изучение английского языка
Английский в контексте
Тесты по аудированию на английском языке
Тесты по чтению на английском языке
Словарный запас английского языка
CAE чтение тест №3
You are going to read three extracts which are all concerned in some way with travel and tourism. For questions 1-6, choose the answer (А, В, С or D) which you think fits best according to the text.
EXTRACT FROM A NOVEL
'Oh, Lyn, you can't be serious.' Bridget Cooper flicked her auburn hair back in a careless gesture that distracted every man within a two-table radius, and glanced at me reprovingly. 'You look like death warmed up, you know. The last thing you should do is take another transatlantic flight.'
With anybody else, I might have argued that I'd slept straight through the New York flight two days ago, and that my next business flight wouldn't be until the twenty-first of January ... but with Bridget, I knew, I'd be wasting my breath. Besides, Id known her long enough to realise this was simply preamble. Bridget never worried about anybody's health except her own. And she never rang me at nine on a Monday, suggesting we meet and have lunch, unless she had a reason.
Bridget was a one-off, an exceptionally talented writer with a wild imagination that made her books for children instant classics, and a wild nature that drove the poor directors of my literary agency to distraction. In the four years since I'd signed her as a client, Bridgets books had earned a fortune for the Simon Holland Agency, but her unpredictability had caused much tearing of hair among my colleagues. My favourite of her escapades - the day she'd kicked the BBC presenter - was now a Simon Holland legend. And I, who had survived four years, and one week's holiday in France with Bridget, had risen to the status of a martyr.
How does Lyn feel when Bridget advises her against travelling?
A touched by her friend's concern
В offended by her friend's reasons
С surprised at her friend's insistence
D suspicious of her friend's motives
What do we learn about Lyn's colleagues?
A They are unwilling to work with Bridget.
В They find it hard to take Bridget seriously.
C They admire Lyn for putting up with Bridget.
D They blame Lyn for introducing Bridget as a client.
The art of travel
Journeys are the midwives of thought. Few places are more conducive to internal conversations than a moving plane, ship or train. There is an almost quaint correlation between what is in front of our eyes and the thoughts that we are able to have in our heads: large thoughts at times requiring large views, new thoughts, new places. Introspective reflections which are liable to stall are helped along by the flow of the landscape. The mind may be reluctant to think properly when thinking is all it is supposed to do. The task can be as paralysing as having to tell a joke or mimic an accent on demand. Thinking improves when parts of the mind are given other tasks, are charged with listening to music or following a line of trees.
Of all modes of transport, the train is perhaps the best aid to thought: the views have none of the potential monotony of those on ship or plane, they move fast enough for us not to get exasperated but slowly enough to identify objects. They offer us brief, inspiring glimpses into private domains, letting us see a woman at the precise moment when she takes a cup from a shelf in her kitchen, then carrying us on to a patio where a man is sleeping and then to a park where a child is catching a ball thrown by a figure we cannot see.
According to the writer, why may people think deeply on a long journey?
A They are inspired by things they see out of the window.
В They are bored and so have lots of time for reflection.
C The mind is only partly occupied in looking at the view.
D The mind is free of its usual everyday preoccupations.
He sees the train as the most conducive to thought because of
A the particular speed at which it travels.
В the varied landscape through which it passes.
C the chance it gives us to compare our lives with others'.
D the need to keep pace with the constantly changing view.
Should I stay or should I go?
Taking a holiday is no longer a matter of just packing a sunhat and heading for the beach. From transport pollution to the impact on local communities, today's tourist can no longer ignore a whole raft of ethical concerns that must be considered before any booking is made. And, of course, tourism does have its environmental cost; by definition tourism involves travel, and air travel is the most polluting form of transport most people will ever use. Long-haul flights release tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for each passenger they carry.
But that's not all. Patricia Barnett, director of the organisation Tourism Concern, points out that in a world where only 3.5 percent of people have travelled to another country, there is something in the essence of tourism itself that highlights inequality. Growing tourism to developing countries means that the quarter of the world's population which lives in the north not only consumes 80 percent of the world's resources, but is now travelling to the south and consuming the other 20 percent as well. So perhaps tourism is, in itself, a display of conspicuous consumption - something which poor people can aspire to, but are unlikely to attain.
The writer suggests that tourists are
A largely unconcerned about the environmental consequences of travel.
В increasingly aware of the ethical arguments surrounding tourism.
C willing to pay the price of the environmental damage they cause.
D mostly indifferent to the needs of the communities they visit.
Patricia Barnett's main point is that tourism
A represents a waste of the developed world's resources.
В encourages people to make unnecessarily long journeys.
C can only be enjoyed by a minority of the world's population.
D prevents most people enjoying the benefits of international travel.
You are going to read an extract from a magazine. Six paragraphs have been removed from the extract. Choose from the paragraphs A-G the one which fits each gap (7-12). There is one extra paragraph which you do not need to use.
Call of the wild
What can wild animals tell us about the way life should be lived? Well, take the example of the whitethroat. You could say that it's a rather drab little bird with a rather ordinary and tuneless little song. Or, on the contrary, you could say the whitethroat is a messenger of excitement and danger - a thrilling embodiment of life and risk and defiance of death.
Whitethroats, however, are mostly lurkers and skulkers. You'll usually find them well hidden in a nice thick prickly hedge, their brown plumage picked out with the small vanity of, yes, a white throat. The male bird sings a jumble of notes thrown together any old how, a song that is generally described as 'scratchy'. A whitethroat is not normally a bird that hands out thrills to human observers. But all the same, it is a bird that lives by the thrill and is prepared to die by the thrill.
Or not, of course. A small bird that makes such a big racket and then flies into the open will clearly excite the interest of every bird of prey within earshot. And that is part of the point: 'Come on, you hawks! Have a go if you think you're hard enough!'
But I can't help wondering how the bird feels about this. Does he do it because he is a clock, a feathered machine that has been wound up by the passing of the seasons to make this proven ancestral response? Or does he do it because making a springtime song flight is the most wonderfully thrilling thing to do?
And it is there in aspects of human behaviour, too. I have spoken to mountaineers, powerboaters, Grand Prix drivers, parachutists and jockeys, and they all say the same thing. It's not something they do because they have a death wish. The exact opposite is the case - risk makes them feel more intensely, more gloriously alive. They take risks because they love life. It is part of the contradiction of being ourselves. We thrill to danger. We can't resist it. We love safety and security and comfort, yet we seek risk and adventure.
That's why we watch films and identify with risk-taking heroes and feisty heroines in all kinds of precarious situations. It's why we pass the time on a long journey by reading a thriller in which the main character dodges death by inches all the way to our destination. And it explains why we support a football team; knowing that the more we care, the more we will find both excitement and despair.
But if home is so great, why did we ever leave it? And if adventure is so great, why did we come back? It is because our nature - our human, mammalian, animal nature - insists that we love both; that one is not complete without the other.
And so, like the whitethroat, we all seek danger, even if we don't take the actual risks ourselves. In other words, although we've spent ninety-nine percent of that history as hunter-gatherers, the deepest parts of ourselves are still wild.
And the whitethroat tells us that we don't have the monopoly on this feeling - it is something that other living creatures understand just as well. A liking for danger is part of our inheritance as mammals, as animals.
Because every now and then in springtime he will leave that little leafy home of his and launch himself skywards - so moved by his own eloquence that he must take to the wing and fly up, singing all the time, before gliding gently back down to safety.
You must make your own mind up on these issues - but one thing you can't avoid is that this deliberate annual courting of danger is part of the way the whitethroat lives his life.
Of course, it's not the same for everybody, not to the same extent. Most of us enjoy different levels and different forms of risk at different times, just like the whitethroat in his hedge. And it is all the better for the time afterwards, when we have risked and survived and returned safe and sound.
The glories of the whitethroat's song demand this exhibition: the better and bolder and louder the song flight, the more likely the male is to attract a nice mate and keep that patch of prickly territory for himself. That's the evolutionary reason for it, anyway.
You might take this opposite view because what the whitethroat shows us, amongst many other things, is why humans love tigers, love going on safari, love winter sports and fast cars, love riding horses and, above all, love all the vast, wild open spaces left on this planet. Most other creatures will give you the same message, too, if you study them. But the whitethroat does it in an especially vivid way.
You are going to read a newspaper article about technology and personal privacy. For questions 13-19, choose the answer (А, В, С or D) which you think fits best according to the text.
What price privacy?
Don't blame technology for threatening our privacy: it's the way the institutions choose to use it
The most depressing moment of my day is first thing in the morning, when I download my overnight batch of emails. Without fail, it will contain dozens of messages from people who, knowing my interest in the subject, write to me describing violations of their personal privacy. Throughout the day, the stream continues, each message in my inbox warning of yet another nail in the coffin of personal privacy. In other centuries, such invasions of liberty would have arisen from religious persecution or the activities of tax collectors. Nowadays, the invasions take place through the use of information technology.
So, when those of us who value personal privacy are asked for their view, we will invariably speak in disparaging terms about such technologies. In an effort to stem the speed and force of the invasion, we will sometimes argue that the technologies themselves should simply be banned. 'Just stop using the cursed technology,' we cry, 'then there won't be any privacy issue.' Of course, things are not so simple. Even the strongest advocate of privacy recognises that technology can offer enormous benefits to individuals and to society. To prohibit a technology on the grounds that it is being used to invade privacy would also be to deny society the benefits of that innovation.
The sensible perspective is that technology does not necessarily have to invade privacy. The reality is that it invariably does. Companies may well argue that customers are prepared to 'trade off a little privacy in return for better service or a cooler and more sophisticated product. They say that this is a matter of free choice. I doubt that there is any genuine free choice in the matter. Whether I go with Orange or Vodaphone is indeed a free choice. But I have no choice over whether my communications data will or will not be stored by my communications provider. They know the location of my mobile and the numbers from which I received calls, and the emails I send are routinely stored by all providers, whether I like it or not.
CCTV also gives me no free choice. Its purpose may be to keep me secure, but I have no alternative but to accept it. Visual surveillance is becoming a fixed component in the design of modern urban centres, new housing areas, public buildings and even, in Britain at least, throughout the road system. Soon, people will expect spy cameras to be part of all forms of architecture and design. Of course, there is another side to the coin, many technologies have brought benefits to the consumer with little or no cost to privacy. Encryption is one that springs to mind. Many of the most valuable innovations in banking and communications could never have been deployed without this technique.
The problem with privacy is not technology, but the institutions which make use of it. Governments are hungry for data, and will use their powers to force companies to collect, retain and yield personal information on their customers. In recent years, governments have managed to incorporate surveillance into almost every aspect of our finances, communication and lifestyle. While acknowledging the importance of privacy as a fundamental right, they argue that surveillance is needed to maintain law and order and create economic efficiency. The right to privacy, it is always claimed, should not be allowed to stand in the way of the wider public interest. This argument is sound in principle, but there seems little intellectual or analytical basis for its universal and unquestioned application.
When the UK government introduced the RIP legislation in 2000, it originally intended to allow an unprecedented degree of communications interception on the grounds that the dangers of crime on the Internet warranted increased surveillance. At no time did anyone produce much evidence for this crime wave, however, nor did anyone in government seem to think any was required. It was left to an eleventh-hour campaign by civil rights activists to block the more offensive elements of the legislation from a personal privacy point of view. Such lack of prior justification is a common feature of privacy invasion for law enforcement and national security purposes.
As I've said, technology does not have to be the enemy of privacy. But while governments insist on requiring surveillance, and while companies insist on amassing personal information about their customers, technology will continue to be seen as the enemy of privacy.
From the first paragraph, we understand that the writer
A resents receiving such distressing emails from people.
В is surprised that people should contact him about privacy.
C finds it hard to cope with the tone of the emails he receives.
D is resigned to the fact that invasions of privacy are on the increase.
What view does the writer put forward in the second paragraph?
A People should be willing to do without certain forms of technology.
В It is a mistake to criticise people for the way they use technology.
C It is unrealistic to deny people the benefits that technology can bring.
D People shouldn't be allowed to use technologies that threaten privacy.
The writer feels that some companies
A do not really give customers a say in issues related to privacy.
В fail to recognise that their products may invade people's privacy.
C underestimate the strength of their customers' feelings about privacy.
D refuse to make compromises with customers concerned about privacy.
What point does the writer make about CCTV?
A People no longer question how necessary it is.
В People feel more secure the more widely it is used.
C It ought to be a feature of all new building projects.
D it would be difficult for society to function without it.
The writer gives encryption as an example of a technology which
A brings only questionable benefits to society in general.
В poses much less of a threat to privacy than others.
C actually helps us to protect personal privacy.
D is worth losing some personal privacy for.
In the fifth paragraph, the writer suggests that governments are
A justified in denying the right of privacy to criminals.
В mistaken in their view that surveillance prevents crime.
C wrong to dismiss the individual's right to privacy so lightly.
D unreasonable in their attitude towards civil rights campaigners.
What is the writer's main criticism of the RIP legislation in the UK?
A Changes were made to it at the last moment.
В It contained elements that had to be removed.
C There was no proof that it was really needed.
D Civil rights groups were not consulted about it.
You are going to read an article about photographers. For questions 20-34, choose from the photographers (A-E). The people may be chosen more than once.
says there's a need to be flexible at a shoot?
admits to relying on instinctive decisions during a shoot?
consciously adopts a particular type of behaviour during a shoot?
criticises the attitude of certain other photographers?
feels that aspects of a photographer's skill cannot be taught?
welcomes suggestions for shots from the subjects themselves?
is critical of recent developments on photography courses?
is keen to introduce new ideas in one branch of photography?
likes to keep the photography focussed on social interaction?
prefers not to take shots of people in a photographic studio?
tends to work to a set routine?
prefers not to do research about a subject before doing the shoot?
believes in investing in the time needed to get the best shots?
feels that the identity of the photographer should be apparent from the shot?
The critical moment
Some of the world's greatest photographers tell us how they get their extraordinary images
Mary Elton Mark
I loved photography from the moment I first picked up a camera and knew my life would be devoted to it. I don't think you can develop or learn a 'way of seeing' or a 'point of view'. It's something that's inside you. It's how you look at the world. I want my photographs not only to be real but to portray the essence of my subjects, too. To do that, you have to be patient - it can't be rushed. I prefer doing portraiture on location. On a subject's home ground you pick up certain hints that tell you personal things and they come up with ideas. During a session with an animal trainer who had a massive ego, he took the trunk of his beloved elephant Shyama and wrapped it around his neck like a necklace, and of course that was my picture. I'd never have thought of something that clever.
I don't know how my brain works, but I do know that I work really fast. My shoots don't vary: an hour to set up, an hour to take the shots. And the minute I walk into a room I know what I'm going to shoot, although what that is only becomes clear to me after seeing the result. So it's a subconscious process. You couldn't get those pictures in a million years if you took your time. I started taking pictures in the 1970s for all the beautiful reasons photography was known for. Then all of a sudden digital technology booms and darkrooms get annihilated from photography schools. But I really believe in the classical way. It all comes down to looking at a piece of art and dissecting it and understanding how it's put together. I think the most important thing is to go out in the world and see.
I think if you aren't fascinated by people, you'll never succeed as a portrait photographer, because your pictures will look cold. You don't have to know anything about the people in advance of the session, you just tap into them - it's a skill. Every shoot is different and you have to alter your approach accordingly. You have to try to get into people's heads, so that they can open up to you and give you something. Sometimes we chat first, but sometimes it's good for everyone to be fresh and tense when you start out. I use the technique of being cheeky and rude or asking my subjects to do ridiculous things, but I don't set out to upset anyone. I hope the viewer sees what I see. I think two words that would describe my work well are: humour and honesty.
I've always tried to push the boundaries of fashion photography. After all, why should a fashion photograph only talk about clothes? Why can't it talk about something else? I want my pictures to ask questions; I want people to think. You don't need to be technically great, because if you have a strong philosophy people will be moved by your pictures regardless. The most important thing is to figure out what you want to try and say. To make your name as a photographer, you have to have a unique point of view that the viewer can recognise as yours, otherwise you'll get lost in the mix. For me, photography is about exploring - either myself or another place.
It's difficult to explain why we're more attracted to certain images than others. For me, black and white photography has a certain kind of power. I'm not talking about conceptual photography but instantaneous photography, the kind that happens in a fraction of a second. A great picture is one that transmits a lot of emotion and where you can see who took it; who that person is. I come from a Latin American world, where you believe in things and you form a relationship with your surroundings. I also grew up with a sense of mysticism and belonging. The cynicism that exists in certain kinds of photography, and that pleasure of seeing oneself as a deep individualist, that's not for me. We're a gregarious species made to live together. That's the point of view of my photography and the starting point of all my work.
Изучение английского языка