thecatalyst.edu.vn
thecatalystforenglish@gmail.com
0373.324.388
Matching Features là một trong các dạng đề thường gặp trong bài thi IELTS Reading. Để làm tốt dạng bài này, ngoài vốn từ vựng rộng, thí sinh cần trang bị cho mình kỹ năng Skimming và Scanning tốt. Vậy cách làm tối ưu nhất với dạng bài Matching Features là gì? Các bạn hãy tham khảo ngay bài viết sau của TCE cùng bài tập thực hành ở mục cuối cùng nhé!
Ở phần đầu tiên chúng ta hãy cùng tìm hiểu, dạng bài Matching Features là gì và cấu trúc ra đề của dạng bài này sẽ ra sao.
Giới thiệu về Matching Features IELTS Reading
Matching Features là dạng bài trong IELTS Reading, trong đó thí sinh cần nối các đặc điểm, thông tin, hoặc ý tưởng từ một danh sách với các đối tượng được đề cập trong bài đọc.
Các đối tượng có thể là người, địa điểm, tổ chức, hoặc khái niệm, và thông tin thường nằm rải rác trong bài đọc.
Ví dụ về đề bài Matching Features như sau:
Ví dụ về đề bài Matching Features
Dạng bài Matching Features có các thành phần sau:
Dạng bài này có một số đặc điểm như sau:
– Câu hỏi không đi theo trình tự bài đọc trong bài
– Có thể có nhiều đối tượng nhưng chỉ có một đặc điểm đúng hoặc ngược lại.
Trước khi đi sâu vào cách làm bài Matching Features, bạn cũng nên làm quen với một số dạng bài IELTS Reading khác thường xuyên xuất hiện, chẳng hạn như dạng Matching Heading – yêu cầu xác định tiêu đề phù hợp cho từng đoạn văn – hoặc dạng True/False/Not Given, nơi bạn phải xác định thông tin có chính xác theo bài đọc hay không. Việc hiểu rõ điểm đặc trưng của từng dạng sẽ giúp bạn xây dựng chiến lược làm bài hiệu quả hơn.
Ở phần tiếp theo, TCE xin hướng dẫn các bạn cách xử lý đề Matching Features IELTS Reading hiệu quả.
Cách Làm Matching Feature IELTS Reading hiệu quả
Để làm tốt dạng bài này, các bạn có thể thực hiện theo các bước sau:
Bài đọc:
THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN LAUGHTER
A Human beings love to laugh. It’s such an obvious fact that it’s easy to overlook. Laughter, like music and language, is a fundamental human trait. Common sense tells us that laughter is associated with happiness. However, there is also a body of scientific evidence proving that laughter is good for us. Studies show that laughter strengthens relationships in both personal and professional life. It has also been established that laughter improves cardiovascular function, boosts the immune system and releases beneficial hormones into the bloodstream . However, according to psychologist Dr Peter Shrimpton, humans might all laugh, but they often don’t remember doing it. ‘All the studies show that we laugh more frequently than we realise’ says Dr Shrimpton. ‘Perhaps because it is such a basic part of human nature, we tend not to notice when we are laughing.’
B Infants typically give their first laugh around three to four months of age, long before they can talk. But according to biologists, this isn’t because they find something amusing; it is rather a form of non-verbal communication. They laugh to form a closer connection to the people they are with, and adults are little different. ‘There is a widespread belief outside the scientific community that we laugh because something is humorous,’ says sociologist Jocelyn Barnes. ‘While this is true, just as commonly the real purpose of laughter is to promote bonding with other individuals or groups.’ This may be partly because it is almost impossible to imitate laughter; even trained actors struggle to mimic a laugh convincingly. So if someone is laughing, the chances are they are being genuine. There’s even difference between a real and a fake smile. In the 19th century, the French neurologist Guillaume Duchenne found that a genuine smile activates the zygomaticus major and orbicularis muscles, and this in turn causes line to develop called ‘crow’s feet’ at the outside corners of the eyes. No crow’s feet appear if the smile is put on
C There is certainly nothing new about joking and laughter. Attempts to be humorous have been found from ancient Egypt, dating from 2600 BC. And a long and detailed joke book called The Laughter Lover, which was written in ancient Rome, still exists today. While of considerable historical value, it may not be all that amusing any more. A professor of classics, Heinrich Ahrends, has studied many such ancient sources and concluded that tastes in jokes have evolved markedly with the passing of the centuries and that the jokes of our forebears would not get much of a laugh today – and vice versa, no doubt. Nonetheless, studies show that almost everyone can find amusement in some form or other. There is a rare neurological disorder named aphonogelia that prevents some people from laughing out loud. However, they may still be amused or entertained, but just express it in different ways.
Look at the following statements (Questions 1–2) and the list of people A–E.
Match each statement with the correct person, A–E.
Write the correct letter, A–E, in boxes 19–22 on your answer sheet.
1 Ideas about what is amusing have changed considerably over time.
2 The reasons why we laugh are sometimes misunderstood by ordinary people.
List of People
| A. Dr Peter Shrimpton B. Jocelyn Barnes C. Heinrich Ahrends |
Giờ chúng ta cùng áp dụng các bước làm trên để giải bài tập này nhé:
Bước 1: Đọc tiêu đề và đoạn văn đầu tiên để nắm ý chính của bài
Các bạn đọc tiêu đề và skim qua đoạn văn đầu tiên. Mục đích là giúp chúng ta nắm khái quát và làm quen với nội dung của bài đọc.
Bước đầu tiên giúp ta cảm thấy gần gũi với bài đọc hơn, giảm áp lực tâm lý khi đọc và trả lời câu hỏi ở các phần phía sau.
|
THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN LAUGHTER A Human beings love to laugh. It’s such an obvious fact that it’s easy to overlook. Laughter, like music and language, is a fundamental human trait. Common sense tells us that laughter is associated with happiness. However, there is also a body of scientific evidence proving that laughter is good for us. Studies show that laughter strengthens relationships in both personal and professional life. It has also been established that laughter improves cardiovascular function, boosts the immune system and releases beneficial hormones into the bloodstream . However, according to psychologist Dr Peter Shrimpton, humans might all laugh, but they often don’t remember doing it. ‘All the studies show that we laugh more frequently than we realise’ says Dr Shrimpton. ‘Perhaps because it is such a basic part of human nature, we tend not to notice when we are laughing.’ |
Nội dung chính và dự đoán về nội dung của bài đọc: Bài viết có thể nói về vai trò, lợi ích sức khỏe và xã hội của tiếng cười, cùng lý do con người ít nhận ra tần suất mình cười.
Bước 2: Đọc danh sách đặc điểm hoặc ý tưởng và gạch chân keyword.
| 1 Ideas about what is amusing have changed considerably over time. 2 The reasons why we laugh are sometimes misunderstood by ordinary people. |
Bước 3: Đọc danh sách đối tượng và xác định vị trí các đối tượng trong bài.
A. Dr Peter Shrimpton
B. Jocelyn Barnes
C. Heinrich Ahrends
| A ….. It has also been established that laughter improves cardiovascular function, boosts the immune system and releases beneficial hormones into the bloodstream . However, according to psychologist Dr Peter Shrimpton, humans might all laugh, but they often don’t remember doing it. …..
B …..‘There is a widespread belief outside the scientific community that we laugh because something is humorous,’ says sociologist Jocelyn Barnes. ‘While this is true, just as commonly the real purpose of laughter is to promote bonding with other individuals or groups.’….. C …..While of considerable historical value, it may not be all that amusing any more. A professor of classics, Heinrich Ahrends, has studied many such ancient sources and concluded ….. |
Bước 4: Đọc kỹ từng đối tượng và chọn đáp án.
A. Dr Peter Shrimpton
| …However, according to psychologist Dr Peter Shrimpton, humans might all laugh, but they often don’t remember doing it. ‘All the studies show that we laugh more frequently than we realise’ says Dr Shrimpton. ‘Perhaps because it is such a basic part of human nature, we tend not to notice when we are laughing.’… |
So sánh với các nhận định, ta thấy không có đáp án nào phù hợp với ý kiến của Dr Peter Shrimpton.
B. Jocelyn Barnes
| …..‘There is a widespread belief outside the scientific community that we laugh because something is humorous,’ says sociologist Jocelyn Barnes. ‘While this is true, just as commonly the real purpose of laughter is to promote bonding with other individuals or groups.’ |
Jocelyn Barnes cho rằng: tiếng cười không chỉ là phản ứng với sự hài hước mà có mục đích thực sự là gắn kết xã hội.
So sánh với nhận định 2: The reasons why we laugh are sometimes misunderstood by ordinary people.
=> Câu 2 chọn đáp án B
C. Heinrich Ahrends
| C A professor of classics, Heinrich Ahrends, has studied many such ancient sources and concluded that tastes in jokes have evolved markedly with the passing of the centuries and that the jokes of our forebears would not get much of a laugh today – and vice versa, no doubt. |
Giáo sư Heinrich Ahrends cho rằng: khiếu hài hước đã thay đổi đáng kể theo thời gian, khiến những trò đùa xưa khó gây cười ngày nay.
So sánh với nhận định 1: Ideas about what is amusing have changed considerably over time.
=> Câu 1 chọn đáp án C
Để áp dụng hiệu quả các bước làm bài Matching Features, bạn cần luyện tập thường xuyên và kết hợp thêm các chiến lược giúp tăng tốc độ làm bài IELTS Reading. Bên cạnh đó, bạn cũng nên làm quen với các dạng câu hỏi khác như Multiple Choice, vốn yêu cầu khả năng đọc hiểu chi tiết và phân tích các lựa chọn gần đúng – kỹ năng này rất hữu ích khi xử lý Matching Features có nhiều thông tin gây nhiễu.
Mẹo làm bài Matching Features để đạt điểm cao
Ở phần tiếp theo, TCE sẽ gửi đến các bạn các mẹo hay để đạt điểm cao trong dạng bài Matching Features nhé.
Ở phần cuối cùng TCE sẽ giới thiệu đến các bạn các nguồn tài liệu và bài tập thực hành dạng Matching Features để các bạn luyện tập thêm nhé.
Nguồn tài liệu và bài tập thực hành Matching Features
Các bạn có thể tham khảo các đầu sách sau để luyện tập kĩ năng Reading
| Cambridge IELTS Series (1-19) |
|
| IELTS Trainer |
|
| Road to IELTS |
|
Ngoài ra, để trang bị thêm về kiến thức từ vựng và ngữ pháp, cũng như cách xử lý các dạng đề Reading khác, các bạn có thể tham gia:
Với đội ngũ giảng viên chất lượng và tài liệu chuẩn, các bạn sẽ được cung cấp các kiến thức và mẹo làm bài thiết thực, đồng thời các bạn còn có thể Luyện tập IELTS Reading tại TCE trong phòng tự học với sự hỗ trợ và chấm chữa của các anh chị giảng viên tại trung tâm.
Diprotodon, human, Pleistocene & modern wombat skeletons
Imagine a bird three times the size of an ostrich, or a burrowing animal as big as an elephant. How about a kangaroo three metres tall? Such creatures were all Australian megafauna, alive during the Pleistocene.
Fifteen million years ago, 55 species of megafauna were widespread in Australia, the largest of which was the marsupial diprotodon, weighing around 2700 kilograms (5952 lb). Giant snakes, crocodiles, and birds were also common. Wombats and kangaroos reached more than 200 kg (440 lb), and even koalas weighed 16 kg (35 lb). Then, rather suddenly, around 46 thousand years ago (46 kyr), all these animals became extinct. Some scientists claim this was due to environmental pressures, like climate change or fire; others favour predation.
At the end of the Pleistocene, humans reached Australia via Indonesia, and, according to the archaeological record, by 45 kyr their settlement was widespread. One hundred and sixty archaeological sites in Australia and New Guinea have been much surveyed. There is some disagreement about the dates of these sites; meantime, a forceful movement aims to push human settlement back before 45 kyr.
Dating the rare bones of megafauna was highly controversial until 20 years ago when a technique called optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) was developed. With OSL, the age of minerals up to 200 kyr can be established with + / – 10% accuracy.
The largest OSL dating of megafauna was carried out in 2001 by Roberts, who put the extinction date for megafauna at around 46 kyr, very early on in the time of human habitation.
Megafaunal bones are rare enough, but, at archaeological sites with human habitation, they are extremely rare with fewer than 10% of the 160 sites containing them. Bones that show cutting, burning, or deliberate breaking by humans are virtually non-existent, and thus far, not one megafaunal skeleton shows conclusively an animal was killed by humans. There are no ‘kill sites’ either whereas, in New Zealand, where the giant moa bird became extinct in the 18th century due to hunting, there are sites with hundreds of slaughtered creatures. As a result, many scientists still believe that humans were not responsible for megafaunal extinction – especially as the weapons of Australian Aborigines at 45 kyr were only wooden clubs and spears.
There is, perhaps, a cultural record of megafauna in Aboriginal myths. The Adnyamathanha people of South Australia tell of the Yamuti, something like a diprotodon. An ancient rock painting in Arnhem Land shows an extinct giant echidna. But this record is small and open to interpretation.
If the Aborigines were not technologically advanced enough to kill them, what else might have destroyed megafauna? One theory has been climate change – perhaps there was a relatively hot, dry period between 60-40 kyr. Research suggests otherwise. Indeed, at 40 kyr, the climate was moderate, and Lake Eyre, in central Australia, grew. If there was desertification, scientists would expect megafauna to have moved towards the coast, looking for food and water, but instead, the fossil record details an equal distribution of the dead inland and on the coast.
In addition, changes in specific vegetation occurred after the extinction of the megafauna. Trees that relied on large animals to eat their fruit and disperse their seed covered far smaller areas of Australia post 40 kyr. These plants were not threatened by climate change; rather, they died off because their megafaunal partners had already gone.
Typically, climate change affects almost all species in an area. Yet, around 46 kyr, only the megafauna died. Previously, there had been many species of kangaroo, some as heavy as 200 kg (440 lb), but, after, the heaviest weighed only 32 kg (70 lb). This phenomenon is known as dwarfing, and it occurred with many animals in the Pleistocene.
Dwarfing has been studied extensively. In 2001, Law published research related to fish farming. Despite excellent food and no predators, farmed fish become smaller as generations continue. This adaptation may be a response to their being commercially useless at a smaller size, meaning they hope to survive the harvest.
Of the dwarf marsupials, the most notable development over the giants was their longer reproductive lives, which produced more young. They were better runners as well, or, those that were slow-moving retreated to the mountainous forest, beyond the reach of humans.
If climate change isn’t a credible factor in extinction, what about fire? Fire is caused naturally by lightning strikes as well as by humans with torches. Surprisingly, the charcoal record for many thousands of years does not show a marked increase in fire after human habitation of Australia – there is only a slow increase over time. Besides, it could be argued that forest fires aid megafauna since grass, their favoured food, invariably replaces burnt vegetation.
Johnson, an archaeologist, has proposed that the Aborigines could have wiped out all 55 megafaunal species in just a few thousand years. He believes that the 45 kyr human settlement date will be pushed back to make this extinction fit, and he also maintains that 700 years are enough to make one species extinct without large-scale hunting or sophisticated weapons. Johnson used computer modelling on a population of only 1000 animals to demonstrate this. If just 30 animals are killed a year, then the species becomes extinct after 520-700 years. Human populations in Australia were small at 45 kyr – only 150 people occupied the same 500 square kilometres as 1000 animals. However, at a rate of killing just two animals a year by each group of ten people, extinction is highly likely.
A recent study on the albatross has shown the bird has almost disappeared due to females’ occasionally being hooked on fishing lines. A large number of animals do not need to be killed to effect extinction especially if an animal breeds late and infrequently like the albatross and like megafauna.
List of people
| A The Adnyamathanha
B Johnson C Law D Roberts |
Đáp án và giải thích:
| Câu | Đáp án | Giải thích |
| 1 | D | This scientist used reliable dating techniques to propose a likely extinction date for megafauna.
|
| 2 | B | These people have a mythical description of a creature like a diprotodon.
|
| 3 | C | This scientist drew on data from fish farming to understand dwarfing.
|
| 4 | B | This person believes dates will be revised so that the period between human settlement in Australia and the extinction of megafauna is longer.
|
| 5 | B | This scientist developed a theory that even with basic weapons, Aborigines made megafauna extinct.
|
Hy vọng những mẹo làm bài dạng Matching Features trong IELTS Reading mà TCE chia sẻ sẽ giúp bạn tự tin hơn khi luyện tập và bước vào phòng thi chính thức. Đừng quên luyện tập thường xuyên và tham khảo thêm nhiều tài liệu, chiến lược và hướng dẫn chi tiết khác về IELTS Reading để nâng cao kỹ năng đọc hiểu một cách hiệu quả nhất nhé!
