Build your iBT score with a fresh Reading, Listening, Speaking, or Writing question every day.
According to the professor, what significant event happened in 1992?
"The first exoplanet orbiting a Sun-like star was discovered" is incorrect because the professor clearly states this happened in 1995 with 51 Pegasi b, not in 1992. "PSR B1257+12 was identified as a new type of star" is incorrect. While PSR B1257+12 is a pulsar, the significant event in 1992 was the *discovery of planets orbiting it*, not the identification of the pulsar itself as a new type of star. The pulsar served as the host star for the discovered exoplanets. "Astronomers began to theorize about planets outside our solar system" is incorrect because the professor mentions that "For centuries, their existence was purely theoretical," indicating that theorizing began much earlier than 1992.
What is the main topic of the lecture?
Distractor 1 is incorrect because while volcanic eruptions and wildfires are used as examples of disturbances that initiate succession, they are not the main subject of the entire lecture. The lecture focuses on the *process* that follows such disturbances. Distractor 2 is incorrect because pioneer species are only one component, albeit an important one, of the overall process of ecological succession. The lecture covers the entire sequence of changes, not just the initial stage. Distractor 3 is incorrect because while the professor briefly mentions that understanding succession is crucial for predicting ecosystem recovery and managing conservation, this is stated as a consequence or application of understanding succession, not the primary focus or main topic of the lecture itself.
Which of the following best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence from the lecture?
The statement "Economists believe automation generates economic growth and new skilled jobs, even as it causes some job losses" accurately summarizes the essential information from the highlighted sentence. The sentence explicitly states that while automation "eliminates some jobs," it also "creates new roles and increases productivity, thereby fostering overall economic growth and new opportunities for skilled labor." The option suggesting that "The primary effect of automation, according to economists, is the displacement of human workers across most sectors" is incorrect because the highlighted text emphasizes a more nuanced economic impact, not solely job displacement. Similarly, the choice claiming "Automation's main benefit is increased productivity, but it does not lead to the creation of entirely new types of jobs" directly contradicts the mention of "creates new roles" and "new opportunities for skilled labor." Lastly, the answer asserting that "Economists contend that automation will primarily impact only routine tasks, leaving complex jobs largely untouched" misrepresents the focus of the highlighted sentence, which is on broader economic growth and job creation, not just the scope of tasks affected.
The word "stipulate" in the passage is closest in meaning to
"Predict with certainty" is incorrect because the professor is not foretelling an event; she is declaring a policy and its outcome. While the result (failing grade) is certain if the condition (plagiarism) occurs, the act of 'stipulating' is about setting the condition itself. "Suggest as an option" is wrong because the professor's statement is a firm rule, not a flexible suggestion. Academic policies, especially concerning plagiarism, are typically mandatory. "Review in detail" is also incorrect because 'stipulate' means to state a requirement, not to examine or explain something thoroughly. While the professor's statement is detailed, the specific action of 'stipulating' is about laying down the rule.
You will hear: "The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology, profoundly revolutionizing gene editing, presents both unparalleled opportunities for treating genetic disorders and complex ethical dilemmas concerning germline modification."
Options[1] is incorrect because it simplifies the original sentence by omitting key adverbs and adjectives such as 'profoundly' and 'unparalleled,' and replaces 'complex ethical dilemmas' with 'ethical dilemmas' and 'germline modification' with the less precise 'modifying genes.' This simplification diminishes the academic rigor and specific details of the original statement. Options[2] is incorrect as it involves extensive lexical substitution, replacing several academic terms with simpler synonyms (e.g., 'advent' with 'arrival,' 'profoundly revolutionizing' with 'which changes,' 'unparalleled opportunities' with 'many chances,' 'complex ethical dilemmas' with 'big ethical problems,' and 'germline modification' with 'gene alteration'). Such widespread substitution fundamentally alters the original meaning and tone. Options[3] is incorrect due to a grammatical error: the redundant inclusion of 'it' after the initial subject phrase ('The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology, profoundly revolutionizing gene editing') creates an ungrammatical structure, commonly known as a pleonastic pronoun error, which deviates from the original grammatically correct sentence.