Câu hỏi:

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 16 to 22.

1. Like many emergency responders, Nicholas Groom is used to stress at work. On the one hand, the stress can be helpful. “I find that when attending a serious incident, it helps me to maintain focus on the situation,” Nicholas Groom said. On the other hand, the work can be highly pressurized. “Too much stress can impair your ability to make decisions,” he adds. And Groom is not alone in his complicated relationship with stress.

2. Many people believe that there should be a balanced amount of stress. In other words, not too much stress so you’re not overwhelmed but not too little stress so you don’t feel unmotivated. After all, some anxiety is motivating; think of the adrenaline before a deadline or the excitement before a competition. Sports fans sometimes even talk about a “gene” in some athletes who seem to play best in the decisive final moments of a match. Furthermore, many psychologists claim that performance in many situations increases with stress up to a point. Of course, any stress can cause harm when it’s prolonged. To take just one example, a long-term high heart rate is linked to cardiovascular diseases. And additional stressors, such as financial pressures or psychiatric issues, clearly affect how beneficially someone can respond to stress.

3. So is there a way to harness stress to your advantage while being mindful of its detrimental long-term effects? One key factor is to avoid, whenever possible, the point when stress leads to mental and physical collapse. Crystal Wernicke, 30, has always used stress as a motivator. But juggling between parenting, a full-time job, a voluntary role and financial troubles at the same time became too much and eventually led to a two-month period of illness. Another factor is the presence of control. For those who feel powerless over their situation, stress is unlikely to be beneficial. But with some autonomy over stressful tasks, we are better able to convert that pressure into higher performance.

4. When it comes to stress and how it affects your performance, it’s helpful to recognize the variations in personality, type of stress and task that affect the level of pressure you are under, as well as understanding tools you can use to control and harness that stress. Ultimately, it’s not helpful to take a one-sided view, either demonizing or glorifying stress. As James C Quick, a management professor at the University of Texas, sums up: “Stress can be the kiss of death as well as the spice of life.”

Why was Crystal Vernicke sick for two months?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 16 to 22.

1. Like many emergency responders, Nicholas Groom is used to stress at work. On the one hand, the stress can be helpful. “I find that when attending a serious incident, it helps me to maintain focus on the situation,” Nicholas Groom said. On the other hand, the work can be highly pressurized. “Too much stress can impair your ability to make decisions,” he adds. And Groom is not alone in his complicated relationship with stress.

2. Many people believe that there should be a balanced amount of stress. In other words, not too much stress so you’re not overwhelmed but not too little stress so you don’t feel unmotivated. After all, some anxiety is motivating; think of the adrenaline before a deadline or the excitement before a competition. Sports fans sometimes even talk about a “gene” in some athletes who seem to play best in the decisive final moments of a match. Furthermore, many psychologists claim that performance in many situations increases with stress up to a point. Of course, any stress can cause harm when it’s prolonged. To take just one example, a long-term high heart rate is linked to cardiovascular diseases. And additional stressors, such as financial pressures or psychiatric issues, clearly affect how beneficially someone can respond to stress.

3. So is there a way to harness stress to your advantage while being mindful of its detrimental long-term effects? One key factor is to avoid, whenever possible, the point when stress leads to mental and physical collapse. Crystal Wernicke, 30, has always used stress as a motivator. But juggling between parenting, a full-time job, a voluntary role and financial troubles at the same time became too much and eventually led to a two-month period of illness. Another factor is the presence of control. For those who feel powerless over their situation, stress is unlikely to be beneficial. But with some autonomy over stressful tasks, we are better able to convert that pressure into higher performance.

4. When it comes to stress and how it affects your performance, it’s helpful to recognize the variations in personality, type of stress and task that affect the level of pressure you are under, as well as understanding tools you can use to control and harness that stress. Ultimately, it’s not helpful to take a one-sided view, either demonizing or glorifying stress. As James C Quick, a management professor at the University of Texas, sums up: “Stress can be the kiss of death as well as the spice of life.”

What is one way to harness stress to your advantage, according to the third paragraph?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 16 to 22.

1. Like many emergency responders, Nicholas Groom is used to stress at work. On the one hand, the stress can be helpful. “I find that when attending a serious incident, it helps me to maintain focus on the situation,” Nicholas Groom said. On the other hand, the work can be highly pressurized. “Too much stress can impair your ability to make decisions,” he adds. And Groom is not alone in his complicated relationship with stress.

2. Many people believe that there should be a balanced amount of stress. In other words, not too much stress so you’re not overwhelmed but not too little stress so you don’t feel unmotivated. After all, some anxiety is motivating; think of the adrenaline before a deadline or the excitement before a competition. Sports fans sometimes even talk about a “gene” in some athletes who seem to play best in the decisive final moments of a match. Furthermore, many psychologists claim that performance in many situations increases with stress up to a point. Of course, any stress can cause harm when it’s prolonged. To take just one example, a long-term high heart rate is linked to cardiovascular diseases. And additional stressors, such as financial pressures or psychiatric issues, clearly affect how beneficially someone can respond to stress.

3. So is there a way to harness stress to your advantage while being mindful of its detrimental long-term effects? One key factor is to avoid, whenever possible, the point when stress leads to mental and physical collapse. Crystal Wernicke, 30, has always used stress as a motivator. But juggling between parenting, a full-time job, a voluntary role and financial troubles at the same time became too much and eventually led to a two-month period of illness. Another factor is the presence of control. For those who feel powerless over their situation, stress is unlikely to be beneficial. But with some autonomy over stressful tasks, we are better able to convert that pressure into higher performance.

4. When it comes to stress and how it affects your performance, it’s helpful to recognize the variations in personality, type of stress and task that affect the level of pressure you are under, as well as understanding tools you can use to control and harness that stress. Ultimately, it’s not helpful to take a one-sided view, either demonizing or glorifying stress. As James C Quick, a management professor at the University of Texas, sums up: “Stress can be the kiss of death as well as the spice of life.”

Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

What could be the best title for the passage?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

What does the author believe children should learn about wildlife?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

What is the word "disconnected" in paragraph 2 closest in meaning to?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

What opinion does the writer express in the second paragraph?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

What does the word “their” in the third paragraph refer to?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

According to the third paragraph, which method is most effective for children to learn about animals?

Read the passage carefully. Choose an option (A, B, C or D) that best answers each question from 23 to 30.

1. How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

2. Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely disconnected from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling them to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

3. For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

4. Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programs show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their regard for animals in general is higher.

Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?