1400 câu trắc nghiệm Đọc hiểu Tiếng Anh có đáp án cực hay

In early civilization, citizens were educated informally, usually within the family unit. Education meant simply learning to live. As civilization became more complex, however, education became more formal, structured, and comprehensive. Initial efforts of the ancient Chinese and Greek societies concentrated solely on the education of males. The post-Babylonian Jews and Plato were exceptions to this pattern. Plato was apparently the first significant advocate of the equality of the sexes. Women, in his ideal state, would have the same rights and duties and the same educational opportunities as men. This aspect of Platonic philosophy, however, had little or no effect on education for many centuries, and the concept of a liberal education for men only, which had been espoused by Aristotle, prevailed.

In ancient Rome, the availability of an education was radually extended to women, but they were taught separately from men. The early Christians and medieval Europeans continued this trend, and single-sex schools for the privileged through classes prevailed through the Reformation period. Gradually, however, education for women, in a separate but equal basis to that provided for men, was becoming a clear responsibility of society. Martin Luther appealed for civil support of schools for all children. Al the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church encouraged the establishment of free primary schools for children of all classes. The concept of universal primary education, regardless of sex, had been born, but it was still in the realm of the single-sex school.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, co-education became a more widely applied principle of educational philosophy. In Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union the education of boys and girls in the same classes became an accepted practice. Since World War II, Japan and the Scandinavian countries have also adopted relatively universal co-educational systems. The greatest negative reaction to co-education has been felt in the teaching systems of the Latin countries, where the sexes have usually been separated at both primary and secondary levels, according to local conditions.

A number of studies have indicated that girls seem to perform better overall and in science in particular. In single-sex classes, during the adolescent years, pressure to conform to stereotypical female gender roles may disadvantage girls in traditionally male subjects, making them reluctant to volunteer for experimental work while taking part in lessons. In Britain, academic league tables point to high standards achieved in girls’ schools. Some educationalists, therefore, suggest segregation of the sexes as a good thing, particularly in certain areas, and a number of schools are experimenting with the idea.

A. conservative countries

B. Japan

C. South American countries

D. the Scandinavian countries

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. Although animals may be aware of quantities, they cannot actually count.

B. Of all animals, dogs and horses can count best.

C. Careful training is required to teach animals to perform tricks involving numbers

D. Animals cannot “count” more than one kind of object.

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. To indicate that more research is needed in this field.

B. To show how attitudes have changed since1786.

C. To provide evidence that some birds are aware of quantities.

D. To contradict the idea that animals can count.

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. quickly

B. occasionally

C. stubbornly

D. secretly

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. numbers such as 1, 3, 5 and so on

B. lucky numbers

C. numbers such as 2, 4, 6 and so on

D. unusual numbers

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. wasps

B. Plovers

C. caterpillars

D. mice

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. reasons

B. reports

C. deceptions

D. invoices

Animals have an intuitive awareness of quantities. They know without analysis the difference between a number of objects and a smaller number. In his book “ The natural History of Selboure ” (1786 ) , the naturalist Gilbert White tells how he surreptitiously removed one egg a day from a plover’s nest , and how the mother laid another egg each day to make up for the missing one . He noted that other species of birds ignore the absence of a single egg but abandon their nests if more than one egg has been removed. It has also been noted by naturalists that a certain type of wasp always provides five – never four, never six - caterpillars for each of their eggs so that their young have something to eat when the eggs hatch . Research has also shown that both mice and pigeons can be taught to distinguish between odd and even numbers of food pieces.

These and similar accounts have led some people to infer that creatures other than humans can actually count. They also point to dogs that have been taught to respond to numerical questions with the correct number of barks, or to horses that seem to solve arithmetic problems by stomping their hooves the proper number of times.

Animals respond to quantities only when they are connected to survival as a species – as in the case of the eggs – or survival as individuals - as in the case of food. There is no transfer to other situations or from concrete reality to the abstract notion of numbers. Animals can “count” only when the objects are present and only when the numbers involved are small – not more than seven or eight. In lab experiments, animals trained to “count” one kind of object were unable to count any other type. The objects, not the numbers, are what interest them. Animals admittedly remarkable achievements simply do not amount to evidence of counting, nor do they reveal more than innate instincts, refined by the genes of successive generations, or the results of clever, careful conditioning by trainers .

A. As foolish

B. As demanding

C. As clever

D. As mistaken

Until recently, most American entrepreneurs were men. Discrimination against women in business, the demands of caring for families, and lack of business training had kept the number of women entrepreneurs small. Now, however, businesses owned by women account for more than $40 billion in annual revenues, and this figure is likely to continue rising throughout the 1990s. As Carolyn Doppelt Gray, an official of the Small Business Administration, has noted, "The 1970s was the decade of women entering management, and the 1980s turned out to be the decade of the woman entrepreneur". What are some of the factors behind this trend? For one thing, as more women earn advanced degrees in business and enter the corporate world, they are finding obstacles. Women are still excluded from most executive suites. Charlotte Taylor, a management consultant, had noted, "In the 1970s women believed if they got an MBA and worked hard they could become chairman of the board. Now they've found out that isn't going to happen, so they go out on their own".

In the past, most women entrepreneurs worked in "women's" fields: cosmetics and clothing, for example. But this is changing. Consider ASK Computer Systems, a $22-million-a- year computer software business. It was founded in 1973 by Sandra Kurtzig, who was then a housewife with degrees in math and engineering. When Kurtzig founded the business, her first product was software that let weekly newspapers keep tabs on their newspaper carriers-and her office was a bedroom at home, with a shoebox under the bed to hold the company's cash. After she succeeded with the newspaper software system, she hired several bright computer-science graduates to develop additional programs. When these were marketed and sold, ASK began to grow. It now has 200 employees, and Sandra Kurtzig owns $66.9 million of stock.

Of course, many women who start their own businesses fail, just as men often do. They still face hurdles in the business world, especially problems in raising money; the banking and finance world is still dominated by men, and old attitudes die hard. Most businesses owned by women are still quite small. But the situation is changing; there are likely to be many more Sandra Kurtzigs in the years ahead.

A. The computer is especially lucrative for women today.

B. Women today are better educated than in the past, making them more attractive to the business world.

C. Women are better at small business than men are.

D. Women today are opening more business of their own.

Until recently, most American entrepreneurs were men. Discrimination against women in business, the demands of caring for families, and lack of business training had kept the number of women entrepreneurs small. Now, however, businesses owned by women account for more than $40 billion in annual revenues, and this figure is likely to continue rising throughout the 1990s. As Carolyn Doppelt Gray, an official of the Small Business Administration, has noted, "The 1970s was the decade of women entering management, and the 1980s turned out to be the decade of the woman entrepreneur". What are some of the factors behind this trend? For one thing, as more women earn advanced degrees in business and enter the corporate world, they are finding obstacles. Women are still excluded from most executive suites. Charlotte Taylor, a management consultant, had noted, "In the 1970s women believed if they got an MBA and worked hard they could become chairman of the board. Now they've found out that isn't going to happen, so they go out on their own".

In the past, most women entrepreneurs worked in "women's" fields: cosmetics and clothing, for example. But this is changing. Consider ASK Computer Systems, a $22-million-a- year computer software business. It was founded in 1973 by Sandra Kurtzig, who was then a housewife with degrees in math and engineering. When Kurtzig founded the business, her first product was software that let weekly newspapers keep tabs on their newspaper carriers-and her office was a bedroom at home, with a shoebox under the bed to hold the company's cash. After she succeeded with the newspaper software system, she hired several bright computer-science graduates to develop additional programs. When these were marketed and sold, ASK began to grow. It now has 200 employees, and Sandra Kurtzig owns $66.9 million of stock.

Of course, many women who start their own businesses fail, just as men often do. They still face hurdles in the business world, especially problems in raising money; the banking and finance world is still dominated by men, and old attitudes die hard. Most businesses owned by women are still quite small. But the situation is changing; there are likely to be many more Sandra Kurtzigs in the years ahead.

A. often invited to

B. decorators of

C. not permitted in

D. charged admission to