Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
Các bạn liên hệ gmail: grint.ntngmail.com để lấy file nghe nhé. Mình hiện tại đang làm gia sư dạy IELTS nên đăng tài liệu lên đây cho mọi người tham khảo luôn. Điểm IELTS của mình là 8.0 nên mong rằng sẽ giúp ích được ai đó.
IELTS LESSON So you think you don’t ever (1) _? Life just moves forward In (2) , negotiating is someone else’s job, right? For you, it’s just a “discussion.” And when you (3) _ and (4) _ to settle with your family, that’s just a discussion, too Right? Hardly No matter what you in today’s (5) (and personal) world, every day you’ll (6) you need or want Not just things, but also (7) Discuss them? Yes, it starts with that But you’re not just discussing—you’re (8) You’re working out an agreement That agreement can be in the interest of your (9) , your workgroup’s achievement, or your organization’s achievement as a whole You want to go get it (10) _ Especially if you have to give up something—and the other party has to give up something—to (11) At its roots, negotiation is the (12) _ —the process— of getting what you want This chapter describes further what negotiation is (and isn’t), how it (13) _ and organizational context, and what is (and isn’t) new about negotiation today What Negotiation Is, What It Means, and Why Say you run a video production business: Filmographic Productions Through that business you make some of the best video “shorts” in town You make (14) _, short training and awareness pieces for business and nonprofit entities, and occasionally some cinema-quality shots for movie producers You have two employees and an array of contractors (hàng loạt nhà thầu) who help out from time to time You hire actors Occasionally you hire outside editors But when someone asks you about your (15) , you laugh “I don’t negotiate,” you proclaim Think again So you think you don’t ever have to negotiate? Life just moves forward In business, negotiating is someone else’s job, right? For you, it’s just a “discussion.” And when you get home from work and have issues to settle with your family, that’s just a discussion, too Right? Hardly No matter what you in today’s fast-paced business (and personal) world, every day you’ll encounter things you need or want Not just things, but also behaviors and actions Discuss them? Yes, it starts with that But you’re not just discussing—you’re working out a deal You’re working out an agreement Fast-paced business: kinh doanh phát triển đến chóng mặt That agreement can be in the interest of your own individual achievement, your workgroup’s achievement, or your organization’s achievement as a whole You want to go get it That requires negotiation Especially if you have to give up something—and the other party has to give up something—to reach an agreement At its roots, negotiation is the art and science—the process—of getting what you want This chapter describes further what negotiation is (and isn’t), how it fits into today’s business and organizational context, and what is (and isn’t) new about negotiation today What Negotiation Is, What It Means, and Why Say you run a video production business: Filmographic Productions Through that business you make some of the best video “shorts” in town You make excellent local commercials, short training and awareness pieces for business and nonprofit entities, and occasionally some cinema-quality shots for movie producers You have two employees and an array of contractors (hàng loạt nhà thầu) who help out from time to time You hire actors Occasionally you hire outside editors But when someone asks you about your negotiating skills, you laugh “I don’t negotiate,” you proclaim Think again B2 Listening Practice The Arc de Triomphe stands in formal gardens True False 2 The author recommends the Champs Elysees to tourists visiting Paris True False 3 The shops no longer sell quality products True False 4 Welldressed men are hired by stores to greet female shoppers True False 5 People can pay to hire a sports car on the Champs Elysees True False 6 The speaker thinks the sports cars in the Champs Elysees look elegant True False 7 The Champs Elysees is more romantic by night than by day True False 8 You can hear loud accordion music on the Champs Elysees at night True False 9 Hardly any of the people who frequent the Champs Elysees are French True False 10 The Champs Elysees is a popular place to see lights at Christmas True False Paris. There’s the (1) Louvre, the (2) Ile de la Cite, the (3) _ Notre Dame, the (4) _ Eiffel Tower and there’s the Champs Elysees. It was, and remains (5) of town planning, as the wide, treelined boulevard stretches from the (6) _ at one end towards the Arc de Triomphe at the other. The thoroughfare has long been considered classic France; the place where Parisians stroll beneath the plane trees, (7) _ and window shop in the (8) _, and by night, lovers promenade in the (9) . IELTS Reading: Table completion Cách làm: - Đọc kĩ từ khóa bảng -> Xác định đoạn văn Xác định từ loại dựa vào từ khác có phân loại bảng Đọc kĩ đề xem điền từ Luyện tập Ex1 Geoengineering Under the Paris Agreement, governments have pledged to keep average global warming to “well below” 2°C above preindustrial levels and to try to limit maximum warming to 1.5°C. Many see these targets as wishful thinking: the planet is already roughly 1°C warmer than it was in preindustrial times, global greenhouse gas emissions are still on the rise and national pledges to cut them fall short of what is needed to hit the 2°C target, let alone 1.5°C Faced with this, some think there is a need to turn down the global thermostat using geoengineering. This encompasses a range of possibilities, including technologies that suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and others that block incoming solar energy. One concern, however, is that these methods do not deal with the cause of the problem: greenhousegas emissions Among the most controversial but also effective and affordable geoengineering options are planetary sunshades. By using highflying aircraft, for instance, to spray a fine mist of mineral or manmade particles into the upper stratosphere, a portion of the sun’s incoming energy could be bounced back out into space before it gets a chance to warm the planet. The decadesold idea is inspired by large volcanic eruptions, like that of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, which cooled global temperatures by up to 0.5°C for four years. That event demonstrated that relatively simple sunshades could have a significant effect on global temperatures. Indeed, while climate models project that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could cause between 1.5°C and 4°C of global warming, the models also suggest that it is theoretically possible to reduce temperatures by an equal amount using a sunshade But there are challenges. Stratospheric particles eventually fall back to Earth in rain, so the effect is shortlived. A sunshade would need to be continually resupplied, which is one reason for an international governance framework. If a sunshade were allowed to dissipate while atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained high, global temperatures would rapidly shoot up, with devastating consequences in some regions of the world. Another problem is the effect of solar geoengineering on the water cycle. Over the past decade, several studies have suggested that sunshades could have a disproportionateeffect on rainfall, bringing drought to some regions. But that argument may be oversimplified, according to the new study published in Nature Climate Change So far, most studies have modelled a “fully” geoengineered world in which CO2 concentrations are doubled compared with current or preindustrial levels, and all the resulting warming is counterbalanced by a stratospheric sunshade. Instead, Peter Irvine of Harvard University and his colleagues simulated a partial sunshade. They were able to eliminate half the warming effect of doubled CO2 concentrations while stabilising the water cycle. In a warmer world, due to greenhouse gas emissions, the water cycle is intensified, making drier regions drier and wetter regions wetter, leading to floods and droughts. In their modelled “halfwarmed” world, Dr Irvine and his colleagues found that both temperature and precipitation extremes were moderated, which should lead to fewer droughts and floods. The team also looked at how solar geoengineering would affect tropical cyclones. Doubling CO2 concentrations compared with presentday levels increased the cumulative intensity of all tropical cyclones by 17.6%. The partial sunshade brought that increase down to 2.4%. Limitations in the model made it impossible to see if this benefit was equally distributed across different regions, such as the Pacific and the Atlantic Another geoengineering option is to spray aerosols high in the stratosphere a technique known as “stratospheric aerosol injection” – which could cool the planet in a similar way to a large volcanic eruption. When a volcano erupts, it sends an ash cloud high into the atmosphere. The sulphur dioxide released in the plume combines with water to form sulfuric acid aerosols, which reflect away incoming sunlight, temporarily cooling the Earth. Artificially introducing aerosols into the atmosphere – via a plane or a highaltitude balloon – could have a similar cooling effect. The idea has never been tested, but previous research using computer simulations suggests that releasing aerosols could help limit global temperature rise to 1.5C. However, an aerosol sunshade would not protect the planet from rising CO2 emissions – which is causing oceans to become more acidic and crops to become less nutritious, among other problems The new study, published in Nature Geoscience, identifies, for the first time, another potential downfall of the proposed technique: it may not be able to limit warming in the deep ocean. This is because aerosol release could cause rainfall to decrease in some regions, which could influence ocean circulation patterns. The explanation involves two key stages. In the first, the aerosols reduce the amount of rainfall that occurs globally. This change in rainfall is not uniform. In fact, reductions are larger in some key regions – namely, the northern Atlantic Ocean – and this increases the salinity of those ocean areas, making the water more dense. This increase in water density could cause the “Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation” (AMOC) to speed up, The AMOC is a perpetual conveyor belt that transports heat from the equator up to the North Atlantic. It is part of a wider network of global ocean circulations patterns that transports heat all around the world The idea of engineering the climate in order to limit sunlight has been debated by scientists and politicians for more than 50 years, but – apart from studies based on computer simulations – very little field research has been carried out. Some fear that a geoengineered world could come with its own set of environmental and societal challenges, which they say could be comparable to – or even worse than – climate change This reading practice simulates one part of the IELTS Academic Reading test You should spend about twenty minutes on it Read the passage and answer questions 15-26 Questions 15-20 Complete the table below Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each answer Write your answers in 15-20 on your answer sheet Problem Note Gas emissions Promises made to reduce gas emissions (15) Planetary Sunshades (16) come back to this planet Planetary Sunshades A (17) the amount of rain Stratospheric aerosol injection Gives no protection Geoengineering Use of geoengineering Mist is used to bounce sunlight back In a model word, (18) on from (19) is stabilized Introduction of atomized liquid into the atmosphere Does not prevent heating in (20) Ex2 Environmental Management The role of governments in environmental management is difficult but inescapable. Sometimes, the state tries to manage the resources it owns and does so badly. Often, however, governments act in an even more harmful way. They actually subsidize the exploitation and consumption of natural resources. A whole range of policies, from farm price support to protection for coalmining, do environmental damage and (often) make no economic sense. Scrapping them offers a twofold bonus: a cleaner environment and a more efficient economy. Growth and environmentalism can actually go hand in hand if politicians have the courage to confront the vested interest that subsidies create No activity affects more of the earth's surface than farming. It shapes a third of the planet's land area, not counting Antarctica, and that amount of land is increasing. World food output per head rose by 4 percent between the 1970s and 1980s. This was mainly as a result of increases in yields from land already in cultivation, but it was also due to larger amounts of land being farmed. Higher yields were achieved by increased irrigation, better crop breeding, and doubling the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in the 1970s and 1980s All these activities may have damaging environmental impacts. For example, clearing land for agriculture is the single largest cause of deforestation. Additionally, chemical fertilisers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies, while more intensive farming practices of constantly farming the land tend to exacerbate soil erosion. Finally, the spread of monoculture and use of highyielding varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of crops which might have provided some insurance against pests or diseases in the future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United States, which has taken the most precise measurements, discovered in 1982 that about onefifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soil's productivity. The country subsequently undertook a farming program aimed to convert 11 percent of its agricultural land to meadows or forests. Meanwhile, topsoil in India and China is vanishing at a much faster rate than in the United States Government policies have frequently made the environmental damage that farming can cause even worse. In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense: about $250 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre, a farmer's easiest option is to use more of the most readily available inputs: fertilizers and pesticides. Fertiliser use doubled in Denmark in the period 19601985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 percent. The quantity of pesticides applied has also risen. For example, pesticide use was up by 69 percent in 19751984 in Denmark, with a rise of 115 percent in the frequency of application in the three years following 1981. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, people began making some efforts to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which stopped supporting farming subsidies in 1984. A study conducted in 1993 on environmental effects found that ending fertilizer subsidies resulted in a decline in fertilizer use (this was made worse by the decline in world commodity prices, which cut income for farms). The removal of subsidies also stopped land clearing and excess farming, which were the principal causes of erosion at that time. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was the subsidy to manage soil erosion In other countries, including the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to stop farming on it. It may sound strange, but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries, they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide than coal or oil and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidized and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops In poor countries, governments aggravate other sorts of damage. Subsidies for pesticides and artificial fertilizers encourage farmers to use greater quantities than are needed to get the highest economic crop yield. A study by the International Rice Research Institute of pesticide use by farmers in South East Asia found that, with pestresistant varieties of rice, even moderate applications of pesticide frequently cost farmers more than they saved. Such waste puts farmers on a chemical treadmill: bugs and weeds become resistant to poisons, so next year's poisons must be more lethal. One cost is to human health, as every year some 10,000 people die from pesticide poisoning, almost all of them in the developing countries, and another 400,000 become seriously ill. As for artificial fertilizers, their use worldwide increased by 40 per cent per unit of farmed land between the mid1970s and late 1980s, mostly in the developing countries. Overuse of fertilizers may cause farmers to stop rotating crops or stop farming the land. That, in turn, may make soil erosion worse As a result of the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations, there is likely to be a reduction of 36 per cent in the average levels of farm subsidies paid by rich countries in 19861990. Some of the world's food production will move from Western Europe to regions where subsidies are lower or nonexistent, such as former communist countries and parts of the developing world. Some environmentalists worry about this outcome. It will undoubtedly mean more pressure to convert natural habitat into farmland. But it will also have many desirable environmental effects. The intensity of farming in the developed world may decline, and the use of chemical inputs will diminish. Crops are more likely to be grown in the environments to which they are naturally suited. And more farmers in poor countries will have the money and the incentive to manage their land in ways that are sustainable in the long run. To feed an increasingly hungry world, farmers need every incentive to use their soil and water effectively and efficiently Questions 26-28 Complete the table using the list of words, A-I, below A Soil erosion B Clearing land for cultivation C Increased use of chemical inputs D Increased irrigation E Disappearance of old plant varieties F Insurance against pests and diseases G More intensive farming H Abandonment of fallow period I Deforestation Agricultural practice Environmental damage that may result (26) Soil erosion Expansion of monoculture (27) (28) Degraded water supply IELTS LISTENING PRACTICE Questions 33-35 Choose the correct letter, A, B, or C Write your answers in boxes 33-35 on your answer sheet 33. According to the first speaker, the focus of the lecture series is on A. balancing study and social life B. maintaining a healthy lifestyle C. coping with stress 34. The lecture will be given by A. a member of the Student Union B. a health expert C. a medical student 35. According to the second speaker, this week’s lecture is on A. campus food B. dieting C. sensible eating Questions 36-40 Complete the notes below Write NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS for each answer A balanced diet: A balanced diet will give you enough vitamins for a healthy life Vitamins in food can be lost from a poor (36) Types of vitamins: (a) (37) vitamins stored by the body (b) Watersoluble vitamins not stored, need to be (38) Points to note: The nutritional value of fresh food soon (39) Foods such as dairy products should not be eaten on a (40) ... also risen. For example, pesticide use was up by 69 percent in? ?19 75? ?19 84 in Denmark, with a rise of? ?11 5 percent in the frequency of application in the three years following? ?19 81. In the late? ?19 80s and early? ?19 90s, people began making some efforts to reduce farm subsidies. ... inputs: fertilizers and pesticides. Fertiliser use doubled in Denmark in the period? ?19 60? ?19 85 and increased in The Netherlands by? ?15 0 percent. The quantity of pesticides applied has also risen. For example, pesticide use was up by 69 percent in? ?19 75? ?19 84 in Denmark, with ... discovered in? ?19 82 that about onefifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soil's productivity. The country subsequently undertook a farming program aimed to convert? ?11 percent of its agricultural land to meadows or forests. Meanwhile,