IELTS LESSON 1
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 do 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 các 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 do 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 các 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 trong bảng -> Xác định đoạn văn
Xác định từ loại dựa vào các từ khác có cùng phân loại trong bảng
Đọc kĩ đề bài xem điền mấy 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)
.