K
Khách

Hãy nhập câu hỏi của bạn vào đây, nếu là tài khoản VIP, bạn sẽ được ưu tiên trả lời.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

The phrase "a mixed blessing" in paragraph 3 probably means ______. 

A. something that is neither good nor bad

B. something that produces unexpected results

C. something that has both advantages and disadvantages

D. something either negative or positive in nature 

1
25 tháng 7 2018

Cụm từ “a mixed blessing” trong đoạn 3 gần nghĩa với .

  A. cái gì đó không tốt mà không xấu            B. cái gì đó mang lại kết quả không mong đợi

  C. cái gì đó có cả lợi thế và bất lợi                D. cái gì đó hoặc là tiêu cực hoặc là tích cực

Thông tin: But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing.

Tạm dịch: Nhưng một thế giới lúc nào cũng bị quay phim có những tác động tiêu cực mà không phải ai cũng thấy được. Sự tràn ngập dữ liệu chúng ta đổ vào tay Google, Facebook và những trang mạng xã hội khác cho thấy nó vừa có lợi, vừa có hại.

Chọn C

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

The word "envisage" in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to ______

A. embrace

B. fantasise 

C. reject

D. visualize

1
16 tháng 9 2018

Từ “envisage” trong đoạn 1 có nghĩa gần nhất với __________.

  A. embrace (v): ôm                                       B. fantasise (v): mơ mộng

  C. reject (v): từ bỏ, bác bỏ                           D. visualize (v): hình dung, tưởng tượng = envisage

Thông tin: As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Tạm dịch: Khi công nghệ giúp các máy quay trở nên nhỏ hơn và rẻ hơn, không khó để hình dung một tương lai khi mà tất cả mọi người đều quay phim mọi lúc, mọi hướng.

Chọn D

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

As mentioned in paragraph 2, misbehaviour can be discouraged if potential offenders ______. 

A. are aware of being filmed at the time

B. know that they may be subjected to criticism

C. realise that they may be publicly punished

D. are employed in the public sector

1
17 tháng 5 2018

Theo như thông tin trong đoạn 2, những hành vi sai trái có thể được ngăn chặn nếu như những người định có hành vi xấu ______.

  A. có ý thức được họ đang bị quay phim      B. biết rằng họ có thể bị chỉ trích

  C. nhận ra rằng họ có thể bị phạt công khai   D. được làm việc trong những lĩnh vực công

Thông tin: If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave.

Tạm dịch: Nếu mọi người biết họ đang bị quay phim, đặc biệt là khi đang ở nơi làm việc hoặc sử dụng các dịch vụ công cộng, họ chắc chắn sẽ ít có hành động sai trái.

know = be aware of: có ý thức, biết

Chọn A

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

The word "they" in paragraph 6 refers to ______. 

A. wheels

B. social interactions

C. desirable behaviours 

D. people

1
30 tháng 7 2017

Từ “they” trong đoạn 6 thay thế cho ______.

  A. wheels (n): bánh xe

  B. social interactions: tương tác xã hội

  C. desirable behaviours: những hành vi đáng được mong đợi

  D. people (n): mọi người

Thông tin: Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

Tạm dịch: Một khi mọi người cho rằng họ đang bị quay phim, họ sẽ có xu hướng không nói gì hết.

Chọn D

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

According to paragraph 5, why do social media users already act more carefully online? 

A. Because they regret doing something illegal.

B. Because they disapprove of uncensored social media feeds.

C. Because they want to avoid being recognised in public.

D. Because they wish to protect their image. 

1
27 tháng 4 2017

Tại sao những người sử dụng mạng xã hội đã hành động một cách cẩn thận hơn khi ở trên mạng?

  A. Vì hối tiếc vì đã làm gì đố bất hợp pháp.

  B. Vì họ không tán thành những thông tin chưa được kiểm duyệt trên mạng.

  C. Vì họ muốn tránh bị nhận ra ở chỗ công cộng.

  D. Vì họ muốn bảo vệ hình ảnh của họ.

Thông tin: People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation.

Tạm dịch: Mọi người đã kiểm duyệt thông tin họ đăng lên mạng xã hội - hoặc tránh làm điều gì có thể khiến người ta hiểu lầm là họ làm gì đó trái pháp luật – để tránh làm tổn hại danh dự của họ.

Chọn D 

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

It is stated in paragraph 4 that unrecorded events ______. 

A. may go unnoticed or be ignored completely

B. could be manipulated to charge innocent people

C. should be kept open to interpretation

D. could provoke legal disputes among media companies

1
14 tháng 8 2017

Trong đoạn 4 nói rằng những sự kiện không được ghi lại _______.

  A. có thể sẽ không được chú ý đến hoặc lờ đi hoàn toàn

  B. có thể bị thao túng để buộc tội những người vô tội

  C. nên được công khai cho tất cả mọi người cùng diễn giải

  D. có thể gây ra những tranh chấp pháp lí ở những công ty truyền thông

Thông tin: Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen.

Tạm dịch: Cuối cùng, các sự kiện không được ghi lại trên máy quay có thể được coi như chưa từng xảy ra.

Chọn A

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

What does the passage mainly discuss?

A. The current public obsession with modern technology

B. The ubiquity of cameras and ensuing problems

C. Legal disputes fuelled by body-cam data

D. Data overload experienced by social network users 

1
8 tháng 4 2017

Ý chính của bài đọc là gì?

  A. Sự ám ảnh của công chúng hiện nay với công nghệ hiện đại

  B. Sự hiện diện của máy quay ở khắp mọi nơi và các hệ lụy

  C. Những tranh chấp pháp lý có thể bị làm cho tệ hại hơn do dữ liệu từ các máy quay đeo phía trước cơ thể

  D. Sự quá tải về mặt dữ liệu trải nghiệm bởi người dùng mạng xã hội

Chọn B

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42. In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with...
Đọc tiếp

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

What does the author imply in paragraph 3?

A. Body-cam ownership could eventually give rise to information overload, which, in turn, raises public concern.

B. Social networks provide their users with greater freedom of choice while depriving them of their privacy and anonymity.

C. Companies like Facebook may have their own intentions behind their willingness to take care of


their users' body-cam data.

D. Google and similar enterprises tend to refrain from harvesting their customers' data for illicit purposes.

1
21 tháng 1 2018

Tác giả ngụ ý điều gì trong đoạn 3?

  A. Việc sở hữu máy quay cá nhân cuối cùng sẽ làm lượng thông tin quá tải, điều này sẽ làm công chúng lo ngại hơn.

  B. Mạng xã hội cung cấp cho người dùng sự tự do lựa chọn thông tin tốt hơn trong khi đó tước bỏ sự riêng tư và sự ẩn danh của họ.

  C. Các công ty như Facebook có thể có dụng ý đằng sau sự sẵn lòng để quản lí những dữ liệu từ máy quay cá nhân của người dùng.

  D. Google và các doanh nghiệp tương tự có xu hướng không thu thập dữ liệu của khách hàng của họ cho mục đích bất hợp pháp.

Thông tin: But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

Tạm dịch: Nhưng một thế giới lúc nào cũng bị quay phim có những tác động tiêu cực mà không phải ai cũng thấy được. Sự tràn ngập dữ liệu chúng ta đổ vào tay Google, Facebook và những trang mạng xã hội khác cho thấy nó vừa có lợi, vừa có hại. Những công ty đó chắc chắn sẽ sẵn lòng tải lên và chọn thông tin hay cho cư dân mạng thưởng thức miễn phí, nhưng với giá phải trả cho sự riêng tư và sự tự do lựa chọn thông tin muốn xem là gì?

Chọn C

Read the passage and mark A, B, C, or D to indicate the correct answer to each of the blanks.Private school is not controlled by the government and is not supported by taxes or other public funds. A private school differs (31)__________ a public school, which operates with major support from government funds. Private schools are operated by religion groups or by independent organizations. Most private schools operate on a non-profit basis, although a few are run as businesses to make money for...
Đọc tiếp

Read the passage and mark A, B, C, or D to indicate the correct answer to each of the blanks.

Private school is not controlled by the government and is not supported by taxes or other public funds. A private school differs (31)__________ a public school, which operates with major support from government funds. Private schools are operated by religion groups or by independent organizations. Most private schools operate on a non-profit basis, although a few are run as businesses to make money for their owners. Private schools are (32)__________ chiefly by tuition, grants from their sponsors or contributions. Some private schools also have an invested money whose income is used to fund the school. In most countries, almost all schools were private until the early 1800’s. At that time, many government leaders began to encourage development of public schools to promote national progress by making education widely available to citizens. Today, the (33)__________ of public and private schools differs greatly from one country to another. In many developed countries, private schools offer a general focus on (34)__________ for college, a special focus on science, music or other subject areas; and religious instruction. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the largest sponsors of private schools (35)__________ the world.

Điền vào ô 35.

A. out 

B. on 

C. all 

D. throughout

1
24 tháng 6 2019

Đáp án D

Throughout the world: khắp thế giới

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the largest sponsors of private schools (35)__________ the world. Roman Catholic Church là một trong những nhà tài trợ lớn nhất của các trường tư thục trên khắp thế giới.

Throughout the world: khắp thế giới

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the largest sponsors of private schools (35)__________ the world. Roman Catholic Church là một trong những nhà tài trợ lớn nhất của các trường tư thục trên khắp thế giới.

Read the passage and mark A, B, C, or D to indicate the correct answer to each of the blanks.Private school is not controlled by the government and is not supported by taxes or other public funds. A private school differs (31)__________ a public school, which operates with major support from government funds. Private schools are operated by religion groups or by independent organizations. Most private schools operate on a non-profit basis, although a few are run as businesses to make money for...
Đọc tiếp

Read the passage and mark A, B, C, or D to indicate the correct answer to each of the blanks.

Private school is not controlled by the government and is not supported by taxes or other public funds. A private school differs (31)__________ a public school, which operates with major support from government funds. Private schools are operated by religion groups or by independent organizations. Most private schools operate on a non-profit basis, although a few are run as businesses to make money for their owners. Private schools are (32)__________ chiefly by tuition, grants from their sponsors or contributions. Some private schools also have an invested money whose income is used to fund the school. In most countries, almost all schools were private until the early 1800’s. At that time, many government leaders began to encourage development of public schools to promote national progress by making education widely available to citizens. Today, the (33)__________ of public and private schools differs greatly from one country to another. In many developed countries, private schools offer a general focus on (34)__________ for college, a special focus on science, music or other subject areas; and religious instruction. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the largest sponsors of private schools (35)__________ the world.

Điền vào ô 32.

A. funded 

B. given 

C. raised 

D. fed

1
30 tháng 4 2018

Đáp án A

Fund(tài trợ), raise(nâng lên), feed(cho ăn)

Private schools are (32)__________ chiefly by tuition, grants from their sponsors or contributions. Các trường tư được tài trợ chủ yếu bởi học phí, tài trợ từ các nhà tài trợ và đóng góp của họ.