that connect directly to the brain to help people hear. By 2050, we will be able to help blind and deaf people see and hear again. Scientists have discovered how to control genes. They have already
produced clones of animals. By 2050, scientists will be able to produce clones of people and decide how they look, how they behave and how much intelligence they have.
The word "conquered" in the last paragraph is closest in meaning to ______________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
What picture do you have of the future? Will life in the future be better, worse or the same as now? What do you hope about the future?
Futurologists predict that life will probably be very different in 2050 in all the fields, from entertainment to technology. First of all, it seems that TV channels will have disappeared. Instead, people will choose a program from a 'menu' and a computer will send the program directly to the television. Today, we can use the World Wide Web to read newspaper stories and see pictures on a computer thousands of kilometers away. By 2050, music, films, programs, newspapers and books will come to us by computer.
In what concerns the environment, water will have become one of our most serious problems. In many places, agriculture is changing and farmers are growing fruit and vegetables to export. This uses a lot of water. Demand for water will increase ten times between now and 2050 and there could be serious shortages. Some futurologists predict that water could be the cause of war if we don't act now.
In transport, cars running on new, clean fuels will have computers to control the speed and there won't be any accidents. Today, many cars have computers that tell drivers exactly where they are. By 2050, the computer will control the car and drive it to your destination. On the other hand, space planes will take people halfway around the world in two hours. Nowadays, the United States Shuttle can go into space and land on Earth again. By 2050, space planes will fly all over the world and people will fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in just two hours.
In the domain of technology, robots will have replaced people in factories. Many factories already use robots. Big companies prefer robots - they do not ask for pay rises or go on strike, and they work 24 hours a day. By 2050, we will see robots everywhere - in factories, schools, offices, hospitals, shops and homes.
Last but not least, medicine technology will have conquered many diseases. Today, there are electronic devices that connect directly to the brain to help people hear. By 2050, we will be able to help blind and deaf people see and hear again. Scientists have discovered how to control genes. They have already
produced clones of animals. By 2050, scientists will be able to produce clones of people and decide how they look, how they behave and how much intelligence they have.
Why does the author use "prefer robots" in paragraph 5?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
What picture do you have of the future? Will life in the future be better, worse or the same as now? What do you hope about the future?
Futurologists predict that life will probably be very different in 2050 in all the fields, from entertainment to technology. First of all, it seems that TV channels will have disappeared. Instead, people will choose a program from a 'menu' and a computer will send the program directly to the television. Today, we can use the World Wide Web to read newspaper stories and see pictures on a computer thousands of kilometers away. By 2050, music, films, programs, newspapers and books will come to us by computer.
In what concerns the environment, water will have become one of our most serious problems. In many places, agriculture is changing and farmers are growing fruit and vegetables to export. This uses a lot of water. Demand for water will increase ten times between now and 2050 and there could be serious shortages. Some futurologists predict that water could be the cause of war if we don't act now.
In transport, cars running on new, clean fuels will have computers to control the speed and there won't be any accidents. Today, many cars have computers that tell drivers exactly where they are. By 2050, the computer will control the car and drive it to your destination. On the other hand, space planes will take people halfway around the world in two hours. Nowadays, the United States Shuttle can go into space and land on Earth again. By 2050, space planes will fly all over the world and people will fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in just two hours.
In the domain of technology, robots will have replaced people in factories. Many factories already use robots. Big companies prefer robots - they do not ask for pay rises or go on strike, and they work 24 hours a day. By 2050, we will see robots everywhere - in factories, schools, offices, hospitals, shops and homes.
Last but not least, medicine technology will have conquered many diseases. Today, there are electronic devices that connect directly to the brain to help people hear. By 2050, we will be able to help blind and deaf people see and hear again. Scientists have discovered how to control genes. They have already
produced clones of animals. By 2050, scientists will be able to produce clones of people and decide how they look, how they behave and how much intelligence they have.
What is the author's attitude in paragraph 3?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
What picture do you have of the future? Will life in the future be better, worse or the same as now? What do you hope about the future?
Futurologists predict that life will probably be very different in 2050 in all the fields, from entertainment to technology. First of all, it seems that TV channels will have disappeared. Instead, people will choose a program from a 'menu' and a computer will send the program directly to the television. Today, we can use the World Wide Web to read newspaper stories and see pictures on a computer thousands of kilometers away. By 2050, music, films, programs, newspapers and books will come to us by computer.
In what concerns the environment, water will have become one of our most serious problems. In many places, agriculture is changing and farmers are growing fruit and vegetables to export. This uses a lot of water. Demand for water will increase ten times between now and 2050 and there could be serious shortages. Some futurologists predict that water could be the cause of war if we don't act now.
In transport, cars running on new, clean fuels will have computers to control the speed and there won't be any accidents. Today, many cars have computers that tell drivers exactly where they are. By 2050, the computer will control the car and drive it to your destination. On the other hand, space planes will take people halfway around the world in two hours. Nowadays, the United States Shuttle can go into space and land on Earth again. By 2050, space planes will fly all over the world and people will fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in just two hours.
In the domain of technology, robots will have replaced people in factories. Many factories already use robots. Big companies prefer robots - they do not ask for pay rises or go on strike, and they work 24 hours a day. By 2050, we will see robots everywhere - in factories, schools, offices, hospitals, shops and homes.
Last but not least, medicine technology will have conquered many diseases. Today, there are electronic devices that connect directly to the brain to help people hear. By 2050, we will be able to help blind and deaf people see and hear again. Scientists have discovered how to control genes. They have already
produced clones of animals. By 2050, scientists will be able to produce clones of people and decide how they look, how they behave and how much intelligence they have.
The word "This" in paragraph 3 refers to __________________.