Have you ever thought about why traveling is important? It may seem obvious, but a good trip introduces you to a "new world". Geography matters: where you are going plays a huge role in how you think. About six months after I moved to China, I got the chance to travel with a group of friends to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. This trip was great fun: I got to swim, cycle and stay in tree houses in the jungle. But more importantly, this trip was meaningful. All of these three countries were bombed by the US military during the conflict with the North Vietnamese, the Vietnam War. As someone with strong anti-war opinions, I wanted to learn how the people of this area remember the war. I was not disappointed. When I was in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, I got the chance to explore the Vietnam War Remnants Museum, which has the largest collection of anti-facts from the Vietnam War. One exhibit is especially memorable. It is full of photos and artwork showing the effects of Agent Orange, a chemical weapon used by the US military against the land and population of Vietnam. The aim of the Agent Orange campaign was to destroy plant life to make it more difficult for North Vietnamese fighters to hide behind trees. But ordinary Vietnamese were hurt the most. I had tears in my eyes as I looked around the exhibit. Ks5u Another time during our trip, my friends and I were arriving in a town in Cambodia on an overnight bus. As we got off the bus, taxi drivers came over offering rides. One of them asked me, "Where are you from, man?" I replied, "America!" And he said, "Ahh...the place where they make the bombs!" He laughed. I didn't. Ks5u Traveling offers perspective . There are few things more important than that. In what way did the writer think his trip to the three countries was meaningful? A) It brought him to a different part of the world. B) It taught him how people live in those countries. C) It made him think of what changes he should make in his life. D) It helped him see how people in other countries view American wars.
D
Here's an amazing way to get a hard-boiled egg into a bottle, even though the mouth of the boiled is smaller than the egg! What's more, you don't even need to touch the egg to get it to go in! For this experiment you will need: *a hard-boiled egg *a glass bottle with a mouth just slightly smaller than the egg (a fruit-drink bottle works well) *a 8-cm by 8-cm(3-inch by 3-inch)piece of newspaper *a match Remove the shell from the egg. Set the egg on the mouth of the bottle to see that the egg does not fit through the mouth. Light the paper. Remove the egg from the mouth of the bottle and drop the burning paper into the bottle. Before the fire goes out, set the egg back onto the mouth of the bottle. Within a few seconds the egg will squeeze through the mouth and into the bottle. As it entered the bottle, the egg may have broken into pieces. This happens when the diameter of the egg is more than about 0.5 cm(about 3/16 inch) larger than the diameter of the bottle's opening. Why does the egg slide into the bottle, even though no one is pushing it? Because the pressure of the air is pushing it. Before the burning paper is put into the bottle, the pressure of the air inside is the same as outside. The burning paper, however, heats the air inside. This causes the air inside to expand. When the egg is placed on top of the bottle, it seals the bottle. When the fire goes out, the air inside cools. As it cools, the air contracts , and the pressure of the air inside becomes less than the pressure outside. Then, the higher outside pressure pushes the egg into the bottle! What is the most important to get the egg into a bottle? A) A match. B) A fruit-drink bottle. C) The pressure of the air. D) The burning paper.
C
Q: It was a simple letter asking for a place to study at Scotland's oldest university which helped start a revolution in higher education. A 140-year-old letter written by a lady calling for her to be allowed to study medicine at St Andrews University has been discovered by researchers. Written by Sophia Jex-Blake in 1873, the seven-page document, which urged the university to allow women to study medicine at the institution, was released yesterday on International Women's Day. The document was discovered buried in the university archives by part-time history student Lis Smith, who is completing her PhD at St Andrews Institute of Scottish Historical Research. She said: "We knew that Sophia Jex-Blake and her supporters, in their effort to open up university medical education for women, had written to the Senatus Academicus at St Andrews in an attempt to gain permission to attend classes there, but we didn't know documentary evidence existed. While searching the archives for information about the university's higher certificate for women, I was astonished to come across what must be the very letter Jex-Blake wrote." In the letter, Sophia and her supporters offered to hire teachers or build suitable buildings for a medical school and to arrange for lectures to be delivered in the subjects not already covered at St Andrews. Although her letter was not successful, it eventually led to the establishment of the Ladies Literate in Arts at St Andrews, a distance-learning degree for women. The qualification, which ran from 1877 until the 1930s, gave women access to university education in the days before they were admitted as students. It was so popular that it survived long after women were admitted as full students to St Andrews in 1892. Ms Jex-Blake went on to help establish the London School of Medicine for Women in 1874. She was accepted by the University of Berne, where she was awarded a medical degree in January 1877. Eventually, she moved back to Edinburgh and opened her own practice. Sophia wrote a letter to St Andrews University because she wanted _ . A) to carry out a research project there B) to set up a medical institute there C) to study medicine there D) to deliver lectures there
A: C
(Question)
They say that soon, we will be able to receive more than 500 television networks on cable or by satellite. Some people think that it's useless to have that many channels. Their usual criticism goes something like this: "I already get more channels on my TV than I have time to watch. No one needs to see that much TV. There's not enough time in the day to watch all that!"They also say that most of what's on television now isn't worth watching in the first place. I think they're missing the point. If the local library wanted to add another 5,000 books, would we say, "That's silly, we'll never have time to read all those books"? The point is that we would have more choices. I don't believe that most people should watch more television. And if we had 500 or even 1,000 channels to choose from, we wouldn't have to spend more time watching TV. We would, however, have more programs to choose from. That means that the quality of our viewing time would be improved. I think the more channels we have, the better. Give me more choices! If they're not worth my time, I'll just hit the "off" button. The purpose of writing this passage is to _ . A) make a suggestion B) express an opinion C) give important information D) complain about cable television
(Answer)
B