Cambridge IELTS 17 Test 2 Reading Passage 3 là một bài tập không quá khó nhưng vẫn đủ thử thách để luyện tập cho phần thi IELTS Reading. Để cùng vận dụng hết những từ vựng mà bài có thì hãy cùng ISE giải đề và phân tích đáp án nhé!

 1. Phần thi Cambridge IELTS 17 Test 2 Reading Passage 3 là gì?

1.1. Thông tin bộ sách Cambridge IELTS 17

Cambridge IELTS là một bộ sách được xuất bản bởi Cambridge với mục đích luyện đề thi IELTS và được ra mắt vào tháng 5 hàng năm.

Các đề từ Cambridge IELTS nhìn chung bám khá sát với đề thi thực tế và đã được thí sinh trên toàn thế giới thêm vào danh sách các bộ đề luyện thi IELTS uy tín.

Nội dung sách bao gồm các phần thi của cả 4 kỹ năng trong bài thi IELTS Academic bao gồm: Reading, Listening, Speaking và Writing.

1.2. Tổng quan Cambridge IELTS 17 Test 2 Reading Passage 3

Bài đọc Cambridge IELTS 17 Test 2 Reading Passage 3 có tên là “Insight or evolution” nói về những suy nghĩ sai lầm về trí thông minh của con người. Tác giả cho ta biết được mọi người cho rằng những vĩ nhân đơn giản chỉ nghĩ ra các phát kiến mới một cách bất chợt. Tuy nhiên, tác giả đã dùng những trường hợp cụ thể để chứng minh rằng các phát minh là một chuỗi phát triển của con người, qua các thế hệ, hoặc đơn giản là có sai lầm hoặc may mắn.

Phần Passage 3 sẽ bao gồm 14 câu hỏi từ câu 27 đến 40 của phần Reading Test 2.

 2. Bài đọc và đề bài Cambridge IELTS 17 Test 1 Reading Passage 3

READING PASSAGE 3

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27-40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

Insight or evolution?

Two scientists consider the origins of discoveries and other innovative behavior

(Q 27) Scientific discovery is popularly believed to result from the sheer genius of such intellectual stars as naturalist Charles Darwin and theoretical physicist Albert Einstein. Our view of such unique contributions to science often disregards the person’s prior experience and the efforts of their lesser-known predecessors. (Q 37) Conventional wisdom also places great weight on insight in promoting breakthrough scientific achievements, as if ideas spontaneously pop into someone’s head – fully formed and functional.

There may be some limited truth to this view. (Q 28) However, we believe that it largely misrepresents the real nature of scientific discovery, as well as that of creativity and innovation in many other realms of human endeavor.

(Q 29) Setting aside such greats as Darwin and Einstein – whose monumental contributions are duly celebrated – we suggest that innovation is more a process of trial and error, where two steps forward may sometimes come with one step back, as well as one or more steps to the right or left. This evolutionary view of human innovation undermines the notion of creative genius and recognizes the cumulative nature of scientific progress.

Consider one unheralded scientist: John Nicholson, a mathematical physicist working in the 1910s who postulated the existence of ‘proto-elements’ in outer space. By combining different numbers of weights of these proto-elements’ atoms, Nicholson could recover the weights of all the elements in the then-known periodic table. (Q 38) These successes are all the more noteworthy given the fact that Nicholson was wrong about the presence of proto-elements: they do not actually exist. Yet, amid his often fanciful theories and wild speculations, Nicholson also proposed a novel theory about the structure of atoms. (Q 30) Niels Bohr, the Nobel prize-winning father of modern atomic theory, jumped off from this interesting idea to conceive his now-famous model of the atom.

What are we to make of this story? One might simply conclude that science is a collective and cumulative enterprise. That may be true, but there may be a deeper insight to be gleaned. We propose that science is constantly evolving, much as species of animals do. In biological systems, organisms may display new characteristics that result from random genetic mutations. In the same way, random, arbitrary or accidental mutations of ideas may help pave the way for advances in science. If mutations prove beneficial, then the animal or the scientific theory will continue to thrive and perhaps reproduce.

Support for this evolutionary view of behavioral innovation comes from many domains. Consider one example of an influential innovation in US horseracing. The so-called ‘acey-deucy’ stirrup placement, in which the rider’s foot in his left stirrup is placed as much as 25 centimeters lower than the right, is believed to confer important speed advantages when turning on oval tracks. It was developed by a relatively unknown jockey named Jackie Westrope. (Q 31) Had Westrope conducted methodical investigations or examined extensive film records in a shrewd plan to outrun his rivals? Had he foreseen the speed advantage that would be conferred by riding acey-deucy? No. He suffered a leg injury, which left him unable to fully bend his left knee. His modification just happened to coincide with enhanced left-hand turning performance. This led to the rapid and widespread adoption of riding acey-deucy by many riders, a racing style which continues in today’s thoroughbred racing.

(Q 39) Plenty of other stories show that fresh advances can arise from error, misadventure, and also pure serendipity – a happy accident. For example, in the early 1970s, two employees of the company 3M each had a problem: Spencer Silver had a product – a glue which was only slightly sticky – and no use for it, while his colleague Art Fry was trying to figure out how to affix temporary bookmarks in his hymn book without damaging its pages. The solution to both these problems was the invention of the brilliantly simple yet phenomenally successful Post-It note. Such examples give lie to the claim that ingenious, designing minds are responsible for human creativity and invention. Far more banal and mechanical forces may be at work; forces that are fundamentally connected to the laws of science.

(Q 32) The notions of insight, creativity and genius are often invoked, but they remain vague and of doubtful scientific utility, especially when one considers the diverse and enduring contributions of individuals such as Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Curie, Pasteur and Edison. These notions merely label rather than explain the evolution of human innovations. We need another approach, and there is a promising candidate.

(Q 33) The Law of Effect was advanced by psychologist Edward Thorndike in 1898, some 40 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work on biological evolution, On the Origin of Species. (Q 34) This simple law holds that organisms tend to repeat successful behaviors and to refrain from performing unsuccessful ones. (Q 40) Just like Darwin’s Law of Natural Selection, the Law of Effect involves an entirely mechanical process of variation and selection, without any end objective in sight.

Of course, the origin of human innovation demands much further study. (Q 35) In particular, the provenance of the raw material on which the Law of Effect operates is not as clearly known as that of the genetic mutations on which the Law of Natural Selection operates. The generation of novel ideas and behaviors may not be entirely random, but constrained by prior successes and failures – of the current individual (such as Bohr) or of predecessors (such as Nicholson).

(Q 36) The time seems right for abandoning the naive notions of intelligent design and genius, and for scientifically exploring the true origins of creative behavior.

Questions 27–31

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

Write the correct letter in boxes 27–31 on your answer sheet.

27. The purpose of the first paragraph is to

1. defend particular ideas.
2. compare certain beliefs.
3. disprove a widely held view.
4. outline a common assumption.

28. What are the writers doing in the second paragraph?

1. criticising an opinion
2. justifying a standpoint
3. explaining an approach
4. supporting an argument

29. In the third paragraph, what do the writers suggest about Darwin and Einstein?

1. They represent an exception to a general rule.
2. Their way of working has been misunderstood.
3. They are an ideal which others should aspire to.
4. Their achievements deserve greater recognition.

30. John Nicholson is an example of a person whose idea

1. established his reputation as an influential scientist.
2. was only fully understood at a later point in history.
3. laid the foundations for someone else’s breakthrough.
4. initially met with scepticism from the scientific community.

31. What is the key point of interest about the ‘acey-deucy’ stirrup placement?

1. the simple reason why it was invented
2. the enthusiasm with which it was adopted
3. the research that went into its development
4. the cleverness of the person who first used it

Questions 32–36

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 3?

In boxes 32–36 on your answer sheet, write

            YES                  if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

            NO                   if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer

            NOT GIVEN      if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

32. Acknowledging people such as Plato or da Vinci as geniuses will help us understand the process by which great minds create new ideas.

33. The Law of Effect was discovered at a time when psychologists were seeking a scientific reason why creativity occurs.

34. The Law of Effect states that no planning is involved in the behaviour of organisms.

35. The Law of Effect sets out clear explanations about the sources of new ideas and behaviours.

36. Many scientists are now turning away from the notion of intelligent design and genius.

Questions 37–40

Complete the summary using the list of words, A–G, below.

Write the correct letter, A–G, in boxes 37–40 on your answer sheet.

3. Đáp án và giải thích chi tiết

3.1 Câu 27 – 31 – Multiple Choice

Trong phần câu 27 – 31, bài thi yêu cầu thí sinh cần hiểu được đại ý trong các câu hỏi để đưa ra được lựa chọn đúng, thí sinh cần nắm rõ keywords và paraphrase của nó trong bài cũng như đại ý của các phần câu hỏi đặt ra.

3.2 Câu 32 – 36 – YES/NO/NOT GIVEN

Trong phần câu 32 – 36, bài thi yêu cầu thí sinh cần hiểu được các từ khoá và chiếu theo đoạn chứa thông tin trong bài. Cần chú ý phải so sánh các paraphrase trong bài, tránh trường hợp suy nghĩ theo ý nghĩ cá nhân.

3.3 Câu 37 – 40 – Multiple Choice

Trong phần câu 37 – 40, bài thi yêu cầu thí sinh cần hiểu được keywords và paraphrase của nó trong bài cũng như đại ý của các phần câu hỏi đặt ra.

TỔNG KẾT VỀ CAMBRIDGE IELTS 17 TEST 2 READING PASSAGE 3

Vậy là chúng ta đã cùng nhau đi qua những câu hỏi tuy không quá khó nhưng cũng có thể dễ dàng đánh lừa thí sinh. Bài đọc này được ISE đánh giá là vừa sức với các bạn thi IELTS do chủ đề không quá hàn lâm và từ vựng cũng không quá cao cấp. Vì vậy, việc đạt được điểm tối đa ở bài đọc Cambridge IELTS 17 Test 2 Reading Passage 3 là hoàn toàn có thể nếu bạn có một chiến thuật làm bài hợp lý. Các thí sinh cũng có thể mua sách Cambridge IELTS 17 để tham khảo và tự thực hành các bài tại nhà nhé.

Bạn có thể liên hệ ISE để đăng ký tư vấn lộ trình học IELTS phù hợp tại:

Chi nhánh 1: 02 Nguyễn Huy Lượng, Phường 14, Quận Bình Thạnh, TP.HCM

Chi nhánh 2: 393 Điện Biên Phủ, Phường 4, Quận 3, TP.HCM

Chi Nhánh 3: 15 Hoàng Trọng Mậu, Phường Tân Hưng, quận 7, TP.HCM

Hotline:

(+84) 898 898 646

Facebook: facebook.com/iseistudyenglish

Website: https://ise.edu.vn/lien-he/#content-kh