The writer says that people at the top of society _____________.
A. are unaware of how ridiculous they appear to others.
B. would not be capable of becoming comedians even if they wanted to.
C. take themselves too seriously to wish to amuse anybody.
D. have contempt for the humour of those at lower levels of society.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
As mentioned in paragraph 2, misbehaviour can be discouraged if potential offenders ______.
A. are aware of being filmed at the time
B. know that they may be subjected to criticism
C. realise that they may be publicly punished
D. are employed in the public sector
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
As mentioned in paragraph 2, misbehaviour can be discouraged if potential offenders ______.
A. are aware of being filmed at the time
B. know that they may be subjected to criticism
C. realise that they may be publicly punished
D. are employed in the public sector
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The word "they" in paragraph 6 refers to ______.
A. wheels
B. social interactions
C. desirable behaviours
D. people
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The word "they" in paragraph 6 refers to ______.
A. wheels
B. social interactions
C. desirable behaviours
D. people
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The word "envisage" in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to ______.
A. embrace
B. fantasise
C. reject
D. visualize
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The word "envisage" in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to ______.
A. embrace
B. fantasise
C. reject
D. visualize
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 36 to 42.
We live in a world of tired, sleep deprived people. In his book Counting Sheep, Paul Martin – a behavioural biologist – describes a society which is just too busy to sleep and which does not give sleeping the importance it deserves.
Modern society has invented reasons not to sleep. We are now a 24/7 society where shops and services must be available all hours. We spend longer hours at work than we used to, and more time getting to work. Mobile phones and email allow us to stay in touch round the clock and late-night TV and the Internet tempt us away from our beds. When we need more time for work or pleasure, the easy solution is to sleep less. The average adult sleeps only 6.2 hours a night during the week, whereas research shows that most people need eight or even eight and a half hours’ sleep to feel at their best. Nowadays, many people have got used to sleeping less than they need and they live in an almost permanent state of ‘sleep debt’.
Until the invention of the electric light in 1879 our daily cycle of sleep used to depend on the hours of daylight. People would get up with the sun and go to bed at nightfall. But nowadays our hours of sleep are mainly determined by our working hours (or our social life) and most people are woken up artificially by an alarm clock. During the day caffeine, the world’s most popular drug, helps to keep us awake. 75% of the world’s population habitually consume caffeine, which up to a point masks the symptoms of sleep deprivation.
What does a chronic lack of sleep do to us? As well as making us irritable and unhappy as humans, it also reduces our motivation and ability to work. This has serious implications for society in general. Doctors, for example, are often chronically sleep deprived, especially when they are on ‘night call’, and may get less than three hours’ sleep. Lack of sleep can seriously impair their mood, judgment, and ability to take decisions. Tired engineers, in the early hours of the morning, made a series of mistakes with catastrophic results. On our roads and motorways lack of sleep kills thousands of people every year. Tests show that a tired driver can be just as dangerous as a drunken driver. However, driving when drunk is against the law but driving when exhausted isn’t. As Paul Martin says, it is very ironic that we admire people who function on very little sleep instead of criticizing them for being irresponsible. Our world would be a much safer, happier place if everyone, whatever their job, slept eight hours a night.
New English File Upper-intermediate by Clive Oxenden and Christina Latham-Koenig, OUP
Which of the following would the writer of the passage approve of?
A. Our world would be a much safer place without drinkers.
B. Both drunken drivers and sleep-deprived people should be criticized.
C. There is no point in criticizing irresponsible people in our society.
D. We certainly can function well even when we hardly sleep.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
According to paragraph 5, why do social media users already act more carefully online?
A. Because they regret doing something illegal.
B. Because they disapprove of uncensored social media feeds.
C. Because they want to avoid being recognised in public.
D. Because they wish to protect their image.
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
According to paragraph 5, why do social media users already act more carefully online?
A. Because they regret doing something illegal
B. Because they disapprove of uncensored social media feeds
C. Because they want to avoid being recognised in public
D. Because they wish to protect their image
Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
The phrase "a mixed blessing" in paragraph 3 probably means ______.
A. something that is neither good nor bad
B. something that produces unexpected results
C. something that has both advantages and disadvantages
D. something either negative or positive in nature
