ÖRNEK SORU TİPLERİ


 
I am a simple man with no great intellect, no university degree, and with little knowledge of international politics or economic affairs, but there are certain questions I would like answered. I am well aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of starvation. I also know that people don't always die because they don't eat, they die because they are so debilitated and weakened from lack of food that they are an easy prey to disease. Very few people die of measles in this country; measles is just a childhood complaint that we all experience and shake off. For those whose bodies are shrivelled by starvation, measles is a killer. If it is true that synthetic meat can be produced, if it is true that it really is as good as the real thing, and if it is going to be cheap, these products should not be directed at those who already have food enough but at those who have none. Let the major firms forget about spending millions trying to persuade us to eat it and use their marvelous new invention to help the vast mass of the world's population who have never seen meat. Half a loaf is better than none, a synthetic meat is better than the occasional handful of rice. So question number one is: why isn't modern technology being used to improve the lot of the have-nots ? Question number two also involves food technology. Every year the major agriculture countries of the world have a glut of one product or another. Milk, vegetables and the like go off quickly and therefore cannot be economically stored, so the food has to rot. BUT food technology has presented us with the ability to freeze and to dehydrate (or freeze-dry) food. Every year we spend vast sums on frozen and instant peas, etc. Could we not be sensible and use the gluts of products, process them to give them longer life and fly them out to where they are needed? If a tenth of what is spent on advertising food, for packaging it, for distributing it, is creamed off and spent in processing it for the starving, we would save lives. I am an animal lover, but, is it right and fair and just that our pets eat better than human beings? There is a commercial for a dog food that says the meat we put down for Rover is good enough for us to eat. Every time I see it I am filled with anger and disgust. If it is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for some sick and dying child and certainly too good for a pet mongrel.   Mark the best choice       1. The writer __________.  





I am a simple man with no great intellect, no university degree, and with little knowledge of international politics or economic affairs, but there are certain questions I would like answered. I am well aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of starvation. I also know that people don't always die because they don't eat, they die because they are so debilitated and weakened from lack of food that they are an easy prey to disease. Very few people die of measles in this country; measles is just a childhood complaint that we all experience and shake off. For those whose bodies are shrivelled by starvation, measles is a killer. If it is true that synthetic meat can be produced, if it is true that it really is as good as the real thing, and if it is going to be cheap, these products should not be directed at those who already have food enough but at those who have none. Let the major firms forget about spending millions trying to persuade us to eat it and use their marvelous new invention to help the vast mass of the world's population who have never seen meat. Half a loaf is better than none, a synthetic meat is better than the occasional handful of rice. So question number one is: why isn't modern technology being used to improve the lot of the have-nots ? Question number two also involves food technology. Every year the major agriculture countries of the world have a glut of one product or another. Milk, vegetables and the like go off quickly and therefore cannot be economically stored, so the food has to rot. BUT food technology has presented us with the ability to freeze and to dehydrate (or freeze-dry) food. Every year we spend vast sums on frozen and instant peas, etc. Could we not be sensible and use the gluts of products, process them to give them longer life and fly them out to where they are needed? If a tenth of what is spent on advertising food, for packaging it, for distributing it, is creamed off and spent in processing it for the starving, we would save lives. I am an animal lover, but, is it right and fair and just that our pets eat better than human beings? There is a commercial for a dog food that says the meat we put down for Rover is good enough for us to eat. Every time I see it I am filled with anger and disgust. If it is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for some sick and dying child and certainly too good for a pet mongrel.  Mark the best choice     2.   Which of the following is true?





I am a simple man with no great intellect, no university degree, and with little knowledge of international politics or economic affairs, but there are certain questions I would like answered. I am well aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of starvation. I also know that people don't always die because they don't eat, they die because they are so debilitated and weakened from lack of food that they are an easy prey to disease. Very few people die of measles in this country; measles is just a childhood complaint that we all experience and shake off. For those whose bodies are shrivelled by starvation, measles is a killer. If it is true that synthetic meat can be produced, if it is true that it really is as good as the real thing, and if it is going to be cheap, these products should not be directed at those who already have food enough but at those who have none. Let the major firms forget about spending millions trying to persuade us to eat it and use their marvelous new invention to help the vast mass of the world's population who have never seen meat. Half a loaf is better than none, a synthetic meat is better than the occasional handful of rice. So question number one is: why isn't modern technology being used to improve the lot of the have-nots ? Question number two also involves food technology. Every year the major agriculture countries of the world have a glut of one product or another. Milk, vegetables and the like go off quickly and therefore cannot be economically stored, so the food has to rot. BUT food technology has presented us with the ability to freeze and to dehydrate (or freeze-dry) food. Every year we spend vast sums on frozen and instant peas, etc. Could we not be sensible and use the gluts of products, process them to give them longer life and fly them out to where they are needed? If a tenth of what is spent on advertising food, for packaging it, for distributing it, is creamed off and spent in processing it for the starving, we would save lives. I am an animal lover, but, is it right and fair and just that our pets eat better than human beings? There is a commercial for a dog food that says the meat we put down for Rover is good enough for us to eat. Every time I see it I am filled with anger and disgust. If it is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for some sick and dying child and certainly too good for a pet mongrel.  Mark the best choice     3.   Measles __________.  





I am a simple man with no great intellect, no university degree, and with little knowledge of international politics or economic affairs, but there are certain questions I would like answered. I am well aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of starvation. I also know that people don't always die because they don't eat, they die because they are so debilitated and weakened from lack of food that they are an easy prey to disease. Very few people die of measles in this country; measles is just a childhood complaint that we all experience and shake off. For those whose bodies are shrivelled by starvation, measles is a killer. If it is true that synthetic meat can be produced, if it is true that it really is as good as the real thing, and if it is going to be cheap, these products should not be directed at those who already have food enough but at those who have none. Let the major firms forget about spending millions trying to persuade us to eat it and use their marvelous new invention to help the vast mass of the world's population who have never seen meat. Half a loaf is better than none, a synthetic meat is better than the occasional handful of rice. So question number one is: why isn't modern technology being used to improve the lot of the have-nots ? Question number two also involves food technology. Every year the major agriculture countries of the world have a glut of one product or another. Milk, vegetables and the like go off quickly and therefore cannot be economically stored, so the food has to rot. BUT food technology has presented us with the ability to freeze and to dehydrate (or freeze-dry) food. Every year we spend vast sums on frozen and instant peas, etc. Could we not be sensible and use the gluts of products, process them to give them longer life and fly them out to where they are needed? If a tenth of what is spent on advertising food, for packaging it, for distributing it, is creamed off and spent in processing it for the starving, we would save lives. I am an animal lover, but, is it right and fair and just that our pets eat better than human beings? There is a commercial for a dog food that says the meat we put down for Rover is good enough for us to eat. Every time I see it I am filled with anger and disgust. If it is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for some sick and dying child and certainly too good for a pet mongrel.  Mark the best choice   4.   Lack of food in some countries __________.  





I am a simple man with no great intellect, no university degree, and with little knowledge of international politics or economic affairs, but there are certain questions I would like answered. I am well aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of starvation. I also know that people don't always die because they don't eat, they die because they are so debilitated and weakened from lack of food that they are an easy prey to disease. Very few people die of measles in this country; measles is just a childhood complaint that we all experience and shake off. For those whose bodies are shrivelled by starvation, measles is a killer. If it is true that synthetic meat can be produced, if it is true that it really is as good as the real thing, and if it is going to be cheap, these products should not be directed at those who already have food enough but at those who have none. Let the major firms forget about spending millions trying to persuade us to eat it and use their marvelous new invention to help the vast mass of the world's population who have never seen meat. Half a loaf is better than none, a synthetic meat is better than the occasional handful of rice. So question number one is: why isn't modern technology being used to improve the lot of the have-nots ? Question number two also involves food technology. Every year the major agriculture countries of the world have a glut of one product or another. Milk, vegetables and the like go off quickly and therefore cannot be economically stored, so the food has to rot. BUT food technology has presented us with the ability to freeze and to dehydrate (or freeze-dry) food. Every year we spend vast sums on frozen and instant peas, etc. Could we not be sensible and use the gluts of products, process them to give them longer life and fly them out to where they are needed? If a tenth of what is spent on advertising food, for packaging it, for distributing it, is creamed off and spent in processing it for the starving, we would save lives. I am an animal lover, but, is it right and fair and just that our pets eat better than human beings? There is a commercial for a dog food that says the meat we put down for Rover is good enough for us to eat. Every time I see it I am filled with anger and disgust. If it is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for some sick and dying child and certainly too good for a pet mongrel.  Mark the best choice       5.   Synthetic meat __________.    







ingilizce kursları ankara

Hemen Paylaş: Paylaş

Etiketler:, , , ,

No Comments Yet.

Yorumlayın

Mesaj

İngilizce Kursları Ankara

Copyright © 2002-2012 Perfect English (Mükemmel İngilizce Dil Kursları)