Về bộ đề này: được tổng hợp và chỉnh sửa nhẹ từ các bài đọc thật mà thí sinh nhớ lại. IELTS lấy đề từ ngân hàng câu hỏi toàn cầu, nên các bài này xuất hiện ở nhiều nơi. Để bạn có một đề hoàn chỉnh, các bài đọc được báo cáo trong cùng khoảng thời gian sẽ được ghép lại — nên một bộ có thể gồm bài từ nhiều ngày thi khác nhau, không phải một buổi thi duy nhất. Sắp xếp thuận tiện cho việc học. Dựa trên ký ức thí sinh — không phải tài liệu chính thức của IELTS.
Reading Passage 1: Deep Sea Discovery
Recent research has provided new insights into how fish communicate. Nico Michiels is an ecologist from the University of Tübingen in Germany who spends part of each year in Egypt, where he dives in the Red Sea, observing fish life and gathering data on its coral reefs. In September 2007 he decided to find out how far red light could penetrate the ocean depths. Seawater absorbs different colours at different depths, and as an experienced diver, Michiels was aware that red light is extinguished not far below the surface whereas blue-green light penetrates deeper. To find out the depth at which red disappeared in this particular ocean, however, he attached a special plastic filter to his dive mask, which was designed to block out all colours except red. Then he began to descend. In theory, once he reached about 15 metres, he should have been plunged into darkness. Instead, something totally unexpected happened. Sure enough, 20 metres down it was as dark as night. ‘All the fish disappeared. With no light from the surface, they were effectively black and had become invisible,’ he says. ‘But it didn’t stay black for long. Then I saw a group of goby fish with bright red eyes lit up against the background. After that, red spots began to show up all over the reef.’
Even with the red filter removed, Michiels could pick them out without much trouble once his eyes grew accustomed to the gloom. It seems strange that no diver or researcher had spotted all this red before, but as Michiels points out, no one saw it because no one expected to see it. On that one dive, Michiels discovered three fish species with prominent red markings, and has found many others since.
But how can fish appear red where there’s no red light? Ordinary red pigments look red because they reflect red light while absorbing all other wavelengths. At 20 metres down, there had to be some other explanation for the red Michiels was seeing. He suspected fluorescence. Fluorescent pigments behave differently from ordinary ones: they receive incoming light of one wavelength, for example blue, and emit light of a longer wavelength, in this case red. On the reef in the Red Sea during daytime, the most likely explanation was that the predominantly blue and green wavelengths at depth triggered the emission of fluorescent red in the fish.
With only a week left in Egypt, and lacking the equipment to confirm that the fish were fluorescent, Michiels photographed as many of them as he could. Then, once back in Germany, he bought an assortment of tropical fish and installed them in his lab. Here he confirmed that the fish did indeed fluoresce. In most of the fish he looked at, the fluorescence could be traced to specialised pigment cells that lie in the skin beneath the scales. These cells contain ‘guanine crystals’, which scatter light to give fish their silvery sheen. However, Michiels says they are still not sure exactly what is fluorescing. ‘It’s not the crystals themselves. It’s probably a fluorescent protein built into the crystals, and we have a suspicion that it might be made by bacteria.’
Intrigued, Michiels began a systematic search for red fluorescence in reef fish. He and his colleagues, Nils Anthes and Dennis Sprenger, have identified some 50 species with red fluorescence. The most common markings tend to be on the body towards the head and to a lesser extent around the eyes, and then the fins. To Michiels, the distribution of these markings is one of the strongest indications that red fluorescence has a very particular function: communication with other members of the species. According to several recent studies, a whole range of animals employ fluorescence as a natural highlighter to boost the visibility of body parts they use to signal, for example to ward off enemies. In reef fish, the red tends to be confined to parts of the body used to signal, suggesting these markings serve a similar function. But instead of highlighting an existing colour, the fluorescence gives the fish a colour that otherwise wouldn’t exist. For example, fish commonly use eye rings to signal that they are present and their direction of gaze, and Michiels suspects that red-eyed gobies use signals to indicate their location and keep their group together.
Red light, whatever its source, doesn’t travel far through water, which suggests signals are intended to be private, seen only by nearby fish of the right species. There are several lines of evidence to support this, says Michiels. And closely related species do not have completely identical markings, which suggests they might be important in species recognition.
Michiels suspects red fluorescence has another important role for some reef fish: helping them blend in. During his first dive with the red filter, he noticed corals glow a dark but faint red too. Against this irregular red background, a fish that glows red all over would be hard to distinguish. More compelling for Michiels is the case of the scorpionfish, which lies perfectly still until food swims past, which it then sucks in.
Yet if red plays any part in a fish’s life, then it must be able to see it. Fish that live in a world dominated by blue-green light are assumed to have eyes tuned to those wavelengths, and most marine fish that have been studied are thought incapable of seeing red. One exception is the seahorse, whose eyes are sensitive to red. As for the other fish, it remains to be seen.
- 1
During his 2007 dive, Michiels expected to encounter total darkness at about 15 metres.
- 2
Michiels could see the red markings on fish without the aid of the red filter.
- 3
Other divers had assumed they would see fish with red markings.
- 4
All the fish with red markings that Michiels found during his diving expeditions came from the Red Sea.
- 5
Michiels first thought of the possibility that fish could fluoresce while he was in Germany.
- 6
Michiels remains uncertain as to what creates fluorescence in fish.
- 7
Markings mainly near the _______.
- 8
Red fluorescence is used specifically for _______ purposes.
- 9
Fish, like some animals, use fluorescence to keep _______ away.
- 10
Gobies depend on red fluorescence to show their _______.
- 11
There are variations in the markings of fish among those _______ which are very similar.
- 12
Fish cannot easily be seen near backgrounds of _______ which give off a red light.
- 13
The only fish proven to have this ability is the _______.
Reading Passage 2: Multi-tasking and the brain
A
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'.
B
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.
C
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'.
D
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.'
E
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."
F
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
Section A
- i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found
- ii. The effects of multi-tasking on neurological structure
- iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task
- iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible
- v. Multi-tasking and gender
- vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things
- vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes
- viii. Gender and the structure of the brain
- 15
Section B
- i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found
- ii. The effects of multi-tasking on neurological structure
- iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task
- iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible
- v. Multi-tasking and gender
- vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things
- vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes
- viii. Gender and the structure of the brain
- 16
Section C
- i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found
- ii. The effects of multi-tasking on neurological structure
- iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task
- iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible
- v. Multi-tasking and gender
- vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things
- vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes
- viii. Gender and the structure of the brain
- 17
Section D
- i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found
- ii. The effects of multi-tasking on neurological structure
- iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task
- iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible
- v. Multi-tasking and gender
- vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things
- vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes
- viii. Gender and the structure of the brain
- 18
Section E
- i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found
- ii. The effects of multi-tasking on neurological structure
- iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task
- iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible
- v. Multi-tasking and gender
- vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things
- vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes
- viii. Gender and the structure of the brain
- 19
Section F
- i. Professions in which super-taskers are likely to be found
- ii. The effects of multi-tasking on neurological structure
- iii. A distinction between situations when people can and can’t multi-task
- iv. Real multi-tasking is nearly impossible
- v. Multi-tasking and gender
- vi. The neurological reasons for struggling to manage more things
- vii. The ability to multi-task is determined by people’s genes
- viii. Gender and the structure of the brain
- 20
The brain of a good multi-tasker works differently from other people’s.
- 21
The rate of error is considerably higher when people multi-task.
- 22
People are mistaken in their assumption that they can multi-task.
- 23
One gender does not seem to pause to consider before taking action.
- 24
Super-taskers are most likely to achieve a _______ that is high on the career ladder.
- 25
Super-taskers typically have to undertake many tasks simultaneously that need their _______.
- 26
Genes play an important role in having this capability: these people have a special brain _______, which helps them do what we cannot.
Reading Passage 3: The tuatara – past and future
The New Zealand species of lizard, the tuatara, is firmly embedded in the national psyche: an icon for today which dates from the age of dinosaurs; an ancient reptile commemorated on the back of the five-cent coin. New Zealanders feel an affinity with the tuatara, and accept that active conservation management is required to ensure it will be among the legacies left to future generations.
When European explorers reached New Zealand in 1769 they found two large islands, which together they called the mainland, and many tiny offshore islands around the coast. The naturalists who came with the explorers disregarded the tuatara, though it is improbable none were seen. Only several decades later did a tuatara specimen reach the British Museum, where it was eventually classified as just another type of lizard.
One of the first scientists who realised that aspects of tuatara anatomy were odd—unchanged for tens of thousands of years—was Albert Gunther in 1876. Gunther believed the tuatara was one of the most valuable objects in zoological anatomical collections, and also noted, in passing, the reptile was likely to become extinct. From today’s perspective, it is striking that Gunther expressed no concern about the probable demise of the tuatara. He and his contemporaries were products of their age, strongly influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory, which had only recently been published. Their views were something like this: ‘Extinction is a natural process. It is sad that species disappear, but that is part of nature.’
There is a second important aspect of Gunther’s work. He recorded, correctly, that some of the mammals introduced by Europeans were predators of the tuatara—particularly rats. But what he did not realise was that New Zealand has two species of rat, both introduced, both with an appetite for tuatara: the ship’s rat came with European explorers and settlers; but the kiore rat had already been in the country for hundreds of years, brought by Polynesians from the Pacific Islands. Gunther failed to recognise the distinction, believing all rats to be a relatively recent introduction.
Little further research was conducted until Ian Crook of the NZ Wildlife Service published his findings in 1973, which can be summarised as follows. Tuatara thrive on offshore islands with no rats. Tuatara never survived on islands with ship’s rats. On a few islands, small and declining populations of tuatara occur with the kiore. This should not be seen, however, as evidence that tuatara and kiore can coexist. Rather, Crook proposed, kiore probably only arrived recently on such islands, and thus the small populations represent extinctions in progress.
Throughout the 1990s, Richard Holdaway and his colleagues at Victoria University in Wellington documented the surprising discovery that kiore probably arrived about 1,800 years ago, although the human population of New Zealand is thought to be no older than 800 years. How is this possible? Presumably, Holdaway argued, the kiore were brought by Polynesian explorers who visited the country but did not settle. Thereafter, the rats were agents of ecological warfare, exterminating perhaps 1,000–3,000 species. Thus, tuatara and many other species were already rare or extinct when permanent human inhabitants—the Maori—arrived around 1300. This hypothesis is still being debated, but the evidence continues to accumulate in its favour.
Conservation practice has changed dramatically since Crook’s findings were published in 1973. Eradication of rats from any given environment was believed to be virtually impossible until about 1980, but since then has become routine. Enormous conservation benefits are accruing as newly rat-free offshore islands are providing sanctuaries for the country’s rarest species. In 1995, for example, Nicola Nelson of the Department of Conservation established 68 tuatara on Titi Island. Since then, four more populations of tuatara have been established elsewhere under similar conditions. Today, numbers of tuatara are still a fraction of what they once were, but for the first time in 1,800 years the decline has been reversed.
While the recovery of rare species is itself a good thing, the truly significant outcome of this research is that it liberates the imagination. If we can remove predatory introduced mammals from islands, why not from the mainland too? Perhaps the questions we ask should demonstrate even more visionary ambition. Can non-mammalian pests also be removed from the mainland? Our rivers, for example, are full of surrogate rats, in the form of introduced species of fish called trout. Some day more people will understand that trout have replaced a whole native fauna in our waterways, just as rats replaced tuatara on the mainland. Will such knowledge lead to the creation of mainland ‘aquatic islands’ where we can once again establish those species of indigenous fish that used to live in our rivers? Similarly, can bellbirds and tuis replace birds like starlings and mynahs?
The answers to such questions are uncertain, and opposing sides will doubtless be fiercely debated. But the role of scientific knowledge in illuminating the past will be crucial. Just as we no longer tolerate extinction, in the future we may no longer accept a mainland devoid of the biological wonders of our past such as tuatara. Conservation is thus not primarily about the past but about imagining and then creating the future we wish for our children and ourselves. For 80 million years until humans arrived, tuatara occurred throughout New Zealand—might they do so again?
- 27
What are we told about the Europeans who arrived in 1769?
- A. They thought there was only one large island.
- B. They had not come to study natural history.
- C. They had no interest in the tuatara.
- D. They sent a tuatara to the British Museum.
- 28
What does the writer say about Albert Gunther in the third paragraph?
- A. He believed the tuatara could fetch a high price.
- B. He was typical of his generation of scientists.
- C. He disagreed with Charles Darwin’s theory.
- D. He wanted to stop the tuatara becoming extinct.
- 29
What did Albert Gunther think about the rats in New Zealand?
- A. They did not eat the tuatara.
- B. There was one species of rat.
- C. There had always been rats in New Zealand.
- D. They were killed by Polynesians.
- 30
What did Ian Crook conclude from his research?
- A. Tuatara are safe on small islands.
- B. Ship’s rats kill more tuatara than kiore.
- C. Kiore cannot swim to offshore islands.
- D. Rats and tuatara cannot live together.
- 31
What were the findings of Richard Holdaway’s research?
- A. Maori settled more recently than previously thought.
- B. The first Polynesian explorers formed permanent settlements.
- C. Ship’s rats are the oldest rat species in the country.
- D. Rats caused extinctions before any humans settled.
- 32
The available research supports Holdaway’s theory but it has not been proved.
- 33
Nowadays, it is possible to totally destroy a population of rats on a small island.
- 34
Crook was the first person to recognise the potential of offshore islands as sanctuaries.
- 35
Tuatara numbers are continuing to fall.
- 36
The most important result of the tuatara research is that it frees our _______.
- A. natural evolution
- B. creative thought
- C. indigenous plants
- D. trout
- E. pollution
- F. restoration
- G. native fish
- H. extinction
- 37
For example, there are many similarities between rats and _______.
- A. natural evolution
- B. creative thought
- C. indigenous plants
- D. trout
- E. pollution
- F. restoration
- G. native fish
- H. extinction
- 38
Should we now go further and consider reintroducing _______ to our mainland rivers?
- A. natural evolution
- B. creative thought
- C. indigenous plants
- D. trout
- E. pollution
- F. restoration
- G. native fish
- H. extinction
- 39
Perhaps our children will come to believe in the _______ of species, in the same way that our generation refuses to accept _______.
- A. natural evolution
- B. creative thought
- C. indigenous plants
- D. trout
- E. pollution
- F. restoration
- G. native fish
- H. extinction
- 40
Perhaps our children will come to believe in the restoration of species, in the same way that our generation refuses to accept _______.
- A. natural evolution
- B. creative thought
- C. indigenous plants
- D. trout
- E. pollution
- F. restoration
- G. native fish
- H. extinction
Xem đáp án
Đáp án
1. TRUE
2. TRUE
3. FALSE
4. NOT GIVEN
5. FALSE
6. TRUE
7. head
8. communication
9. enemies
10. location
11. species
12. corals
13. seahorse
14. iv
15. iii
16. vi
17. v
18. i
19. vii
20. C
21. C
22. A
23. E
24. position
25. attention
26. structure
27. C
28. B
29. B
30. D
31. D
32. YES
33. YES
34. NOT GIVEN
35. NO
36. B
37. D
38. G
39. F
40. H