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 to indicate the answer to each of the question.
Robots are useful for exploring and working in space. In particular, many robots have been sent to explore Mars. Such robots have usually looked like a box with wheels. Though these robots are useful, by their very nature they are unreliable, extremely expensive, and they break easily. Also, they cannot do very many tasks. Because of these problems, scientists have been developing a new and unusual kind of robot. These new robots move like snakes, so they have been given the name "snakebots."
The way a snake is shaped lets it get into very small spaces, like cracks in rocks. It can also push its way below the ground or climb up different kinds of objects, like high rocks and trees. Such abilities account for the usefulness of a robot designed like a snake. A snakebot would be able to do these things, too, making it much more effective than regular robots with wheels, which easily get stuck or fall over. Since they can carry tools, snakebots would be able to work in space, as well. They could, for example, help repair the International Space Station.
But how can such a robot shape be made? A snakebot is built like a Chain made of about thirty parts, or modules. Each module is basically the same in that they all have a small computer and a wheel to aid movement. The large computer in the "head” of the snake makes all of the modules in a snakebot work together.
The modular design of the snakebot has many advantages. If one module fails, another can be added easily. Snakebot modules can also carry different kinds of tools, as well as cameras. Since each module is actually a robot in itself, one module can work apart from the rest if necessary. That is, all the modules can separate and move on their own, and then later, reconnect back into a larger robot. Researchers are also trying to develop snakebots made of a special kind of plastic that can change its shape using electricity, almost like animal muscles. Snakebots made with this plastic will be very strong and hard to break.
Overall, the snakebot design is much simpler than that of common robots. Thus, snakebots will be much less expensive to build. For example, a robot recently sent to Mars cost over a hundred million dollars, whereas snakebots can cost as little as a few hundred dollars. With their versatility and affordability, snakebots seem to be the wave of the future, at least as far as space robots are concerned.
According to paragraph 1, the following are disadvantages of the common robots which have been on Mars, EXCEPT _________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the answer to each of the question.
Robots are useful for exploring and working in space. In particular, many robots have been sent to explore Mars. Such robots have usually looked like a box with wheels. Though these robots are useful, by their very nature they are unreliable, extremely expensive, and they break easily. Also, they cannot do very many tasks. Because of these problems, scientists have been developing a new and unusual kind of robot. These new robots move like snakes, so they have been given the name "snakebots."
The way a snake is shaped lets it get into very small spaces, like cracks in rocks. It can also push its way below the ground or climb up different kinds of objects, like high rocks and trees. Such abilities account for the usefulness of a robot designed like a snake. A snakebot would be able to do these things, too, making it much more effective than regular robots with wheels, which easily get stuck or fall over. Since they can carry tools, snakebots would be able to work in space, as well. They could, for example, help repair the International Space Station.
But how can such a robot shape be made? A snakebot is built like a Chain made of about thirty parts, or modules. Each module is basically the same in that they all have a small computer and a wheel to aid movement. The large computer in the "head” of the snake makes all of the modules in a snakebot work together.
The modular design of the snakebot has many advantages. If one module fails, another can be added easily. Snakebot modules can also carry different kinds of tools, as well as cameras. Since each module is actually a robot in itself, one module can work apart from the rest if necessary. That is, all the modules can separate and move on their own, and then later, reconnect back into a larger robot. Researchers are also trying to develop snakebots made of a special kind of plastic that can change its shape using electricity, almost like animal muscles. Snakebots made with this plastic will be very strong and hard to break.
Overall, the snakebot design is much simpler than that of common robots. Thus, snakebots will be much less expensive to build. For example, a robot recently sent to Mars cost over a hundred million dollars, whereas snakebots can cost as little as a few hundred dollars. With their versatility and affordability, snakebots seem to be the wave of the future, at least as far as space robots are concerned.
What topic does the passage mainly focus on?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the answer to each of the question.
The majority of medium and large companies pay higher wage rates to men than to women, according to the latest government figures. The disparity, known as the gender pay gap, reflects the different average hourly salaries earned by men and women. The government data showed 74% of firms pay higher rates to their male staff. just 15% of businesses with more than 250 employees pay more to women. As many as 11% of firms said there is no difference between the rates paid to either gender.
Unlike pay inequality - which compares the wages of men and women doing the same job - a gender pay difference at a company is not illegal, but could possibly reflect discrimination. The average gender pay gap across all medium and large-sized firms is now 8.2%, as measured by median pay. in other words, men typically earn over 8% more per hour than women. Among those with the largest gender pay gap are airlines such as Tui and Easyjet, and banks including Virgin Money, the Clydesdale and TSB. Easyjet has said its pay gap of 45.5% is down to the fact that most of its pilots are male, while most of its more modestly paid cabin crew are female. Tui Airways - where men earn 47% more than
214women - has the same issue. Many banks also appear to have a gender bias on salaries. The Bank of England's wage rate for men is 24% higher than for its female employees.
By law, all firms with more than 250 staff must report their gender pay gap to the government by 4 April this year. So far only 1,047 firms have complied, leaving another 8,000 to go. Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the CBI, denied companies were dragging their feet in reporting the data. "I don't see a reluctance," she told the Today programme. "I think this is genuinely quite difficult data to find, it is often sitting on different systems and firms are working very hard towards that deadline.
The word “their” in paragraph 3 refers to ________?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the answer to each of the question.
The majority of medium and large companies pay higher wage rates to men than to women, according to the latest government figures. The disparity, known as the gender pay gap, reflects the different average hourly salaries earned by men and women. The government data showed 74% of firms pay higher rates to their male staff. just 15% of businesses with more than 250 employees pay more to women. As many as 11% of firms said there is no difference between the rates paid to either gender.
Unlike pay inequality - which compares the wages of men and women doing the same job - a gender pay difference at a company is not illegal, but could possibly reflect discrimination. The average gender pay gap across all medium and large-sized firms is now 8.2%, as measured by median pay. in other words, men typically earn over 8% more per hour than women. Among those with the largest gender pay gap are airlines such as Tui and Easyjet, and banks including Virgin Money, the Clydesdale and TSB. Easyjet has said its pay gap of 45.5% is down to the fact that most of its pilots are male, while most of its more modestly paid cabin crew are female. Tui Airways - where men earn 47% more than
214women - has the same issue. Many banks also appear to have a gender bias on salaries. The Bank of England's wage rate for men is 24% higher than for its female employees.
By law, all firms with more than 250 staff must report their gender pay gap to the government by 4 April this year. So far only 1,047 firms have complied, leaving another 8,000 to go. Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the CBI, denied companies were dragging their feet in reporting the data. "I don't see a reluctance," she told the Today programme. "I think this is genuinely quite difficult data to find, it is often sitting on different systems and firms are working very hard towards that deadline.
In the 2rd paragraph, the writer says the reason why Tui Airways also have gender pay gap is because ________.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the answer to each of the question.
The majority of medium and large companies pay higher wage rates to men than to women, according to the latest government figures. The disparity, known as the gender pay gap, reflects the different average hourly salaries earned by men and women. The government data showed 74% of firms pay higher rates to their male staff. just 15% of businesses with more than 250 employees pay more to women. As many as 11% of firms said there is no difference between the rates paid to either gender.
Unlike pay inequality - which compares the wages of men and women doing the same job - a gender pay difference at a company is not illegal, but could possibly reflect discrimination. The average gender pay gap across all medium and large-sized firms is now 8.2%, as measured by median pay. in other words, men typically earn over 8% more per hour than women. Among those with the largest gender pay gap are airlines such as Tui and Easyjet, and banks including Virgin Money, the Clydesdale and TSB. Easyjet has said its pay gap of 45.5% is down to the fact that most of its pilots are male, while most of its more modestly paid cabin crew are female. Tui Airways - where men earn 47% more than
214women - has the same issue. Many banks also appear to have a gender bias on salaries. The Bank of England's wage rate for men is 24% higher than for its female employees.
By law, all firms with more than 250 staff must report their gender pay gap to the government by 4 April this year. So far only 1,047 firms have complied, leaving another 8,000 to go. Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the CBI, denied companies were dragging their feet in reporting the data. "I don't see a reluctance," she told the Today programme. "I think this is genuinely quite difficult data to find, it is often sitting on different systems and firms are working very hard towards that deadline.
Which statement is probably TRUE according to the information in the paragraph 1?
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the answer to each of the question.
The majority of medium and large companies pay higher wage rates to men than to women, according to the latest government figures. The disparity, known as the gender pay gap, reflects the different average hourly salaries earned by men and women. The government data showed 74% of firms pay higher rates to their male staff. just 15% of businesses with more than 250 employees pay more to women. As many as 11% of firms said there is no difference between the rates paid to either gender.
Unlike pay inequality - which compares the wages of men and women doing the same job - a gender pay difference at a company is not illegal, but could possibly reflect discrimination. The average gender pay gap across all medium and large-sized firms is now 8.2%, as measured by median pay. in other words, men typically earn over 8% more per hour than women. Among those with the largest gender pay gap are airlines such as Tui and Easyjet, and banks including Virgin Money, the Clydesdale and TSB. Easyjet has said its pay gap of 45.5% is down to the fact that most of its pilots are male, while most of its more modestly paid cabin crew are female. Tui Airways - where men earn 47% more than
214women - has the same issue. Many banks also appear to have a gender bias on salaries. The Bank of England's wage rate for men is 24% higher than for its female employees.
By law, all firms with more than 250 staff must report their gender pay gap to the government by 4 April this year. So far only 1,047 firms have complied, leaving another 8,000 to go. Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the CBI, denied companies were dragging their feet in reporting the data. "I don't see a reluctance," she told the Today programme. "I think this is genuinely quite difficult data to find, it is often sitting on different systems and firms are working very hard towards that deadline.
The best title for this passage could be ________.
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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
According to the passage, the multi-regional evolution model posits far more diverse roots for our kind because _____________
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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
It can be inferred from the passagethat_____________
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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
Which of the following is NOT true about the two hypotheses?
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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
The word “their” in the passage 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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
Which of the following is NOT true?
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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
All of the following statements are true 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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
The word “emergence” in the passage is closest in meaning to _____________
Mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the word(s) CLOSEST in meaning to the underlined word (5) in each of the following questions.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, joining hands initiallỵ.
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.
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modem humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modem human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modem specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modem Australians showed affinities to archaic Homoffom Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues, as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.
(Source: www.coursehero.com)
The passage primarily discusses which of the following?
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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
What is Matthews keen for clients to realize?
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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
What does Matthews say in paragraph 3 about cameras and camcorders?
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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
The word “courtesy” 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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
Which of the following best summarizes the view of Earthwatch?
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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
In the first paragraph we learn that Discovery Initiatives
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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
Which of the following does Chris Parrott believe?
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 28 to 34.
The days of the camera-toting tourist may be numbered. Insensitive travelers are being ordered to stop pointing their cameras and camcorders at reluctant local residents. Tour companies selling expensive trips to remote comers of the world, off the well-trodden path of the average tourist, have become increasingly irritated at the sight of the visitors upsetting locals. Now one such operator plans to ban clients from taking any photographic equipment on holidays. Julian Mathews is the director of Discovery Initiatives, a company that is working hand-in-hand with other organizations to offer holidays combining high adventure with working on environmental projects. His trips are not cheap; two weeks of white-water rafting and monitoring wildlife in Canada cost several thousand pounds.
Matthews says he is providing ‘holidays without guilt’, insisting that Discovery Initiatives is not a tour operator but an environmental support company. Clients are referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘ambassadors’. ‘We see ourselves as the next step on from cco-tourism, which is merely a passive form, of sensitive travel - our approach is more proactive.’ However, says Matthews, there is a price to pay. ‘I am planning to introduce tours with a total ban on cameras and camcorders because of the damage they do to our relationships with local people. I have seen some horrendous things, such as a group of six tourists arriving at a remote village in the South American jungle, each with a video camera attached to their face. That sort of thing tears me up inside. Would you like somebody to come into your home and take a photo of you cooking? A camera is like a weapon; it puts up a barrier and you lose all the communication that comes through body language, which effectively means that the host communities are denied access to the so-called cultural exchange.
Matthews started organizing environmental holidays after a scientific expedition for young people. He subsequently founded Discovery Expeditions, which has helped support 13 projects worldwide. With the launch of Discovery Initiatives, he is placing a greater emphasis on adventure and fun, omitting in the brochure all references to scientific research. But his rules of conduct are strict. ‘In some parts of the world, for instance, I tell people they should wear long trousers, not shorts, and wear a tie, when eating out. It may sound dictatorial, but I find one has a better experience if one is well dressed. I don’t understand why people dress down when they go to other countries.’
Matthews’ views reflect a growing unease among some tour companies at the increasingly cavalier behaviour of well-heeled tourists. Chris Parrott, of Journey Latin America, says: ‘We tell our clients that indigenous people are often shy about being photographed, but we certainly don’t tell them not to take a camera. If they take pictures without asking, they may have tomatoes thrown at them.’ He also reports that increasing numbers of clients are taking camcorders and pointing them indiscriminately at locals. He says: ‘People with camcorders tend to be more intrusive than those with cameras, but there is a payoff - the people they are filming get a tremendous thrill from seeing themselves played back on the viewfinder.’
Crispin Jones, of Exodus, the overland truck specialist, says: ‘We don’t have a policy but, should cameras cause offence, our tour leaders will make it quite clear that they cannot be used. Clients tend to do what they are told.
Earthwatch, which pioneered the concept of proactive eco-tourism by sending paying volunteers to work on scientific projects around the world, does not ban cameras, but operates strict rules on their use. Ed Wilson, the marketing director of the company, says: ‘We try to impress on people the common courtesy of getting permission before using their cameras, and one would hope that every tour operator would do the same. People have to be not only environmentally aware but also culturally aware. Some people use the camera as a barrier; it allows them to distance themselves from the reality of what they see. I would like to see tourists putting their cameras away for once, rather than trying to record everything they see.’
The word “indigenous” in paragraph 5 is closest in meaning to