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. 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 word or phrase that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 25 to 29. The knock-on effect of volunteering on the lives of individuals can be profound. Voluntary work helps foster independence and imparts the ability to deal with different situations, often simultaneously, thus teaching people how to (25)______ their way through different systems. It therefore brings people into touch with the real world; and, hence, equips them for the future. Initially, young adults in their late teens might not seem to have the expertise or knowledge to impart to others that say a teacher or an agriculturalist or a nurse would have, (26) ______ they do have many skills that can help others. And in the absence of any particular talent, their energy and enthusiasm can be harnessed for the benefit (27) ______ their fellow human beings, and ultimately themselves. From all this, the gain to any community no matter how many volunteers are involved is (28) ______. Employers will generally look favorably on people (29) ______ have shown an ability to work as part of a team. It demonstrates a willingness to learn and an independent spirit, which would be desirable qualities in any employee.Điền vào ô số 29
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct word or phrase that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 25 to 29. The knock-on effect of volunteering on the lives of individuals can be profound. Voluntary work helps foster independence and imparts the ability to deal with different situations, often simultaneously, thus teaching people how to (25)______ their way through different systems. It therefore brings people into touch with the real world; and, hence, equips them for the future. Initially, young adults in their late teens might not seem to have the expertise or knowledge to impart to others that say a teacher or an agriculturalist or a nurse would have, (26) ______ they do have many skills that can help others. And in the absence of any particular talent, their energy and enthusiasm can be harnessed for the benefit (27) ______ their fellow human beings, and ultimately themselves. From all this, the gain to any community no matter how many volunteers are involved is (28) ______. Employers will generally look favorably on people (29) ______ have shown an ability to work as part of a team. It demonstrates a willingness to learn and an independent spirit, which would be desirable qualities in any employee.Điền vào ô số 28
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct word or phrase that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 25 to 29. The knock-on effect of volunteering on the lives of individuals can be profound. Voluntary work helps foster independence and imparts the ability to deal with different situations, often simultaneously, thus teaching people how to (25)______ their way through different systems. It therefore brings people into touch with the real world; and, hence, equips them for the future. Initially, young adults in their late teens might not seem to have the expertise or knowledge to impart to others that say a teacher or an agriculturalist or a nurse would have, (26) ______ they do have many skills that can help others. And in the absence of any particular talent, their energy and enthusiasm can be harnessed for the benefit (27) ______ their fellow human beings, and ultimately themselves. From all this, the gain to any community no matter how many volunteers are involved is (28) ______. Employers will generally look favorably on people (29) ______ have shown an ability to work as part of a team. It demonstrates a willingness to learn and an independent spirit, which would be desirable qualities in any employee.Điền vào ô số 27
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct word or phrase that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 25 to 29. The knock-on effect of volunteering on the lives of individuals can be profound. Voluntary work helps foster independence and imparts the ability to deal with different situations, often simultaneously, thus teaching people how to (25)______ their way through different systems. It therefore brings people into touch with the real world; and, hence, equips them for the future. Initially, young adults in their late teens might not seem to have the expertise or knowledge to impart to others that say a teacher or an agriculturalist or a nurse would have, (26) ______ they do have many skills that can help others. And in the absence of any particular talent, their energy and enthusiasm can be harnessed for the benefit (27) ______ their fellow human beings, and ultimately themselves. From all this, the gain to any community no matter how many volunteers are involved is (28) ______. Employers will generally look favorably on people (29) ______ have shown an ability to work as part of a team. It demonstrates a willingness to learn and an independent spirit, which would be desirable qualities in any employee.Điền vào ô số 26
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct word or phrase that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 25 to 29. The knock-on effect of volunteering on the lives of individuals can be profound. Voluntary work helps foster independence and imparts the ability to deal with different situations, often simultaneously, thus teaching people how to (25)______ their way through different systems. It therefore brings people into touch with the real world; and, hence, equips them for the future. Initially, young adults in their late teens might not seem to have the expertise or knowledge to impart to others that say a teacher or an agriculturalist or a nurse would have, (26) ______ they do have many skills that can help others. And in the absence of any particular talent, their energy and enthusiasm can be harnessed for the benefit (27) ______ their fellow human beings, and ultimately themselves. From all this, the gain to any community no matter how many volunteers are involved is (28) ______. Employers will generally look favorably on people (29) ______ have shown an ability to work as part of a team. It demonstrates a willingness to learn and an independent spirit, which would be desirable qualities in any employee.Điền vào ô số 25
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.Life in the Universe Exobiology is the study of life that originates from outside of Earth. As yet, of course, no such life forms have been found. Exobiologists, however, have done important work in the theoretical study of where life is most likely to evolve, and what those extrateưestrial life forms might be like. What sorts of planets are most likely to develop life? Most scientists agree that a habitable planet must be terrestrial, or rock-based, with liquid surface water and biogeochemical cycles that somewhat resemble Earth’s. Water is an important solvent involved in many biological processes. Biogeochemical cycles are the continuous movement and transformation of materials in the environment. These cycles include the circulation of elements and nutrients upon which life and the Earth’s climate depend. Since (as far as we know) all life is carbon-based, a stable carbon cycle is especially important. The habitable zone is the region around a star in which planets can develop life. Assuming the need for liquid surface water, it follows that most stars around the size of our sun will be able to sustain habitable zones for billions of years. Stars that are larger than the sun are much hotter and bum out more quickly; life there may not have enough time to evolve. Stars that are smaller than the sun have different problem. First of all, planets in their habitable zones will be so close to the star that they will be “tidally locked” – that is one side of the planet will always face the star in perpetual daylight with the other side in the perpetual night. Another possible obstacle to life on smaller stars is that they tend to vary in their luminosity, or brightness, due to flares and “star spots”. The variation can be large enough to have harmful effects on the ecosystem. Of course, not all stars of the right size will give rise to life; they also must have terrestrial planets with the right kind of orbits. Most solar systems have more than one planet, which influence each other’s orbits with their own gravity. Therefore, in order to have a stable system with no planets flying out into space, the orbits must be a good distance from one another. Interestingly, the amount of space needed is roughly the width of a star’s habitable zone. This means that for life to evolve, the largest possible number of life-supporting planets in any star’s habitable zone is two. Finally, not all planets meeting the above conditions will necessarily develop life. One major threat is large, frequent asteroid and comet impacts, which will wipe out life each time it tries to evolve. The case of Earth teaches that having large gas giants, such as Saturn and Jupiter,.in the outer part of the solar system can help keep a planet safe for life. Due to their strong gravitation, they tend to catch or deflect large objects before they can reach Earth. The word “sustain” in paragraph 3 could best be 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.Life in the Universe Exobiology is the study of life that originates from outside of Earth. As yet, of course, no such life forms have been found. Exobiologists, however, have done important work in the theoretical study of where life is most likely to evolve, and what those extrateưestrial life forms might be like. What sorts of planets are most likely to develop life? Most scientists agree that a habitable planet must be terrestrial, or rock-based, with liquid surface water and biogeochemical cycles that somewhat resemble Earth’s. Water is an important solvent involved in many biological processes. Biogeochemical cycles are the continuous movement and transformation of materials in the environment. These cycles include the circulation of elements and nutrients upon which life and the Earth’s climate depend. Since (as far as we know) all life is carbon-based, a stable carbon cycle is especially important. The habitable zone is the region around a star in which planets can develop life. Assuming the need for liquid surface water, it follows that most stars around the size of our sun will be able to sustain habitable zones for billions of years. Stars that are larger than the sun are much hotter and bum out more quickly; life there may not have enough time to evolve. Stars that are smaller than the sun have different problem. First of all, planets in their habitable zones will be so close to the star that they will be “tidally locked” – that is one side of the planet will always face the star in perpetual daylight with the other side in the perpetual night. Another possible obstacle to life on smaller stars is that they tend to vary in their luminosity, or brightness, due to flares and “star spots”. The variation can be large enough to have harmful effects on the ecosystem. Of course, not all stars of the right size will give rise to life; they also must have terrestrial planets with the right kind of orbits. Most solar systems have more than one planet, which influence each other’s orbits with their own gravity. Therefore, in order to have a stable system with no planets flying out into space, the orbits must be a good distance from one another. Interestingly, the amount of space needed is roughly the width of a star’s habitable zone. This means that for life to evolve, the largest possible number of life-supporting planets in any star’s habitable zone is two. Finally, not all planets meeting the above conditions will necessarily develop life. One major threat is large, frequent asteroid and comet impacts, which will wipe out life each time it tries to evolve. The case of Earth teaches that having large gas giants, such as Saturn and Jupiter,.in the outer part of the solar system can help keep a planet safe for life. Due to their strong gravitation, they tend to catch or deflect large objects before they can reach Earth. Which of the following best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence 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 35 to 42.Life in the Universe Exobiology is the study of life that originates from outside of Earth. As yet, of course, no such life forms have been found. Exobiologists, however, have done important work in the theoretical study of where life is most likely to evolve, and what those extrateưestrial life forms might be like. What sorts of planets are most likely to develop life? Most scientists agree that a habitable planet must be terrestrial, or rock-based, with liquid surface water and biogeochemical cycles that somewhat resemble Earth’s. Water is an important solvent involved in many biological processes. Biogeochemical cycles are the continuous movement and transformation of materials in the environment. These cycles include the circulation of elements and nutrients upon which life and the Earth’s climate depend. Since (as far as we know) all life is carbon-based, a stable carbon cycle is especially important. The habitable zone is the region around a star in which planets can develop life. Assuming the need for liquid surface water, it follows that most stars around the size of our sun will be able to sustain habitable zones for billions of years. Stars that are larger than the sun are much hotter and bum out more quickly; life there may not have enough time to evolve. Stars that are smaller than the sun have different problem. First of all, planets in their habitable zones will be so close to the star that they will be “tidally locked” – that is one side of the planet will always face the star in perpetual daylight with the other side in the perpetual night. Another possible obstacle to life on smaller stars is that they tend to vary in their luminosity, or brightness, due to flares and “star spots”. The variation can be large enough to have harmful effects on the ecosystem. Of course, not all stars of the right size will give rise to life; they also must have terrestrial planets with the right kind of orbits. Most solar systems have more than one planet, which influence each other’s orbits with their own gravity. Therefore, in order to have a stable system with no planets flying out into space, the orbits must be a good distance from one another. Interestingly, the amount of space needed is roughly the width of a star’s habitable zone. This means that for life to evolve, the largest possible number of life-supporting planets in any star’s habitable zone is two. Finally, not all planets meeting the above conditions will necessarily develop life. One major threat is large, frequent asteroid and comet impacts, which will wipe out life each time it tries to evolve. The case of Earth teaches that having large gas giants, such as Saturn and Jupiter,.in the outer part of the solar system can help keep a planet safe for life. Due to their strong gravitation, they tend to catch or deflect large objects before they can reach Earth. It can be inferred from paragraph 4 that
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.Life in the Universe Exobiology is the study of life that originates from outside of Earth. As yet, of course, no such life forms have been found. Exobiologists, however, have done important work in the theoretical study of where life is most likely to evolve, and what those extrateưestrial life forms might be like. What sorts of planets are most likely to develop life? Most scientists agree that a habitable planet must be terrestrial, or rock-based, with liquid surface water and biogeochemical cycles that somewhat resemble Earth’s. Water is an important solvent involved in many biological processes. Biogeochemical cycles are the continuous movement and transformation of materials in the environment. These cycles include the circulation of elements and nutrients upon which life and the Earth’s climate depend. Since (as far as we know) all life is carbon-based, a stable carbon cycle is especially important. The habitable zone is the region around a star in which planets can develop life. Assuming the need for liquid surface water, it follows that most stars around the size of our sun will be able to sustain habitable zones for billions of years. Stars that are larger than the sun are much hotter and bum out more quickly; life there may not have enough time to evolve. Stars that are smaller than the sun have different problem. First of all, planets in their habitable zones will be so close to the star that they will be “tidally locked” – that is one side of the planet will always face the star in perpetual daylight with the other side in the perpetual night. Another possible obstacle to life on smaller stars is that they tend to vary in their luminosity, or brightness, due to flares and “star spots”. The variation can be large enough to have harmful effects on the ecosystem. Of course, not all stars of the right size will give rise to life; they also must have terrestrial planets with the right kind of orbits. Most solar systems have more than one planet, which influence each other’s orbits with their own gravity. Therefore, in order to have a stable system with no planets flying out into space, the orbits must be a good distance from one another. Interestingly, the amount of space needed is roughly the width of a star’s habitable zone. This means that for life to evolve, the largest possible number of life-supporting planets in any star’s habitable zone is two. Finally, not all planets meeting the above conditions will necessarily develop life. One major threat is large, frequent asteroid and comet impacts, which will wipe out life each time it tries to evolve. The case of Earth teaches that having large gas giants, such as Saturn and Jupiter,.in the outer part of the solar system can help keep a planet safe for life. Due to their strong gravitation, they tend to catch or deflect large objects before they can reach Earth. In order for life to develop, a planet’s orbit must not be