[2022] Trường THPT Kim Liên - Đề thi thử THPT QG năm 2022 môn Tiếng Anh

She managed to express her thoughts to the interviewer

She never wants to become his wife. I'm sure she will

Since the beginning of April, Sam Son Flower Festival has attracted thousands of

As many as 49.743 people in 19 provinces and cities across Vietnam

The faster we walk,

This is a picture of a/an

The students are excited

The injury

She completed the remaining work at her office in great

I can't go out this morning. I'm up to my

On April 10^th, the advertisement for Vinfast VF-e36 model car on CNN instantly caught

When I went out, the sun

She's beautiful,

The secretary will have finished the preparations for the meeting

Ted and Kate are talking about the school curriculum.

- Ted: "Swimming should be made part of the school curriculum."

- Kate: “

Tom is talking to John, his new classmate, in the classroom.

- Tom: "How did you get here?”

- John: “

Imaginary friends in early childhood

Many children have an imaginary friend – that is a friend they have invented. It was once thought that only children

There is no firm evidence to say that having an imaginary friend us anything about what a child will be like in the future. One of research, though, has suggested that adults who once had imaginary friends may be more creative than those who did not.

Imaginary friends in early childhood

Many children have an imaginary friend – that is a friend they have invented. It was once thought that only children

There is no firm evidence to say that having an imaginary friend us anything about what a child will be like in the future. One of research, though, has suggested that adults who once had imaginary friends may be more creative than those who did not.

Imaginary friends in early childhood

Many children have an imaginary friend – that is a friend they have invented. It was once thought that only children

There is no firm evidence to say that having an imaginary friend us anything about what a child will be like in the future. One of research, though, has suggested that adults who once had imaginary friends may be more creative than those who did not.

Imaginary friends in early childhood

Many children have an imaginary friend – that is a friend they have invented. It was once thought that only children

There is no firm evidence to say that having an imaginary friend us anything about what a child will be like in the future. One of research, though, has suggested that adults who once had imaginary friends may be more creative than those who did not.

Imaginary friends in early childhood

Many children have an imaginary friend – that is a friend they have invented. It was once thought that only children

There is no firm evidence to say that having an imaginary friend us anything about what a child will be like in the future. One of research, though, has suggested that adults who once had imaginary friends may be more creative than those who did not.

How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely _disconnected_ from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling _them_ to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programmes show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their _regard_ for animals in general is higher.

The word “_disconnected_” in paragraph 2 is closest in meaning to

How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely _disconnected_ from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling _them_ to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programmes show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their _regard_ for animals in general is higher.

The word “_them_” in paragraph 2 refers to

How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely _disconnected_ from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling _them_ to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programmes show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their _regard_ for animals in general is higher.

It can be inferred from paragraph 4 that children's attitudes to animals

How do children learn about wildlife? And is what they learn the sort of thing they should be learning? It is my belief that children should not just be acquiring knowledge of animals but also developing attitudes and feelings towards them based on exposure to the real lives of animals in their natural habitats. But is this happening?

Some research in this area indicates that it is not. Learning about animals in school is often completely _disconnected_ from the real lives of real animals, with the result that children often end up with little or no understanding or lasting knowledge of them. They learn factual information about animals, aimed at enabling _them_ to identify them and have various abstract ideas about them, but that is the extent of their learning. Children's storybooks tend to personify animals as characters rather than teach about them.

For direct contact with wild and international animals, the only opportunity most children have is visiting a zoo. The educational benefit of this for children is often given as the main reason for doing it but research has shown that zoo visits seldom add to children's knowledge of animals – the animals are simply like exhibits in a museum that the children look at without engaging with them as living creatures. Children who belong to wildlife or environmental organizations or who watch wildlife TV programmes, however, show significantly higher knowledge than any other group of children studied in research. The studies show that if children learn about animals in their natural habitats, particularly through wildlife-based activities, they know more about them than they do as a result of visiting zoos or learning about them in the classroom.

Research has also been done into the attitudes of children towards animals. It shows that in general terms, children form strong attachments to individual animals, usually their pets, but do not have strong feelings for animals in general. This attitude is the norm regardless of the amount or kind of learning about animals they have at school. However, those children who watch television wildlife programmes show an interest in and affection for wildlife in its natural environment, and their _regard_ for animals in general is higher.

The word “_regard_” in paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson is perhaps not a name that is universally recognized, but Dodgson did achieve enormous success under the _pseudonym_ Lewis Carroll. He created this pseudonym from the Latinization, Carolus Ludovicus, of his real given name. It was under the name Lewis Carroll that Dodgson published the children's books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and its sequel Through the Looking Glass (1872). Though Dodgson achieved this success in children's literature, he was not an author of children's books by training or profession. His education and chosen field of pursuit were far removed from the field of children's literature and were instead focused on theoretical mathematics.

Dodgson graduated with honors from Christ Church, Oxford, in 1854 and then embarked on a career in the world of academia. He worked as a lecturer in mathematics at Oxford and, later in his career, published a number of theoretical works on mathematics under his own name rather than under the pseudonym that he used for his children's stories. He produced a number of texts for students, such as A Syllabus of Plane Algebraical Geometry (1860), Formulae of Plane Trigonometry (1861), which was notable for the creativity of the symbols that he used to express trigonometric functions such as sine and cosine, and A Guide for the Mathematical Student (1866). In a number of more esoteric works, he championed the principles of Euclid; in Euclid and his Modern Rivals (1879), he presented his ideas on the superiority of Euclid over rival mathematicians in a highly imaginative fashion, by devising, a courtroom trial of anti-Euclid mathematicians that he named "Euclid-wreakers" and ultimately finding the defendants guilty as charged. Curiosa Mathematica (1888-1893) made a further defense of Euclid's work, focusing on Euclid's definition of parallel lines. These academic works never had the universal impact of Dodgson's works for children using the name Lewis Carroll, but _they_ demonstrate a solid body of well-regarded academic material.

The word "_pseudonym_" in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson is perhaps not a name that is universally recognized, but Dodgson did achieve enormous success under the _pseudonym_ Lewis Carroll. He created this pseudonym from the Latinization, Carolus Ludovicus, of his real given name. It was under the name Lewis Carroll that Dodgson published the children's books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and its sequel Through the Looking Glass (1872). Though Dodgson achieved this success in children's literature, he was not an author of children's books by training or profession. His education and chosen field of pursuit were far removed from the field of children's literature and were instead focused on theoretical mathematics.

Dodgson graduated with honors from Christ Church, Oxford, in 1854 and then embarked on a career in the world of academia. He worked as a lecturer in mathematics at Oxford and, later in his career, published a number of theoretical works on mathematics under his own name rather than under the pseudonym that he used for his children's stories. He produced a number of texts for students, such as A Syllabus of Plane Algebraical Geometry (1860), Formulae of Plane Trigonometry (1861), which was notable for the creativity of the symbols that he used to express trigonometric functions such as sine and cosine, and A Guide for the Mathematical Student (1866). In a number of more esoteric works, he championed the principles of Euclid; in Euclid and his Modern Rivals (1879), he presented his ideas on the superiority of Euclid over rival mathematicians in a highly imaginative fashion, by devising, a courtroom trial of anti-Euclid mathematicians that he named "Euclid-wreakers" and ultimately finding the defendants guilty as charged. Curiosa Mathematica (1888-1893) made a further defense of Euclid's work, focusing on Euclid's definition of parallel lines. These academic works never had the universal impact of Dodgson's works for children using the name Lewis Carroll, but _they_ demonstrate a solid body of well-regarded academic material.

The word "_they_" in paragraph 2 refers to

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson is perhaps not a name that is universally recognized, but Dodgson did achieve enormous success under the _pseudonym_ Lewis Carroll. He created this pseudonym from the Latinization, Carolus Ludovicus, of his real given name. It was under the name Lewis Carroll that Dodgson published the children's books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and its sequel Through the Looking Glass (1872). Though Dodgson achieved this success in children's literature, he was not an author of children's books by training or profession. His education and chosen field of pursuit were far removed from the field of children's literature and were instead focused on theoretical mathematics.

Dodgson graduated with honors from Christ Church, Oxford, in 1854 and then embarked on a career in the world of academia. He worked as a lecturer in mathematics at Oxford and, later in his career, published a number of theoretical works on mathematics under his own name rather than under the pseudonym that he used for his children's stories. He produced a number of texts for students, such as A Syllabus of Plane Algebraical Geometry (1860), Formulae of Plane Trigonometry (1861), which was notable for the creativity of the symbols that he used to express trigonometric functions such as sine and cosine, and A Guide for the Mathematical Student (1866). In a number of more esoteric works, he championed the principles of Euclid; in Euclid and his Modern Rivals (1879), he presented his ideas on the superiority of Euclid over rival mathematicians in a highly imaginative fashion, by devising, a courtroom trial of anti-Euclid mathematicians that he named "Euclid-wreakers" and ultimately finding the defendants guilty as charged. Curiosa Mathematica (1888-1893) made a further defense of Euclid's work, focusing on Euclid's definition of parallel lines. These academic works never had the universal impact of Dodgson's works for children using the name Lewis Carroll, but _they_ demonstrate a solid body of well-regarded academic material.

According to the passage, Dodgson