IELTS PREDICTION TEST

The Whale Goes to Court
A remarkable legal drama in the U.S.A.
In 1818 a whale became the subject of a controversial court case in New York City. The case involved an old law requiring those who sold fish oil to pay a fee in order to have their barrels inspected by city officials, and certified. However, an oil merchant named Samuel Judd refused to pay the inspection fee on three barrels of oil, claiming that no inspection was necessary because it was whale oil, and whales were not fish. The state disagreed, and so a date was set for a court to decide not a point of law, but the answer to a more fundamental question: is a whale a fish?
As simple as that question may appear today, the answer was far from obvious in the early nineteenth century. Indeed, the public debate in New York sparked off by the trial was sensational. At stake was nothing less than what most regarded as the order of nature. According to the commonly accepted scheme of things if an animal was not a beast or a bird, it was a fish, regardless of whether it breathed air or suckled its young. For as long as anyone could remember, all non-human creatures had been organised according to the categories of birds, beasts and fish. For the average person the answer seemed perfectly obvious: whales swam in the sea and therefore they were fish.
Against this traditional framework stood the new Linnaean system of classification, which sought to introduce more scientific values into the classification of living things. Barely half a century old in 1818, the Linnaean system controversially classified whales as mammals because they shared two mammalian characteristics: they were warm-blooded and breathed air.
So the trial began in December 1818. Judd’s defence lawyers chose as their star witness one of New York’s most prominent figures, the congressman Samuel Mitchill. Referred to as a ‘living encyclopaedia’ and a ‘walking library’, Mitchill was a renowned natural history lecturer at the College of Physicians and Surgeons who liked to dare his students to test his knowledge of the natural world. ‘Show me the fin, and I will name the fish,’ he boasted. Scientifically, it was an open-and-shut case, and Judd’s defence lawyers believed they only had to do one simple thing to win the trial: insist that it be decided by biology alone. Mitchill seemed fully qualified for this role.
But this is where the case becomes interesting, and is the reason why the trial of the whale is not some dusty nineteenth-century obscurity. For rather than debate Mitchill on his area of expertise, lawyers for the New York City fish-oil inspectors chose a different tack. Lead counsel William Sampson turned the trial into a contest between scientific learning and common sense, by asking plain-spoken whalers to make their case before the jury.
The crux of Sampson’s case was the trial’s implication with regard to humans, should Judd be found not guilty. Sampson told jury members that if they accepted Mitchill’s testimony on whales, they were obliged to accept a lower place for their own kind in the natural order. As a result, Mitchill’s day in court did not go smoothly, not least because he was forced to acknowledge serious disputes among his peers regarding exactly how to classify biological organisms. Sampson then took aim at Mitchill himself and what he represented: privileged aristocrats from the scientific community who had lost touch with reality. The smooth-talking Sampson then claimed Mitchill’s beliefs had their origin in Europe – something he rightly judged would infuriate the citizens of always-independent New York. This revolutionary new thinking, Sampson insisted, was something that honest working New Yorkers could do without. No longer was this a case about barrels of oil, but the proper place of scientific knowledge in the U.S.A.
Ultimately, what won the case for Samuel Judd were not Mitchill’s scientific arguments, but testimony from a different sphere altogether. In New York’s markets, the merchants implicitly understood that whale oil and fish oil were not the same: whale oil could be used as a fuel for lamps because it could be burned without giving off smoke; fish oil, on the other hand, was nasty, impure stuff used primarily in tanning leather. In the end it was this testimony that led to Judd’s victory.
The trial of the whale still has relevance today, when the court of public opinion remains easily swayed by sceptics. The 1818 trial was really about this question: who gets to decide on the place of the natural world in the human world – scientific experts or public opinion? Whether the issue today is the effects of human activity on the climate of this planet, or one of many other contemporary topics, the legacy of Judd’s case continues to be of relevance.

1. An inspection fee on fish oil was introduced in New York in 1818. — {FALSE}
<ul data-path-to-node="4">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “In 1818 a whale became the subject of a controversial court case… The case involved an old law requiring those who sold fish oil to pay a fee…” (Đoạn 1)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Câu hỏi nói phí kiểm định được giới thiệu (ra đời) vào năm 1818. Thực tế, bài đọc nói đây là một đạo luật cũ (old law), năm 1818 chỉ là thời điểm xảy ra vụ kiện.
</li>
</ul>
2. Samuel Judd argued that the inspection fee should exclude whale oil. — {TRUE}
<ul data-path-to-node="6">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…Samuel Judd refused to pay the inspection fee… claiming that no inspection was necessary because it was whale oil, and whales were not fish.” (Đoạn 1)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Judd tranh luận rằng không cần kiểm định vì đó là dầu cá voi (không thuộc phạm vi luật về dầu cá). Điều này đồng nghĩa với việc ông muốn loại trừ (exclude) dầu cá voi khỏi danh sách đóng phí.
</li>
</ul>
3. Judd had been in trouble with city officials before the inspection fee disagreement. — {NOT GIVEN}
<ul data-path-to-node="8">
<li>
Giải thích: Bài đọc chỉ tập trung vào vụ kiện về phí dầu cá. Không có thông tin nào nói về việc trước đây Judd có từng gặp rắc rối với chính quyền thành phố hay không.
</li>
</ul>
4. Many New Yorkers were interested in the court case at the time. — {TRUE}
<ul data-path-to-node="10">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Indeed, the public debate in New York sparked off by the trial was sensational.” (Đoạn 2)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Cụm từ “sensational” (gây vang dội/giật gân) và “public debate” chứng minh rằng có rất nhiều người dân quan tâm đến vụ kiện này.
</li>
</ul>
5. Traditionally, non-human creatures had been classified in one of three groups. — {TRUE}
<ul data-path-to-node="12">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…all non-human creatures had been organised according to the categories of birds, beasts and fish.” (Đoạn 2)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Đúng là theo truyền thống, các loài vật được chia thành 3 nhóm chính: chim, thú và cá.
</li>
</ul>
6. Generally speaking, ordinary people thought fish were the lowest form of life. — {NOT GIVEN}
<ul data-path-to-node="14">
<li>
Giải thích: Bài đọc có nói về việc người dân coi cá voi là cá vì chúng sống dưới biển, nhưng không hề đề cập đến việc họ có coi cá là “dạng sống thấp kém nhất” (lowest form of life) hay không.
</li>
</ul>
7. Whales were excluded from the Linnaean system in 1818. — {FALSE}
<ul data-path-to-node="16">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Barely half a century old in 1818, the Linnaean system controversially classified whales as mammals…” (Đoạn 3)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Hệ thống Linnaean bao gồm cá voi và xếp chúng vào nhóm thú (mammals), chứ không phải loại trừ (excluded) chúng.
</li>
</ul>

Questions 1–7

8. Samuel Mitchill worked as a congressman and a {lecturer}.
<ul data-path-to-node="20">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…congressman Samuel Mitchill… was a renowned natural history lecturer at the College of Physicians and Surgeons…” (Đoạn 4)
</li>
</ul>
9. William Sampson called {whalers} as witnesses in order to appeal to the common sense of the jury.
<ul data-path-to-node="22">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…by asking plain-spoken whalers to make their case before the jury.” (Đoạn 5)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Để đối đầu với kiến thức bác học của Mitchill, luật sư Sampson đã mời những người thợ săn cá voi (whalers) làm chứng.
</li>
</ul>
10. New Yorkers disliked Mitchill because his ideas came from {Europe}.
<ul data-path-to-node="24">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…Sampson then claimed Mitchill’s beliefs had their origin in Europe – something he rightly judged would infuriate the citizens…” (Đoạn 6)
</li>
</ul>
11. In the end it was statements from local {merchants}, not Mitchill’s testimony which helped Judd win.
<ul data-path-to-node="26">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Ultimately, what won the case for Samuel Judd… In New York’s markets, the merchants implicitly understood that whale oil and fish oil were not the same…” (Đoạn 7)
</li>
</ul>
12. Whale oil made a good {fuel} because it was clean.
<ul data-path-to-node="28">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…whale oil could be used as a fuel for lamps because it could be burned without giving off smoke…” (Đoạn 7)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Dầu cá voi cháy sạch (không khói) nên làm nhiên liệu (fuel) rất tốt.
</li>
</ul>
13. Judd’s case is relevant today, e.g. in the debate about Earth’s {climate}.
<ul data-path-to-node="30">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Whether the issue today is the effects of human activity on the climate of this planet…” (Đoạn 8)
</li>
</ul>

Questions 8–13

Passage 1

MULTI-TASKING AND THE BRAIN
{iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible}
Do you think you’re a master of multi-tasking? Think again. Unless you are one of the three percent of super-taskers in the population, research shows that your brain isn’t capable of paying close attention to more than one complex task at a time. Researchers who study attention say that effective multi-tasking is beyond most of us. Psychiatrist Edward M Hallowell even describes multi-tasking as a ‘mythical activity in which people believe they can perform two or more tasks simultaneously as effectively as they can perform one’.
{iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task}
It is true that you can check your email while eating your lunch, or listen to music while walking. But innate activities like walking, chewing, and breathing do not require you to pay attention, whereas activities such as reading, tapping out a text message, or driving a car do require attention. Why is paying attention to two things at once difficult? ‘The brain can perform simultaneous tasks but attention has capacity limitations,’ says Associate Professor Paul E Dux, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Queensland in Australia. When you do only one thing at a time, you’re better at that task than when you’re doing multiple things concurrently.
Take the classic multi-tasking scenario of talking on a mobile phone while driving – an ill-advised activity that many people believe they have mastered. When David Strayer, Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah in the US, and his team observed 56,000 drivers as they approached an intersection, the majority of drivers who were talking on their phone failed to stop in accordance with traffic laws. And it did not matter if the driver was using a handheld or hands-free device. Even with both eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel, drivers’ performance was impaired. Strayer’s research shows that performance deteriorates drastically when attention is split between tasks, more mistakes are made and it takes longer to complete each activity.
{vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things}
The prefrontal cortex is the brain region responsible for choosing what to pay attention to, and for coordinating inputs from other brain areas. By scanning the prefrontal cortex of people while they multi-tasked, scientists at the French Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris (INSERM) found that when people focused on a single thing, the right and left sides of the prefrontal cortex work together. But when people attempt to perform two things at once, the sides work independently. Neuroscientist Etienne Koechlin says his study demonstrates that while the brain can switch back and forth between two tasks, we might be in great trouble when we try to juggle more than two tasks, simply because we have only two frontal lobes.
{v. Multi-tasking and gender}
To the question of whether there is a difference between the sexes, Koechlin’s imaging studies uncovered no differences in the ability to switch between tasks in the prefrontal cortices of men or women. But other researchers studying real life scenarios such as finding lost keys, believe there might be some truth to the claim that women are superior multi-taskers. Women have a much better strategy for finding the keys, whereas men tend to jump to it and be far less organised and thorough. ‘It’s as if they don’t stop to reflect and plan for a moment,’ says Professor Keith Laws from the University of Hertfordshire in England. But while the ability to develop strategies for coping with the numerous tasks in everyday life could give women an advantage, ‘nobody can juggle two, never mind three, “complex” tasks at the same time.’
{i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found}
However, David Strayer’s research uncovered that some rare people possess extraordinary multi-tasking ability. These so-called ‘super-taskers’ exhibit different patterns of brain activity when multi-tasking compared to ordinary people: they show less activity in the prefrontal cortex during multi-tasking, suggesting their brains are functioning with a high level of efficiency. Strayer thinks that pilots of high-performance aircraft, high-end chefs who can cook several meals at the same time to perfection, and elite doctors in hospital emergency rooms might all be more likely to be super-taskers. ‘All other things being equal, we suspect that super-taskers will rise to a top position in any occupation that places a high demand on juggling various tasks that demand attention at the same time.’
{vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes}  
The ability to multi-task probably comes down to the DNA you inherit from your parents to a large extent, says Strayer. ‘You are either born with the neural structure that allows you to overcome the usual multi-tasking challenges, or you aren’t. Super-taskers’ brains are doing something we can’t do.’ All in all, these findings may have very real consequences on our lives.

14: {iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible}
<ul data-path-to-node="5">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…research shows that your brain isn’t capable of paying close attention to more than one complex task at a time.”
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Đoạn này khẳng định việc đa nhiệm thực sự (làm hai việc phức tạp cùng lúc) là gần như không thể đối với 97% dân số. Nó được gọi là một “mythical activity” (hoạt động huyền thoại/không có thật).
</li>
</ul>
15: {iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task}
<ul data-path-to-node="7">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “It is true that you can check your email while eating… But innate activities [walking, breathing] do not require you to pay attention, whereas activities such as reading… do require attention.”
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Đoạn này phân biệt rõ ranh giới: chúng ta có thể làm hai việc cùng lúc nếu một việc là bản năng (không cần chú ý), nhưng không thể nếu cả hai việc đều đòi hỏi sự tập trung não bộ.
</li>
</ul>
16: {vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things}
<ul data-path-to-node="9">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…when people focused on a single thing, the right and left sides of the prefrontal cortex work together. But when people attempt to perform two things… the sides work independently.”
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Đoạn này giải thích dưới góc độ thần kinh học (neurological): chúng ta gặp khó khăn vì não chỉ có hai thùy trán, khi làm hai việc thì chúng phải hoạt động độc lập, và nếu thêm việc thứ ba thì não sẽ bị quá tải.
</li>
</ul>
17: {v. Multi-tasking and gender}
<ul data-path-to-node="11">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…uncovered no differences in the ability to switch between tasks in the prefrontal cortices of men or women.”
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Tiêu đề này rất rõ ràng vì đoạn văn tập trung so sánh khả năng đa nhiệm giữa nam và nữ (gender/sexes).
</li>
</ul>
18: {i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found}
<ul data-path-to-node="13">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…pilots of high-performance aircraft, high-end chefs… and elite doctors… might all be more likely to be super-taskers.”
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Đoạn này liệt kê các ngành nghề (professions) mà những người siêu đa nhiệm (super-taskers) thường xuất hiện.
</li>
</ul>
19: {vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes}
<ul data-path-to-node="15">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “The ability to multi-task probably comes down to the DNA you inherit… You are either born with the neural structure… or you aren’t.”
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Đoạn cuối khẳng định khả năng này do di truyền/gen (DNA/inherit/born with) quyết định chứ không hẳn do luyện tập.
</li>
</ul>

Questions 14–19

20. The brain of a good multi-tasker works differently from other people’s. — {C: David Strayer}
<ul data-path-to-node="5">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…David Strayer’s research uncovered that some rare people possess extraordinary multi-tasking ability… these so-called ‘super-taskers’ exhibit different patterns of brain activity when multi-tasking compared to ordinary people…” (Đoạn mô tả về Super-taskers).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Strayer phát hiện ra rằng não của những người “siêu đa nhiệm” hoạt động với một mô hình khác biệt (hiệu suất cao hơn, ít hoạt động ở vùng vỏ trước trán hơn) so với người bình thường.
</li>
</ul>
21. The rate of error is considerably higher when people multi-task. — {C: David Strayer}
<ul data-path-to-node="7">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Strayer’s research shows that performance deteriorates drastically when attention is split between tasks, more mistakes are made and it takes longer to complete each activity.” (Đoạn nói về lái xe và dùng điện thoại).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “More mistakes are made” (nhiều lỗi hơn) tương đương với “The rate of error is considerably higher”. Đây cũng là kết quả nghiên cứu của nhóm David Strayer.
</li>
</ul>
22. People are mistaken in their assumption that they can multi-task. — {A: Edward M Hallowell}
<ul data-path-to-node="9">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Psychiatrist Edward M Hallowell even describes multi-tasking as a ‘mythical activity in which people believe they can perform two or more tasks simultaneously…’” (Đoạn 1).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Hallowell coi đa nhiệm là một “hoạt động huyền thoại” (không có thật), nơi mà con người chỉ lầm tưởng (mistaken in their assumption) rằng mình có thể làm nhiều việc cùng lúc hiệu quả.
</li>
</ul>
23. One gender does not seem to pause to consider before taking action. — {E: Keith Laws}
<ul data-path-to-node="11">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “‘It’s as if they [men] don’t stop to reflect and plan for a moment,’ says Professor Keith Laws…” (Đoạn nói về giới tính và việc tìm chìa khóa).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Khi so sánh về cách tìm chìa khóa bị mất, Keith Laws nhận xét nam giới thường hành động ngay mà không dừng lại để suy nghĩ hay lập kế hoạch (does not pause to consider/stop to reflect).
</li>
</ul>

List of researchers

Questions 20–23

24. …and super-taskers are most likely to achieve a {position} that is high on the career ladder.
<ul data-path-to-node="5">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…we suspect that super-taskers will rise to a top position in any occupation that places a high demand on juggling various tasks…” (Đoạn 5).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “Rise to a top position” (vươn tới vị trí đứng đầu) tương ứng với cụm “achieve a position that is high on the career ladder” (đạt được vị trí cao trên nấc thang sự nghiệp).
</li>
</ul>
25. Super-taskers typically have to undertake many tasks simultaneously that need their {attention}.
<ul data-path-to-node="7">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…juggling various tasks that demand attention at the same time.” (Đoạn 5).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “Simultaneously” và “at the same time” đều có nghĩa là cùng một lúc. Những công việc này đòi hỏi sự tập trung (attention) của họ.
</li>
</ul>
26. …these people have a special brain {structure} which helps them do what we cannot.
<ul data-path-to-node="9">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “You are either born with the neural structure that allows you to overcome the usual multi-tasking challenges, or you aren’t.” (Đoạn 6).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Bài đọc khẳng định những người này sinh ra đã có một cấu trúc (structure) thần kinh đặc biệt giúp họ vượt qua những thử thách về đa nhiệm mà người bình thường không làm được.
</li>
</ul>

Questions 24–26

Passage 2

Children’s literature studies today
Who studies children’s literature and what is it that they study? The answers to this question are complex and messy, because of the many confounding factors which exist in this field.
Firstly, unlike literature for adults, children’s literature is not generally written by its own readers. Adults write for children, and thus adult perceptions of what children are and of what they could and should become are woven into the literature.
Furthermore, some of those who study children’s literature (and those who write certain kinds of children’s books) are less interested in literary values than in the kinds of lessons it can teach- either in terms of creating better children or in terms of serving a particular curriculum. The issue of how a teacher can use a children’s book is often contentious, but even outside the classroom, much material for children is still didactic.
Thirdly, while almost all literature is currently promoted within a strong commercial matrix, children’s literature is often especially targeted for marketing initiatives. This fact means that readers are often recruited with a message that is negligibly literary and significantly oriented to ideas of consumption. Daniel Hade (2002) has raised useful questions about whether children’s experience of reading is altered when their books are part of a larger marketing framework involving the movie, the game, and the toy of a popular children’s book. How children perceive and respond to their stories in this new context is an important question.
It is also important to note that texts in an ever-increasing range of new media compete with print media for the attention of the child reader, and create definitional issues for scholars. Does the term ‘literature’ exclusively imply a verbal text? If not, where are the limits? Could a literary computer game ever be considered a work of literature? If not, what kind of attention should be paid to it, since children themselves undoubtedly perceive their print literature as part of a broader continuum? The internet provides one forum through which children now communicate with each other. (In 2003, the internet search engine Google listed 7,920,000 sites relating to the Harry Potter novels; even allowing for duplication and dead ends, that is a number with revolutionary implications.)
Finally, in the context of the higher education institutions where the formal study of children’s literature is often located, at least three disciplinary frameworks (English, education, and librarianship) fragment the focus of scholarly study of children’s literature.
How is the value of the imaginative encounter with the work of literature sustained and honored among such a welter of conflicting interests? One route through this maze is to ask the child readers for help. As David Lewis (2001) has perceptively noted, what children think of reading is not usually the same as what adults think, whether teachers or parents. As Lewis points out, children ‘sometimes see more and they often see differently’. If those who study reading can explore children’s perceptions as well as those of adults, their understanding of the nature of reading will be enhanced.
Lewis makes a further valid point when he adds that exploring children’s perceptions is usually justified for educational reasons: “It is true that a better understanding of how children read and how they learn to read is a prerequisite to improved approaches to teaching. However, it can also be argued, as Lewis rightly does, that when children’s responses to literature are accessed and interpreted, they frequently lead to an understanding of how picture books appeal to children.
Young people’s accounts of what and how they read also enable a more sophisticated description of many of the complex processes involved in reading. All descriptions of reading runs the risk of solipsism: i.e. this is how I read so this is what reading is for everyone. Asking other readers how they read, however, reduces that risk. For example, if I am a strong visualizer as I read, I may consider that visualization is a key component of successful reading and I may judge books by their capacity to evoke a vivid visual response. Other readers, however, may help me to realize that not everyone reads with mental pictures. Some readers respond to the patterns of the words, ‘hearing’ them inaudibly like a subliminal radio program. Others respond to the patterns of feelings in the story, responding with an emotional connection. Talking to competent readers, of all ages, provides a better understanding of reading experiences.
Children’s insights are even more important when it comes to understanding the significance of print literature as one aspect of literary culture. Too often adults assume that reading any book at all is a more worthwhile experience than playing a digital game of any kind. A humbler approach would include asking why the game appeals to the player. Many adults will probably never develop the automatic skills to process a game as readily as they can read a book. This does not indicate that a book is better, but that a particular set of skills is absent. Non-players must acknowledge that some fictional universes are thus closed to them, and a logical response would be to find someone who can guide them to the pleasures and challenges of the gaming world. Games need to be judged individually just as books do, and any evaluative framework needs to take this into account.

27. Which of the following best summarises the writer’s argument in the second paragraph? — {A} Children are portrayed as adults see them.
<ul data-path-to-node="4">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…adult perceptions of what children are and of what they could and should become are woven into the literature.” (Đoạn 2)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Tác giả lập luận rằng vì người lớn viết sách cho trẻ em, nên những quan điểm (perceptions) của người lớn về trẻ em sẽ được lồng ghép (woven) vào tác phẩm. Điều này khớp với ý: Trẻ em được khắc họa (portrayed) theo cách người lớn nhìn nhận chúng.
</li>
</ul>
28. In the third paragraph, what does the writer say is the main interest of some people who study children’s literature? — {C} the instructive nature of children’s books.
<ul data-path-to-node="6">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…less interested in literary values than in the kinds of lessons it can teach… much material for children is still didactic.” (Đoạn 3)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “Instructive nature” (tính chất hướng dẫn/giáo huấn) tương ứng với “didactic” và “lessons it can teach”. Một số nhà nghiên cứu quan tâm đến việc cuốn sách dạy được gì hơn là giá trị văn chương của nó.
</li>
</ul>
29. The main point of the writer’s argument in the fifth paragraph is to — {B} explore the impact of computers on the boundaries of children’s literature.
<ul data-path-to-node="8">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…create definitional issues for scholars. Does the term ‘literature’ exclusively imply a verbal text? If not, where are the limits? Could a literary computer game ever be considered a work of literature?” (Đoạn 5)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Tác giả đặt ra hàng loạt câu hỏi về việc liệu trò chơi máy tính có được coi là văn học không. Điều này nhằm khám phá sự tác động của công nghệ lên “ranh giới” (boundaries/limits) định nghĩa thế nào là văn học thiếu nhi.
</li>
</ul>

Questions 27-29

30. Children tend to make a clear distinction between print literature and electronic media. — {NO}
<ul data-path-to-node="12">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…children themselves undoubtedly perceive their print literature as part of a broader continuum.” (Đoạn 5)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Trẻ em coi văn học in ấn là một phần của một “dải liên tục rộng lớn hơn” (bao gồm cả media), tức là chúng không hề phân biệt rạch ròi (clear distinction) như người lớn nghĩ.
</li>
</ul>
31. The study of children’s literature at higher education institutions is restricted to one subject area. — {NO}
<ul data-path-to-node="14">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…at least three disciplinary frameworks (English, education, and librarianship) fragment the focus of scholarly study…” (Đoạn 6)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Việc nghiên cứu không bị giới hạn ở một lĩnh vực (one subject area) mà bị phân mảnh ở ít nhất ba lĩnh vực khác nhau (Tiếng Anh, Giáo dục, Thư viện).
</li>
</ul>
32. Exploring children’s perceptions of reading will assist parents to choose suitable books for children. — {NOT GIVEN}
<ul data-path-to-node="16">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: Đoạn 7 có nhắc đến việc trẻ em nhìn nhận việc đọc khác với cha mẹ hay thầy cô.
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rằng hiểu trẻ em sẽ giúp hiểu hơn về bản chất của việc đọc, nhưng không hề khẳng định việc này sẽ “giúp cha mẹ chọn sách phù hợp” (assist parents to choose suitable books).
</li>
</ul>
33. Adults may appreciate the appeal of illustrated stories better, if they have more information on how children read. — {YES}
<ul data-path-to-node="18">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: “…when children’s responses to literature are accessed and interpreted, they frequently lead to an understanding of how picture books appeal to children.” (Đoạn 8)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “Illustrated stories” chính là “picture books”. Khi tiếp cận phản hồi của trẻ (biết cách trẻ đọc), người lớn sẽ hiểu được sức hấp dẫn (appeal) của loại sách này.
</li>
</ul>
34. Children should be asked what features they would like digital games to include. — {NOT GIVEN}
<ul data-path-to-node="20">
<li>
Dẫn chứng: Đoạn cuối có nói nên hỏi trẻ tại sao trò chơi lại hấp dẫn chúng (asking why the game appeals to the player).
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Tuy nhiên, bài đọc không đề cập đến việc nên hỏi trẻ về các “tính năng” (features) mà chúng muốn “đưa vào” (include) trò chơi trong tương lai.
</li>
</ul>

Questions 30-34

35. Young people’s accounts of how they read lead to {F: a deeper knowledge of the intricacies of reading}.
<ul data-path-to-node="4">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Young people’s accounts of what and how they read also enable a more sophisticated description of many of the complex processes involved in reading.” (Đoạn 9)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “More sophisticated description” (mô tả tinh vi hơn) tương ứng với “deeper knowledge” (kiến thức sâu sắc hơn). “Complex processes” (quá trình phức tạp) tương ứng với “intricacies” (sự phức tạp/tỉ mỉ).
</li>
</ul>
36. The risk of solipsism is reduced by {C: discovering the reading techniques used by others}.
<ul data-path-to-node="6">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Asking other readers how they read, however, reduces that risk [of solipsism].” (Đoạn 9)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Việc hỏi những người đọc khác xem họ đọc như thế nào (tức là khám phá các kỹ thuật đọc của họ – reading techniques used by others) giúp giảm bớt rủi ro của tính duy ngã (solipsism).
</li>
</ul>
37. Strong visualisers judge books on the basis that they are {H: creating a variety of images in their minds}.
<ul data-path-to-node="8">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “…if I am a strong visualizer… I may judge books by their capacity to evoke a vivid visual response.” (Đoạn 9)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: “Strong visualizer” (người có khả năng hình dung mạnh mẽ) sẽ đánh giá sách dựa trên khả năng gợi lên những hình ảnh sống động (vivid visual response), tương ứng với việc tạo ra nhiều hình ảnh trong tâm trí (creating a variety of images in their minds).
</li>
</ul>
38. Children’s insights are important in {A: accepting that literature exists in a variety of forms today}.
<ul data-path-to-node="10">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “Children’s insights are even more important when it comes to understanding the significance of print literature as one aspect of literary culture.” (Đoạn 10)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Hiểu được văn học in ấn chỉ là một khía cạnh của văn hóa văn học (bao gồm cả game, media…) đồng nghĩa với việc chấp nhận rằng văn học ngày nay tồn tại dưới nhiều hình thức khác nhau (variety of forms).
</li>
</ul>
39. When adults read a book more easily than they play a digital game, it simply suggests {E: the lack of some specific abilities}.
<ul data-path-to-node="12">
<li>
Trích dẫn: “This does not indicate that a book is better, but that a particular set of skills is absent.” (Đoạn 10)
</li>
<li>
Giải thích: Việc người lớn thấy đọc sách dễ hơn chơi game không có nghĩa là sách tốt hơn, mà đơn giản là do họ đang thiếu đi một số kỹ năng cụ thể (particular set of skills is absent tương ứng với lack of some specific abilities).
</li>
</ul>

Questions 35–39

40. What was the writer’s main purpose in writing this article? — {C} to review the challenges in the field of children’s literature studies and suggest how to proceed.
<ul data-path-to-node="5">
<li>
Phân tích cấu trúc bài viết:
<ul data-path-to-node="5,0,1">
<li>
Phần đầu (Đoạn 1 – 6): Tác giả liệt kê hàng loạt các khó khăn và yếu tố gây nhiễu trong ngành nghiên cứu văn học thiếu nhi như: sự áp đặt của người lớn, tính giáo huấn (didactic), áp lực thương mại, sự cạnh tranh của truyền thông mới và sự phân mảnh trong học thuật. Đây chính là phần “review the challenges” (xem xét các thách thức).
</li>
<li>
Phần sau (Đoạn 7 – 10): Tác giả đưa ra giải pháp: “One route through this maze is to ask the child readers for help” (Một con đường thoát khỏi mê cung này là nhờ sự giúp đỡ của chính những độc giả nhí). Tác giả dành toàn bộ phần còn lại để lập luận tại sao việc lắng nghe trẻ em là cần thiết để hiểu về bản chất việc đọc và các hình thức văn học mới (game). Đây chính là phần “suggest how to proceed” (gợi ý cách tiếp cận tiếp theo).
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

Reading Test 41

IELTS Reading Exam

Lịch sử làm bài

Download PDF

Bài test nổi bật

Reading Test 48

Có thể bạn quan tâm

Reading Test 39

Reading Test 38

Reading Test 37

Bài thi tương tự

Reading Test 48

Reading Test 39

Reading Test 38

Reading Test 37

Sẵn sàng cho kì thi IELTS máy?