Practice 1: Evidence-Based Reading and Writing DSAT – Text Structure and Purpose

const quizData = { “title”: “Practice 1: Evidence-Based Reading and Writing DSAT – Text Structure and Purpose”, “description”: “”, “duration”: 2400, // by seconds (*60) “label”: “practice”, // label= (practice/ full test) “pass_percent”: 70, “number_questions”: 23, “category_test”:”EBRWDSAT_Cross_Text_Connections”, “id_category”:”EBRWDSAT_Cross_Text_Connections”, “id_test”:”EBRWDSAT_Cross_Text_Connections_002″, “data_added_1″:””, “data_added_2″:””, “data_added_3″:””, “data_added_4″:””, “data_added_5″:””, “questions”: [ //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Most scientists agree that the moon was likely formed after a collision between Earth and a large planet named Theia. This collision likely created a huge debris field, made up of material from both Earth and Theia. Based on models of this event, scientists believe that the moon was formed from this debris over the course of thousands of years.

Text 2
Researchers from NASA’s Ames Research Center used a computer to model how the moon could have formed. Although simulations of the moon’s formation have been done in the past, the team from NASA ran simulations that were much more detailed. They found that the formation of the moon was likely not a slow process that took many years. Instead, it’s probable that the moon’s formation happened immediately after impact, taking just a few hours.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view the evidence for the formation of the moon? ‘, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. The author of Text 1 argues that the formation of the moon occurred much earlier than the author of Text 2 argues’, “false”], [‘B. The author of Text 1 suggests there is more evidence confirming the existence of Theia than the author of Text 2 suggests.’, “false”], [‘C. The author of Text 1 claims that the moon’s surface is more similar to Earth’s surface than the author of Text 2 claims.’, “false”], [‘D. The author of Text 1 believes that the moon formed more slowly than the author of Text 2 believes.’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice D is the best answer. Text 1 states that the moon was formed from the debris “over the course of thousands of years,” while Text 2 states that the moon’s formation happened “immediately after impact, taking just a few hours.” This shows a clear difference in how the authors view the evidence for the speed of the moon’s formation.
Choice A is incorrect. While Text 2 suggests that the moon formed over “just a few hours” and Text 1 says it took “thousands of years,” neither one mentions when that formation occurred.
Choice B is incorrect. While Theia isn’t mentioned in Text 2, neither text describes or disputes evidence of Theia’s existence.
Choice C is incorrect. Neither text makes any claims about the similarity or difference between the moon’s surface and Earth’s surface.
Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
In 2021, a team led by Amir Siraj hypothesized that the Chicxulub impactor—the object that struck the Yucatán Peninsula sixty-six million years ago, precipitating the mass extinction of the dinosaurs—was likely a member of the class of longperiod comets. As evidence, Siraj cited the carbonaceous chondritic composition of samples from the Chicxulub impact crater as well as of samples obtained from long-period comet Wild 2 in 2006.

Text 2
Although long-period comets contain carbonaceous chondrites, asteroids are similarly rich in these materials. Furthermore, some asteroids are rich in iridium, as Natalia Artemieva points out, whereas long-period comets are not. Given the prevalence of iridium at the crater and, more broadly, in geological layers deposited worldwide following the impact, Artemieva argues that an asteroid is a more plausible candidate for the Chicxulub impactor.
Based on the texts, how would Artemieva likely respond to Siraj’s hypothesis, as presented in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By insisting that it overestimates how representative Wild 2 is of long-period comets as a class’, “false”], [‘B. By arguing that it does not account for the amount of iridium found in geological layers dating to the Chicxulub impact’, “true”], [‘C. By praising it for connecting the composition of Chicxulub crater samples to the composition of certain asteroids’, “false”], [‘D. By concurring that carbonaceous chondrites are prevalent in soil samples from sites distant from the Chicxulub crater’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice B is the best answer. Siraj’s hypothesis is that the Chicxulub impactor was a long-period comet. But Artemieva points to the iridium found in the crater and in “geological layers that were deposited worldwide after the impact” as evidence that it was actually an asteroid, not a long-period comet.
Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj’s hypothesis. Text 2 never discusses whether Wild 2 is representative of long-period comets in general. Rather, Text 2 presents Artemieva’s argument that the Chicxulub impactor was an asteroid, not a long-term comet.
Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj’s hypothesis. Siraj’s hypothesis doesn’t make this connection: rather, Siraj hypothesizes that the Chicxulub impactor was a long-term comet.
Choice D is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj’s hypothesis. “Soil samples from sites distant from the Chicxulub crater” is too vague. Only soil samples from sites that are connected to the impact in some way are involved in either hypothesis.
Question Difficulty: Medium’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Philosopher G.E. Moore’s most influential work entails the concept of common sense. He asserts that there are certain beliefs that all people, including philosophers, know instinctively to be true, whether or not they profess otherwise: among them, that they have bodies, or that they exist in a world with other objects that have three dimensions. Moore’s careful work on common sense may seem obvious but was in fact groundbreaking.

Text 2
External world skepticism is a philosophical stance supposing that we cannot be sure of the existence of anything outside our own minds. During a lecture, G.E. Moore once offered a proof refuting this stance by holding out his hands and saying, “Here is one hand, and here is another.” Many philosophers reflexively reject this proof (Annalisa Coliva called it “an obviously annoying failure”) but have found it a challenge to articulate exactly why the proof fails.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to proponents of the philosophical stance outlined in Text 2? ‘, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By agreeing with those proponents that Moore’s treatment of positions that contradict his own is fundamentally unserious’, “false”], [‘B. By suggesting that an instinctive distaste for Moore’s position is preventing external world skeptics from constructing a sufficiently rigorous refutation of Moore ‘, “false”], [‘C. By arguing that if it is valid to assert that some facts are true based on instinct, it is also valid to assert that some proofs are inadequate based on instinct’, “false”], [‘D. By pointing out that Moore would assert that external world skepticism is at odds with other beliefs those proponents must unavoidably hold’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice D is the best answer. According to the author of Text 1, Moore’s definition of common sense—things we instinctively know are true—includes the belief that we all “exist in a world with other objects.” The author of Text 1 describes this notion as both “obvious” and “groundbreaking.” So it’s safe to infer that the author would observe that Moore would respond to external world skeptics by arguing that since everyone instinctively knows that things exist outside of their own minds, then external world skepticism must be wrong. Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to external world skeptics. If anything, the author of Text 1 seems to agree with Moore. Choice B is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to external world skeptics. The author of Text 1 never mentions external world skeptics directly, let alone why they have a hard time refuting Moore’s position. Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to external world skeptics. Text 1’s presentation of Moore’s concept of common sense only includes the idea that some facts are true based on instinct—it doesn’t mention the idea that some proofs are inadequate based on instinct. Question Difficulty: Medium’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Like the work of Ralph Ellison before her, Toni Morrison’s novels feature scenes in which characters deliver sermons of such length and verbal dexterity that for a time, the text exchanges the formal parameters of fiction for those of oral literature. Given the many other echoes of Ellison in Morrison’s novels, both in structure and prose style, these scenes suggest Ellison’s direct influence on Morrison.

Text 2
In their destabilizing effect on literary form, the sermons in Morrison’s works recall those in Ellison’s. Yet literature by Black Americans abounds in moments where interpolated speech erodes the division between oral and written forms that literature in English has traditionally observed. Morrison’s use of the sermon is attributable not only to the influence of Ellison but also to a community-wide strategy of resistance to externally imposed literary conventions.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize the underlined claim in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. As failing to consider Ellison’s and Morrison’s equivalent uses of the sermon within the wider cultural context in which they wrote’, “true”], [‘B. As misunderstanding the function of sermons in novels by Black American writers other than Ellison and Morrison’, “false”], [‘C. As disregarding points of structural and stylistic divergence between the works of Ellison and those of Morrison’, “false”], [‘D. As being indebted to the tradition of resisting literary conventions that privilege written forms, such as novels, over sermons and other oral forms’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice A is the best answer. The author of Text 2 argues that Morrison’s use of the sermon is not only influenced by Ellison, but also by a “community-wide strategy of resistance” to literary conventions practiced by Black American authors. Ellison, Text 2 alleges, is only one of many influences on Morrison. Choice B is incorrect. Neither text specifically mentions sermons in works by authors other than Morrison or Ellison, only a tendency towards eroding “the division between oral and written forms” among Black American writers. Choice C is incorrect. Both texts describe similarities between the works of Ellison and Morrison, and neither points out instances of divergence. Text 2 simply suggests that Morrison was influenced by more than just Ellison. Choice D is incorrect. While Text 2 does discuss Morrison’s resistance to certain literary conventions, it’s unclear what it would mean for the underlined claim to be “indebted” to that tradition. This choice recycles language from the text, but not in a way that makes any coherent point. Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Virginia Woolf’s 1928 novel Orlando is an oddity within her body of work. Her other major novels consist mainly of scenes of everyday life and describe their characters’ interior states in great detail, whereas Orlando propels itself through a series of fantastical events and considers its characters’ psychology more superficially. Woolf herself sometimes regarded the novel as a minor work, even admitting once that she “began it as a joke.”

Text 2
Like Woolf’s other great novels, Orlando portrays how people’s memories inform their experience of the present. Like those works, it examines how people navigate social interactions shaped by gender and social class. Though it is lighter in tone— more entertaining, even—this literary “joke” nonetheless engages seriously with the themes that motivated the four or five other novels by Woolf that have achieved the status of literary classics.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the assessment of Orlando presented in Text 1 ?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By conceding that Woolf’s talents were best suited to serious novels but asserting that the humor in Orlando is often effective’, “false”], [‘B. By agreeing that Orlando is less impressive than certain other novels by Woolf but arguing that it should still be regarded as a classic’, “false”], [‘C. By acknowledging that Orlando clearly differs from Woolf’s other major novels but insisting on its centrality to her body of work nonetheless ‘, “true”], [‘D. By concurring that the reputation of Orlando as a minor work has led readers to overlook this novel but maintaining that the reputation is unearned ‘, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice C is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the assessment of Orlando in Text 1. Both authors agree that Orlando is unusual for Woolf: Text 1 states that the novel examines its characters’ psychologies more superficially than Woolf’s other novels do, and Text 2 describes it as being lighter in tone. However, while Text 1 calls Orlando an “oddity” and mentions that Woolf “began it as a joke,” Text 2 asserts that Orlando engages the same themes as Woolf’s other great novels. Hence, the author of Text 2 would most likely accept that Orlando differs from Woolf’s other novels but would also insist on its importance in the context of Woolf’s work as a writer.
Choice A is incorrect. Text 2 does suggest that the humor in Orlando is effective. However, there’s nothing in Text 2 to suggest that the author would agree that Woolf’s talents were best suited to serious novels. Rather, the author of Text 2 compares Orlando favorably to other novels by Woolf that are implied to be darker in tone.
Choice B is incorrect because the author of Text 2 does not indicate that Orlando is less impressive than Woolf’s other novels, but instead points out that it engages the same themes as other novels by Woolf that are considered classics.
Choice D is incorrect because there’s nothing in Text 1 or Text 2 to suggest that readers have generally ignored Orlando because of its reputation.
Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Most animals can regenerate some parts of their bodies, such as skin. But when a three-banded panther worm is cut into three pieces, each piece grows into a new worm. Researchers are investigating this feat partly to learn more about humans’ comparatively limited abilities to regenerate, and they’re making exciting progress. An especially promising discovery is that both humans and panther worms have a gene for early growth response (EGR) linked to regeneration.

Text 2
When Mansi Srivastava and her team reported that panther worms, like humans, possess a gene for EGR, it caused excitement. However, as the team pointed out, the gene likely functions very differently in humans than it does in panther worms. Srivastava has likened EGR to a switch that activates other genes involved in regeneration in panther worms, but how this switch operates in humans remains unclear.
Based on the texts, what would the author of Text 2 most likely say about Text 1’s characterization of the discovery involving EGR?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. It is reasonable given that Srivastava and her team have identified how EGR functions in both humans and panther worms’, “false”], [‘B. It is overly optimistic given additional observations from Srivastava and her team.’, “true”], [‘C. It is unexpected given that Srivastava and her team’s findings were generally met with enthusiasm. ‘, “false”], [‘D. It is unfairly dismissive given the progress that Srivastava and her team have reported. ‘, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice B is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to Text 1 based on the information provided. Text 1 discusses the discovery of a regeneration-linked gene, EGR, in both three-banded panther worms (which are capable of full regeneration) and humans (who have relatively limited regeneration abilities). Text 1 characterizes this discovery as “especially promising” and a sign of “exciting progress” in understanding human regeneration. The author of Text 2, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that the team that reported the EGR finding pointed out that while EGR’s function in humans isn’t yet known, it’s likely very different from its function in panther worms. Therefore, the author of Text 2 would most likely say that Text 1’s enthusiasm about the EGR discovery is overly optimistic given Srivastava’s team’s observations about EGR in humans.
Choice A is incorrect because the author of Text 2 explains that Srivastava and her team explicitly reported that they haven’t yet identified how EGR functions in humans; therefore, the author of Text 2 wouldn’t say that Text 1’s excitement is reasonable for the stated reason. Instead, the author of Text 2 would likely characterize Text 1’s excitement as premature and overly optimistic.
Choice C is incorrect because Text 1 does treat Srivastava’s team’s findings with enthusiasm; it describes the discovery of EGR in both three-banded panther worms and humans as promising and exciting. It would be illogical for the author of Text 2 to say that because most others treat the discovery with enthusiasm, Text 1’s enthusiastic characterization of the discovery is unexpected.
Choice D is incorrect because Text 1 isn’t at all dismissive of Srivastava’s team’s findings; instead, Text 1 is optimistic about the EGR discovery, characterizing it as promising and exciting. There’s nothing in Text 2 to suggest that the author of Text 2 would say that Text 1’s praise for the discovery is dismissive, or disdainful.
Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Because literacy in Nahuatl script, the writing system of the Aztec Empire, was lost after Spain invaded central Mexico in the 1500s, it is unclear exactly how meaning was encoded in the script’s symbols. Although many scholars had assumed that the symbols signified entire words, linguist Alfonso Lacadena theorized in 2008 that they signified units of language smaller than words: individual syllables.

Text 2
The growing consensus among scholars of Nahuatl script is that many of its symbols could signify either words or syllables, depending on syntax and content at any given site within a text. For example, the symbol signifying the word huipil (blouse) in some contexts could signify the syllable “pil” in others, as in the place name “Chipiltepec.” Thus, for the Aztecs, reading required a determination of how such symbols functioned each time they appeared in a text.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize Lacadena’s theory, as described in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By praising the theory for recognizing that the script’s symbols could represent entire words ‘, “false”], [‘B. By arguing that the theory is overly influenced by the work of earlier scholars ‘, “false”], [‘C. By approving of the theory’s emphasis on how the script changed over time’, “false”], [‘D. By cautioning that the theory overlooks certain important aspects of how the script functioned’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice D is the best answer. Lacadena’s theory is that Nahuatl script symbols signified syllables, but the consensus described in Text 2 is that they can signify either symbols or full words, depending on the context. So the author of Text 2 would likely consider Lacadena’s theory too simplistic: it’s missing the importance of the context in determining the meaning of a symbol.
Choice A is incorrect. This conflicts with Text 1’s description of Lacadena’s theory. Lacadena’s theory is that Nahuatl script symbols signified syllables.
Choice B is incorrect. This conflicts with Text 1’s description of Lacadena’s theory. Text 1 states that Lacadena’s theory differed from what earlier scholars believed.
Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 2 would characterize Lacadena’s theory. Neither text mentions how or even if the script changed over time.
Question Difficulty: Medium’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Literary scholars have struggled with the vastness of Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka’s collective works of drama (spanning over 20 plays in total). It is best, however, to understand Soyinka’s body of work as a dramatist chronologically. Soyinka’s progression as a playwright can be considered to fall into three periods, with each one representing a particular thematic and stylistic cohesion: the 1960s, the two decades between 1970 and 1990, and lastly, from roughly 1990 onwards.

Text 2
It is tempting to impose a linear sense of order on the expanse of Wole Soyinka’s body of work as a dramatist. However, critics who have considered Soyinka’s plays to fit neatly into three phases overlook potential commonalities in Soyinka’s work that span across these phases. Additionally, this view may discount significant differences in the styles and content of plays written around the same time.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view the study of Soyinka’s works of drama?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. While the author of Text 1 believes that thinking about Soyinka’s works of theater in phases is useful, the author of Text 2 views such an approach as limiting.’, “true”], [‘B. Although the author of Text 1 claims that Soyinka’s style as a dramatist has evolved over time, the author of Text 2 argues that Soyinka’s style has remained consistent throughout his career. ‘, “false”], [‘C. The author of Text 1 considers Soyinka’s plays to showcase his strongest writing, whereas the author of Text 2 believes that Soyinka’s poetry is where he is most skilled’, “false”], [‘D. The author of Text 1 argues that Soyinka’s early plays were his most politically charged, whereas the author of Text 2 claims that Soyinka’s most recent plays are the most politicized. ‘, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice A is the best answer. The author of Text 1 states that Soyinka’s progression as a playwright can be considered to fall into three periods, implying that this is a helpful way to understand his works. The author of Text 2, on the other hand, challenges this view and says that it overlooks potential commonalities and differences in Soyinka’s work across what Text 1 calls distinctive stylistic phases.
Choice B is incorrect. This choice overstates the central claim of Text 2. The author of Text 2 argues against the chronological progression supported in Text 1, but does not go so far as to say that Soyinka’s style remained consistent. In fact, Text 2 points out “significant differences in styles and content” among Soyinka’s plays.
Choice C is incorrect. Neither of the texts mention Soyinka’s poetry, nor do they rank his dramatic writing relative to his other work.
Choice D is incorrect. Neither text discusses the political aspects of Soyinka’s plays, nor do they make any claims about whether they have changed over time.
Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Despite its beautiful prose, The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman’s 1962 analysis of the start of World War I, has certain weaknesses as a work of history. It fails to address events in Eastern Europe just before the outbreak of hostilities, thereby giving the impression that Germany was the war’s principal instigator. Had Tuchman consulted secondary works available to her by scholars such as Luigi Albertini, she would not have neglected the influence of events in Eastern Europe on Germany’s actions.

Text 2
Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August is an engrossing if dated introduction to World War I. Tuchman’s analysis of primary documents is laudable, but her main thesis that European powers committed themselves to a catastrophic outcome by refusing to deviate from military plans developed prior to the conflict is implausibly reductive.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of Text 1 and Text 2 view Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August? ‘, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. The author of Text 1 argues that Tuchman should have relied more on the work of other historians, while the author of Text 2 implies that Tuchman’s most interesting claims result from her original research.’, “false”], [‘B. The author of Text 1 believes that the scope of Tuchman’s research led her to an incorrect interpretation, while the author of Text 2 believes that Tuchman’s central argument is overly simplistic’, “true”], [‘C. The author of Text 1 asserts that the writing style of The Guns of August makes it worthwhile to read despite any perceived deficiency in Tuchman’s research, while the author of Text 2 focuses exclusively on the weakness of Tuchman’s interpretation of events.’, “false”], [‘D. The author of Text 1 claims that Tuchman would agree that World War I was largely due to events in Eastern Europe, while the author of Text 2 maintains that Tuchman would say that Eastern European leaders were not committed to military plans in the same way that other leaders were.’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice B is the best answer. Both texts are critical of The Guns of August, but for different reasons: the author of Text 1 argues that Tuchman missed an important factor leading up to the war because she didn’t consult secondary sources, and the author of Text 2 argues that Tuchman’s main thesis is “reductive,” which is a close synonym for “overly simplistic.” Choice A is incorrect. This doesn’t accurately describe the difference. This choice’s summary of Text 1 is accurate, but Text 2 never says that Tuchman’s most interesting claims result from her original research. Choice C is incorrect. This doesn’t accurately describe the difference. Text 1 never says that The Guns of August is worthwhile to read despite its research weaknesses. Text 2 does call out a weakness of Tuchman’s interpretation of events, but it also praises her analysis of primary sources. Choice D is incorrect. This doesn’t accurately describe the difference. Text 1 actually says that Tuchman “fails to address” the influence of events in Eastern Europe, while Text 2 says that Tuchman’s thesis was that European powers (not Eastern European leaders) were committed to military plans. Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘
Text 1
In 2007, a team led by Alice Storey analyzed a chicken bone found in El Arenal, Chile, dating it to 1321–1407 CE—over a century before Europeans invaded the region, bringing their own chickens. Storey also found that the El Arenal chicken shared a unique genetic mutation with the ancient chicken breeds of the Polynesian Islands in the Pacific. Thus, Polynesian peoples, not later Europeans, probably first introduced chickens to South America.

Text 2
An Australian research team weakened the case for a Polynesian origin for the El Arenal chicken by confirming that the mutation identified by Storey has occurred in breeds from around the world. More recently, though, a team led by Agusto Luzuriaga-Neira found that South American chicken breeds and Polynesian breeds share other genetic markers that European breeds lack. Thus, the preponderance of evidence now favors a Polynesian origin.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By broadly agreeing with the claim but objecting that the timeline it presupposes conflicts with the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey’s team’, “false”], [‘B. By faulting the claim for implying that domestic animals couldn’t have been transferred from South America to the Polynesian Islands as well’, “false”], [‘C. By critiquing the claim for being based on an assumption that before the European invasion of South America, the chickens of Europe were genetically uniform’, “false”], [‘D. By noting that while the claim is persuasive, the findings of Luzuriaga-Neira’s team provide stronger evidence for it than the findings of the genetic analysis conducted by Storey do’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice D is the best answer because it accurately describes how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1. Text 1 indicates that Storey found a genetic mutation in South American chickens from before the European invasion and in Polynesian chickens, which implies that chickens were first brought to South America by Polynesian people. Text 2 explains that the genetic mutation Storey found is in chickens from all over the world, thus undercutting the mutation as evidence of a Polynesian origin. However, Text 2 goes on to say “[m]ore recently” Luzuriaga-Neira and colleagues found multiple genetic markers shared by South American and Polynesian chickens but “that European breeds lack,” which strongly suggests a Polynesian origin for the South American chickens. This indicates that the author of Text 2 believes Luzuriaga-Neira’s evidence for a Polynesian origin is compelling while Storey’s evidence has been undermined. Thus, the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with the underlined statement and believes Luzuriaga-Neira and colleagues’ evidence for the statement is stronger than Storey’s evidence is. Choice A is incorrect because both texts indicate that chickens were introduced to South America before the arrival of Europeans. Text 1 states that the El Arenal chicken bone dates from “1321–1407 CE—over a century before Europeans invaded the region” and concludes that these chickens were likely brought to South America by Polynesians. While Text 2 is not as explicit about the time period as Text 1 is, nothing in Text 2 undermines the timing of events ascribed to Storey’s account in Text 1. Choice B is incorrect because both texts agree that chickens were first brought to South America by Polynesian peoples (the underlined claim), and nothing in Text 2 suggests that this claim is in any way deficient because the possibility that animals could have been transferred from South America to Polynesia was not explicitly addressed. Choice C is incorrect because the criticism that Text 2 raises about the ideas in Text 1 is specifically about whether the single genetic mutation cited by Storey in fact supports the idea of a Polynesian origin for South American chickens. There is nothing in Text 2 to suggest that the underlined sentence (Storey’s conclusion) is deficient because it is based on an assumption about the genetic uniformity of European chickens. Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Digital art, the use of digital technology to create or display images, isn’t really art at all. It doesn’t require as much skill as creating physical art. “Painting” with a tablet and stylus is much easier than using paint and a brush: the technology is doing most of the work.

Text 2
The painting programs used to create digital art involve more than just pressing a few buttons. In addition to knowing the fundamentals of art, digital artists need to be familiar with sophisticated software. Many artists will start by drawing an image on paper before transforming the piece to a digital format, where they can apply a variety of colors and techniques that would otherwise require many different traditional tools.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claims of the author of Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By arguing that a piece of art created digitally can still be displayed traditionally’, “false”], [‘B. By explaining that it’s actually much harder to use a tablet and stylus to create art than to use paint and a brush ‘, “false”], [‘C. By insisting that digital art requires artistic abilities and skill even if it employs less traditional tools’, “true”], [‘D. By admitting that most digital artists don’t think fundamental drawing skills are important’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice C is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would respond to the claims in Text 1. Both texts address skills needed to produce digital art. Text 1 claims that digital art doesn’t require the same amount of skill as creating physical art and that “the technology is doing most of the work.” Text 2 states that digital art requires “knowing the fundamentals of art” and that many digital artists begin their work on paper and then transfer it to a digital format using “sophisticated software” and “a variety of colors and techniques.” Therefore, the author of Text 2 would most likely insist that digital art requires artistic abilities even if it employs less traditional tools.
Choice A is incorrect because neither text discusses nondigital means of displaying art.
Choice B is incorrect because the author of Text 2 doesn’t address whether it’s harder to use a tablet and stylus than it is to use paint and a brush. Text 2 does argue that digital art requires skills that aren’t part of the traditional methods for producing art, but the text doesn’t address relative difficulty.
Choice D is incorrect because the author of Text 2 states that digital artists still need to know “the fundamentals of art” and that many digital artists begin their work by drafting on paper before transferring the work to a digital format.
Question Difficulty: Medium’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
A tiny, unusual fossil in a piece of 99-million-year-old amber is of the extinct species Oculudentavis khaungraae. The O. khaungraae fossil consists of a rounded skull with a thin snout and a large eye socket. Because these features look like they are avian, or related to birds, researchers initially thought that the fossil might be the smallest avian dinosaur ever found.

Text 2
Paleontologists were excited to discover a second small fossil that is similar to the strange O. khaungraae fossil but has part of the lower body along with a birdlike skull. Detailed studies of both fossils revealed several traits that are found in lizards but not in dinosaurs or birds. Therefore, paleontologists think the two creatures were probably unusual lizards, even though the skulls looked avian at first.
Based on the texts, what would the paleontologists in Text 2 most likely say about the researchers’ initial thought in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. It is understandable because the fossil does look like it could be related to birds, even though O. khaungraae is probably a lizard.’, “true”], [‘B. It is confusing because it isn’t clear what caused the researchers to think that O. khaungraae might be related to birds’, “false”], [‘C. It is flawed because the researchers mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard. ‘, “false”], [‘D. It is reasonable because the O. khaungraae skull is about the same size as the skull of the second fossil but is shaped differently.’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice A is the best answer because it reflects what the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say about what the researchers in Text 1 initially thought. Text 1 focuses on the discovery of a strange fossil consisting of the skull of the extinct species Oculudentavis khaungraae. According to Text 1, the fossil has features that appear to be avian, or related to birds, which led researchers to initially think that the fossil might be a very small avian dinosaur. Text 2 begins by noting the discovery of a second fossil similar to the one discussed in Text 1, then explains that based on detailed studies of both fossils, paleontologists think that the two creatures were probably unusual lizards, even though the skulls appeared avian at first. This suggests that the paleontologists in Text 2 recognize that the fossils do indeed look like they could be related to birds. For this reason, the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say that the initial thought of the researchers in Text 1—that the fossil was avian—is understandable, even if the fossil is probably not avian but rather is from a lizard. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 indicates that the fossils initially looked avian, so the paleontologists described in Text 2 wouldn’t be confused by the researchers in Text 1 initially thinking that O. khaungraae might be related to birds. The paleontologists would find that initial thought understandable, not confusing. Choice C is incorrect because Text 1 never mentions lizards, so it wouldn’t make sense for the paleontologists in Text 2 to say that the researchers in Text 1 mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard. Choice D is incorrect. Although the paleontologists in Text 2 might agree that the initial thought of the researchers in Text 1 was reasonable, nothing in Text 2 suggests that the two skulls were shaped differently. Question Difficulty: Medium’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
In a study of insect behavior, Samadi Galpayage and colleagues presented bumblebees with small wooden balls and observed many of the bees clinging to, rolling, and dragging the objects. The researchers provided no external rewards (such as food) to encourage these interactions. The bees simply appeared to be playing—and for no other reason than because they were having fun.

Text 2
Insects do not have cortexes or other brain areas associated with emotions in humans. Still, Galpayage and her team have shown that bumblebees may engage in play, possibly experiencing some kind of positive emotional state. Other studies have suggested that bees experience negative emotional states (for example, stress), but as Galpayage and her team have acknowledged, emotions in insects, if they do indeed exist, are likely very rudimentary.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined portion of Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By objecting that the bees were actually experiencing a negative feeling akin to stress rather than a positive feeling. ‘, “false”], [‘B. By arguing that some insects other than bumblebees may be capable of experiencing complex emotional states’, “false”], [‘C. By pointing out that even humans sometimes struggle to have fun while engaging in play’, “false”], [‘D. By noting that if the bees were truly playing, any positive feelings they may have experienced were probably quite basic’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice D is the best answer. The author of Text 2 agrees with the author of Text 1 that bumblebees may engage in play and possibly experience some kind of positive emotional state. However, the author of Text 2 also qualifies this claim by stating that emotions in insects, if they do exist, are “likely very rudimentary.”
Choice A is incorrect. While Text 2 states that other studies might indicate “negative emotional states” in bees, it does not contradict the findings from the Galpayage study—that the bees might have been having fun.
Choice B is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does not mention or imply that any insects, including bumblebees, are capable of experiencing complex emotional states. The author of Text 2 states that if insects do feel emotions, those emotions are “likely very rudimentary.”
Choice C is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does not compare or contrast the behavior or emotions of insects and humans, and neither does the author of Text 1.
Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Many studies in psychology have shown that people seek out information even when they know in advance that they have no immediate use for it and that they won’t directly benefit from it. Such findings support the consensus view among researchers of curiosity: namely, that curiosity is not instrumental but instead represents a drive to acquire information for its own sake.

Text 2
While acknowledging that acquiring information is a powerful motivator, Rachit Dubey and colleagues ran an experiment to test whether emphasizing the usefulness of scientific information could increase curiosity about it. They found that when research involving rats and fruit flies was presented as having medical applications for humans, participants expressed greater interest in learning about it than when the research was not presented as useful.
Based on the texts, how would Dubey and colleagues (Text 2) most likely respond to the consensus view discussed in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By suggesting that curiosity may not be exclusively motivated by the desire to merely acquire information’, “true”], [‘B. By conceding that people may seek out information that serves no immediate purpose only because they think they can use it later’, “false”], [‘C. By pointing out that it is challenging to determine when information-seeking serves no goal beyond acquiring information’, “false”], [‘D. By disputing the idea that curiosity can help explain apparently purposeless information-seeking behaviors’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice A is the best answer. The researchers in Text 2 recognize that acquiring information is a powerful motivator, but showed that this motivation can still be affected by other factors, like whether or not the information is expected to be useful or not. This suggests that other desires may play a part in driving people to acquire information.
Choice B is incorrect. The consensus view in Text 1 is that people acquire information regardless of whether they think they can use it later. Dubey and colleagues acknowledge this fact (so they don’t claim people seek out information “only” because it might be useful later).
Choice C is incorrect. This choice misreads the results of Dubey and colleagues’ study in Text 2. Neither text discusses the difficulty of determining the motivation for informationseeking.
Choice D is incorrect. This choice contradicts Text 2, which starts with Dubey and colleagues “acknowledging that acquiring information is a powerful motivator” (i.e., agreeing that curiosity explains the seeking of apparently purposeless information). The research in Text 2 simply suggests that more than just curiosity can motivate information-seeking behavior when the information has a purpose.
Question Difficulty: Medium’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Conventional wisdom long held that human social systems evolved in stages, beginning with hunter-gatherers forming small bands of members with roughly equal status. The shift to agriculture about 12,000 years ago sparked population growth that led to the emergence of groups with hierarchical structures: associations of clans first, then chiefdoms, and finally, bureaucratic states.

Text 2
In a 2021 book, anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow maintain that humans have always been socially flexible, alternately forming systems based on hierarchy and collective ones with decentralized leadership. The authors point to evidence that as far back as 50,000 years ago some hunter-gatherers adjusted their social structures seasonally, at times dispersing in small groups but also assembling into communities that included esteemed individuals.
Based on the texts, how would Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” presented in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By conceding the importance of hierarchical systems but asserting the greater significance of decentralized collective societies’, “false”], [‘B. By disputing the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages’, “true”], [‘C. By acknowledging that hierarchical roles likely weren’t a part of social systems before the rise of agriculture’, “false”], [‘D. By challenging the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice B is the best answer because it describes the most likely way that Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) would respond to the “conventional wisdom” presented in Text 1. According to Text 1, the conventional wisdom about human social systems is that they developed through stages, beginning with hunter-gatherer bands, then moving to clan associations, then chiefdoms, and finally arriving at states with bureaucratic structures. Text 2 indicates that Graeber and Wengrow believe that human social systems have been flexible, shifting between different types of structures, including both hierarchical and collective systems, and that these shifts may have even occurred seasonally. This suggests that Graeber and Wengrow would dispute the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages.
Choice A is incorrect because nothing in Text 2 suggests that Graeber and Wengrow believe that decentralized collective societies are more significant than hierarchical systems. Text 2 is focused on Graeber and Wengrow’s view that humans have flexibly shifted among various social structures, not on the importance of particular structures relative to others.
Choice C is incorrect because Text 2 doesn’t include any information suggesting that Graeber and Wengrow believe that hierarchies didn’t emerge until after the rise of agriculture. In fact, Text 2 indicates that Graeber and Wengrow cite evidence suggesting that some hunter-gatherer groups formed social structures with hierarchical elements (“communities that included esteemed individuals”) 50,000 years ago, long before the rise of agriculture, which Text 1 says occurred around 12,000 years ago.
Choice D is incorrect because there’s no information in Text 2 suggesting that Graeber and Wengrow would challenge the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure. Although Text 1 does indicate that hunter-gatherer groups are assumed to be the earliest human social system, Text 2 says only that Graeber and Wengrow believe that some hunter-gatherer groups made use of different social structures at different times. Text 2 doesn’t imply that Graeber and Wengrow doubt that hunter-gatherer groups preceded most other social structures.
Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
The fossil record suggests that mammoths went extinct around 11 thousand years (kyr) ago. In a 2021 study of environmental DNA (eDNA)—genetic material shed into the environment by organisms—in the Arctic, Yucheng Wang and colleagues found mammoth eDNA in sedimentary layers formed millennia later, around 4 kyr ago. To account for this discrepancy, Joshua H. Miller and Carl Simpson proposed that arctic temperatures could preserve a mammoth carcass on the surface, allowing it to leach DNA into the environment, for several thousand years.

Text 2
Wang and colleagues concede that eDNA contains DNA from both living organisms and carcasses, but for DNA to leach from remains over several millennia requires that the remains be perpetually on the surface. Scavengers and weathering in the Arctic, however, are likely to break down surface remains well before a thousand years have passed.
Which choice best describes how Text 1 and Text 2 relate to each other?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. Text 1 discusses two approaches to studying mammoth extinction without advocating for either, whereas Text 2 advocates for one approach over the other’, “false”], [‘B. Text 1 presents findings by Wang and colleagues and gives another research team’s attempt to explain those findings, whereas Text 2 provides additional detail that calls that explanation into question.’, “true”], [‘C. Text 1 describes Wang and colleagues’ study and a critique of their methodology, whereas Text 2 offers additional details showing that methodology to be sound.’, “false”], [‘D. Text 1 argues that new research has undermined the standard view of when mammoths went extinct, whereas Text 2 suggests a way to reconcile the standard view with that new research’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘mentions Miller and Simpson’s hypothesis as a possible way to explain them. Text 2, however, challenges Miller and Simpson’s hypothesis by pointing out the difficulties of preserving mammoth carcasses on the surface for thousands of years: “scavengers and weathering” are the additional details that complicate the Miller/Simpson hypothesis.’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Although food writing is one of the most widely read genres in the United States, literary scholars have long neglected it. And within this genre, cookbooks attract the least scholarly attention of all, regardless of how well written they may be. This is especially true of works dedicated to regional US cuisines, whose complexity and historical significance are often overlooked.

Text 2
With her 1976 cookbook The Taste of Country Cooking, Edna Lewis popularized the refined Southern cooking she had grown up with in Freetown, an all-Black community in Virginia. She also set a new standard for cookbook writing: the recipes and memoir passages interspersing them are written in prose more elegant than that of most novels. Yet despite its inarguable value as a piece of writing, Lewis’s masterpiece has received almost no attention from literary scholars .
Based on the two texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely regard the situation presented in the underlined sentence in Text 2?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. As typical, because scholars are dismissive of literary works that achieve popularity with the general public’, “false”], [‘B. As unsurprising, because scholars tend to overlook the literary value of food writing in general and of regional cookbooks in particular’, “true”], [‘C. As justifiable, because Lewis incorporated memoir into The Taste of Country Cooking, thus undermining its status as a cookbook’, “false”], [‘D As inevitable, because The Taste of Country Cooking was marketed to readers of food writing and not to readers of other genres. ‘, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice B is the best answer. Text 1 states that literary scholars ignore regional cookbooks most of all, even when they have historical significance and are well written. So the author of Text 1 wouldn’t be surprised that scholars ignored Edna Lewis’s cookbook.
Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never suggests that scholars are dismissive of popular works in general. Instead, Text 1 says that scholars ignore food writing specifically, despite its popularity—and despite the fact that it can be historically significant and complex.
Choice C is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never suggests that elements of other genres should be kept out of cookbooks.
Choice D is incorrect. We can’t infer that this is how the author of Text 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never discusses how food writing is or should be marketed.
Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Some animal species, like the leopard, can be found in many kinds of areas. On the other hand, tropical mountain bird species tend to be limited in the types of spaces they can call home. This is because many mountain bird species are only able to survive at very specific elevations. Over time, these species have likely become used to living at a specific temperature. Therefore, these species struggle to survive at elevations that are warmer or colder than they are used to.

Text 2
A new study reviewed observations of nearly 3,000 bird species to understand why tropical mountain bird species live at specific elevations. They noted that when a mountain bird species was found in an area with many other bird species, it tended to inhabit much smaller geographic areas. It is thus likely that competition for resources with other species, not temperature, limits where these birds can live.
Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement? ‘, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. Tropical mountain bird species are restricted in where they can live’, “true”], [‘B. Scientists have better tools to observe tropical mountain birds than they did in the past’, “false”], [‘C. Little is known about how tropical mountain birds build their nests’, “false”], [‘D. Tropical mountain bird species that live at high elevations tend to be genetically similar.’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice A is the best answer. Both texts state that tropical mountain bird species have limited ranges or habitats, although they disagree on the reason for this. Text 1 claims that temperature is the main factor that determines where these birds can live, while Text 2 claims that competition with other species is the main factor. However, both texts agree that these birds are not able to survive in many kinds of areas.
Choice B is incorrect. Neither text mentions the tools or methods that scientists use to observe these birds, either now or in the past.
Choice C is incorrect. Neither text mentions anything about how these birds build their nests.
Choice D is incorrect. Neither text provides any information about the genetic similarity of these birds, so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this statement.
Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
American sculptor Edmonia Lewis is best known for her sculptures that represent figures from history and mythology, such as The Death of Cleopatra and Hagar. Although Lewis sculpted other subjects, her career as a sculptor is best represented by the works in which she depicted these historical and mythical themes.

Text 2
Art historians have typically ignored the many portrait busts Edmonia Lewis created. Lewis likely carved these busts (sculptures of a person’s head) frequently throughout her long career. She is known for her sculptures that represent historical figures, but Lewis likely supported herself financially by carving portrait busts for acquaintances who paid her to represent their features. Thus, Lewis’s portrait busts are a central aspect of her career as a sculptor.
Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement? ‘, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. Lewis’s portrait busts have overshadowed her other work.’, “false”], [‘B. The Death of Cleopatra is Lewis’s most famous piece.’, “false”], [‘C. Sculpting representations of historical figures was a short-lived trend.’, “false”], [‘D. Lewis’s works are varied in the subjects they depict.’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice D is the best answer. Author 1 acknowledges that Lewis sculpted other subjects besides historical and mythical figures, suggesting a variety of subjects depicted. Author 2 mentions that Lewis carved portrait busts as well as historical sculptures, which also implies variation among Lewis’s subjects. Choice A is incorrect. Neither text suggests that Lewis’s portrait busts have received more attention or appreciation than her other work. Author 1 briefly mentions her “other works,” but mostly focuses on her historical and mythical works. Author 2 states that art historians have typically ignored her portrait busts, which suggests that they haven’t overshadowed her other work. Choice B is incorrect. Neither text explicitly states that The Death of Cleopatra is Lewis’s most famous piece. Author 1 mentions it as one example of her historical works, but does not single it out as being more important or influential than Hagar. Author 2 does not mention it at all, focusing instead on her portrait busts. Choice C is incorrect. This choice isn’t supported by the texts. Neither text suggests that sculpting historical figures was a trend that faded quickly. Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Ecologists have long wondered how thousands of microscopic phytoplankton species can live together near ocean surfaces competing for the same resources. According to conventional wisdom, one species should emerge after outcompeting the rest. So why do so many species remain? Ecologists’ many efforts to explain this phenomenon still haven’t uncovered a satisfactory explanation.

Text 2
Ecologist Michael Behrenfeld and colleagues have connected phytoplankton’s diversity to their microscopic size. Because these organisms are so tiny, they are spaced relatively far apart from each other in ocean water and, moreover, experience that water as a relatively dense substance. This in turn makes it hard for them to move around and interact with one another. Therefore, says Behrenfeld’s team, direct competition among phytoplankton probably happens much less than previously thought.
Based on the texts, how would Behrenfeld and colleagues (Text 2) most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” discussed in Text 1?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By arguing that it is based on a misconception about phytoplankton species competing with one another’, “true”], [‘B. By asserting that it fails to recognize that routine replenishment of ocean nutrients prevents competition between phytoplankton species ‘, “false”], [‘C. By suggesting that their own findings help clarify how phytoplankton species are able to compete with larger organisms’, “false”], [‘D. By recommending that more ecologists focus their research on how competition among phytoplankton species is increased with water density’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice A is the best answer because based on Text 2, it represents how Behrenfeld and colleagues would most likely respond to the “conventional wisdom” discussed in Text 1. The conventional wisdom cited holds the opinion that when there is species diversity within a phytoplankton population, “one species should emerge after outcompeting the rest”—that is, after being so successful in competing for resources that the other species vanish from the population. However, Text 2 explains that according to Behrenfeld and colleagues, phytoplankton are so small and spaced so far apart in the water that there is “much less” direct competition for resources within phytoplankton populations than scientists had previously thought. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 never discusses whether routine replenishment of ocean nutrients affects competition between phytoplankton species. Choice C is incorrect because the interspecies competition discussed in both texts is specifically between phytoplankton species, and neither text considers whether phytoplankton compete for resources with larger nonphytoplankton species. Choice D is incorrect because according to Text 2, Behrenfeld and colleagues argue that water density decreases, not increases, competition between phytoplankton species. Question Difficulty: Hard ‘, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
A team led by Bernardo Strassburg has found that rewilding farmland (returning the land to its natural state) could help preserve biodiversity and offset carbon emissions. The amount of farmland that would need to be restored, they found, is remarkably low. Rewilding a mere 15% of the world’s current farmland would prevent 60% of expected species extinctions and help absorb nearly 299 gigatons of carbon dioxide—a clear win in the fight against the biodiversity and climate crises.

Text 2
While Strassburg’s team’s findings certainly offer encouraging insight into the potential benefits of rewilding, it’s important to consider potential effects on global food supplies. The researchers suggest that to compensate for the loss of foodproducing land, remaining farmland would need to produce even more food. Thus, policies focused on rewilding farmland must also address strategies for higher-yield farming.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view Strassburg’s team’s study?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. The author of Text 2 approaches the study’s findings with some caution, whereas the author of Text 1 is optimistic about the reported potential environmental benefits.’, “true”], [‘B. The author of Text 2 claims that the percentage of farmland identified by Strassburg’s team is too low for rewilding to achieve meaningful results, whereas the author of Text 1 thinks the percentage is sufficient.’, “false”], [‘C. The author of Text 2 believes that the results described by Strassburg’s team are achievable in the near future, whereas the author of Text 1 argues that they likely aren’t.’, “false”], [‘D. The author of Text 2 focuses on rewilding’s effect on carbon emissions, whereas the author of Text 1 focuses on its effect on biodiversity’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘
Choice A is the best answer. Text 1 is extremely positive about Strassburg’s team’s findings, calling the potential results “a clear win in the fight against the biodiversity and climate crises.” Text 2 is not as positive, arguing that while the findings point to “potential benefits,” we also need to consider the “potential effects on global food supplies.”
Choice B is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Text 1 does present the 15% number as enough to achieve meaningful results, but that’s not what Text 2 takes issue with: rather, Text 2 argues that we need to consider the effect that rewilding this much farmland would have on food supplies.
Choice C is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Neither text mentions the timeline for achieving the results described by Strassburg’s team.
Choice D is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Text 1 focuses on rewilding’s effects on both carbon emissions and biodiversity. Text 2 doesn’t focus on rewilding’s effect on carbon emissions at all. Instead, it focuses on a third factor: global food supplies.
Question Difficulty: Easy’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Dominique Potvin and colleagues captured five Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) to test a new design for attaching tracking devices to birds. As the researchers fitted each magpie with a tracker attached by a small harness, they noticed some magpies without trackers pecking at another magpie’s tracker until it broke off. The researchers suggest that this behavior could be evidence of magpies attempting to help another magpie without benefiting themselves.

Text 2
It can be tempting to think that animals are deliberately providing help when we see them removing trackers and other equipment from one another, especially when a species is known to exhibit other cooperative behaviors. At the same time, it can be difficult to exclude the possibility that individuals are simply interested in the equipment because of its novelty, curiously pawing or pecking at it until it detaches.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the researchers’ perspective in Text 1 on the behavior of the magpies without trackers?’, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. That behavior might have been due to the novelty of the magpies’ captive setting rather than to the novelty of the tracker.’, “false”], [‘B. That behavior likely indicates that the magpies were deliberately attempting to benefit themselves by obtaining the tracker’, “false”], [‘C. That behavior may not be evidence of selflessness in Gymnorhina tibicen because not all the captured magpies demonstrated it’, “false”], [‘D. That behavior might be adequately explained without suggesting that the magpies were attempting to assist the other magpie.’, “true”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice D is the best answer because it reflects how the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the researchers’ perspective in Text 1 on the behavior of the magpies without trackers. According to Text 1, Dominique Potvin and colleagues observed magpies without trackers pecking at a tracker on another magpie until the device fell off. The researchers suggested that the birds might have been attempting to help the other bird, with no benefit to themselves. Text 2 generally discusses scenarios in which animals have been observed removing trackers from each other. The text cautions that it shouldn’t be assumed that these animals are helping one another deliberately, since they might simply be pecking at trackers out of curiosity, causing them to fall off eventually. Therefore, the author of Text 2 would most likely respond to Potvin and colleagues’ perspective in Text 1 by saying that the behavior of the magpies without trackers could be adequately explained without suggesting that they were attempting to assist the other magpie. Choice A is incorrect because Text 2 never discusses the novelty, or the newness and unusual quality, of the captive settings in which animals have been observed to remove trackers from other animals, nor does it suggest that such novelty might account for this behavior. Instead, the text suggests that it’s the novelty of the tracking equipment itself that might cause the behavior: interested in the trackers because they’re unusual, animals might paw or peck at them until they fall off. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 never suggests that when animals remove trackers from other animals, they do so because they wish to obtain the trackers for themselves. Instead, Text 2 argues that animals paw or peck at trackers because they are merely curious about them. Choice C is incorrect because Text 2 doesn’t argue that when captured animals are observed removing trackers from each other, their behavior should be regarded as selfless only if all of them participate in it. Instead, the text argues that the behavior may not be selfless at all and may instead be attributed to animals’ curiosity about the new and unusual trackers. Question Difficulty: Hard’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu //start 1 câu {“type”: “multiple-choice”, //choice multiple-choice or multiselect or completion or smth else ‘question’: ‘Text 1
Polar bears sustain themselves primarily by hunting seals on the Arctic sea ice, but rising ocean temperatures are causing the ice to diminish, raising concerns about polar bear population declines as these large predators’ seal-hunting habitats continue to shrink. A 2020 study examining polar bear populations across the Arctic concluded that populations affected by sea-ice loss are at great risk of extinction by the end of the twenty-first century.

Text 2
Monitoring carried out by researchers from the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that the polar bear population on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard remains stable and well nourished despite rapidly declining sea ice in recent years. The researchers attribute this population’s resilience in part to a shift in feeding strategies: in addition to hunting seals, the Svalbard polar bears have begun relying on a diet of reindeer meat and birds’ eggs.
Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the conclusion presented in the underlined portion of Text 1? ‘, “image”:”, “answer”: [ [‘A. By noting that it neglects the possibility of some polar bear populations adapting to changes in their environment’, “true”], [‘B. By suggesting that it is likely incorrect about the rates at which warming ocean temperatures have caused sea ice to melt in the Arctic’, “false”], [‘C. By asserting that it overlooks polar bear populations that have not yet been affected by loss of seal-hunting habitats’, “false”], [‘D. By arguing that it fails to account for polar bears’ reliance on a single seal-hunting strategy’, “false”], ], ‘explanation’: ‘Choice A is the best answer. Text 2 describes how the Svalbard polar bears have adapted to the loss of sea ice by diversifying their diet and feeding on reindeer and seabird eggs, resulting in a “stable and well nourished” population despite environmental challenges. This counters the underlined claim that polar bears facing a loss of sea ice are at “great risk of extinction” by the end of the century. Choice B is incorrect. Text 2 does not challenge the fact that sea ice is rapidly declining in the Arctic due to warming ocean temperatures. In fact, it states that the Svalbard polar bears have faced “rapidly declining sea ice in recent years.” Choice C is incorrect. The claim in Text 1 is specific to polar bear populations affected by the loss of seal hunting habitats, so unaffected populations are irrelevant to the claim. Also, Text 2 doesn’t mention any polar bear populations that haven’t yet been affected by loss of seal hunting habitats. It focuses on a population that has been affected by sea-ice loss but has managed to survive and thrive nevertheless. Choice D is incorrect. Text 2 doesn’t imply that polar bears rely on a single seal-hunting strategy. In fact, the researcher in Text 2 would say that Text 1 fails to account for polar bears’ ability to develop other hunting strategies and food sources’, ‘section’: ”, ‘related_lectures’: ”}, //hết 1 câu ]};