khoahoc.vietjack.com

Danh sách câu hỏi ( Có 89,720 câu hỏi trên 1,795 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 ______. 

Xem chi tiết 515 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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?

Xem chi tiết 307 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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 ______. 

Xem chi tiết 337 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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?

Xem chi tiết 346 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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 ______.

Xem chi tiết 421 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.The author mentions that all of the following are aware of quantities in some ways EXCEPT _______.

Xem chi tiết 1.1 K lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.Why does the author refer to Gilbert White’s book in line 2?

Xem chi tiết 0.9 K lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.Where in the passage does the author mention research that supports his own view of animals’ inability to count?

Xem chi tiết 676 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.What is the main idea of this passage

Xem chi tiết 720 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.The word “surreptitiously” is closest in meaning to _______.

Xem chi tiết 740 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.According to information in the passage, which of the following is LEAST likely to occur as a result of animals’ intuitive awareness of quantities?

Xem chi tiết 388 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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.Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “The Natural History of Selboure” (1786), the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest, and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one. He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five - never four, never six -caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch. Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species - as in the case of the eggs - or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small - not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals’ admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers.The word “they” refer to _______ .

Xem chi tiết 485 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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 ______.

Xem chi tiết 357 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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 ______.

Xem chi tiết 393 lượt xem 5 năm trước

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?

Xem chi tiết 402 lượt xem 5 năm trước

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.     Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.     Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.     Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some places it communicates ridicule.     The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully. Which form of body language is NOT mentioned in the passage?

Xem chi tiết 606 lượt xem 5 năm trước

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.     Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.     Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.     Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some places it communicates ridicule.     The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully. As stated in the passage, in order to communicate successfully with people from another culture, it is advisable for a person ______.

Xem chi tiết 548 lượt xem 5 năm trước

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.     Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.     Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.     Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some places it communicates ridicule.     The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully. The word "it" in paragraph 3 refers to ______. 

Xem chi tiết 3.5 K lượt xem 5 năm trước

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.     Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.     Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.     Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some places it communicates ridicule.     The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully. The word "intimacy" in paragraph 2 is closest in meaning to ______.

Xem chi tiết 487 lượt xem 5 năm trước

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 30 to 34.      Body language is a vital form of communication. In fact, it is believed that the various forms of body language contribute about 70 percent to our comprehension. It is important to note, however, that body language varies in different cultures. Take for example, eye movement. In the USA a child is expected to look directly at a parent or teacher who is scolding him/her. In other cultures the opposite is true. Looking directly at a teacher or parent in such a situation is considered a sign of disrespect.      Another form of body language that is used differently, depending on the culture, is distance. In North America people don't generally stand as close to each other as in South America. Two North Americans who don't know each other well will keep a distance of four feet between them, whereas South Americans in the same situation will stand two to three feet apart. North Americans will stand closer than two feet apart only if they are having a confidential conversation or if there is intimacy between them.      Gestures are often used to communicate. We point a finger, raise an eyebrow, wave an arm – or move any other part of the body – to show what we want to say. However, this does not mean that people all over the world use the same gestures to express the same meanings. Very often we find that the same gestures can communicate different meanings, depending on the country. An example of a gesture that could be misinterpreted is sticking out the tongue. In many cultures it is a sign of making a mistake, but in some places it communicates ridicule.      The dangers of misunderstanding one another are great. Obviously, it is not enough to learn the language of another culture. You must also learn its non-verbal signals if you want to communicate successfully.  What is the passage mainly about?

Xem chi tiết 453 lượt xem 5 năm trước