200 שאלות תרגול במטרת פסקה באנגלית מתוך פרק האנגלית של הבחינה הפסיכומטרית. לכל שאלה פתרון מלא ומוסבר, ואפשר לתרגל לפי רמת קושי.
68 קלות66 בינוניות66 קשות
איך פותרים מטרת פסקה 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:
The Iron Lady of Paris
When Gustave Eiffel's company won the competition to build a monument for the 1889 World's Fair in Paris, not everyone was pleased. In 1887, while construction was under way, a group of well-known artists and writers published a letter of protest in a Paris newspaper, describing the planned tower as useless and monstrous and arguing that it would overshadow the city's historic buildings. Their objections, however, did little to slow the work. Built from thousands of iron parts held together by millions of rivets, the tower was completed in about two years and, at roughly 300 metres, became the tallest structure in the world.
The tower's troubles did not end when the fair closed. Eiffel had been given permission to keep it for only twenty years, after which it could have been taken down. Aware of the danger, he worked hard to show that it served a practical purpose, encouraging scientific experiments on it, from weather observations to studies of air resistance. Most importantly, it proved to be an excellent support for radio antennas, and its value for communications, particularly to the military, helped secure its future. Today it is hard to imagine Paris without the structure that some of its most respected citizens once opposed.
The second paragraph mainly serves to -
אdescribe the protest against the tower's construction
בshow that the tower was built very quickly
גexplain why Eiffel's company won the competition
דexplain how the tower avoided being taken down
הפתרון
פסקה 2: היתר ל-20 שנה בלבד, ואייפל הוכיח שימושיות (ניסויים, אנטנות רדיו). המחאה ומהירות הבנייה - פסקה 1.
שאלה 2
Read the passage:
Drifting Continents
In 1912 the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents had once formed a single landmass and had since drifted apart. His evidence was varied and, in retrospect, compelling: the coastlines of South America and Africa fit together remarkably well; fossils of the same plants and land animals appear on continents now separated by oceans; and rock formations and traces of ancient glaciers line up across the Atlantic. Yet for decades most geologists dismissed the idea, some with open contempt.
It is tempting to read this as a simple tale of narrow-minded experts, but the reality is more nuanced. Wegener could not explain what force could push continents through the solid ocean floor, and the mechanisms he did suggest were shown by physicists to be far too weak. His critics were thus not unreasonable in demanding a mechanism before accepting so radical a claim. What was missing was not evidence of movement but an account of how movement was possible.
That account emerged only after Wegener's death in 1930, on an expedition to Greenland. In the 1950s and 1960s, surveys of the ocean floor revealed that new crust forms along mid-ocean ridges and spreads outwards, carrying the continents with it. By the late 1960s, continental drift, reframed as plate tectonics, had become the foundation of modern geology.
The main purpose of the second paragraph is to -
אshow that the critics' rejection was not unreasonable
בlist the evidence Wegener used to support his theory
גdescribe the discovery that finally confirmed the theory
דargue that the geologists of Wegener's time were simply narrow-minded
הפתרון
הפסקה דוחה את סיפור "המומחים צרי האופק": למבקרים הייתה סיבה - לא היה מנגנון. הראיות - פסקה 1; האישוש - פסקה 3.
שאלה 3
Read the passage:
Lightning and Thunder
During a storm, you usually see a flash of lightning first and hear the thunder a few seconds later. Many children believe that the two happen at different times, but in fact they happen at the same moment. Lightning is a giant electric spark, and it heats the air around it until it is hotter than the surface of the sun. The air expands so quickly that it makes a loud bang, and that bang is thunder.
We notice the flash first for a simple reason: light travels much faster than sound. Light from the flash reaches our eyes almost immediately, while sound needs about three seconds to travel one kilometre. This difference gives us an easy way to find out how far away a storm is. Count the seconds between the flash and the thunder, then divide the number by three. If you count nine seconds, the lightning struck about three kilometres away.
Counting can also tell you whether a storm is coming closer. If the gap becomes shorter each time, the storm is moving towards you. However, experts advise people to go indoors as soon as they hear any thunder at all, because lightning can strike far from the centre of a storm.
The main purpose of the third paragraph is to -
אexplain why light travels so much faster than sound
בdescribe what lightning is and why it makes a bang
גgive safety advice and another use of counting
דcorrect a mistaken belief that children have about thunder
הפתרון
הפסקה השלישית: ספירה מראה אם הסערה מתקרבת + עצה להיכנס הביתה. מהירות האור - פסקה 2; התיקון של האמונה השגויה - פסקה 1.
שאלה 4
Read the passage:
The Face and the Cut
Film-makers have long invoked the so-called Kuleshov effect as proof that meaning in cinema is created as much in the editing room as in front of the camera. According to the usual account, the Soviet director Lev Kuleshov, around 1920, took a shot of the actor Ivan Mosjoukine's deliberately expressionless face and intercut it with images of a bowl of soup, a child in a coffin and a woman lying on a sofa. Audiences are said to have praised the actor's subtle portrayal of hunger, grief and desire respectively, unaware that the face was identical in every case.
The anecdote is so neat that it has rarely been questioned, yet its evidential basis is surprisingly thin. The original footage has not survived, and the descriptions we have come largely from Kuleshov and his student Vsevolod Pudovkin, written years afterwards and differing in their details. Modern attempts to recreate the experiment under controlled conditions have produced mixed results.
None of this renders the underlying insight worthless. That viewers read faces in the light of their surroundings is plausible and, to some degree, supported by research. But the celebrated demonstration may be better understood as a parable about editing than as an experiment in any rigorous sense, and its persistence says as much about film-makers' fondness for a good story as about the psychology of perception.
The third paragraph serves mainly to -
אpresent the traditional account of the experiment
בadmit what remains valid despite the criticism
גlist the weaknesses in the evidence
דdescribe a new experiment that fully confirmed Kuleshov's effect
הפתרון
"None of this renders the underlying insight worthless" - הפסקה מסייגת את הביקורת. התיאור המקורי - פסקה 1; החולשות - פסקה 2.