Test Harian Bahasa Inggris 1
Authored by Genius Club
English
University
CCSS covered
Used 4+ times
AI Actions
Add similar questions
Adjust reading levels
Convert to real-world scenario
Translate activity
More...
Content View
Student View
10 questions
Show all answers
1.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything.
However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug.
Passage 2
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin — who in 1825 confi- dently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are” — would have no trouble describing 15 cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters.
Which of the following statements best captures the relationship between the two passages?
Passage 1 notes problems for which Passage 2 proposes solutions.
Passage 1 presents claims that are debunked by Passage 2.
Passage 2 furnishes a larger context for the experiences described in Passage 1.
Passage 2 provides an update of the situation depicted in Passage 1.
Passage 2 uses material presented in Passage 1 to correct a popular misconception.
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RL.8.5
2.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything.
However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug.
Passage 2
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin — who in 1825 confi- dently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are” — would have no trouble describing 15 cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters.
The author of Passage 2 would most likely regard the mother’s willingness to “make French and Italian dishes” (passage 1) as ---
laughably pretentious
understandably conservative
typically American
a regrettable compromise
a surprising attitude
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RI.8.7
3.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything.
However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug.
Passage 2
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin — who in 1825 confi- dently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are” — would have no trouble describing 15 cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters.
The two passages differ in their discussions of food primarily in that Passage 1
considers specific dishes eaten by particular people, whereas Passage 2 comments on a culture’s general attitude toward eating
contrasts the cuisines of different cultures, whereas Passage 2 emphasizes culinary practices common to all cultures
presents an abstract theory of food, whereas Passage 2 offers a historical analysis of consumption
emphasizes the role of nostalgia in food preferences, whereas Passage 2 rejects that approach as overly sentimental
outlines some popular choices in cuisine, whereas Passage 2 underscores those that are more unusual
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RL.8.7
4.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Food has always been considered one of the most salient markers of cultural traditions. When I was a small child, food was the only thing that helped identify my family as Filipino American. We ate pansit lug-lug (a noodle dish) and my father put patis (salty fish sauce) on everything.
However, even this connection lessened as I grew older. As my parents became more acculturated, we ate less typically Filipino food. When I was twelve, my mother took cooking classes and learned to make French and Italian dishes. When I was in high school, we ate chicken marsala and shrimp fra diablo more often than Filipino dishes like pansit lug-lug.
Passage 2
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin — who in 1825 confi- dently announced, “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are” — would have no trouble describing 15 cultural identities of the United States. Our food reveals us as tolerant adventurers who do not feel constrained by tradition. We “play with our food” far more readily than we preserve the culinary rules of our varied ancestors. Americans have no single national cuisine. What unites American eaters culturally is how we eat, not what we eat. As eaters, Americans mingle the culinary traditions of many regions and cultures. We are multiethnic eaters.
Unlike the author of Passage 2, the author of Passage 1 makes significant use of
direct quotation
sociological analysis
hypothetical assumptions
historical sources
personal experience
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RL.8.5
5.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion.
Passage 2
Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist.
Which statement about the Fermi Paradox is supported by both passages?
It articulates a crucial question for those interested in the existence of Extraterrestrials.
It clarifies the astronomical conditions
required to sustain life on other planets.
It reveals the limitations of traditional
ideas about the pace of technological change.
It demonstrates the scientific
community’s fascination with the concept of interstellar travel.
It suggests that advanced
extraterrestrial civilizations may be uninterested in our culture.
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RI.8.7
6.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion.
Passage 2
Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist.
Which statement best describes a significant difference between the two passages?
Passage 1 analyzes a literary form, while Passage 2 argues that literature has little bearing on science
Passage 1 presents an argument, while
Passage 2 surveys current opinion in a debate.
Passage 1 concludes by rejecting the Fermi Paradox, while Passage 2 opens by embracing it
Passage 1 describes a phenomenon, while Passage 2 details a belief system that would reject such a phenomenon
Passage 1 defends a viewpoint, while passage 2 questions that viewpoint’s place in scientific research.
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RL.8.7
7.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
2 mins • 1 pt
Passage 1
Generations of science-fiction movies have conditioned us to consider bug-eyed monsters, large-brained intellectual humanoids, and other rather sophisticated extraterrestrial creatures as typical examples of life outside Earth. The reality, however, is that finding any kind of life at all, even something as simple as bacteria, would be one of the most exciting discoveries ever made. The consensus within the scientific community seems to be that we eventually will find not only life in other parts of the galaxy but also intelligent and technologically advanced life. I have to say that I disagree. While I believe we will find other forms of life in other solar systems (if not in our own), I also feel it is extremely unlikely that a large number of advanced technological civilizations are out there, waiting to be discovered. The most succinct support for my view comes from Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi, the man who ran the first nuclear reaction ever controlled by human beings. Confronted at a 1950 luncheon with scientific arguments for the ubiquity of technologically advanced civilizations, he supposedly said, “So where is everybody?” This so-called Fermi Paradox embodies a simple logic. Human beings have had modern science only a few hundred years, and already we have moved into space. It is not hard to imagine that in a few hundred more years we will be a starfaring people, colonizing other systems. Fermi’s argument maintains that it is extremely unlikely that many other civilizations discovered science at exactly the same time we did. Had they acquired science even a thousand years earlier than we, they now could be so much more advanced that they would already be colonizing our solar system. If, on the other hand, they are a thousand years behind us, we will likely arrive at their home planet before they even begin sending us radio signals. Technological advances build upon each other, increasing technological abilities faster than most people anticipate. Imagine, for example, how astounded even a great seventeenth-century scientist like Isaac Newton would be by our current global communication system, were he alive today. Where are those highly developed extraterrestrial civilizations so dear to the hearts of science-fiction writers? Their existence is far from a foregone conclusion.
Passage 2
Although posed in the most casual of circumstances, the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program. One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so. This is the answer of those who believe in the existence of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists, even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still believes that there are many technological civilizations in the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they attempt it, when radio communication can supply all the information they might want? At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive. The distances between stars are truly immense. To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years. And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would take almost unimaginable amounts of energy. Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s notion that technological beings would be satisfied with radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent life. But what if we have an interest in simpler life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent life but for billions of years before that they could have deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there were probably living creatures on it. They would have had billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so few exist.
The author of Passage 1 mentions “monsters,” “humanoids,” and “creatures” primarily to
question the literary value of science fiction
contrast fictional notions with a scientific perspective
offer examples of the human fear of the unknown
offer examples of the human fear of the unknown
suggest that scientific research has been influenced by science fiction
Tags
CCSS.RI. 9-10.7
CCSS.RI.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.11-12.7
CCSS.RL.9-10.7
CCSS.RL.8.7
Access all questions and much more by creating a free account
Create resources
Host any resource
Get auto-graded reports
Continue with Google
Continue with Email
Continue with Classlink
Continue with Clever
or continue with
Microsoft
%20(1).png)
Apple
Others
Already have an account?
