- Latihan Soal
Now you are watching :
- No 01
- No 02
- No 03
- No 04
- No 05
- No 06
- No 07 & Picture (No 07-09)
- No 08
- No 09
- No 10 & Picture (No 10-11)
- No 11
- No 12 & Text (No 12-15)
- No 13
- No 14
- No 15
- No 16 & Text (No 16-18)
- No 17
- No 18
- No 19 & Text (No 19-20)
- No 20
- No 21 & Text (No 21-23)
- No 22
- No 23
- No 24 & Text (No 24-25)
- No 25
Jim : “You are very smart, but you really need to improve your English.”
Kim : “What do you mean?”
From the conversation above, Jim is trying to express …
Situation : Your friend is presenting in front of the class. He seems nervous and he doesn’t speak clearly.
To criticize him, you may say the following, EXCEPT …
(A) next time you may want to brush up your presentation skill before standing in front of the class
(B) your presentation was awful
(C) I should have known better
Diana : “Can I talk to you for a sec?”
Earl : “Well, I am afraid I am busy now."
Diana tries to …
(A) show her curiosity
(B) talk about possibilities
(C) start a discussion
Student : “I failed again. Oh I am not good at Math.”
Math Teacher : “Don’t give up. I was slow when I first studied Mathematics.”
The teacher is …
(A) giving encouragement to his/her student
(B) regretting something
(C) making a promise
Joan regrets her past. She could say all of the followings, EXCEPT …
(A) if I hadn’t been expelled from my school, I would have been able to study in a university
(B) I wish I had not let my sister go
(C) I am sorry about your loss
If you want to make an assessment, you may say the followings, EXCEPT …
(A) I must say that your spaghetti is gross
(B) I think you are very good at writing
(C) I agree with the budget
For qustion No 07-09.
Who is responsible for the ad?
(A) a video game company
(B) a travel company
(C) a toy sword company
Read each of the ad claims below and decide if it would be easy or hard to tell which are true.
|(A)||The graphics are state-of-the-art.|
|(B)||The game breaks all the rules.|
|(C)||There are 10 levels.|
Where do you expect to see this ad? Choose only one.
(A) Sport magazine
(B) Kids fashion magazine
(C) Teenager fashion magazine
(D) Game magazine
For question No 10-11.
If you want to run this ad, which station would be the best for reaching the audience?
(A) Channel A.
63% sport, 26% home repair, 11% tv
(B) Channel B.
68% home repair, 18% sports, 14% music
(C) Channel C.
49% tv, 32% music, 19% reading
Who is responsible for the ad?
(A) Darrell Yell
(B) A group that wants you to exercise more
(C) Double Dunk basketballs
By Tom Harris.
Humans have been wearing armor for thousands of years. Ancient tribes fastened animal hide and plant material around their bodies when they went out on the hunt, and the warriors of ancient Rome and medieval Europe covered their torsos in metal plates before going into battle. By the 1400s, armor in the Western world had become highly sophisticated. With the right armor, you were nearly Invincible.
All that changed with the development of cannons and guns in the 1500s. These weapons hurl projectiles at a high rate of speed, giving them enough energy to penetrate thin layers of metal. You can increase the thickness of traditional armor materials, but they soon become too cumbersome and heavy for a person to wear. It wasn’t until the 1960s that engineers developed a reliable bullet-resistant armor that a person could wear comfortably. Unlike traditional armor, this soft body armor is not made out of pieces of metal, it is formed from advanced woven fibers that can be sewn into vests and other soft clothing.
Soft body armor is a fairly mystifying concept How can a soft piece of clothing stop bullets? The principle at work is actually quite simple. At its heart, a piece of bullet-proof material is just a very strong net.
To see how this works, think of a soccer goal. The back of the goal consist of a net formed by many long lengths of tether, interlaced with each other and fastened to the goal frame. When you kick the soccer ball into the goal, the ball has a certain amount of energy, in the form of forward inertia. When the ball hits the net, it pushes back on the tether lines at that particular point. Each tether extends from one side of the frame to the other, dispersing the energy from the point of impact over a wide area.
The energy is further dispersed because the tethers are interlaced. When the ball pushes on a horizontal length of tether, that tether pulls on every interlaced vertical tether. These tethers in turn pull on all the connected horizontal tethers. In this way, the whole net works to absorb the ball’s inertial energy, no matter where the ball hits.
If you were to put a piece of bulletproof material under a powerful microscope, you would see a similar structure. Long strands of fiber are interlaced to form a dense net. A bullet is traveling much faster than a soccer ball, of course, so the net needs to be made from stronger material. The most famous material used in body armor is DuPont’s KEVLAR fiber. KEVLAR is lightweight, like a traditional clothing fiber, but it is five times stronger than a piece of steel of the same weight When interwoven into a dense net, this material can absorb a great amount of energy.
In addition to stopping the bullet from reaching your body, a piece of body armor also has to protect against blunt trauma caused by the force of the bullet.
When you kick a ball into a soccer goal, the net is pushed back pretty far, slowing the ball down gradually. This is a very efficient design for a goal because it keeps the ball from bouncing out into the field. But bulletproof material can’t give this much because the vest would push too far into the wearer’s both at the point of impact. Focusing the blunt trauma of the impact in a small area can cause severe internal injuries.
Bulletproof vests have to spread the blunt trauma out over the whole vest so that the force isn’t felt too intensely in any one spot. To do this, the bulletproof material must have a very tight weave. Typically, the individual fibers are twisted, increasing their density and their thickness at each point. To make it even more rigid, the material is coated with a resin substance and sandwiched between two layers of plastic film.
A person wearing body armor will still feel the energy of a bullet’s impact, of course, but over the whole torso rather than in a specific area. If everything works correctly, the victim won’t be seriously hurt. Since no one layer can move a good distance, the vest has to slow the bullet down using many different layers. Each “net” slows the bullet a little bit more, until the bullet finally stops. The material also causes the bullet to deform at the point of the impact Essentially, the bullet spreads out at the tip, in the same way a piece of day spreads out if you throw It against a wall. This process, which further reduces the energy of the bullet, is called “mushrooming.”
To sum up, modern soft body armor consists of several layers of super-strong webbing. This material disperses the energy of a bullet over a wide area, preventing penetration and dissipating blunt trauma. This sort of armor, as well as hard armor, ranges considerably in effectiveness, depending on the materials used as well as the armor design. However, no bulletproof vest is completely impenetrable, and there is no piece of body armor that will make you invulnerable to attack.
What is the best title for the text?
(A) How Body Armor Works
(B) Why Body Armor Exists
(C) How We Can Protect Ourselves
(D) Body Armor and Soccer
(E) Soft Armor and Hard Armor
The followings are TRUE according to the text, EXCEPT …
(A) The development of cannons and guns in the 1500s gave rise to the need of better body armor
(B) body armor will never make you completely impenetrable
(C) in 1400s even with the best armor, people are not totally invulnerable
(D) Kevlar fiber is the only material used in body armor
(E) modern soft body armor contains more than one layer
Why would the author mention “soccer goal” in paragraph 4?
(A) to show the similarities between soccer goal and body armor
(B) to make the readers understand the concept of body armor by explaining a similar and more common example
(C) to make the readers discuss the difference between soccer goal and body armor
(D) to make the readers aware of the similarities and differences between soccer goal and body armor
(E) to make the readers realize the importance of body armor to the existence of soccer goals
The conclusion can be found in paragraph …
(A) first paragraph
(B) last paragraph
(C) first and last paragraphs
(D) first and second paragraphs
(E) this text has no conclusion
By Jessika Toothman.
Colossal explosions split the sky, tsunamis crash over major metropolises, meteorites plough through mountain ranges, life-size dinosaurs stomp around primordial forests – and let’s not even get into all the creative ways the White House has been cinematically smashed up over the years.
These sorts of spectacular special effects can boggle the mind, both In terms of how extraordinary they are visually, as well as how much they reportedly cost to produce. Hollywood blockbusters like the “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Spider-Man” trilogies are packed with shocking special effects that push their budgets way up into the hundreds of millions, and somebody out there has to be footing the bill.
There are lots of readily apparent ways that blockbusters make money. When people go see a movie in theaters, rent it when it’s available for home viewing, buy the DVD or purchase the soundtrack, the studio responsible gets a percentage of the proceeds. It also collects from television distribution contracts on various domestic and foreign TV outlets, from pay-per-view to basic cable and free networks to satellite stations. But keep in mind the percentage aspect-box-office numbers and the rest of these revenues are split up among different vested parties-like the star, for instance-and don’t reflect a complete payback to a studio’s blockbuster budget. Plus, post-theater success often hinges at least in part on box-office turnout, adding another complication to the equation.
Depending on the film, money can also sometimes be made through means like merchandising and licensing contracts. Studios typically get a guaranteed dollar amount, plus royalties. Paying for a Hollywood blockbuster means more than covering the cost of actually producing the movie, though. Marketing Is another big slice of the budget, for example, and since box office sales alone usually aren’t enough to cover even the cost of advertising, it’s another reason why additional funding vehicles are so important.
But apart from these obvious, and primarily post-production, methods for making sure blockbuster movies turn a profit, behind-the-scenes systems can help get much of the funding necessary for covering the bottom line in place ahead of time.
Hollywood blockbusters might tend to take root in Los Angeles, but when it comes to raising the funds needed to make a movie, the shoots spread across the world. Laws and loopholes vary greatly from country to country, and successful executive producers are savvy when it comes to digging up the best deals.
One good example can be found in Germany’s tax code: Potential German investors looking to finagle their finances can invest in a future blockbuster and take the related tax deduction right away, thus postponing burdensome taxes for a later date. They buy the movie’s copyright and instantly lease it back to the Hollywood studio at the helm. The participating studio also pays the German investors a small advance on the movie, which qualifies as profit and satisfies the other side of the tax law.
Then all sorts of swapping follow. For example, the German investors will typically sign contract agreements that limit their involvement to token (and transitory) ownership, for which they pony up around 10 percent at the end of the day. Eventually the rights to the movie return to the studio in full, and the studio takes that profit right off its bottom line. Best of all, the films aren’t required to be shot in Germany or employ any Germans, as is dictated by some countries’ tax laws, so it still works for movies that might otherwise be inconvenienced by strict location requirements.
Another way studios can defray their costs is through strategic product placement We’re not talking about an obvious display of commercial wares like in the classic “Wayne’s World” vignette, but rather the subtle introduction of a specific product into an applicable spot in a movie. Successful product placement doesn’t come off over-the-top, instead it aims to blend the product seamlessly into the movie’s plot Featured companies sometimes offer free products and services for the cast and crew in return, but nowadays they’re increasingly pitching in to the film’s marketing expenses-usually with the caveat that they get an appearance in the ads and trailers for the film, of course.
And these are just two examples. Myriad methods are available to movie insiders and intrepid entrepreneurs looking to be a part of the next big blockbuster hit Even independent investors looking to score some cash are getting In on the action. Most use business smarts they picked up in other industries to mold strategies that have the potential to pay off big-keeping in mind that backing movies is always something of a gamble.
What is the purpose of paragraph 1 in the text above?
(A) to show how the Hollywood blockbusters are financed
(B) to mention all the natural disasters that happened in the past in Los Angeles
(C) to give introduction to typical scenes in Hollywood blockbusters
(D) to exemplify the typical scenes from Hollywood blockbusters that are expensive
(E) to state the importance of white house in Hollywood blockbusters.
Which one is implied in the text?
(A) some ways of financing Hollywood are obvious
(B) normally, box office sales are not enough to cover the advertising cost
(C) The Germans always invest in Hollywood blockbusters because of his tax system
(D) Wayne’s World is an example of unsuccessful product placement
(E) Casino industry finances Hollywood blockbusters
The underlined word “defray” in paragraph 8 most nearly means …
(E) pay for
Video Games: Good or Bad?
Three thug-looking dudes are approaching a man. In a split second, there will be booms and bangs. Enough with the storytelling, as you might have guessed it will all lead to blood.
Now you can imagine the same scene: three thug-looking dudes are approaching the same man. Then the man will have to make a split-second decision-which needs the man's thinking brain-to survive the journey. If the man fails, he will repeat the scene. To succeed, he must develop and experiment with alternative tactics until he gets through that puzzling problem. And there comes the blood.
The opponents of video games, including anti-violence activists and some parents and educators, imagine the former when they hear the phrase "video games". The latter is pictured by the proponents of video games, which include gamers and the addicts. The dawn of these pros and cons can be attributed to the increasing number of gamers, which accounts to around 500 million people around the world, according to Jane McGonigal, a game researcher, in her 2010 TED conference. Additionally, according to NPD research, consumer spending in the game industry in 2012 has reached $20.77 billion, the amount slightly more than the total Afghanistan production in the same year. Now the debate continues: are video games good or not?
The first yell against video games is about the amount of violence in our video-game contents. The California law defines violent video games as "a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being". While not all video games contain violence, allegedly the best-selling games are the most violent ones. The violence in video games is not benign. A study conducted by Douglas et al from Iowa State University in 2014 shows that children repetitively playing violent video games are prone to aggressive ways of thinking and behaving. Furthermore, another research by Taylor and Francis shows that violent video games delay development of moral reasoning-judgment about what is right and wrong-in teenagers.
On the other hand, a study from Markey and Harris in 2010 shows that the people affected by violent video games are those who have personality traits indicative of psychotic tendency. It means there is a predisposition toward violence in certain people, and therefore, not everyone playing violent video games tend to resort to violence when they face conflicts. Next, while it is true that some people are at-risk for playing video games, game industry has minimized their bad impact through independent control, the ESRB. The ESRB has established the video game ratings based on age groups and suitability of contents, such as violence, language, sexuality, gambling, etc. Do video game retailers comply with the rules?
Apparently, 80% of underage people were turned away when trying to buy or rent the Mature-rated, based on nation wide research by the ERSB. Now the responsibility lies with us-parents, brothers and sisters, shopkeepers-in preventing violent games from falling into the wrong hands, especially non-adults.
Apart from violence, the second yell at video games comes from parents and educators who see their children or students play games instead of doing schoolwork or playing outside. Lack of intelligence and ambition, and avoidance of social activities are among their worst fear for their little ones. Parents and educators may not wait a long time until the children's behaviors lead to addiction. In fact, excessive video gaming actually has most of the symptoms of drug addictions. The American Psychiatric Association has included video game addiction as a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because of its prevalence, not only in children but also in adults. If our people are prone to addiction, how can we expect them to become responsible adults?
But, many researches have also shown that video games actually boost our brains. Brian Glass et al, researchers from Queen Mary University, have shown that certain video games develop the brain's ability to think about multiple ideas to solve problems. Scientists name it "cognitive flexibility". It is the foundation of intelligence as creative problem solving requires cognitive flexibility. Even in the previous research, according to Brian Glass, shows that action video games can speed up decision-making. A research in 2007 by Jim Feng et. Al, from University of Toronto, has shown that playing an action video game increases spatial cognition, a skill that is important in engineering and mathematics. This latter research even reduces gender differences in spatial cognition, a fact that has been generally accepted by many researches. Lastly, researchers from UC-San Francisco found that senior citizens have improved their cognitive abilities by playing a video game designed by UCSF team.
To sum up, video games give rise to good and bad effects. They remain a controversy in some countries. I think it is unwise if we outlaw video gaming considering its positive benefits. The best way to approach video games is through responsible gaming which is achievable through certain controls: play games according to your age, manage your time, and if you can't impose control on yourself, ask for others' help.
State the arguments against video games:
Should the Driving Age Be Raised?
Many teenagers fell victims to car accidents. Some say they are getting behind the wheel too early.
Now Adrian Lund, a president of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, proposes the increase of driving age:
"Although most teenagers don't like the idea of waiting longer to get their licenses, raising the driving age to 17 or 18 would reduce crashes involving young drivers and, in turn, save lives.
Most states allow driving at age 16, 17, or somewhere in between, although the minimum age in South Dakota is only 14 and 3 months. Only New Jersey holds off until 17. Last year, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety conducted a review of research on the subject, and it clearly indicates that an older driving age substantially reduces crash rates for young drivers.
The same conclusion has been reached in Great Britain, where the driving age is 17, and in the rest of the European Union, where most nations set the driving age at 18. The trade-off is, of course, less mobility, but surveys of New Jersey teens show that they're just as active in school, work, and social activities as teens in surrounding states.
Research indicates that when teens begin driving at a later age, they're less likely to get into crashes during their first years on the road. Some say more driver education is the answer. Studies, however, show no difference in crash rates for teens who take drivers education, compared with those who don't.
In 2007, more than 4,000 teens died as occupants of passenger vehicles; 61 percent of them were in vehicles driven by other teens. Ultimately, it's a political question: Is increased mobility worth the additional deaths? It may be a tough sell for teens, but raising the driving age makes sense."
Despite the argument, Alex Koroknay-Palicz, the Executive Director at National Youth Rights Association voices his opposition:
"Traffic accidents are a big problem in the United States. In 2007, there were more than 6 million accidents on America's roads, resulting in more than 40,000 deaths. There is an entire federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, devoted to reducing these numbers, but it has proven very difficult. So some people just want a It's easy for politicians and interest groups to put the blame on young people, who can't fight back. Blame a group that doesn't have high-powered lobbyists to defend them. Blame a group of people who can't even vote.
The truth is that the vast majority of teens are safe and responsible drivers. Those who want to raise the driving age have labeled teens guilty before they've gotten into an accident or before they've even sat behind the wheel of a car. They believe that because of your birth date, you are by definition dangerous.
But driving tests, which everyone has to pass to get a license, are supposed to weed out dangerous drivers whether they're 16 or 30. Besides, it's inexperience, not age, which causes many accidents. Raising the driving age would just create inexperienced, accident-prone drivers at age 18 instead of 16.
Cars are necessary for mobility in this country. Teens need the ability to drive just as much as anyone else–to get to school, to get to work, to get to sports or band practice, or just to go out with their friends. Politicians should roll up their sleeves and tackle the bigger problem of driving safety in general–and pick on someone their own size."
State the arguments for driving-age increase:
Is Standardized Testing Good for Us?
Try visiting a day-care in your spare time. You'll see how children behave. One may play with a doll; another with a board game; another may run around the room with the friends they have made, another may sit in the corner-who knows where his or her mind wanders. Then try visiting them in ten years. The doll child may be busy with his or her basketball game, the board-game child may be busy getting high, and maybe the rest two children-the running and the corner children-get together in a science club.
In another two years, all of them may leave everything behind for a new pursuit, a status as a university student. Before you realize it, they might start buying those books-Ace this exam, 500 common questions for that exam, and so forth. Yes, here we are talking about standardized tests. A standardized test means a test that is standardized in many aspects: procedures (how, where, how long, and when you do it), the questions and their interpretations, the assessment. You may call them IELTS, TOEFL, SAT, ACT, and whatever alphabetical tests you can name. Imagine millions of people around the world, each year, taking those tests. Despite a huge number of those people, the existences of standardized tests remain a controversy. While some people understand the need of those tests, some others view these tests in a negative light.
Firstly, people around the world have equal opportunity to pursue their dreams. But, similar to the child anecdote at the beginning, we are born unique, with certain aptitudes, hobbies, personalities, and so on. Oftentimes, they share the same dreams with other thousands of people. Now imagine if you are looking for only one person to join your mission, to realize your shared dream: who would you choose from that pool of thousand people? I bet you'll choose the top-notch candidate. But how can you choose them? We suddenly fall into an involved and time-consuming situation. This is the very condition where standardized tests come in handy. Standardized tests are consistent and controlled. They also give quantifiable information about a person's quality. Therefore, they put every test-takers in a fair situation where the outcomes are measurable and comparable. There you go, you might find your one recruit. But a country needs thousands of quality educators, teachers, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and anybody else to run this country. Without standardized tests, how does it ensure getting the best people?
Next, as standardized tests give measurable results, you can go beyond choosing a candidate. Many organizations or people use standardized tests as feedback tools. Parents may find developmental delay in their children when their children's test results fall below norms. Government may determine quantifiable goals that help design Next, as standardized tests give measurable results, you can go beyond choosing a candidate. Many organizations or people use standardized tests as feedback tools. Parents may find developmental delay in their children when their children's test results fall below norms. Government may determine quantifiable goals that help design an incentive system for educators, detect the success of a program, or cut some policies. Teachers may know whether some students fall behind their peers or they must change their teaching method. Standardized tests provide a powerful advantage as feedback tools.
Thirdly, standardized tests analyze skills such as problem solving and critical thinking because they throw high-quality problems to test-takers. Independent organizations ensure quality control of these tests so that they really measure analytical ability, not memory. Consequently, people who learn to answer these problems will sharpen their basic skills. Because of that, standardized tests can foster learning in people.
Despite the advantages, standardized tests are not free from criticisms. The opponents of standardized testing claim that standardized tests destroy people, especially students.
To begin with, the proponents claim that standardized tests provide a fair situation for test takers and therefore, comparable and measurable results. Nevertheless, similar to the beginning anecdote, people are born different from others. A might be good at jumping and B at walking. Moreover, standardized tests only measure parochial abilities. How do you think if you test A and B based on their walking ability per se? How if someone has a learning disability? Are standardized tests ever fair in that situation? Therefore, claiming that standardized tests provide fair situation is nonsense. Then, the results are measurable, but never comparable.
Next, standardized tests limit people's point of view about learning. When people face standardized tests, they focus on the mark. They don't learn the problem, but they learn how to answer certain types of questions to increase their score. Problem is, learning is never that short-sighted mission.
Moreover, standardized tests do not mimic life. First, the tests are often timed. On the other hand, people will have more than a few minutes to answer problems in life. Second, test takers are not expected to ask other people for help. But, at work, at schools, at labs, people are expected to collaborate when they try to tackle some problems. Moreover, problems in our society keep evolving, simply learning to answer specific questions in a contrived situation does not prepare them for the problems of tomorrow.
And now the debate continues. I think standardized tests are useful in many cases, such as university entrance or work application. Despite that, it is never enough if we judge someone solely based on the standardized-test results.
State the arguments for standardized tests: