200 שאלות תרגול בהשוואה בין רעיונות באנגלית מתוך פרק האנגלית של הבחינה הפסיכומטרית. לכל שאלה פתרון מלא ומוסבר, ואפשר לתרגל לפי רמת קושי.
64 קלות67 בינוניות69 קשות
איך פותרים השוואה בין רעיונות באנגלית
הכלללא קוראים את הקטע ואז את השאלות. קוראים את השאלות קודם, ואז קוראים את הקטע כשאתם כבר יודעים מה אתם מחפשים - זה ההבדל בין לסיים בזמן ללא לסיים.
1עברו על השאלות ראשונות, בלי האפשרויות. שתי דקות שם חוסכות יותר משהן עולות.
2קראו את הקטע ברצף אחד. אל תעצרו על מילה לא מוכרת - ההקשר יסביר אותה, ואם לא, כנראה לא צריך אותה.
3סמנו בראש איפה כל פסקה נמצאת: על מה היא, ומה תפקידה בטיעון.
4לכל שאלה חזרו לשורה שעונה עליה. תשובה שאתם לא יכולים להצביע על המקום שלה בטקסט היא ניחוש.
המלכודתאפשרות שנכונה בעולם אבל לא נאמרה בקטע. המבחן שואל מה כתוב, לא מה נכון - וידע כללי הוא מה שמפיל כאן, במיוחד כשהנושא מוכר לכם. אם אי אפשר להצביע על השורה, זו לא התשובה.
שאלות לדוגמה
ארבע מתוך 200, עם הפתרון המלא.
שאלה 1
Read the passage:
A Masterpiece at Any Price?
When the Danish architect Jørn Utzon won the competition for a new opera house in Sydney in 1957, his entry was little more than a set of sketches: a cluster of white, sail-like shells above the harbour. The judges were captivated, but nobody yet knew how the shells could actually be built. Construction began before the design problems had been solved, and it took years of experimentation before a workable solution was found, based on deriving the curve of every shell from the surface of a single sphere.
The delays proved ruinous. Costs rose from an original estimate of about seven million dollars to more than a hundred million, and after a bitter dispute with a new state government over fees and design changes, Utzon resigned in 1966 and left Australia. The interiors were completed by other architects, and he never returned to see the finished building, which opened in 1973.
Judged by the standards of project management, the Opera House was a fiasco. Yet few now regard it as a mistake. It is among the most recognizable buildings of the twentieth century and was declared a World Heritage Site in 2007, while Utzon himself received the Pritzker Prize, architecture's highest honour, in 2003. Whether such a triumph could justify such an overrun remains debatable, but it would be hard to argue that Sydney regrets the bargain.
How does the author compare the Opera House as a project and as a building?
אAs a project it was efficient, but as a building it is rather ordinary.
בIt was praised as a project but criticized as a building.
גA failure as a project, but a triumph as a building.
דIt was cheap to build but has been costly to maintain.
הפתרון
"Judged by the standards of project management ... a fiasco" מול "such a triumph" - כישלון כפרויקט, הצלחה כמבנה.
שאלה 2
Read the passage:
A Breeze from the Sea
On a hot summer day at the beach, you may notice a cool wind blowing from the sea in the afternoon. This wind, called a sea breeze, is caused by a simple difference between land and water. The sun shines on both, but land heats up much faster than water does. By midday the sand and the ground are hot, while the sea is still fairly cool.
The warm air above the land rises, and cooler air from above the sea moves in to take its place. This moving air is the sea breeze. At night, the opposite happens. Land also cools down faster than water, so after sunset the ground becomes cooler than the sea. Now the air over the warmer sea rises, and a gentle wind blows from the land out to the sea. This is called a land breeze, and it is usually weaker than the sea breeze.
Perhaps the nicest thing about these winds is that you do not need any special equipment to study them. Anyone who spends a whole day by the sea can feel the wind change direction and watch science at work without opening a single book.
How does the land breeze compare with the sea breeze?
אIt blows in the same direction but only at night.
בIt is stronger and blows during the day.
גIt is caused by the land heating up much faster than the sea.
דIt blows the opposite way and is usually weaker.
הפתרון
משב היבשה נושב מהיבשה לים, בלילה, "usually weaker than the sea breeze". התחממות היבשה - הסיבה למשב הים.
שאלה 3
Read the passage:
From Film to Pixels
Until the end of the twentieth century, taking a photograph was a deliberate act. A roll of film typically held twenty-four or thirty-six pictures, each of which cost money to develop and print, and photographers often had to wait days before discovering whether a shot had worked. Consequently, people tended to think carefully before pressing the button, saving their film for birthdays, holidays and other special occasions.
Digital cameras, and later smartphones, removed these limits almost entirely. A single phone can now store thousands of images, each of which can be viewed instantly and deleted at no cost. The benefits are obvious: photography has become accessible to almost everyone, and beginners can learn by trial and error far more quickly than before.
Yet something may have been lost along the way. When pictures cost nothing, it is easy to take dozens of nearly identical shots and never look at any of them again. Some photographers argue that the old limits forced them to pay closer attention to light and composition. Nobody seriously suggests returning to film for everyday use, but it may be worth borrowing one of its habits: taking fewer pictures, and taking them with more care.
According to the passage, how did film photography differ from digital photography?
אFilm pictures could be seen instantly, while digital ones took days to see.
בFilm pictures cost money each; digital ones cost nothing.
גA film roll held thousands of pictures, while a phone holds only a few dozen.
דFilm was used by almost everyone, while digital cameras are used mainly by experts.
הפתרון
בפילם כל תמונה עלתה כסף לפיתוח; בדיגיטל "deleted at no cost". שאר האפשרויות הופכות את הנתונים.
שאלה 4
Read the passage:
The Secret of the Violins
The violins made by Antonio Stradivari in Cremona, Italy, about three hundred years ago are among the most valuable musical instruments in the world, and some have sold for millions of dollars. For generations, musicians and instrument makers have tried to explain their supposedly unmatched sound. Theories have pointed to the special varnish Stradivari used, to chemical treatments of the wood, and even to a period of unusually cold weather that may have made trees grow slowly and produce denser wood.
In recent years, however, researchers have tested a more basic assumption: that the old instruments really do sound better. In several blind experiments, experienced violinists played old Italian violins and high-quality new ones while wearing goggles that prevented them from seeing which was which. Many were unable to identify the old instruments reliably, and a number actually preferred the new ones. Listeners in concert halls showed a similar pattern.
None of this proves that the famous violins are ordinary. They are beautifully made, and a player's confidence in an instrument may itself affect a performance. What the tests do suggest is that part of their reputation may come from their history and price rather than from their sound alone. Before searching for a secret, it is worth making sure there is something to explain.
According to the passage, how did the old violins compare with the new ones in the blind tests?
אPlayers often could not tell them apart; some preferred the new.
בPlayers easily recognized the old ones and preferred their sound.
גThe new violins sounded better only to listeners in concert halls.
דThe old violins sounded better, but only in the hands of experienced players.
הפתרון
"Many were unable to identify the old instruments reliably, and a number actually preferred the new ones"; גם המאזינים הראו דפוס דומה.