200 שאלות תרגול בעמדת הכותב באנגלית מתוך פרק האנגלית של הבחינה הפסיכומטרית. לכל שאלה פתרון מלא ומוסבר, ואפשר לתרגל לפי רמת קושי.
64 קלות68 בינוניות68 קשות
איך פותרים עמדת הכותב 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:
Losing the Night Sky
For most of human history, anyone could look up on a clear night and see thousands of stars and the pale band of the Milky Way. Today, many people have never seen it. The reason is light pollution: the glow from street lamps, advertisements, car parks and buildings that spreads into the sky and hides the stars. In the centre of a large city, a person may see only a few dozen of the brightest stars.
Light pollution is not only a problem for people who enjoy the stars. It also confuses animals. Many birds that travel at night can lose their way around brightly lit buildings. Newly hatched sea turtles normally find the sea by moving towards the brighter horizon over the water, but near a lit road they may crawl towards the lights instead.
The good news is that this kind of pollution is one of the easiest to fix. Unlike smoke in the air or plastic in the ocean, it disappears the moment a light is switched off. Lamps that point downwards instead of up into the sky, lights that turn off when nobody needs them, and softer, less bright bulbs can all make a real difference. Some towns have already made these changes, and their residents can once again enjoy a sky full of stars.
The author believes that light pollution -
אcan be reduced fairly easily
בharms only people who enjoy the stars
גis harder to solve than plastic in the ocean
דcannot be solved unless all lights are switched off
הפתרון
"one of the easiest to fix". הכותב מציין במפורש שהבעיה פוגעת גם בבעלי חיים, ושהיא קלה יותר מפלסטיק בים.
שאלה 2
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.
Which statement would the author most likely agree with?
אPhotographers should go back to using film cameras for their everyday pictures.
בFewer, more careful pictures would help digital photographers.
גDigital photography has brought no real benefits to beginners.
דFilm was better than digital photography because it was cheaper.
הפתרון
"it may be worth borrowing one of its habits: taking fewer pictures". הכותב שולל חזרה לפילם ומציין יתרונות ברורים לדיגיטל.
שאלה 3
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 author would most likely agree that Wegener's critics -
אrejected his theory purely out of personal prejudice
בwere right to claim that his evidence was far too weak
גlater proved that his mechanisms were correct
דreached the wrong conclusion but asked a fair question
הפתרון
הכותב: "not unreasonable in demanding a mechanism", אך התאוריה התבררה כנכונה. הראיות דווקא "compelling", והמנגנונים שהציע היו חלשים מדי.
שאלה 4
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.
The author's view of the Opera House is that it -
אwas well managed, as its later fame shows
בcost so much that it should never have been built
גwas badly managed, yet proved to be of lasting value
דhad its design problems solved before building began
הפתרון
"a fiasco" מבחינת ניהול, אבל "few now regard it as a mistake". הבנייה החלה לפני שנפתרו הבעיות.