Danh sách câu hỏi
Có 63,116 câu hỏi trên 1,263 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.
Television’s contribution to family life in the United States has been an equivocal one. For while is has, indeed, kept the members of the family from dispersing, it has not served to bring them together. By dominating the time families spend together, it destroys the special quality that distinguishes one family from another, a quality that depends to a great extent on what a family does, what special rituals, games, recurrent jokes, familiar songs, and shared activities it accumulates.
“Like the sorcerer of old,” writes Urie Bronfenbrenner, “the television set casts its magic spell, freezing speech and action, turning the living into silent statues so long as the behavior it produces – although there is danger there – as in the behavior it prevents: the talks, games, the family festivities, and arguments through which much of the child’s leaning takes place and though which character is formed. Turning on the television set can turn off the process that transform children into people.”
Of course, families today still do special things together at times: go camping in the summer, go to the zoo on a nice Sunday, take various trips and expeditions. But the ordinary daily life together is diminished – that sitting around at the dinner table, that spontaneous taking up of an activity, those little games invented by children on the spur of the moment when there is nothing else to do, the scribbling, the chatting, the quarreling, all the things that form the fabric of a family, that define a childhood.
Instead, the children have their schedule of television programs and bedtime, and the parents have their peaceful dinner together. But surely the needs of adults are being better met than the needs of children, who are effectively shunted away and rendered untroublesome.
If the family does not accumulate its backlog of shared experiences, shared everyday experiences that occur and recur and change and develop, then it is not likely to survive as anything other than a caretaking institution.
Television’s contribution to family life in the United States has been an equivocal one. For while is has, indeed, kept the members of the family from dispersing, it has not served to bring them together. By dominating the time families spend together, it destroys the special quality that distinguishes one family from another, a quality that depends to a great extent on what a family does, what special rituals, games, recurrent jokes, familiar songs, and shared activities it accumulates.
“Like the sorcerer of old,” writes Urie Bronfenbrenner, “the television set casts its magic spell, freezing speech and action, turning the living into silent statues so long as the behavior it produces – although there is danger there – as in the behavior it prevents: the talks, games, the family festivities, and arguments through which much of the child’s leaning takes place and though which character is formed. Turning on the television set can turn off the process that transform children into people.”
Of course, families today still do special things together at times: go camping in the summer, go to the zoo on a nice Sunday, take various trips and expeditions. But the ordinary daily life together is diminished – that sitting around at the dinner table, that spontaneous taking up of an activity, those little games invented by children on the spur of the moment when there is nothing else to do, the scribbling, the chatting, the quarreling, all the things that form the fabric of a family, that define a childhood.
Instead, the children have their schedule of television programs and bedtime, and the parents have their peaceful dinner together. But surely the needs of adults are being better met than the needs of children, who are effectively shunted away and rendered untroublesome.
If the family does not accumulate its backlog of shared experiences, shared everyday experiences that occur and recur and change and develop, then it is not likely to survive as anything other than a caretaking institution.
Which of the following best represents the author’s argument in the passage?
Read the following passages and mark the letter A, B, C or D to indicate the correct word for each of the blanks from 1 to 5.
Just imagine a day without paper,’ reads one advertisement for a Finnish paper company. It adds, ‘You almost certainly see our products every day.’ And they're right. But in most industrial countries, people are so (1) to paper - whether it’s for holding their groceries, for drying their hands or for providing them with the daily news - that its (2) in their daily lives passes largely unnoticed. At one (3) paper was in short supply and was used mainly for important documents, but more recently, growing economies and new technologies have (4) a dramatic increase in the amount of paper used. Today, there are more than 450 different grades of paper, all designed for a different purpose. Decades ago, some people predicted a ‘paperless office’. Instead, the widespread use of new technologies has gone hand-in-hand with an increased use of paper. Research into the relationship between paper use and the use of computers has shown that the general (5) is likely to be one of growth and interdependence. However, the costs involved in paper production, in terms of the world's land, water and air resources, are high. This raises some important questions. How much paper do we really need and how much is wasted?
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
Plants and animals will find it difficult to escape from or adjust to the effects of global warming. Scientists have already observed shifts in the lifecycles of many plants and animals, such as flowers blooming earlier and birds hatching earlier in the spring. Many species have begun shifting where they live or their annual migration patterns due to warmer temperatures.With further warming, animals will tend to migrate toward the poles and up mountainsides toward higher elevations. Plants will also attempt to shift their ranges, seeking new areas as old habitats grow too warm. In many places, however, human development will prevent these shifts. Species that find cities or farmland blocking their way north or south may become extinct. Species living in unique ecosystems, such as those found in polar and mountaintop regions, are especially at risk because migration to new habitats is not possible. For example, polar bears and marine mammals in the Arctic are already threatened by dwindling sea ice but have nowhere farther north to go.Projecting species extinction due to global warming is extremely difficult. Some scientists have estimated that 20 to 50 percent of species could be committed to extinction with 2 to 3 Celsius degrees of further warming. The rate of warming, not just the magnitude, is extremely important for plants and animals. Some species and even entire ecosystems, such as certain types of forest, may not be able to adjust quickly enough and may disappear. Ocean ecosystems, especially fragile ones like coral reefs, will also be affected by global warming. Warmer ocean temperatures can cause coral to “bleach”, a state which if prolonged will lead to the death of the coral. Scientists estimate that even 1 Celsius degree of additional warming could lead to widespread bleaching and death of coral reefs around the world. Also, increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the ocean and increases the acidity of ocean waters. This acidification further stresses ocean ecosystems.
Scientists have observed that warmer temperatures in the spring cause flowers to ______.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct word or phrases that best fits each of the numbered blanks.
Ever since it was first possible to make a real robot, people have been hoping for the invention of a machine that would do all the necessary jobs around the house. If boring and repetitive factory work could be (1) by robots, why not boring and repetitive household chores too? For a long time the only people who really gave the problem their attention were amateur inventors And they came up against a major difficulty. That is, housework is (2) very complex. It has never been one job it has always been many. A factor robot carries (33) one task endlessly until it is reprogrammed to do something else. It doesn’t run the whole factory. A housework robot on the other hand, has to do several different types of cleaning and carrying jobs and also has to cope with all the different shapes and positions of rooms, furniture, ornaments, cats and dogs. (4), there have been some developments recently. Sensors are available to help the robot locate objects and avoid obstacles. We have the technology to produce the hardware. All that is missing the software - the programs (5) will operate the machine.