Vocabulary topic Tourism

English Phonetic Vietnamese

1. phenomenon (n) /fəˈnɑːmɪnən/
2. trivial (adj) /ˈtrɪviəl/
3. holidaymaker (n) /ˈhɑːlədeɪmeɪkər/
4. regulate (v) /ˈreɡjuleɪt/
5. leisure (n) /ˈliːʒər/
6. encounter (v) /ɪnˈkaʊntər/
7. journey (n) /ˈdʒɜːrni/
8. destination (n) /ˌdestɪˈneɪʃn/
9. cope (with) (v) /kəʊp/
10. anticipation (n) /ænˌtɪsɪˈpeɪʃn/
11. reinforce (v) /ˌriːɪnˈfɔːrs/
12. gaze (v, n) /ɡeɪz/
13. landscape (n) /ˈlændskeɪp/
14. linger over (idm) /ˈlɪŋɡər ˈəʊvər/
15. host (v, n) /həʊst/
16. contemporary (adj
/kənˈtempəreri/
)
17. pseudo event (n) /suːdəʊ ɪˈvent/
Exercise 1. Complete the sentences with the words from the table.

1. Tourists may………………… some communication problems at first.

2. One of the best ways to help you ………………… travel sickness is avoid reading or
looking at your phone.

3. This building………………… in 2003 to withstand earthquake.

4. He bought extra food in ………………… of more people coming than he’d invited.

5. The town seems so empty in the autumn when all the …………………have gone
home.
Exercise 2. Choose the correct antonym of the words.

1. trivial (adj)

A. significant

B. minor

C. unimportant

2. contemporary(adj)

A. recent

B. out-of-date

C. modern

3. host (n)

A. entertainer

B. owner

C. guest

4. phenomenon (n)

A. event

B. regularity

C. fact

5. regulate(v)

A. damage

B. control

C. manage

Bài 1: Điền một từ thích hợp vào chỗ trống.

a. alternative c. old-fashioned e. sufficient g. traditional

 b. common d. reasonable f. suitable h. unique
The Grand Hotel was built in 1900 and has a(n) (1) _____________ style; there is
nothing like it in the local area. Although the interior design is (2) _____________, the
facilities are modern. The hotel has a conference centre and meeting rooms so it is (3)
_____________ for business purposes.

A(n) (4) _____________ option is the Hotel Royal, which is a(n) (5) _____________
choice for tourists because the prices are (6) _____________, and it is next to the
beach. The hotel is not modern; in fact it is quite (7) _____________ and in need of
minor repair, but it is (8) _____________ for a short break.

Bài 2: Phân biết các câu dưới đây, câu nào thể hiện sự thực (Fact), câu nào thể
hiện ý kiến (Opinion). Điền F bên cạnh câu thể hiện sự thật và O bên cạnh câu thể
hiện ý kiến.

1. The distance between Birmingham and Cheltenham is about 40 miles.

2. There are currently two areas with roadworks between Birmingham and Cheltenham.
____
3. Cheltenham has music, literature and horseracing festivals, a historic promenade and
award-winning gardens.
____
4. Cheltenham is well worth a visit.
____
5. Birmingham is sometimes compared to Venice because of its many canals.

6. You can't get from Birmingham to Cheltenham in less than half an hour unless you break
____
the speed limit.
____
7. Frankley service station, on the M5 near Birmingham, has shops that provide good value
for money.
____
8. The wet season is colder than the dry season.

9. The west coast has the best weather in December.

10. The new system will help scientists to hear whales.

Bài 3: Đọc các đoạn văn dưới đây , điền “YES” nếu các câu đưa ra quan điểm
dưới mỗi đoạn văn đúng và điền “NO” nếu người viết đưa ra ý kiến ngược lại
trong đoạn văn.

Britain never used to have armed police, but when major events are being held, such as
the recent London Olympics, there is a visible presence of armed police in train stations.
Do people using public transport feel reassured when they see armed police? Possibly.
But most of them, especially visitors to the UK, may feel that there is something to worry
about, especially as they would expect British police not to be armed. And if we think
about it, the police, armed or not, cannot protect us from bombers. But what the police
can, and sometimes does do, is make mistakes, and these are always worse when
there are firearms involved. So in the end, arming police may do more harm than good.

1. Most travellers feel protected when they see armed police in train stations
2. Even police with guns cannot protect us from bombers
3. The police might shoot somebody by accident
4. It is better not to have armed police in Britain

Instead of complaining about roadworks, the cost of petrol, the price of cars, etc. we
need to think about other options. And I don’t mean car sharing or building more
motorways. I say we try to save our environment by campaigning for better bus and
train networks and for different types of transport, such as trams.

5. We should complain about car-related problems

6. The environment is not really in danger
7. Public transport needs to be improved

The rise in fuel prices is a very worrying trend. Here are just some examples of the
consequences.

Elderly people cannot afford to heat their houses, people lose their jobs because they
can no longer afford to commute to work, or because they are made redundant from
their jobs in transport-based businesses such as airlines. Self-employed people often
rely on their own transport for work, e.g. delivery people, florists and taxi drivers, so they
may be forced to close their business. The prices of some food and raw materials also
increase as a direct result of the cost of oil, e.g. the prices of beef and cotton. Against all
of that, there is one possible advantage: car manufacturers are employing more people
to design fuel-efficient cars, which will benefit the environment. But surely, this is not
enough. What we need is international cooperation and political goodwill, to reduce fuel
prices and/ or financially support those who are being affected.

8. We need to be concerned about the increase in the price of fuel

9. There are more problems caused by increasing fuel prices than the ones
mentioned in the passage
10. The price of beef is closely related to the price of oil
11. The rise of fuel prices is not a big problem as the environment is benefitting from
it
12. If we cannot lower the price of fuel then we need more money so that people can
cope with it

Bài 4: Đọc đoạn văn sau và chọn YES/NO/NOT GIVEN cho các câu ở dưới.
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant
to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two
nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing
over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to
cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was
culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter
Kuznick, the director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in
Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity”.

According to the official US version of history, an A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on

6 August 1945, and another on Nagasaki three days later, to force Japan to surrender.
The destruction was necessary to bring a rapid end to the war without the need a costly
US invasion.

But this is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in
Ithaca, New York, US. They are presenting their evidence at a meeting in London on
Thursday organized by Greenpeace and others to coincide with the 60th anniversary of
the bombings.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s
main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered
because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing,
not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to the US Secretary of State James

Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals,
Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy,
that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan
Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

Kuznick and Selden’s arguments, however, were dismissed as “discredited” by

Lawrence Freedman, a war expert from King’s College, London, UK. He says that
Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima was “understandable in the circumstances”.
Truman’s main aim had been to end the war with Japan, Freedman says, but adds that
with the wisdom of hindsight, the bombing may not have been militarily justified. Some
people assumed that the US always had a “malicious and nasty motive”, he says, “but it
ain’t necessarily so.”
Read the following passage. Do the statements agree with the views of the
writer? Write:

YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts what the writer thinks

NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to know what the writer's point of view is

1. The two atomic bombs killed more than 200,000 people in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
2. Kuznick and Selden hold contradicting views over the issue of Hiroshima bomb.
3. Kuznick and Selden work at the same university.
4. Japan is the only country that has been attacked with atomic bombs.
5. According to the American government, A-bombs were used to defeat Japan.
6. According to Kuznick, Japan surrendered because of the Russian army rather
than the A-bombs. 7. According to Water Brown, US army generals were against
the use of A-bombs.
7. Walter Brown was the Secretary of State when Truman was the President of
America.