[2021] Trường THPT Hai Bà Trưng - Đề thi thử THPT QG năm 2021 môn Tiếng Anh

By the end of this week, we

He said he had not discussed the matter with her.

Thanks to the extensive promotion of the book, the

When a volcano

- “Will my son be all right soon, doctor?” - “Well, he

The small,

The social services are chiefly

There weren't enough computers for everyone in the class to have one, so they had to

My cousin, who had been driving all day, suggested

If you often consult others, you will do everything successfully; if you

Greater effort to increase agricultural production must be made if food shortage

Similar elements in the prehistoric remains from both areas suggest that Indians and their neighbours had maintained distant but real connections

Part of Jane Colden’s work involved collecting plant specimens, cataloging plants, and

The job of a demographer is to investigate

- “What a great haircut, Lucy.” - “

- “Do you feel like going to the concert this weekend?” - “

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia. Today Jakarta has much to offer, ranging from museums, art and

Jakarta has a distinctly cosmopolitan flavor. Tantalize your taste buds with a gastronomic spree around the city’s many eateries. Like French gourmet dining, exotic Asian cuisine, American fast food, stylish cafes, restaurants all to find a way into your heart through your stomach. The taste of Indonesia’s many cultures can be found in any comer of the city: hot and spicy food from West Sumatra, sweet tastes of Dental Java, the tangy fish dishes of North Sulawesi.

(25)..................

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia. Today Jakarta has much to offer, ranging from museums, art and

Jakarta has a distinctly cosmopolitan flavor. Tantalize your taste buds with a gastronomic spree around the city’s many eateries. Like French gourmet dining, exotic Asian cuisine, American fast food, stylish cafes, restaurants all to find a way into your heart through your stomach. The taste of Indonesia’s many cultures can be found in any comer of the city: hot and spicy food from West Sumatra, sweet tastes of Dental Java, the tangy fish dishes of North Sulawesi.

(26)......................

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia. Today Jakarta has much to offer, ranging from museums, art and

Jakarta has a distinctly cosmopolitan flavor. Tantalize your taste buds with a gastronomic spree around the city’s many eateries. Like French gourmet dining, exotic Asian cuisine, American fast food, stylish cafes, restaurants all to find a way into your heart through your stomach. The taste of Indonesia’s many cultures can be found in any comer of the city: hot and spicy food from West Sumatra, sweet tastes of Dental Java, the tangy fish dishes of North Sulawesi.

(27)..................

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia. Today Jakarta has much to offer, ranging from museums, art and

Jakarta has a distinctly cosmopolitan flavor. Tantalize your taste buds with a gastronomic spree around the city’s many eateries. Like French gourmet dining, exotic Asian cuisine, American fast food, stylish cafes, restaurants all to find a way into your heart through your stomach. The taste of Indonesia’s many cultures can be found in any comer of the city: hot and spicy food from West Sumatra, sweet tastes of Dental Java, the tangy fish dishes of North Sulawesi.

(28)...................

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia. Today Jakarta has much to offer, ranging from museums, art and

Jakarta has a distinctly cosmopolitan flavor. Tantalize your taste buds with a gastronomic spree around the city’s many eateries. Like French gourmet dining, exotic Asian cuisine, American fast food, stylish cafes, restaurants all to find a way into your heart through your stomach. The taste of Indonesia’s many cultures can be found in any comer of the city: hot and spicy food from West Sumatra, sweet tastes of Dental Java, the tangy fish dishes of North Sulawesi.

(29)....................

The popularity of organic foods can be traced to many people’s nostalgia for a simpler, more pioneer-like life style. And many people believe that organic foods are safer than foods produced on a large scale by traditional methods. Many people also believe that these organic foods contain more and better nutrients than conventional food.

In fact, plants absorb all their food directly from the soil in inorganic form, no matter where the nutrients may originally have come from. Experiments in Michigan and in England that went on for twenty-five years were unable to find any difference in plants raised organically and plants raised with chemical fertilizers. Things that do affect nutrient content are climate, time of harvest, and genetics - but no difference results when plants are grown organically.

Neither are organically grown plants free from chemicals such as pesticides. Some pesticides leave traces in the soil for years; these traces may be absorbed by the plant that is “organically” grown. Rainfall may wash pesticides from neighboring farms onto “organic” fields, and sprays or other applications of chemicals may drift and cause the same problem.

Furthermore, all foods - whether grown _conventionally_ or organically - may contain toxic substances to some degree; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains constant checks to ensure that these substances are kept at a harmless level. But aflatoxin, a mold that causes cancer, may grow on crops such as peanuts, or be present in milk. Lead and arsenic are sometimes present in bone meal or seafood. And many vegetables contain poisonous compounds such as oxalic acid and nitrite compounds. The point is, all these toxins may be present in a given food, no matter how the food was grown and cultivated. Toxic substances in food do not necessarily have to come from fertilizers or chemical sprays.

This passage is mainly about

The popularity of organic foods can be traced to many people’s nostalgia for a simpler, more pioneer-like life style. And many people believe that organic foods are safer than foods produced on a large scale by traditional methods. Many people also believe that these organic foods contain more and better nutrients than conventional food.

In fact, plants absorb all their food directly from the soil in inorganic form, no matter where the nutrients may originally have come from. Experiments in Michigan and in England that went on for twenty-five years were unable to find any difference in plants raised organically and plants raised with chemical fertilizers. Things that do affect nutrient content are climate, time of harvest, and genetics - but no difference results when plants are grown organically.

Neither are organically grown plants free from chemicals such as pesticides. Some pesticides leave traces in the soil for years; these traces may be absorbed by the plant that is “organically” grown. Rainfall may wash pesticides from neighboring farms onto “organic” fields, and sprays or other applications of chemicals may drift and cause the same problem.

Furthermore, all foods - whether grown _conventionally_ or organically - may contain toxic substances to some degree; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains constant checks to ensure that these substances are kept at a harmless level. But aflatoxin, a mold that causes cancer, may grow on crops such as peanuts, or be present in milk. Lead and arsenic are sometimes present in bone meal or seafood. And many vegetables contain poisonous compounds such as oxalic acid and nitrite compounds. The point is, all these toxins may be present in a given food, no matter how the food was grown and cultivated. Toxic substances in food do not necessarily have to come from fertilizers or chemical sprays.

The popularity of organic foods can be traced to all of the following EXCEPT

The popularity of organic foods can be traced to many people’s nostalgia for a simpler, more pioneer-like life style. And many people believe that organic foods are safer than foods produced on a large scale by traditional methods. Many people also believe that these organic foods contain more and better nutrients than conventional food.

In fact, plants absorb all their food directly from the soil in inorganic form, no matter where the nutrients may originally have come from. Experiments in Michigan and in England that went on for twenty-five years were unable to find any difference in plants raised organically and plants raised with chemical fertilizers. Things that do affect nutrient content are climate, time of harvest, and genetics - but no difference results when plants are grown organically.

Neither are organically grown plants free from chemicals such as pesticides. Some pesticides leave traces in the soil for years; these traces may be absorbed by the plant that is “organically” grown. Rainfall may wash pesticides from neighboring farms onto “organic” fields, and sprays or other applications of chemicals may drift and cause the same problem.

Furthermore, all foods - whether grown _conventionally_ or organically - may contain toxic substances to some degree; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains constant checks to ensure that these substances are kept at a harmless level. But aflatoxin, a mold that causes cancer, may grow on crops such as peanuts, or be present in milk. Lead and arsenic are sometimes present in bone meal or seafood. And many vegetables contain poisonous compounds such as oxalic acid and nitrite compounds. The point is, all these toxins may be present in a given food, no matter how the food was grown and cultivated. Toxic substances in food do not necessarily have to come from fertilizers or chemical sprays.

The underlined word “_conventionally_” in the passage probably means

The popularity of organic foods can be traced to many people’s nostalgia for a simpler, more pioneer-like life style. And many people believe that organic foods are safer than foods produced on a large scale by traditional methods. Many people also believe that these organic foods contain more and better nutrients than conventional food.

In fact, plants absorb all their food directly from the soil in inorganic form, no matter where the nutrients may originally have come from. Experiments in Michigan and in England that went on for twenty-five years were unable to find any difference in plants raised organically and plants raised with chemical fertilizers. Things that do affect nutrient content are climate, time of harvest, and genetics - but no difference results when plants are grown organically.

Neither are organically grown plants free from chemicals such as pesticides. Some pesticides leave traces in the soil for years; these traces may be absorbed by the plant that is “organically” grown. Rainfall may wash pesticides from neighboring farms onto “organic” fields, and sprays or other applications of chemicals may drift and cause the same problem.

Furthermore, all foods - whether grown _conventionally_ or organically - may contain toxic substances to some degree; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains constant checks to ensure that these substances are kept at a harmless level. But aflatoxin, a mold that causes cancer, may grow on crops such as peanuts, or be present in milk. Lead and arsenic are sometimes present in bone meal or seafood. And many vegetables contain poisonous compounds such as oxalic acid and nitrite compounds. The point is, all these toxins may be present in a given food, no matter how the food was grown and cultivated. Toxic substances in food do not necessarily have to come from fertilizers or chemical sprays.

The writer’s tone in the passage is

One of Aesop's fables describing a thirsty crow which was able to drink from a half-full pitcher after raising the water level by adding pebbles may have had a basis in real life.

Scientists have found that rooks - a member of the crow family - were able to _figure out_ how to raise the water level in a laboratory container by dropping stones inside to retrieve a tasty worm floating on the surface.

The only other animal shown to be able to perform the same task is the orang-utan, which was able to grasp a floating peanut by spitting water into a tube. Scientists believe the demonstration shows that, in many respects, rooks and crows have comparable intelligence to primates when it comes to the use of tools.

"We have performed a large number of studies on both corvids (members of the crow family) and apes, and have found that the crow's performance is on a par or often superior to apes. However, it is not particularly useful to say that one species is more or less intelligent than another because often the playing fields aren't even," said Nathan Emery of Queen Mary, University of London, who carried out the work with Christopher Bird at Cambridge.

"This (study) suggests that they can not only think through complex problems requiring the use of tools, but imagine the consequences of their actions without trial-and-error learning, and create novel solutions to these problems _that_ have never been encountered before," Dr Emery said.

"This has only ever been shown in the great apes and humans and is more surprising because the birds have brains the size of walnuts and these birds do not use tools in the wild."

"We believe that intelligence in rooks and other crows evolved primarily to solve social problems, as almost all crow species live in large social groups, but they also mainly form pair bonds, like human marriages, and some of their cognitive abilities appear to have _evolved_ to help them predict what others are going to do next - so-called mind reading," Dr Emery said.

"This may have developed into understanding about the psychological properties of unseen forces that are important in using and making tools."

According to the passage, an ape is a kind of animal that

One of Aesop's fables describing a thirsty crow which was able to drink from a half-full pitcher after raising the water level by adding pebbles may have had a basis in real life.

Scientists have found that rooks - a member of the crow family - were able to _figure out_ how to raise the water level in a laboratory container by dropping stones inside to retrieve a tasty worm floating on the surface.

The only other animal shown to be able to perform the same task is the orang-utan, which was able to grasp a floating peanut by spitting water into a tube. Scientists believe the demonstration shows that, in many respects, rooks and crows have comparable intelligence to primates when it comes to the use of tools.

"We have performed a large number of studies on both corvids (members of the crow family) and apes, and have found that the crow's performance is on a par or often superior to apes. However, it is not particularly useful to say that one species is more or less intelligent than another because often the playing fields aren't even," said Nathan Emery of Queen Mary, University of London, who carried out the work with Christopher Bird at Cambridge.

"This (study) suggests that they can not only think through complex problems requiring the use of tools, but imagine the consequences of their actions without trial-and-error learning, and create novel solutions to these problems _that_ have never been encountered before," Dr Emery said.

"This has only ever been shown in the great apes and humans and is more surprising because the birds have brains the size of walnuts and these birds do not use tools in the wild."

"We believe that intelligence in rooks and other crows evolved primarily to solve social problems, as almost all crow species live in large social groups, but they also mainly form pair bonds, like human marriages, and some of their cognitive abilities appear to have _evolved_ to help them predict what others are going to do next - so-called mind reading," Dr Emery said.

"This may have developed into understanding about the psychological properties of unseen forces that are important in using and making tools."

According to the passage, we learn that

One of Aesop's fables describing a thirsty crow which was able to drink from a half-full pitcher after raising the water level by adding pebbles may have had a basis in real life.

Scientists have found that rooks - a member of the crow family - were able to _figure out_ how to raise the water level in a laboratory container by dropping stones inside to retrieve a tasty worm floating on the surface.

The only other animal shown to be able to perform the same task is the orang-utan, which was able to grasp a floating peanut by spitting water into a tube. Scientists believe the demonstration shows that, in many respects, rooks and crows have comparable intelligence to primates when it comes to the use of tools.

"We have performed a large number of studies on both corvids (members of the crow family) and apes, and have found that the crow's performance is on a par or often superior to apes. However, it is not particularly useful to say that one species is more or less intelligent than another because often the playing fields aren't even," said Nathan Emery of Queen Mary, University of London, who carried out the work with Christopher Bird at Cambridge.

"This (study) suggests that they can not only think through complex problems requiring the use of tools, but imagine the consequences of their actions without trial-and-error learning, and create novel solutions to these problems _that_ have never been encountered before," Dr Emery said.

"This has only ever been shown in the great apes and humans and is more surprising because the birds have brains the size of walnuts and these birds do not use tools in the wild."

"We believe that intelligence in rooks and other crows evolved primarily to solve social problems, as almost all crow species live in large social groups, but they also mainly form pair bonds, like human marriages, and some of their cognitive abilities appear to have _evolved_ to help them predict what others are going to do next - so-called mind reading," Dr Emery said.

"This may have developed into understanding about the psychological properties of unseen forces that are important in using and making tools."

The underlined word “_that_” in the passage refers to

One of Aesop's fables describing a thirsty crow which was able to drink from a half-full pitcher after raising the water level by adding pebbles may have had a basis in real life.

Scientists have found that rooks - a member of the crow family - were able to _figure out_ how to raise the water level in a laboratory container by dropping stones inside to retrieve a tasty worm floating on the surface.

The only other animal shown to be able to perform the same task is the orang-utan, which was able to grasp a floating peanut by spitting water into a tube. Scientists believe the demonstration shows that, in many respects, rooks and crows have comparable intelligence to primates when it comes to the use of tools.

"We have performed a large number of studies on both corvids (members of the crow family) and apes, and have found that the crow's performance is on a par or often superior to apes. However, it is not particularly useful to say that one species is more or less intelligent than another because often the playing fields aren't even," said Nathan Emery of Queen Mary, University of London, who carried out the work with Christopher Bird at Cambridge.

"This (study) suggests that they can not only think through complex problems requiring the use of tools, but imagine the consequences of their actions without trial-and-error learning, and create novel solutions to these problems _that_ have never been encountered before," Dr Emery said.

"This has only ever been shown in the great apes and humans and is more surprising because the birds have brains the size of walnuts and these birds do not use tools in the wild."

"We believe that intelligence in rooks and other crows evolved primarily to solve social problems, as almost all crow species live in large social groups, but they also mainly form pair bonds, like human marriages, and some of their cognitive abilities appear to have _evolved_ to help them predict what others are going to do next - so-called mind reading," Dr Emery said.

"This may have developed into understanding about the psychological properties of unseen forces that are important in using and making tools."

It can be inferred from the passage that the intelligence in crows

One of Aesop's fables describing a thirsty crow which was able to drink from a half-full pitcher after raising the water level by adding pebbles may have had a basis in real life.

Scientists have found that rooks - a member of the crow family - were able to _figure out_ how to raise the water level in a laboratory container by dropping stones inside to retrieve a tasty worm floating on the surface.

The only other animal shown to be able to perform the same task is the orang-utan, which was able to grasp a floating peanut by spitting water into a tube. Scientists believe the demonstration shows that, in many respects, rooks and crows have comparable intelligence to primates when it comes to the use of tools.

"We have performed a large number of studies on both corvids (members of the crow family) and apes, and have found that the crow's performance is on a par or often superior to apes. However, it is not particularly useful to say that one species is more or less intelligent than another because often the playing fields aren't even," said Nathan Emery of Queen Mary, University of London, who carried out the work with Christopher Bird at Cambridge.

"This (study) suggests that they can not only think through complex problems requiring the use of tools, but imagine the consequences of their actions without trial-and-error learning, and create novel solutions to these problems _that_ have never been encountered before," Dr Emery said.

"This has only ever been shown in the great apes and humans and is more surprising because the birds have brains the size of walnuts and these birds do not use tools in the wild."

"We believe that intelligence in rooks and other crows evolved primarily to solve social problems, as almost all crow species live in large social groups, but they also mainly form pair bonds, like human marriages, and some of their cognitive abilities appear to have _evolved_ to help them predict what others are going to do next - so-called mind reading," Dr Emery said.

"This may have developed into understanding about the psychological properties of unseen forces that are important in using and making tools."

The underlined word “_evolved_” in the passage is closest in meaning to