200 שאלות תרגול במידע שניתן להסיק מהקטע באנגלית מתוך פרק האנגלית של הבחינה הפסיכומטרית. לכל שאלה פתרון מלא ומוסבר, ואפשר לתרגל לפי רמת קושי.
64 קלות70 בינוניות66 קשות
איך פותרים מידע שניתן להסיק מהקטע 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:
Why Your Recorded Voice Sounds Strange
Many people are surprised, and even a little upset, when they hear a recording of their own voice for the first time. It often sounds higher and thinner than they expected, and some refuse to believe that it is really them. Yet their friends and family will say that the recording sounds exactly like the person they know.
The reason is that we hear our own voice in two different ways. When we speak, sound travels through the air to our ears, just as it does when we listen to other people. At the same time, the vibrations of our voice also travel through the bones of our head directly to the inner ear. These vibrations make the lower sounds seem stronger, so our voice sounds deeper and fuller to us than it really is.
You can test this with a simple experiment. Put your fingers in your ears and hum. The sound seems louder, because now you are hearing it mostly through your bones. A microphone, however, picks up only the sound that travels through the air. This means that the voice on the recording is the one that everyone else hears, while the voice in our head is heard by nobody but ourselves.
It can be inferred that people are surprised by recordings of their voice because -
אthe recording contains more low sounds than their real voice
בthey are used to a version of their voice others never hear
גtheir friends usually describe their voice incorrectly
דmicrophones cannot pick up any of the sound that travels through the air
הפתרון
הם רגילים לקול ששומעים דרך העצמות - "heard by nobody but ourselves" - ולכן ההקלטה נשמעת זרה. ההקלטה דווקא דלה יותר בצלילים נמוכים.
שאלה 2
Read the passage:
Reading a Rainbow
A rainbow can appear only when two conditions are met: the sun must be shining, and there must be raindrops in the air in front of the observer. An observer looking at a rainbow always has the sun behind them. For this reason, rainbows are most often seen in the early morning or late afternoon, when the sun is low and a shower is passing on the opposite side of the sky.
The colours are produced inside each raindrop. When sunlight enters a drop, it bends, or refracts, and because each colour bends by a slightly different amount, white light is separated into its components. The light then reflects off the back of the drop and bends again as it leaves. Red light emerges at an angle of about 42 degrees from the point directly opposite the sun, and violet at a slightly smaller angle, so the bow always has red on the outside and violet on the inside.
Sometimes a fainter second bow appears outside the first. It is produced by light that reflects twice inside the drops, and its colours are reversed, with red on the inside. The sky between the two bows looks noticeably darker. Since the angles depend on the position of the observer's eyes, no two people ever see exactly the same rainbow; each sees light from a different set of drops.
It can be inferred from the passage that a rainbow is unlikely to be seen -
אin the early morning, after a shower
בwhen the sun is behind the observer
גat midday, when the sun is high in the sky
דwhen rain is falling in front of the observer
הפתרון
קשתות נראות בעיקר "when the sun is low", ולכן בצהריים, כשהשמש גבוהה, הסיכוי נמוך. שאר המצבים הם דווקא התנאים לקשת.
שאלה 3
Read the passage:
Do Old Windows Flow?
Visitors to medieval churches are sometimes told that the panes in the windows are thicker at the bottom because glass is really a very slow-moving liquid that has sagged under gravity over the centuries. The explanation is appealing, and it contains a grain of truth: glass is an amorphous solid, lacking the orderly crystalline structure of, say, ice or metal, and physicists still debate how best to classify it. As an account of the windows, however, it collapses under scrutiny.
The irregularities are far better explained by how the panes were made. Before modern techniques, window glass was often produced by spinning a blob of molten glass into a large disc, which inevitably varied in thickness, and glaziers generally, though not invariably, set the heavier edge at the bottom. Panes installed thick side up do exist, which is hard to reconcile with centuries of downward flow. Moreover, if glass flowed perceptibly at room temperature, ancient Roman glassware and centuries-old telescope lenses, whose precise shapes remain intact, would have deformed long ago.
Calculations based on the viscosity of glass settle the matter: at ordinary temperatures, noticeable flow in a window would take far longer than the age of the universe. The myth persists, perhaps, because it offers a vivid explanation for a real observation, which is more than can be said for the mundane truth.
It can be inferred that the author regards the true explanation for the uneven panes as -
אless memorable than the myth it replaces
בstill a matter of debate among physicists
גmore vivid than the popular myth
דapplicable only to Roman glass
הפתרון
המיתוס "vivid", "which is more than can be said for the mundane truth" - האמת משעממת יותר. הוויכוח בין הפיזיקאים נוגע לסיווג הזכוכית, לא לחלונות.
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.
It can be inferred from the passage that the accounts of Kuleshov and Pudovkin -
אwere written while the experiment was under way
בagree with each other on every detail
גwere based on modern controlled studies
דcannot be checked against the original film
הפתרון
הסרט המקורי אבד, ולכן אי אפשר להשוות אליו את התיאורים. הם נכתבו "years afterwards" ו-"differing in their details".