T134
T134
Part 2: Write the correct form of each bracketed word in corresponding numbered boxes. (10 pts)
46. About $200 million in taxes weren’t paid because of ____________ income. (REPORT)
47. The Red Cross is sending emergency aid to the ___________ country. (FAMINE)
48. The cold winter has led to a larger-than-expected ___________ on oil stocks. (DOWN)
49. Many streets in Hanoi were flooded and ___________ after it had rained for 2 hours on end. (PASS)
50. There is no (SAY) ___________ the technical brilliance of his performance.
51. It is inhumane to sell ______________ limbs of the animals such as rhinoceros or elephants in the market place.
(MEMBER)
52. I cannot imagine why there are such _________ people in this world. Don’t they feel any sympathy for the
homeless? (HEART)
53. This had all the makings of another long-running _________ dispute, when again wider political events quite
unexpectedly overtook the controversy. (ACRID)
54. When we catch up on the phone it's to discuss her latest short-lived conquest, the details of which are usually
colourful, sometimes ____________ and always entertaining. (TOE)
554. Not only are employees disenfranchised from most policy decisions, they lack even the power to rebel against
___________ and tyrannical supervisors. (EGO)
Your answers:
46. 51.
47. 52.
48. 53.
49. 54.
50. 55.
Your answer:
66. 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75
Part 3: Reading the passage below and choose the best answer A, B, C or D to the questions from 76-85
(Succeed in CPE p.105)
Livestrong – but will the legacy?
In the early- to mid-1990s, Lance Armstrong was on the up-and-up. Success seemed to be written in his stars; he
notched up a stage win at the '93 Tour de France, then another in '95. This cyclist was clearly coming of age in the
sport, and he was, at 24 on registering his second tour win, still a relative baby in cycling terms - most of his career
lay ahead of him. Then, just when it looked like he would conquer all before him, his '96 tour was cut disappointingly
short due to illness. And, as it would soon emerge, this was no ordinary illness; Armstrong had testicular cancer. Fans
were aghast and there was an out-pouring of sympathy for him.
But Armstrong would need more than goodwill to get through this. The cancer had metastasized to the lungs and the
brain. The prognosis was not at all good. Months of spirit- and body-breaking chemotherapy followed and a delicate
surgical procedure to remove the malignancies on his brain was performed. Cycling mourned the surely permanent
loss to the sport of one of its most promising young disciples. But Armstrong wasn't finished yet.
In 1998, he made a remarkable, defiant and inspirational return to cycling and competed in the Tour de France again
the following year. But surely his would now only be a cameo role; after all, what could one expect from a cancer
survivor with a compromised liver and the other familiar scars of cancer therapy? Except Armstrong had other ideas.
Four stage wins later, the legend of Armstrong was born; he had claimed the Tour and defied the odds in the most
emphatic of manners. His victory represented not just his announcement as a force in cycling, but as a force for hope
for millions of cancer sufferers the world over. Indeed, Armstrong threw himself into campaigning for his newly-
established cancer foundation, Livestrong - so much so that he metamorphosed into a sort of human-embodiment of
the cause — he became the cause, and his annual battle with the French Alps came to represent the struggle against
the deadly disease. So long as Lance could succeed, there was hope.
And succeed he did, beyond the wildest expectations of even the most optimistic of his supporters, amassing a further
six titles — so seven in consecution —before he retired in 2005. His achievements were simply remarkable; his story
absorbing; his book a must-read for all cancer sufferers — their ray of hope; proof that hopefulness should never fade
and that sanguinity can and does make light of the odds - the tunnel, though long and at times excruciating to pass
through, has an end, and it is a happy one —the light is in sight.
After his seventh victory, he retired and the sporting world entered congratulatory mode, writing his eulogies. But
Armstrong had one more surprise for us; he wasn't finished yet. There were whispers of a comeback, confirmed in
2009, and so it was that the legend would ride again.
But the renewed focus on him wasn't all good; there were whispers of another kind, too; sources, some credible, were
claiming he had had an illicit ally all through his exploits; he was, they claimed, in bed with the syringe. Our
champion laughed off and dismissed these claims but the rumours persisted and a cloud began to form over his
legacy. Surely Armstrong could not have earned his victories clean, some said.
We may never know for sure. Fast-forward to 2012 and despite an abandoned federal case, those sharpening their
knives for Armstrong seem to have finally nabbed him; ASADA, the U.S. body tasked with cracking down on drug
offenders charged Armstrong with doping and the trafficking of drugs - and some say his failure to contest is
indicative of his guilt. At any rate, because he pleaded no-contest, he will now be stripped of all his titles; his legacy
has been pulled from under him.
And yet he has not, and now may never be tried, so we have not seen the evidence against him. We do not know if he
is guilty or innocent, and it still remains fact that he never failed an official drugs test. Did he cheat? Does it matter?
Does anyone care? Time may tell, but for now, though his legacy is tainted, his legend, in the eyes of many of his
loyal supporters, lives on.
76. What does the writer mean when he says in the first paragraph that Lance Amstrong was ‘coming of age in
the sport’
A. he was of the right age to be a competitive cyclist
B. he was nearly at the age at which it is expected that a cyclist should win
C. he was of a mature age for a cyclist and had few years left in the sport
D. he was beginning to figure as a real contender in his sport
77. What does “it” in paragraph 1 refer to?
A. Armstrong’s illness
B. the ’96 Tour de France
C. Amstrong’s career
D. none of the above
78. Which of the following statements is true about the cancer Armstrong had?
A. he recovered remarkably quickly from it, suffering little
B. it started in the lungs and spread to the brain
C. doctors were optimistic about his chances of survival
D. the generally held view was that it would prevent him from cycling professionally ever again
79. What was implied when the writer said ‘but surely his would now only be a cameo role’ in the third paragraph?
A. the author did not believe Armstrong would come back to the Tour de France at the time
B. the certainty about Armstrong’s desire to play a cameo role in the Tour de France
C. the general lack of confidence in Armstrong’s competitiveness
D. the popular demand for Armstrong to be back
80. Why does the writer say, 'Except Armstrong had other ideas', at the end of the third paragraph?
A. Armstrong was determined to play some role in the Tour de France again
B. Armstrong's idea of victory had changed since he'd had cancer.
C. Armstrong was determined to defy the odds and become a real contender in the Tour de France.
D. Armstrong didn't want to race for victory, he just wanted to represent cancer victims.
81. What does the writer compare Armstrong's Tour de France campaign struggle each year after his return to the
sport with?
A. the general fight against cancer
B. a cancer organisation
C. his fundraising for cancer
D. Armstrong's own personal cancer experience
82. What is one of the ways in which his story became about more than just cycling?
A. his published biography became a source of inspiration for cancer sufferers
B. cycling through a tunnel was like fighting cancer
C. he gave people hope that they could one day be professional athletes, too
D. he gave people the belief to fight the disease that is drug-taking in sport
83. What does Lance Armstrong’s ‘illicit ally’ represent?
A. the person who helped him win illegally
B. the drugs he used
C. the person with whom he cheated
D. the person who sold him drugs
84. What can be inferred about the rumours of Armstrong's drug-taking?
A. they were disproved in a state court case
B. they have not caused Armstrong's reputation and record any harm
C. they were eventually proved true beyond doubt
D. he had, but passed up, an opportunity to disprove them
85. What is the author’s purpose in the last paragraph?
A. informing readers of his legacy
B. denying his scandals
C. approving of his exploits
D. confirming his guilt
Your answers:
76. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Part 4. Read the following passage and do the tasks given below
Overdosing on nothing
A
An international protest this week aims to demonstrate the truth about homeopathy-that there’s literally nothing in it,
says Martin Robbins AT 10.23 am on 30 January, more than 300 activists in the UK, Canada, Australia and the US
will take part in a mass homeopathic “overdose”. Skeptics will publicly swallow an entire bottle of homeopathic pills
to demonstrate to the public that homeopathic remedies, the product of a scientifically unfounded 18th-century ritual,
are simply sugar pills. Many of the skeptics will swallow 84 pills of arsenicum album, a homeopathic remedy based
on arsenic which is used to treat a range of symptoms, including food poisoning and insomnia. The aim of the
“10:23” campaign, led by the Merseyside Skeptics Society, based in Liverpool, UK, is to raise public awareness of
just exactly what homeopathy is, and to put pressure on the UK’s leading pharmacist, Boots, to remove theremedies
from sale. The campaign is called 10:23 in honor of the Avogadro constant (approximately 6 x 1023, the number of
atoms or molecules in onemole of a substance), of which more later.
B
That such a protest is even necessary in 2010 is remarkable, but somehow the homeopathic industry has not only
survived into the 21st century, but prospered. In the UK alone more than £40 million is spent annually on
homeopathic treatments, with £4 million of this being sucked from the National Health Service budget. Yet the basis
for homeopathy defies the laws of physics, and high-quality clinical trials have never been able to demonstrate that it
works beyond the placebo effect.
C
The discipline is based on three “laws”; the law of similars, the law of infinite simals and the law of succession. The
law of similars states that something which causes your symptoms will cure your symptoms, so that, for example, as
caffeine keeps you awake, it can also be a cure for insomnia. Of course, that makes little sense, since drinking
caffeine, well, keeps you awake. Next is the law of infinitesimals, which claims that diluting a substance makes it
more potent. Homeopaths start by diluting one volume of their remedy arsenic oxide, in the case of arsenicumalbum-
in 99 volumes of distilled water oralcohol to create a “centesimal”. They then dilute one volume of the centesimal in
99volumes of water or alcohol, and so on, up to 30 times. Application of Avogadro’s constant tells you that a dose of
such a“30C” recipe is vanishingly unlikely to contain even a single molecule of the active ingredient. The third pillar
of homeopathy is the law of succession. This states-and I’m not making this up-that by tapping the liquid in a special
way during the dilution process, a memory of the active ingredient is somehow imprinted on it. This explains how
water is able to carry a memory of arsenic oxide, but apparently not of the contents of your local sewer network.
D
The final preparation is generally dropped onto a sugar pill which the patient swallows. Homeopaths claim that the
application of these three laws results in a remedy that, even though it contains not a single molecule of the original
T-T-J.— ingredient, somehow carries an “energy signature” of it that nobody can measure or detect. Unsurprisingly,
when tested under rigorous scientific conditions, in randomized, controlled and double blind trials, homeopathic
remedies have shown to be no better than a placebo. Of course, the placebo effect is quite powerful, but it’s a bit like
justifying building a car without any wheels on the basis that you can still enjoy the comfy leather seats and play with
the gear shift.
E
Even some retailers who sell the treatments have admitted there is no evidence that they work. In November, Paul
Bennett, the super intendent pharmacist at Boots, appeared before the UK parliament’s Commons Science and
Technology Committee’s “evidence check” on homeopathy. He was questioned by Member of Parliament Phil
Willis, who asked: “Do they work beyond the placebo effect?” I have no evidence before me to suggest that they are
efficacious,” Bennett replied. He defended Boots’s decision to sell homeopathic remedies on the grounds of
consumer choice. “A large number of our consumers actually do believe they are efficacious, but they are licensed
medicinal products and, therefore, we believe it is right to make the mavailable,” he said.
F
You might agree. You might also argue that homeopathy is harmless: if people want to part with their money for
sugar pills and nobody is breaking the law, why not let them? To some extent that’s true-there’s only so much
damage you can do with sugar pills short of feeding them to a diabetic or dropping a large crate of them on
someone’s head. However, we believe there is a risk in perpetuating the notion that homeopathy is equivalent to
modern medicine. People may delay seeking appropriate treatment for themselves or their children.
G
We accept that we are unlikely to convince the true believers. Homeopathy has many ways to sidestep awkward
questions, such as rejecting the validity of randomized controlled trials, or claiming that homeopathic remedies only
work if you have symptoms of the malady they purport to cure. Our aim is to reach out to the general public with our
simple message: “There is nothing in it”. Boots and other retailers are perfectly entitled to continue selling
homeopathic remedies if they so wish and consumers are perfectly entitled to keep on buying them. But hopefully the
10:23 campaign will ram home our message to the public. In the 21st century, with decades of progress behind us, it
is surreal that governments are prepared to spend millions of tax pounds on homeopathy. There really is nothing in it.
Questions 86-90
The reading passage has seven paragraphs, A-G. Choose the correct heading for paragraphs A-G from the list
below. Write the correct number, i-ix, in boxes 1-7 on your answer sheet.
List of Headings
i The definition of three laws
ii Quoting three laws to against the homeopathy
iii There are many methods of avoiding answering ambiguous questions.
iv The purpose of illustrating the effectiveness of homeopathy
v The constant booming of homeopathy
vi Some differences between homeopathy and placebo
vii Placebo is better than homeopathy
viii An example of further demonstrating the negative effect of homeopathy
ix The purpose of staging an demonstration to against homeopathy
Part 5: You are going to read a newspaper article in which women talk about their attitudes toward cars. For
questions 96-105, choose from the women (A-D). When more than one answer is required, these may be given in
any order.
WOMEN DRIVERS
What do women think about the cars they drive? We talked to four women about their views.
A. Megan Fields
Megan Fields lives in rural Hertfordshire, just outside a small village. In recent years the bus service in the village has
improved, and there is also a good link now to the nearest town. Consequently, she uses a car mainly to commute to
her office almost forty miles away. Megan works normal office hours, Mondays to Fridays, and this means she has to
make a round trip of very nearly eighty miles a day in the enervating rush-hour traffic. However, since the latest
increases in the price of fuel, she and her husband feel they have to think more carefully about car maintenance costs.
Megan was forced to purchase a new car only a short while ago: she was recently involved in a collision with a lorry.
It was an unequal contest, and Megan’s car was a write-off. Fortunately, nobody was badly hurt, but Megan was
shaken by the experience. She promised herself that her next car would have more robust bodywork in case anything
like that ever happens again. Since their old car had been on its last ages anyway, she and her husband had been
looking at the options available on the market even before the crash, and they had narrowed the choice down to three
or four models. Before they made their final decision, they took a number of other factors into consideration. They
wanted a car that would be fuel-efficient and that would produce as few harmful emissions as possible. Megan left the
choice of car to her husband; she claims she is ignorant of the technical issues involved and has no desire to learn.
She stresses that she would rather be able to manage without a car at all. However, given their circumstances, doing
without a car does not appear to be a viable option.
B. Vera Aziz
Vera is one of the growing numbers of people who have purchased an SUV – a sports utility vehicle. In her view,
there is something very reassuring about the height of the vehicle, which places the driver and passengers above the
majority of other road users. Though she has no statistics to back up her opinion, she is convinced that this means she
would be far better off in an accident. There is another practical factor at work in her choice of vehicle: her SUV seats
eight people quite comfortably, and she needs this room since she regularly ferries her two daughters and their four
friends to and from ballet classes.
Vera says that a car is an absolute necessity for her. Public transport in the part of survey where she lives in
woefully inadequate and there is no school bus, so when the weather is bad she has to drive the children to their
school nearby. About once a fortnight she and her husband go up to London for the day and they need the car to get
them to the local train station. Otherwise, she admits, the car stays in the garage most of their time. When asked about
what influenced her choice of vehicle, she is unequivocal: safety was the crucial point, and she imagines that this is
the case for the vast majority of women.
C. Sue Henderson
The new charges for drivers entering inner London, coupled with exorbitant parking fees throughout the
capital, mean that the situation has changed for Sue. She says she would far rather take the train to the city instead of
driving in from Faversham in Kent, so these days she mostly uses the car to stock up with groceries from the local
supermarket on Friday evenings. But there has been another more radical change in her driving habits over the past
few months. Some good neighbors of hers, who only used their cars very occasionally, were thinking of buying a new
one, and Sue suggested that instead of going to the expense and trouble this would involve, they should just use hers
whenever they wanted to. Sue says that some careful planning is required to make this arrangement work smoothly,
but it has resulted in considerable savings for everyone concerned. She also makes the point that a scheme like this
works best if people are relaxed about the car they drive and don’t insist on a spotlessly clean high-performance
model. Sue’s present car is fairly old, large and sturdy – one of the Scandinavian models that offer their owners a
sense of security. She is rather dismissive of SUVs, which she doesn’t consider particularly safe. This is because she
read somewhere that they can roll over quite easily. Furthermore, they are a danger to cyclists because SUV drivers
tend not to notice them. Sue also has strong opinions about the jokey stereotype of the bad woman driver, which she
regards as absolute nonsense. She is similarly dismissive of the ideas that men are natural born drivers, claiming that
statistics prove the opposite, and that men cause far more accidents than women, especially serious ones.
D. Heather Adams
Four years ago Heather Adams’s husband injured his leg in an accident which left him unable to drive. Heather
herself then reluctantly took charge of the car not only driving it but also making sure it was serviced regularly and
generally looking after it. The Adams’s children are still very young, so Heather is the only one in the family who
uses the car now. In fact, she only passed her driving test three and a half years ago, so she had little practical
experience with vehicles of any until then. Their present car is the only one she has ever driven, apart from the car at
the driving school when she was learning to drive. She says she never expected to get such enormous pleasure from
sitting behind the wheel, and believes that learning to drive gave her a sense of independence and confidence that she
lacked when she was younger. She regards a car as an essential part of her life now – public transport in the northern
city where she lives is unreliable and not convenient for her needs.
Her husband has clearly influenced her views on road safety. He believes it is important to be able to put your
foot down and accelerate away from trouble. Heather agrees and clearly relishes driving a car with a powerful engine.
For her, this would be a prime consideration if she were to buy another car.
Which woman _____
has only had a driving license for a few years? 96. ______
has a prejudice against a particular kind of car? 97. ______
feels safety considerations are paramount when buying a car? 98. ______
wanted a car that would have a minimal impact on the environment? 99. ______
didn’t want to be responsible for the car at first? 100. ______
acknowledges that she knows little about cars? 101. ______
uses other means of transport because of rising costs? 102. ______
drives a kind of car which is becoming increasingly popular? 103. ______
needs a large car? 104. ______
is an enthusiastic driver? 105. ______
Your answers:
96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105