IELTS Reading topic Tourism

Chúng ta cùng tìm hiểu bài học dựa theo từ vựng, ngữ pháp và tập trung kỹ năng, luyện tập nhé. Hãy cùng tham khảo và kết hợp với từ điển để những từ không hiểu, bạn tra từ, ghi nhớ lại lâu hơn nhé.

Vocabulary topic Tourism

Exercise 1. Complete the sentences with the words from the table.

1. Tourists may………………… some communication problems at first.

2. One of the best ways to help you ………………… travel sickness is avoid reading or looking at your phone.

3. This building………………… in 2003 to withstand earthquake.

4. He bought extra food in ………………… of more people coming than he’d invited.

5. The town seems so empty in the autumn when all the …………………have gone home.

Exercise 2. Choose the correct antonym of the words.

1. trivial (adj)

A. significant

B. minor

C. unimportant

2. contemporary(adj)

A. recent

B. out-of-date

C. modern

3. host (n)

A. entertainer

B. owner

C. guest

4. phenomenon (n)

A. event

B. regularity

C. fact

5. regulate(v)

A. damage

B. control

C. manage

Đáp án nha:

Language Development. Exercise 2

Luyện tập dạng bài Reading

Bài 1: Điền một từ thích hợp vào chỗ trống.

The Grand Hotel was built in 1900 and has a(n) (1) _____________ style; there is nothing like it in the local area. Although the interior design is (2) _____________, the facilities are modern. The hotel has a conference centre and meeting rooms so it is (3) _____________ for business purposes.

A(n) (4) _____________ option is the Hotel Royal, which is a(n) (5) _____________ choice for tourists because the prices are (6) _____________, and it is next to the beach. The hotel is not modern; in fact it is quite (7) _____________ and in need of minor repair, but it is (8) _____________ for a short break.

Bài 2: Phân biết các câu dưới đây, câu nào thể hiện sự thực (Fact), câu nào thể hiện ý kiến (Opinion). Điền F bên cạnh câu thể hiện sự thật và O bên cạnh câu thể hiện ý kiến.

Bài 3: Đọc các đoạn văn dưới đây , điền “YES” nếu các câu đưa ra quan điểm dưới mỗi đoạn văn đúng và điền “NO” nếu người viết đưa ra ý kiến ngược lại trong đoạn văn.

Britain never used to have armed police, but when major events are being held, such as the recent London Olympics, there is a visible presence of armed police in train stations. Do people using public transport feel reassured when they see armed police? Possibly. But most of them, especially visitors to the UK, may feel that there is something to worry about, especially as they would expect British police not to be armed. And if we think about it, the police, armed or not, cannot protect us from bombers. But what the police can, and sometimes does do, is make mistakes, and these are always worse when there are firearms involved. So in the end, arming police may do more harm than good.

1. Most travellers feel protected when they see armed police in train stations
2. Even police with guns cannot protect us from bombers
3. The police might shoot somebody by accident
4. It is better not to have armed police in Britain

Instead of complaining about roadworks, the cost of petrol, the price of cars, etc. we need to think about other options. And I don’t mean car sharing or building more motorways. I say we try to save our environment by campaigning for better bus and train networks and for different types of transport, such as trams.

5. We should complain about car-related problems
6. The environment is not really in danger
7. Public transport needs to be improved

The rise in fuel prices is a very worrying trend. Here are just some examples of the consequences.

Elderly people cannot afford to heat their houses, people lose their jobs because they can no longer afford to commute to work, or because they are made redundant from their jobs in transport-based businesses such as airlines. Self-employed people often rely on their own transport for work, e.g. delivery people, florists and taxi drivers, so they may be forced to close their business. The prices of some food and raw materials also increase as a direct result of the cost of oil, e.g. the prices of beef and cotton. Against all of that, there is one possible advantage: car manufacturers are employing more people to design fuel-efficient cars, which will benefit the environment. But surely, this is not enough. What we need is international cooperation and political goodwill, to reduce fuel prices and/ or financially support those who are being affected.

8. We need to be concerned about the increase in the price of fuel
9. There are more problems caused by increasing fuel prices than the ones mentioned in the passage
10. The price of beef is closely related to the price of oil
11. The rise of fuel prices is not a big problem as the environment is benefitting from it
12. If we cannot lower the price of fuel then we need more money so that people can cope with it

Bài 4: Đọc đoạn văn sau và chọn YES/NO/NOT GIVEN cho các câu ở dưới.

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, the director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity”.

According to the official US version of history, an A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and another on Nagasaki three days later, to force Japan to surrender. The destruction was necessary to bring a rapid end to the war without the need a costly US invasion.

But this is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US. They are presenting their evidence at a meeting in London on Thursday organized by Greenpeace and others to coincide with the 60^th anniversary of the bombings.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to the US Secretary of State James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Kuznick and Selden’s arguments, however, were dismissed as “discredited” by Lawrence Freedman, a war expert from King’s College, London, UK. He says that Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima was “understandable in the circumstances”. Truman’s main aim had been to end the war with Japan, Freedman says, but adds that with the wisdom of hindsight, the bombing may not have been militarily justified. Some people assumed that the US always had a “malicious and nasty motive”, he says, “but it ain’t necessarily so.”

Read the following passage. Do the statements agree with the views of the writer? Write:

YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts what the writer thinks

NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to know what the writer’s point of view is

1. The two atomic bombs killed more than 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2. Kuznick and Selden hold contradicting views over the issue of Hiroshima bomb.
3. Kuznick and Selden work at the same university.
4. Japan is the only country that has been attacked with atomic bombs.
5. According to the American government, A-bombs were used to defeat Japan.
6. According to Kuznick, Japan surrendered because of the Russian army rather than the A-bombs. 7. According to Water Brown, US army generals were against the use of A-bombs.
7. Walter Brown was the Secretary of State when Truman was the President of America.

Đáp án nha:

B1

1-h, 2 c/g, 3 f, 4 a, 5 b/f, 6 d, 7 c/g, 8 e/f

B2

1. FACT
2. FACT
3. FACT
4. OPINION
5. FACT
6. FACT
7. OPINION
8. FACT
9. FACT
10. OPINION

B3

Paragraph 1

1 NO – people feel reassured… ? Possibly. But most of them, especially visitors to the UK,

may feel that there Is something to worry about…

2 YES – the police, armed or not, cannot protect us from bombers

3 YES – … police … sometimes… make mistakes … worse when there are firearms Involved

4 YES – arming police may do more harm than good

Paragraph 2

5 NO – instead of complaining…

6 NO – try to save our environment

7 YES – try… campaigning for better bus and train networks and… trams

Paragraph 3

8 YES – the rise in fuel prices is a very worrying trend

9 YES – Here are just some examples of the consequences

10 YES – The prices of food… also increase as a direct result of the cost of oil, e.g…. beef

11 NO – it is true that the environment may benefit: there is one possible advantage … but… surely, this is not enough

12 YES – What we need is …to reduce fuel prices and/or financially support those who are being affected

B4

1Y 2N 3N 4NG 5Y 6Y 7Y 8N

Các bạn cùng luyện thêm bài tập bên dưới nhé.