2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án (Phần 18)

Sample 1:

The stacked bar charts give a breakdown of the UK’s household composition in two separate years, namely 1981 and 2001.

Overall, there were decreases in the shares of households having from 3 to 6 people, whereas the converse was true in the case of those having 1 or 2 members, with 2-person and 6-person households being the most and least common in both given years, respectively.

Regarding households with an upward trend, the percentage of 2-member households was consistently the highest, starting at 31% before rising minimally by 3% in the final year. A similar change, but to a greater extent, was observed in the proportion of the smallest-sized households, growing from 17% initially to just over a quarter at the end of the period.

Turning to categories with a downward trend, households with 3 and 4 occupants witnessed the same level of decrease, with their figures dropping from 20% and 18% in 1981 to 17% and 15% two decades later, in that order. 5-person and 6-person households followed similar falling trends, albeit at lower rates. While the figure for the former had declined from 8% to 6% by 2001, that of the latter remained the lowest throughout, dipping from 6% to 2%. 

Sample 2:

The two stacked bar charts detail the UK’s household demographics in 1981 and 2001. The initial impression from the chart is that 1-person and 2-person households were the second most and the most common family classifications in both given years, and they also experienced rises in percentages. The remaining groups made up smaller proportions and underwent corresponding drops, with the 6-person household being the least popular one.

In 1981, 2-person household made up 31%, ranking first among the given household type, after which the rate underwent a mild rise to 34% in 2001. A similar picture is evident in 1-person household, with its figure accounting for 17% and thereafter rising to 26% in 2001.

Opposite patterns could be observed with regard to the remaining groups. In 1981 the shares of 3-person, 4-person, 5-person and 6-person were 20%, 18%, 8% and 6% respectively. Over the next 20 years, they all decreased by similar margins (of around 2-3%) to 17%, 15%, 6% and 2%.

Sample 3:

The charts illustrate the percentage of different sized households in the UK, in 1981 and 2001.

Overall, the most common sized household in both measured years was that of 2-person households, while 6-person households were the least common. Additionally, while the percentage of 1-person and 2-person households increased, the percentage of all other sized households decreased.

In 1981, 31% of all households contained 2 people, while 20% of households contained 3 people. 1-person and 4-person households made up similar percentages, at 17% and 18% respectively, whereas 5-person and 6-person households only made up 8% and 6% of the total.

By 2001, the proportion of 1-person and 2-person households had risen to 26% and 34% respectively. Meanwhile, the proportion of all other sized households had decreased, with 3 and 4-person households dropping to similar levels, at 17% and 15% respectively, and 5 and 6-person households dropping to 6% and 2% respectively.

Sample 4:

The stacked bar charts delineate the household compositions with respect to the number of occupants in the UK in 1981 and 2001.  

As is shown in the graph, most households in the UK had 2 occupants. Over the surveyed period, single and 2-person households enjoyed upswings whilst other demographics experienced a corresponding downturn.  

Regarding the first stacked bar, 31% of households consisted of 2 occupants, heading the list of total demographics. Next came 3-person households with 20%, as opposed to single and 4-member households, accounting for 17% and 18% in turn. Large household sizes ranked in bottom place with 8% for 5-occupant and 6% for 6-occupant units.

20 years later, households with a single person living alone or two persons became dominant, with the figure for the former rising up by 9%, amounting to over one-quarter of total surveyed households. Meanwhile, households with 3 or 4 occupants recorded a fall of 3%, finishing at 17% and 15% respectively. Remaining in the last place were household units of 5 or 6 members, with their figures decreasing to 6% and 2%.

Sample 5:

The stacked bar charts delineate the composition of households in the UK during two distinct years: 1981 and 2001.

Overall, the UK preferred a smaller family size. Throughout both years, households comprising 2 individuals were the most prevalent, while those with 6 members were the least common.

Regarding the escalating trend, 2-person households consistently held the highest percentage, commencing at 31% and experiencing a marginal rise of 3% by the conclusion of the period. A comparable albeit more pronounced upward shift was noticeable in the proportion of the smallest-sized households (1 person), advancing from 17% initially to slightly over 25% by the terminal year.

Conversely, a declining trajectory was evident in households with 3 and 4 inhabitants, both experiencing a reduction from 20% and 18% in 1981 to 17% and 15% respectively by 2001. Similarly, households with 5 and 6 occupants also followed decreasing trends, albeit at slower rates. While the former decreased from 8% to 6% by 2001, the latter consistently demonstrated the lowest representation, plummeting from 6% to a mere 2% over the same period.

Sample 6:

The provided bar graphs compare the number of people per household in the UK in 1981 and 2001, elucidating the dynamic changes of household sizes. Notably, the trend indicates a pivot towards smaller household units over the two decades in question.

Overall, the data presents a clear downsizing trend in UK households, with a notable rise in one and two-person homes and a general decrease in larger family units.

In 1981, two-person households dominated, accounting for 31% of the total, and witnessed a slight increment to 34% by 2001, solidifying their prevalence. Conversely, the smallest household category, one-person units, experienced a significant upsurge from 17% to 26%, marking a move towards more individualised living spaces.

Meanwhile, the more populous household categories all contracted. Four-person homes, which constituted 18% in 1981, retracted to 15% by 2001. Three-person households mirrored this decrease, diminishing from 20% to 17%. Five-person households also saw a reduction, albeit less dramatically, from 8% to 6%. The most pronounced decline was observed in six-person households, which halved from 6% to a mere 2%, marking the most substantial demographic shift.

Sample 7:

The chart elucidates the changes in household composition in the UK, as measured by the number of occupants, between 1981 and 2001.

Overall, there was a noticeable shift towards smaller households in the UK over the 20-year period, with an increase in one and two-person households and a decrease in larger households.

In 1981, two-member households constituted the largest segment, accounting for 31% of the total, and this figure saw a modest rise to 34% in 2001. Single-person households also increased notably, jumping from 17% to 26% over the two decades. Households of three persons experienced a slight decline, from one fifth in 1981 to 17% in 2001.

Contrastingly, larger households displayed a downward trend. In 1981, four-member families accounted for 18% of households, but this fell marginally to 15% in 2001. A similar pattern was observed for five-member households, whose share dropped from 8% to 6% during the same period. Notably, households containing six members were the least common in both years, representing less than 6% of the total.

Sample 8:

The presented chart delineates the evolution of the number of people per household in the UK, by enumerating the number of inhabitants, from 1981 to 2001. It is compelling to note a significant transition towards smaller household units and a concurrent decline in more substantial familial arrangements.

In 1981, the dominant household structure comprised two occupants, accounting for 31% of the total. This segment saw a subtle uptick, reaching 34% by 2001. Singular dwellers also experienced a considerable surge, escalating from 17% to 26% over the two-decade span. The fraction of tri-member households diminished marginally, receding from one fifth in 1981 to 17% by 2001.

In stark contrast, households with larger numbers exhibited a waning trend. Four-member familial units, which represented 18% of total households in 1981, underwent a slight contraction to 15% in 2001. A congruent trajectory was observed amongst five-member households, dwindling from 8% to 6% over the same timeframe. Significantly, households embracing six inhabitants remained the least prevalent category, commanding less than 6% in both surveyed years.

Sample 9:

The given chart depicts the percentages for the number of people living in households over a period of twenty years from 1981 to 2001 in the UK.

Overall, the percentage of families with 1 to two members increased, while the proportion of families with 3 or more people decreased slightly. In addition, two person households account for the largest percentage of households, whereas six person households have the lowest percentage.

In 1981, the number of households with 2-person accounted for 31% and ranked first among the households, after which it witnessed a slight increase to 34% in 2001. Furthermore, the number of single-person households was responsible for 17%, which was followed by a significant increase of 26% in the next two decades.

Turning to households with a downward trend, the number of households with 3-person decreased slightly by 3% from 20% to 17% and households with 4-person witnessed the same level of decrease with their figures dropping from 18% to 15% over the following two decades. Remain in the last place are households of 5 and 6-person who also have a similar decrease with the rate falling to 6% and 2% respectively.

Sample 10:

The bar chart depicts the distribution of households in the UK based on their size in the years 1981 and 2001.

Overall, households consisting of two individuals were the most prevalent category in both years, whereas households with six members were the least common. Furthermore, while the percentage of one-person and two-person households witnessed an upward shift, the proportion of households of other sizes took the opposite trend.

In 1981, approximately 31% of all households comprised two people, while 20% were composed of three individuals. One-person and four-person households accounted for similar proportions, at 17% and 18% respectively, whereas five-person and six-person households constituted only 8% and 6% of the total in that order.

After 20 years, the percentage of one-person households rose considerably to 26%, representing a significant increase of 9%. The proportion of those with two people followed a similar pattern, although the increase was less pronounced, with a 3% rise. Meanwhile, the trend for the remaining categories was downward, as their figures decreased by around 2 to 4%.

Sample 1:

The given line graph illustrates the number of foreign visitors who came to the United Kingdom for business, holiday and for meeting kith and kin, from 1989 to 2009. It can be seen that tourists who came for holiday were more than those for the other given purposes for a major part of the given two decades.

About 6.5 million people travelled to the UK for holidays in 1989. This number rose rapidly and peaked at 9 million by 1997, but after that fell dramatically and reached 6.5 million in 2004. After that the number of visitors picked up again and again reached a high of 9 million in 2009.

Meanwhile, business and socializing trips to the UK showed almost similar trends, starting from 3.5 million and 5 million respectively in 1989 and then rising moderately to reach 6 – 7 million in 2009. After that a fall in the number of visitors can be seen in both these cases. Throughout the given period, more people did business than those who visited their family and friends.

Overall, an upward trend can be seen in all three reasons for visiting abroad.

Sample 2:

The provided line graph illustrates the reasons why international visitors traveled to Britain during a two-decade period starting from 1989.

In general, this nation attracted an increasing number of foreign travelers for all documented motives. Moreover, vacation trips, despite their fluctuation, consistently ranked highest.

6.5 million holidaymakers came to Britain at the start of the period, followed by a surge to 9 million in 1998 but later a six-year plunge to its starting point. After a passing plummet from the initial 5 million, the figure for work-related visits soared to 7 million in 2004 and outdid that for the previously mentioned group. Despite a consistent 3.5-million increase, the number of visitors who arrived in the UK for family and friend reunions still ranked last at 6 million at the same time.

The UK subsequently welcomed a wave of tourists, which climbed to the formerly recorded peak of 9 million, in 2009. The figures for the other categories showed clear similarities in the remaining years. They witnessed proportional rises before declines and ended at 7 million for those going on business trips and 6 million for those visiting friends and relatives.

Sample 3:

The line graph illustrates the trends in activities performed by foreign visitors for three main purposes in the UK from 1989 to 2009. Overall, there was a remarkable increase in the number of foreign travelers visiting the UK for all three purposes. It is also clear that while business remained the most popular reason for visiting, with the exception of the period between 2000 and 2007, meeting friends and relatives was the least common purpose for visitors to visit the UK.

Regarding the leading business category, in 1989, approximately 6.5 million foreigners visited the UK for business purposes, and this number increased to just under 9 million by the mid-1990s. However, the number then dropped sharply to around 6.5 million in 2003 before picking up again in subsequent years. By 2009, the number of visitors for business purposes had surged to around 8.3 million, surpassing holiday to once again become the leading purpose for foreign visitors to the UK.

Regarding the two remaining categories, in 1989 the number of foreigners who came to the UK to enjoy holidays was 5 million. After a sudden drop to 4 million people in 1992, the figure then considerably increased to around 8 million visitors in 2007 before an unexpected decline to around 7 million people after 2009. By contrast, there was a constant growth in the number of visitors who traveled to the UK to meet their friends and relatives from 3.5 million in 1989 to around 7 million travelers in 2007, before declining slightly to around 6.5 million in 2009.

Sample 4:

The given line graph provides information about why international visitors travelled to Britain over a two-decade period starting from 1989.

Overall, this country attracted a growing number of overseas travellers for all reported reasons. In addition, the data on holiday trips, though erratic, nearly always topped the chart.

6.5 million holidaymakers came to Britain at the start of the period, followed by a surge to 9 million in 1998 but later a six-year plunge to its starting point. After a passing plummet from the initial 5 million, the figure for work-related visits soared to 7 million in 2004 and outdid that for the previously mentioned group. Despite a consistent 3.5-million increase, the number of visitors who arrived in the UK for family and friend reunions still ranked last at 6 million at the same time.

The UK subsequently welcomed a wave of tourists, which climbed to the formerly recorded peak of 9 million, in 2009. The figures for the other categories showed clear similarities in the remaining years. They witnessed proportional rises before declines and ended at 7 million for those going on business trips and 6 million for those visiting friends and relatives.

Sample 5:

The line graph illustrates how many foreigners visited the UK for business, holiday and socializing purposes in a period of two decades from 1989 to 2009. Units are measured in millions.

Overall, the number of overseas people who came to the UK for all three reasons soared over the period shown although figures for business travelers were more erratic. Interestingly, this group of tourists generally dominated the chart while those visiting this country for friends and family gathering remained the least.

Business visits to the UK, the largest category of foreign visitors, were impacted by a wild fluctuation in number. In 1989, this figure was far higher than those of the others (around 6.5) despite remaining flat during the first two years. It then fluctuated wildly between this initial level and the highest point of exactly 9 for the next 18 years, running to end at its peak in 2009.

In contrast, the proportion of tourists who paid a visit to the UK for holidays and socialization underwent a surge. As for the former, even after an initial dip, in 2002 and mid 2008 it spiked to overtake business goers before declining to just over 7. Finally, the latter doubled, rising from roughly 3.5 to a peak of 7 in 2008. This figure then experienced a similar trend as the former, downing slightly to finish at well over 6.

Sample 1:

The two maps illustrate the degree to which a small theatre changed from 2010 to 2012.

Overall, after two years, the theater became noticeably larger with the expansion of its upper and lower sections, and all of its facilities were either repurposed or relocated, except for the auditorium and the stage.

Regarding the top of the plan, the stage was enlarged in a northerly direction, overtaking half of the space previously occupied by the dressing room in 2010, which was turned into a corridor two years later. Meanwhile, there used to be a storage space flanking the stage and the corridor on the left in 2010, but it was then repositioned to their right flank in order to make way for two new rooms where performers or actors could get changed and take a shower.

Turning to the remaining areas of the theater, although the auditorium in the middle remained intact, the foyer below it had been extended towards the left by 2012, allowing for the establishment of a restaurant at the expense of the administration and ticket offices on the left-hand side of the main entrance. This in turn led to the relocation of the former to the left side of the auditorium and the latter to the bottom right corner of the plan, replacing the cafe that was present in 2010. 

Sample 2:

The maps illustrate the layout of a small theater between 2010 and 2012 show significant changes during that time period.

It can be seen that the theater received renovation efforts in the two-year time frame, with the building itself expanded sideways as existing features were moved and reconfigured. The only part that did not undergo significant changes was the central seating area.

Regarding the southern part of the theater, in 2010, there was a cafe situated in the corner to the right of the theater's main entrance, whereas the left corner was occupied by a ticket office and an administrative office. However, within the next two years, the ticket office was relocated to the bottom right corner where the cafe had been, while the administrative office was moved further back, to the left side of the seating area. This made way for a new restaurant area in the left rear corner.

In the upper section of the maps, one notable change was that the stage in front of the auditorium almost doubled in size with the addition of a side hall behind it, even as the auditorium itself remained unchanged. To the left of the stage was a storage room which, after 2010, was moved to the opposite end of the stage to make way for the construction of a showers area as well as the relocation of the dressing room. The old dressing room was located behind the stage in 2010, but this space, together with the right side of the stage, was redesigned to serve as a corridor which connected the dressing room and the storage room.

Sample 3:

The diagrams show the layouts of a theatre in 2010 and 2012. Overall, by 2012, it had been made significantly larger by adding new facilities and relocating some existing ones, while the main auditorium remained intact.

In 2010, the structure had two adjacent offices for admin and ticket sales and a cafe all located on either side of the main door at the centre of the lower wall. Inside the auditorium, there were two doors for entry, and one door for exit on the left next to the front-row seats. The main stage was about the same size as the dressing room behind it and a storage room was at the left rear of the theatre.

Over the next two years, the main door and auditorium with its entry doors remained untouched, while the exit one was lost. However, the lobby was widened, making room for a new restaurant. This means the admin office was moved a little up to the left in an addition, and the ticket counter replaced the old cafe on the right of the main door. Notably, although the stage was enlarged by almost double, the dressing room and storage were downsized and moved around slightly. The dressing room and new showers were located on the left in an extension, while the storage was on the right, all connected by a new long corridor at the back.

Sample 4:

The maps demonstrate how the layout of the small auditorium has changed over a span of 2 years.

Overall, with the core structure for the main operations remains largely the same, there are horizontal expansion of the theatre and significant alterations in amenities aiming to enhance the experiennce for customers and performers.

In 2010, the storage was occupied by a moderately sized on the left-hand side in the first half, while the rest area was utilized for the dressing room and the stage. Nevertheless, by 2012, the relocation of the storage to the opposite corner of the stage facilitated the establishment of a showers region as well as the refurbishment of a dressing room. Moreover, the old dressing room was combined with the right-hand side of the stage to construct a backstage corridor connecting the storage and dressing room, allowing for smoother movement. Additionally, the stage in front of the auditorium was nearly doubled in its origin, whereas the centered auditorium remained unchanged.

The period from 2010 to 2012 experienced a complete change in the lower section of the theatre. A restaurant was introduced in the left corner, where the admin office and the ticket office had been simultaneously removed. Furthermore, the cafe area was dismantled to accommodate a new ticket office, and the administrative office was shifted to the left-hand side of the seating room.

Sample 1:

The bar chart and pie chart give information about why US residents travelled and what travel problems they experienced in the year 2009.

It is clear that the principal reason why Americans travelled in 2009 was to commute to and from work. In the same year, the primary concern of Americans, with regard to the trips they made, was the cost of travelling.

Looking more closely at the bar chart, we can see that 49% of the trips made by Americans in 2009 were for the purpose of commuting. By contrast, only 6% of trips were visits to friends or relatives, and one in ten trips were for social or recreation reasons. Shopping was cited as the reason for 16% of all travel, while unspecific ‘personal reasons’ accounted for the remaining 19%.

According to the pie chart, price was the key consideration for 36% of American travellers. Almost one in five people cited safety as their foremost travel concern, while aggressive driving and highway congestion were the main issues for 17% and 14% of the travelling public. Finally, a total of 14% of those surveyed thought that access to public transport or space for pedestrians were the most important travel issues.

Sample 2:

The bar chart compares the figures for Americans going out for five reasons and the pie chart illustrates the percentage of six problems that concerned them when travelling in 2009. Overall, it is clear that the main reason why people in the US went out in 2009 is to commute to work, and the cost of travelling is the problem concerning them the most.

Looking first at the bar graph, the proportion of Americans going out for commuting to work stood at 49%, while the figure for those leaving their house for personal reasons accounted for 19%. In addition, the rate of people in the US going out for shopping and recreation made up 16% and 10%, respectively, while visiting friends or relatives accounted for the lowest percentage, at only 6%.

Turning to the pie chart, the cost of travelling was the most concerning problem of Americans when going out, with the figure making up 36%, while the proportion of safety concerns is half of that, at 19%. In addition, 17% of US citizens were concerned about aggressive drivers, while highway congestion made 14% of them worried when leaving their house. Access to public transportation and places for people to walk accounted for the lowest percentages, at only 8% and 6%, respectively.

Sample 3:

The provided charts offer insights into the reasons for travel and the primary concerns faced by the traveling public in the United States during the year 2009. The data is presented through a bar chart illustrating travel purposes and a pie chart highlighting key issues.

Notably, the primary motivation for travel among Americans in 2009 was commuting to and from work. Simultaneously, the major concern for the traveling public during their trips revolved around the cost associated with travel.

Examining the bar chart in detail reveals that almost half of the trips made by Americans in 2009, precisely 49%, were attributed to commuting. Conversely, visits to friends or relatives accounted for a mere 6%, while social or recreational trips constituted one in ten journeys. Shopping emerged as the purpose for 16% of all travel, leaving the remaining 19% for unspecific ‘personal reasons.’

Turning attention to the pie chart, it becomes evident that cost was the primary consideration for 36% of American travelers. Safety closely followed, with nearly one in five people, or 19%, expressing it as their foremost travel concern. Aggressive driving and highway congestion were significant issues for 17% and 14% of the traveling public, respectively. Additionally, 14% of respondents identified access to public transport or space for pedestrians as the most crucial travel issues.

Sample 4:

The bar chart shows why American people chose to travel, and the pie chart shows the main issues for the travelling public in the USA, both for 2009. The trend suggests that the reason and price were the main issues for travel in the United States. It is clear that commuting from work was reported as the biggest contribution to travel, at 49%. People who went travelling for personal reasons and shopping accounted for 35% when these two groups are combined. However, interaction with friends and relatives only accounted for 25% less than the above categories. And social and recreational activities took up only 6%, which was the lowest figure by more than 43%. The travelling public’s main issues were related to price and safety, with 55% of respondents reporting these two issues. While other issues accounted for a relatively small part. Only 17% of the respondents reported issues with aggressive drivers, while highway congestion accounted for even less at 14% of the issues reported. The percentage of access to public transport and space for pedestrians was much lower than the other categories at less than 10% for both. To conclude, price and commuting time were the dominant factors relating to travel in the US in 2009.

Sample 1:

The line graph illustrates how many people, on average, visited a particular UK museum during two seasons in 2005.

Overall, the attendance rate in the summer was generally much higher than that in the winter, with their peak time being at midday. It also appears that the museum had the same opening hours for both seasons, but it closed earlier towards the end of the year.

In the summer, the number of visitors soared/surged from 9 to 12 o’clock in the morning, peaking at approximately 1500 at noon. Subsequently, the museum saw a gradual drop of 700 visitors by 4 p.m., followed by another sharp fall towards 6 p.m. This seemed to be the closing time of the museum, as no visitors were recorded after that time.

The winter season followed a similar pattern, albeit at a lower rate. Despite a slight fall at 11 a.m, there was a considerable rise in visitor numbers between 9 and 12 o’clock, with a high of 600 in the middle of the day. Thereafter, a continual decrease was observed in this attendance figure, and the museum closed its door at 3 o’clock in the afternoon.

Sample 2:

The line chart illustrates how many people went to a British museum in the summer and winter of 2005.

Overall, fewer people went to this museum in the winter than they did in the warmer season. However, during both times of the year, the daily peak time was at midday, although it seems like the building closed earlier in the winter.

In the summer, within the first eleven hours of the day, the head count soared up to around 1300 people and peaked at approximately 1500 people at noon. It then slowly descended by around 700 between 12.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., and continued dropping to zero at a more considerable rate towards 6.00 p.m.

On a smaller scale, this pattern was followed by the winter’s figures. The first half of the day witnessed the number of walk-ins climbing gradually to 400, which then fell slightly before making a recovery to its high at 600. Since noon, there were fewer and fewer museum-goers present, setting a consistent drop until the museum was free of any visitors from 3.00 p.m. onwards.