A lecture in biology class

Which aspect of bee behavior does the professor mainly discuss?

To explain how bees know which way to fly

To illustrate problems with the waggle dance

To confirm the accuracy of the round dance

The distance of the food site from the hive

The exact location of the food at the site

According to the professor, what does the waggle dance tell forager bees?

Which way should forager bees fly if a scout bee flies up the side of the beehive in a vertical line?

The scientists should have been more careful.

It is difficult to put transmitters on bees.

It is not a good idea to use radar with bees.

What does the professor imply when he says this: I don't know how, but they did.

They rely solely on the information from the waggle dance.

They rely completely upon their senses of sight and smell.

They use the waggle dance to reach the area of the food.

They use their senses to find the exact location of food.

What can be inferred about how forager bees find food?

TOEFL Lectures

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture in biology class. 

Prof: You've been reading about animal behavior. Today we'll discuss one of the most astonishing behaviors in the animal world: dancing bees. Did you know that bees can dance? Well, neither did scientists, until the 1960s. That's when a German scientist, named, uh, Karl von Frisch, noticed something truly remarkable. As he was observing honeybees, he noticed that some of the bees, which he called scout bees, flew out of the hive to look for food. When a scout found a site where there was food, it flew back to the beehive and started dancing. This dance somehow told the other honeybees where the food was, because after the dance, the bees... [false start] some of the bees flew from the hive straight to the site of the food. Von Frisch called the bees that collect the food forager bees. He thought the scout bee's dance told the forager bees three things -- first, the smell of the food it had found; second, which direction to fly to reach the food; and third, the distance of the food site from the beehive. Von Frisch won the 1973 Nobel Prize for this discovery, but many scientists were skeptical of his theory. They didn't believe it was the dance that led the forager bees to food. Instead, they thought it might be, oh, the smell of the food on the dancing bee, or maybe that they just followed the scout back to the food site. Well, very recently, some British scientists used a new type of radar to prove that von Frisch's theory was indeed correct. It is the dance that communicates this information to other bees. 

The British researchers found that scout bees perform two types of dances. If the food is near the hive, say, oh, about 50 or 60 meters away, the scout flies in a round pattern, like a circle. This tells the location, but not the direction, of the food site. If the site is farther away, the scout does what's called a waggle dance. It flies in a pattern of ovals and vertical lines. The speed of the waggle dance tells other bees how far away the food site is. The slower the dance, the farther away the food. If the scout flies in a vertical line up the side of the beehive, it's telling the foragers to fly directly toward the sun. If the scout flies vertically down the hive, it's saying, "fly away from the sun." Up is toward, down is away. If the scout flies at an angle to the hive, it's telling the foragers to fly neither toward nor away from the sun, but in between. The bees have a special internal mechanism to know which angle they should fly, based on the sun, the hive and the food site. They can also measure the distance they fly by recording the motion of things they see as they fly past. 

Now, um, one problem with von Frisch's theory had been this: It seems to take the forager bees a long time to reach the food site. That's why ... [false start] That's why scientists thought that perhaps it wasn't the waggle dance that led them there. For many years, scientists couldn't follow the foragers after they left the hive,. because they didn't have the technology. Just a few years ago, though, the British scientists solved this problem using a new type of radar. They were able to attach a, uh, small radio transmitter to forager bees -- I don't know how, but they did. This enabled them to follow the forager bees' flight after they left the hive. The radar showed that foragers, do, in fact, fly straight to the area of the food site. They don't follow the scout bee back to the site, because the scout goes into the hive after it finishes dancing. Well then, if the waggle dance does lead the foragers directly to the food site, why does it take so long for them to find the actual food? The answer is that the waggle dance leads the foragers only to the general area of the food. It doesn't tell them the exact location of the flowers or plants that have the food. So the foragers have to spend a while flying around the area before they find the exact location of what they're looking for.

A lecture in social science class

How well they cross over into other industries

According to the professor, what is the main difference between a fad and a trend?

He is introducing a new idea about trends and fads.

He is telling a student there is something on the back of his or her shirt.

He is recognizing a student who has raised a hand to ask a question.

He wants students in the back of the room to quit talking and listen.

Why does the professor say this: "Yes, in the back."?

She thinks the people who started these fads are not intelligent.

She thinks people who participate in these fads are foolish.

She wants the professor to discuss a more humorous topic.

She thinks all of her classmates are dumb.

What does the student mean when she says this: "They're all stupid."?

It can cross over into different industries.

Large companies do not accept it right away.

Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of a fad?

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture in social science class. 

Prof: Today we're going to begin with a short quiz. No, no, you don't need pencil and paper, just listen. It's only one question. Ready? OK. What do blogs, Pokemon, tattoos, Cabbage Patch Kids, pet rocks, and hula hoops have in common? Anybody? 

S1: They're all stupid. [laughter] 

S2: I know, Professor Morgan. They're all fads. 

Prof: Correct. Now here's another question: How did you know that? In other words, what are the characteristics of a fad, and what's the difference between a fad and a trend? These are the questions we're going to consider together this afternoon. Well, the main difference, I think, between a fad and a trend concerns time. A fad is something that seems to appear suddenly. It quickly becomes enormously popular, and then disappears just as suddenly as it came. A trend also appears rather suddenly, and it also becomes very popular, but it doesn't disappear. A trend can have a long-term influence on its particular market. Fads and trends often resemble each other at first glance, but a fad usually has a definite beginning and end. Um, Pokemon might be a fad, but the idea of fantasy playing cards for children might be a trend, for example. 

Another difference is that fads usually stay within one industry. Trends can cross over into many industries. The hula hoop, for instance, has been called the greatest fad of all time. Twenty five million [false start] In the late 1950s, 25 million hula hoops were sold in just four months. But a year later, sales had virtually stopped. The hula hoop was a toy. It was fun to play with, but that's about all. Now consider cell phones. They were designed to be portable telephones, but they crossed over into the worlds of fashion, wireless communication, and now even photography. People buy cell phones that match the latest clothes fashions. They use cell phones for wireless Internet access. They take photos with them. Cell phones have become a trend. 

Ahem [clears throat or coughs] Here's a third difference between fads and trends: how well industries accept them. Fads are often promoted by smaller companies. They need the quick money that fads provide. Large companies don't accept fads right away. They can't afford to be wrong. If someone [false start] If a company is known as a trend-setter, and it promotes a fad, its reputation will be damaged. Large companies buy products in huge numbers. They don't want unsold products sitting on their shelves. So they wait to see if a fad becomes a trend. Then they will accept it in their stores. Now... yes? 

S2: How long does a fad have to last before it becomes a trend? I mean, there are all these energy drinks now. There used to be only a couple, but now there's like, a hundred. Are they still a fad? Exercise is a trend, so wouldn't energy drinks be part of the exercise trend? 

Prof: That's an excellent question! When exactly does a fad become a trend? You know, there are people who are paid a lot of money to answer that question. If they get it right, companies become rich and famous. If they get it wrong, companies go bankrupt and careers get ruined. The short answer is: nobody knows. Distinguishing between fads and trends is an art, not a science. If it were easy, there would be a lot more rich people in the world. Yes, in the back. 

S1: Yeah, um...can't people get rich from fads, too? You said they sold 25 million hula hoops in four months. Someone must have made big money off that? 

Prof: Yes, they did. Toy companies made, uh, $45 million off of hula hoops by the time the fad ended. And maybe some of you have heard of pet rocks, in the 1970s? A man bought a rock for a penny, put it in a gift box and marketed it as a pet. He became an instant millionaire. But the problem [false start] The trouble with fads is, no one can predict them. This man had no idea that so many people would buy rocks as pets. He started it as kind of a joke. The Pokemon creators had no clue their cards would become instantly popular all over the world. That's the thing. Fads are mysterious to both their creators and to the public.

A lecture from an arts class

What aspect of USA Today does the professor mainly discuss?

He knows that all the students are familiar with the subject.

He is angry at the students because he thinks they are lazy.

He thinks many students have not yet read the assignment.

He doesn't think that any students have read the assignment.

What can be inferred about the professor when he says this: "Some of you might recognize it as the topic of this week's reading assignment."?

to compare the quality of its food with the quality of USA Today's stories

to compare the design of its restaurants with the look of USA Today's pages

to compare the great success of McDonald's with the success of USA Today

to compare the early years of McDonald's with the early years of USA Today

Why does the professor mention McDonald's?

What is a key feature of USA Today mentioned in the lecture?

that USA Today does not know what serious news is

that other papers shouldn't have copied USA Today

that people have different definitions of serious news

that USA Today changed the style of other papers

Why does the professor imply when he says this: "They replaced quote unquote serious news with feature stories."?

It measures the number of people who buy each issue of the paper.

It measures the number of people who read each issue of the paper.

It measures how many people buy and read each issue of the paper.

It measures neither how many people buy nor read each issue of the paper.

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from an arts class. 

Prof: Hello again. [ahem] Well, we're near the end of our unit on newspapers. I'm going to talk about our national newspaper, USA Today. Some of you might recognize it as the topic of this week's reading assignment. US [chuckles; false start] USA Today is now more than 25 years old. When it began, few expected it would last this long. Well, not only has it lasted, it has thrived. USA Today is the largest-selling daily newspaper in America. It is also distributed in many countries around the world. But that's only part of the story. The real success of USA Today is the way it changed the newspaper industry. USA Today changed the way papers look. It changed the way reporters write. And it changed the way papers gather and deliver news. 

USA Today set out to be different. Newspapers at that time were, um, in trouble. Fewer people were reading them. The papers were full of bad news about crime and killing. They had long stories. They didn't have color photos and graphics., and many could not include the latest sports scores. USA Today changed all that. It had shorter stories, most of which did not jump, or continue, from one page to another. It used color photos, and colorful charts and graphics. It did not have much international news, but it did have lots of sports, entertainment and human-interest stories. It was trying to appeal to younger readers. These readers had been raised watching television, so they had trouble, uh, paying attention to longer stories. They wanted, erm, to be entertained, not informed. At first, many people laughed at USA Today. Other newspapers called it "McPaper." They were comparing it to McDonald's fast food, which isn't, um, very healthy. It fills you up, but it doesn't have much nutrition. They said McPaper was the same way -- it looked good, but the news it had wasn't very important. People said USA Today "dumbed down" the news. Does anyone know what "dumb down" means? 

S1: Yeah, I think it means to make things too simple. Like, you want to make it easy to understand, but you make it too easy. So it's like writing for a little child. 

P: That's exactly right. If you make something too simple, people get mad. They think that the writer thinks they're stupid. But a funny thing happened. More and more people started reading USA Today. About a year after it started, it had a circulation of more than one million. Today, its circulation is past two million. Question? 

S2: Yo, what does circulation mean? 

P: Circulation is the number of papers that are read each day. It means [false start] It means that USA Today distributes more than two million copies of each issue. When other papers saw this circulation grow, they became worried. So, they started to, uh, copy USA Today's style. Their stories got shorter, and they started using lots of color photos and charts. They replaced quote unquote serious news with feature stories. Soon, it became normal for newspapers to look like USA Today. But it wasn't only appearance that made USA Today so popular. One very big reason for its success was timeliness. Timeliness means its ability to report the latest news. Daily newspapers have a deadline, which is the time they have to stop writing and start printing the paper. The deadline often caused papers to leave out news. This was especially true of East Coast papers and, erm, West Coast sports scores. Basketball, football and baseball games would end on the West Coast at 11 p.m. But that's 2 a.m. Eastern time. This was too late to put the score of the game in the next day's paper. USA Today, however, used satellites to transmit news. It could set later deadlines, so it could include the West Coast scores. This, alone, caused many people to buy the paper. Yes? 

S3: But today most papers use satellites. So why has USA Today's circulation kept growing? 

P: Excellent question. Uh, actually, USA Today has changed. It still looks colorful, but it's started to become more like traditional papers. It's stories are getting longer, and it has more international news. It changed because people are changing. The paper needed to appeal to more, um, educated readers, because they're the ones with money. Also, it needed to sell more papers overseas. International readers don't want "dumbed down" news.

A lecture from a marine biology class

What aspect of marine food chains does the professor mainly discuss?

Herring have a more efficient food chain.

According to the professor, why is herring healthier for us than tuna?

In the lecture, the professor describes a simple marine food chain. Which of the following is mentioned in the lecture as part of this chain?

How does the professor introduce the topic of seafood?

Why does the professor say this: "And then there are gigantic animals, like whale sharks and baleen whales, that are herbivores and only eat plankton."?

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from a marine biology class. 

Prof: You've been reading this month about food chains and food webs. Today we'll discuss these in relation to seafood. How many of you like seafood? Mmm, most of you. So do I. In fact, I'm on a seafood diet. I see food, I eat it. (weak laughter; perhaps some groans or hissing). Get it? Ha ha. OK. But seriously folks...Today we're going to talk about trophic relationships in marine food chains and webs. Who can remind us what a trophic relationship is? Yes, Mr. Li? 

S: It's what an organism eats, and uh, the things that eat that organism. 

P: Very good. Trophic relationships describe the relationship between producers and consumers, so they help us diagram food chains and food webs. Now, in marine ecosystems, like other ecosystems, food is needed for matter - growth and reproduction - and for energy - metabolic processes within the body. Also like other ecosystems, marine ecosystems have producers, consumers and decomposers. The primary producers are autotrophic plankton. Auto trophic means these plankton can synthesize their own food. Autotrophs are consumed by heterotrophic organisms. "Hetero" means other; so in this case, heterotrophic means organisms that can't synthesize their own food. They must rely on autotrophs for food energy. The primary consumers in marine food chains are the plant eaters -- herbivores -- and the secondary consumers are both the meat eaters - carnivores - and predators that eat both meat and plants: omnivores. The decomposers are heterotrophic bacteria, which get energy from body wastes and dead tissue, thus cycling it back to the producers. 

A simple marine food chain, then, might look like this (sound of writing on board): the top predator, trophic level number 4, is a herring. Herring fish eat level 3, carnivorous zooplankton. The carnivorous zooplankton eat trophic level 2, herbivorous zooplankton. And herbivorous zooplankton eat level number 1, phytoplankton, which is a type of autotroph. In marine food chains, energy transfer is not very efficient. Phytoplankton utilize only about one percent of the energy available from the sun. Between 70 and 90 percent of the energy made by producers or eaten by heterotrophs is used in their bodies or expelled as waste. This leaves only 10 to 30 percent that's retained in the body's biomass and available for consumers at the next highest trophic level. Thus, the biomass at each trophic level is controlled by the efficiency of the energy transfer. At the lowest trophic level, animals will generally have high biomass, and there will be lots of small producers. At the highest trophic level, animals will generally have low biomass, and there will be only a few large animals. 

Now, let's expand our simple food chain into a food web. In this web, a herring is no longer a trophic-4 predator. There is a bigger fish, um...a tuna, that eats the herring. But there is an even bigger animal that eats the tuna. And that is...? 

S: Us! 

P: Yes. And there's something else from the seas that will even eat us. 

S: Sharks! 

P: Correct. A food web is more complex than a food chain. And then there are gigantic animals, like whale sharks and baleen whales, that are herbivores and only eat plankton. But let's focus for a few moments on us. What are the implications of trophic levels for the fish we eat? Well, looking at the fish harvest worldwide, 88 percent of the fish we catch are fish with fins. Eight percent are shellfish, and four percent are crustaceans. Fish caught in the open ocean, such as tuna, are high-level predators on an inefficient food chain. Fish caught in coastal areas, such as cod, herring and haddock, are at the top end of shorter, more efficient food chains. This is because there is a high density of phytoplankton, so consumers expend less energy catching food. These fish, then, provide more energy and better nutrition for us. In "upswelling" areas, off the west coasts of America and Africa, the fish are even healthier. Here there are small, very efficient food chains, and the fish are small, fast-growing, eat lots of phytoplankton and travel in dense schools. Two examples of such fish are anchovies and sardines.

A lecture from a science class

It is the part of a plant that will reproduce itself when germinated.

It is any kernel used in cooking that is found within a shell.

It is a plant fruit that does not attach itself to the ovary of a nut.

It is a plant embryo completely encased in an integument.

According to the professor, how do botanists define a seed?

He thinks the explanation is self-apparent.

He is expressing irritation at the students' stupidity.

He suspects that the scientists are playing a joke.

He is acknowledging that the issue is confusing.

What does the professor mean when he says this: "Clear as a bell, right?"

To compare chestnut seeds with watermelon seeds

To highlight the confusion between nuts and seeds

To argue against the botanical definition of a nut

To illustrate a point about compound ovaries

They have a plant fruit unattached to an ovary.

They will grow into new plants when buried.

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from a science class. 

Prof: Many people, including scientists, are confused about the distinction between nuts and seeds. Some dictionaries say a nut is also a seed, others say a nut is a fruit, and still others say a nut can be both a fruit and a seed. How can an average person tell the difference? Well, in a nutshell, nuts are seeds but seeds cannot be nuts. Clear as a bell, right? 

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that seeds and nuts are classified differently for botanical purposes and culinary ones. Botanists -- that is, scientists who study plants -- define a seed as part of the, er, a flowering plant or tree that will grow into a new plant or tree if it's, uh, buried in the ground and germinated. In this respect it's similar to a human egg, which becomes an embryo when fertilized by sperm. Sometimes the plant embryo becomes enclosed in a covering, called an integument: I-N-T-E-G-U-M-E-N-T. The embryo plus its integument, therefore, constitute a seed. Um, sunflower seeds are good examples of this. You've got to crack open the black outer part, the integument, to eat the white embryo inside, right? That's why we call them sunflower seeds, and not sunflower nuts. 

However, it's possible for an embryo to have no type of integument at all. As these embryos grow, the tissue surrounding them develops into a fruit. We see this form in many berries, as well as tomatoes, and in peanuts and beans. So an embryo, or seed, doesn't need a covering to be called a fruit. Now, some plants produce a type of fruit called nuts. A nut is a plant fruit containing a single seed (with or without integument) that does not attach itself to the ovary, or, uh, inside wall of the nut. Nuts have a dry, tough outer shell that doesn't crack open when the seed becomes mature. Acorns, chestnuts, and walnuts are good examples of nuts. In the botanical sense, a nut is a seed because it is a compound ovary; it contains both the seed and the fruit of a plant. Oft [false start] Usually, a plant's seed can be separated from its fruit, like when you poke seeds from a watermelon. But with nuts, the part inside the outer shell contains both the seed and the fruit, and these can't be pulled apart. 

This inside part of the nut, the part inside the outer shell, is called a kernel. The kernel is definitely not a nut. It's a fruit. People often eat the kernel, and when they do this, they say that they are eating a nut -- for example, "I'm eating a pecan," or "I'm eating a chestnut." What they should be saying, technically, is "I'm eating pecan meat," or "I'm eating a chestnut kernel." In the same sense, a peanut typically refers to the entire package of seed-slash-fruit encased in its outer shell, as well as to the edible inner seed-slash-fruit. So, while a nut is botanically classified as a seed, it is primarily in this culinary sense that people confuse nuts and seeds. 

Because a nut in cuisine is more, uh, loosely defined than a nut in botany, the term "nut" gets slapped on many seeds that are not true nuts. Almonds, for example, are mistakenly called nuts, even though they are actually the edible seeds of plants called drupes, as are coconuts and pistachio nuts. Cashews are another example of nuts that are really seeds, along with Brazil nuts, which are seeds that come from capsules. In culinary language, any kernel used in cooking that is found within a shell may be labeled as a nut. One attribute nuts and seeds have in common is that both are highly nutritious. Nuts are a great source of energy because they have lots of oil, and are also an excellent source of protein, fiber, magnesium and zinc. Additionally, recent [false start] recent studies have also shown they are beneficial for the blood and heart. Many seeds are packed with vitamin E, which is touted for its anti-aging properties. Nuts and seeds are good not only for humans, but also for wildlife, a fact confirmed each fall when animals such as squirrels, chipmunks and jays can be seen busily storing nuts to avoid starvation in the coming winter cold.

A lecture from an American History class

To argue against traditional US historical models

To correct a misimpression about the Nobel Peach Prize

To illustrate an example of female roles on US history

To demonstrate his knowledge of historical trivia

Why does the professor mention Jane Addams?

It makes the plight of women seem overly dramatic.

It overemphasizes men's oppression of women.

It does not factor in women's familial social roles.

According to the professor, what is one problem with contribution approach?

He thinks that women-centered history is ridiculous.

He believes that women-centered history is unbalanced.

He does not fully concur with Gerda Lerner's analysis.

He knows that Gerda Lerner has changed history.

What does the professor imply when he says this: "I'm not sure about that..."?

It claims that gender is an important historical distinction.

Which of the following describes the victim approach to US History?

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from an American History class. 

Prof: Most scholars agree that women have been short-changed in United States history textbooks. Because a woman has never been a, uh, US president or a commander -- a major commander, anyway -- in a war, these scholars argue that historians have, um, overlooked or ignored the contributions women have made to US history. In recent years, though, a new view of women's history has emerged. It's called "women-centered history," and it's forcing historians to re-interpret traditional pictures of key historical events. Now they're looking at ways women contributed to history "behind the scenes," if you will. For instance, though they didn't fight in wars or occupy the political stage, women formed organizations in places such as churches and clubs, where they discussed ideas and learned skills that would later lead to their emergence in the historical spotlight. Um, Jane Addams is one good example of this. She founded houses for poor people in Chicago, and was an original member of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU. She lobbied government for the rights of workers and women, which paid off in 1920 when women received the right to vote. In 19... uh, 1931, she became the first American women to win the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Women-centered history starts with the premise that females played an important part in shaping US history, and that gender is a, um, worthy historical distinction. This perspective is different from past models of studying women in US history. One of the first models is called the contribution approach, which concedes that men played the leading historical roles but demonstrates that women were vital "supporting actresses" at every landmark historical event. While this was certainly true, the contribution approach has been criticized because it highlights only the bravest and brightest women, and it also neglects the social role of women in everyday family life. Another [false start] a second historical model is called the victim approach, which emphasizes how men have oppressed women throughout history. Um, although obviously true, it tells only part of the story. It also tends toward emotionalism, overly dramatizing women's plight. Critics charge that under the victim approach, the only women who stand out are the unusual ones, such as the famous Salem "witches" of the seventeenth century. The rest are weak, helpless victims of a male-dominated world. 

Women-centered history tends to balance the contribution and victim approaches. Instead of asking, "How have women have helped men?" or "how have men oppressed women?", it asks simply, "What have women done?" Now, in one sense it still gives only a partial picture, because it examines history from only one perspective, but in another sense it gives a fairer and more complete portrait of US women's past than the previous two models. One historian, named Gerda Lerner, says women-centered history tells how women have survived and contributed in a male world "on their own terms." Ms. Lerner claims that women-centered history best portrays the balance of interaction between women's oppression and women's power. I'm not sure about that, but I do know one thing. It has compelled historians to see certain historical processes in a new light, such as the, eight -- er, nineteenth century temperance movement, and the prohibition movement of the twentieth century. 

As feminist scholars keep studying the history of US women, more new approaches are likely to develop. For example, there are still several sub-categories of women's history to consider, such as labor history, social status, the history of women in minority cultures, and so on. There are also class divisions, race divisions, ethnic divisions and religious divisions. Finally, there is the history of women's interactions with other women, not just with men.

A lecture from an Art History class

What aspect of Fourier's life is the professor mainly discussing?

They were characteristic of the Enlightenment.

What does the professor say about utopian socialists?

According to the professor, what is a feature of Romanticism?

Why does the professor mention moons and lemonade?

What can be inferred from the lecture about Charles Fourier?

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from an Art History class. 

Prof: Good morning. Ready to begin? Today I'd like to complement our study of Romanticism by examining more closely the life of Charles Fourier. That's four like the number, then i-e-r. But, before we study Mr. Fourier, let's review what we know about Romanticism. Who can tell me what Romanticism was, and when it lasted? Yes, Mr. Stiles. 

S: Romanticism was a cultural and, um, artistic movement in Europe. It lasted for the first quarter of the 18th - no, I mean 19th -- Century. 

P: Very nice, Mr. Stiles. Who would like to summarize the main message of Romanticism? Let's see...Mr. Brown? 

S: The main message was probably, um, that artists should, uh, that individuals should, use their imagination to choose the form and content of all art. The Romantics thought that the Enlightenment had kind of choked off imagination, and feeling, and creativity, and, um, like stifled all individual freedom. 

P: Well put, Mr. Brown. The Romantics loathed any type of rationalism. The Enlightenment had emphasized rationality and reason so much that the Romantics felt the individual had been demolished, reduced to an automated robot. It was time to liberate the soul, to break away and stand out, to reclaim individual freedom. Rousseau penned the rallying cry in the beginning of his Confessions: "...I am not made like any of those I have seen. I venture to believe that I am not made like any of those who are in existence. If I am not better, at least I am different." 

So then, it was against this backdrop that Charles Fourier appeared on the historical stage. Mr. Fourier was what Karl Marx would later dub a utopian socialist. He was one of three main utopian socialists, along with Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon. A utopian socialist, broadly speaking, was someone who employed socialist principles to create hypothetical versions of perfect utopias - um, societies that were egalitarian or communal, in which people would live in perfect fairness and harmony. Utopian philosophers believed these kinds of societies could be achieved in the immediate future. They thus planted the first seeds of the early 20th Century socialist movement. 

Monsieur Fourier was born in northeast France on April 7, 1772, and he died in Paris on October 10, 1837. He was widely regarded as the most utopian of the utopian socialists. He argued vigorously, for instance, that women should have equal rights with men - and actually coined our modern word feminism. Also, he thought the industrial revolution that was then taking place in England was simply a passing phase; that mankind would move beyond industrialism to something better. As to what that something better would be, Fourier had some rather unusual ideas. He was born into a well-to-do family of cloth merchants, and after he inherited his mother's estate in 1812, he had the money - and time - to pursue these notions. In his four published works, Fourier laid out a vision of a future community built on emotional bonds, fueled by what he called the laws of "passional attraction." Basic human passions and drives had been repressed for too long, he argued. Now these emotions needed to be openly expressed and harnessed. Men and women would live in self-contained housing units with 1,620 members. Why 1,620? Because Mr. Fourier had determined that people could be classified into 810 different psychological types. If you multiply this by two, for men and women, you get 1,620. With such precise pairing, he was certain that the laws of passional attraction would produce ideal, harmonious relationships. 

Many of Fourier's ideas, to be frank, were perfect nonsense. He projected that his new world would last for 80,000 years, the last 8,000 of these in an era of perfect harmony. In this period he predicted, among other things, that six moons would orbit the earth, and the seas would become oceans of lemonade (laughter). But sprinkled amidst his nonsense were enough kernels of fresh thought to qualify Fourier as an instrumental influence on later socialist thinkers, such as Marx and Engels. Many think the most valuable of these kernels was Fourier's idea that work, especially heavy manual labor, could be turned into play: something deeply satisfying both mentally and physically. That was probably the one vision of Fourier's that most captivated later socialist thinkers.

A lecture from a social sciences class

What resulted from the invention of Tarmac?

To explain the origin of a modern synonym

Why does the professor discuss World War II?

He believes that John McAdam was a bit egotistic.

He thinks John McAdam did not take himself seriously.

What can be inferred about the professor when he says this: He named his technique, modestly, "macadam roads"?

Hot-mix asphalt was used by ancient Sumerians.

Most US roadways today are paved with Tarmac.

According to the lecture, indicate which of the following is true.

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from a social sciences class. 

Prof: Have you ever heard something like this on the news: "Air Force One has landed, and the president and first lady are now walking across the tarmac"? Ever wonder what tarmac is? If so, take heart: you're not alone. Tarmac, it turns out, is a type of surface pavement that is short for [enunciates slowly and clearly] tar-penetration macadam. Got that? It's a mouthful. Actually, here in the United States we don't use Tarmac much anymore, because it's been supp -- that is, upstaged, by asphalt. But we still use the term when referring to the pavement at airports. 

The "macadam" part of Tarmac refers to a Scotsman named John McAdam. McAdam, in the early nineteenth century, invented a method to strengthen paved roads and increase the way water drains off roadways. He named his technique, modestly, "macadam roads" [laughter]. Macadam roads had a sloped roadway covered with three layers of grav [false start] angular gravel, which was compacted by a heavy roller. These roads were undoubtedly stronger than previous ones, but they posed a new difficulty: dust. When automobiles began using them, the cars raised swirling clouds of debris, making it, shall we say, daunting to see. So, as early as the 1830s, people started experimenting by covering macadam roads with tar and sand, in an attempt solve this problem. 

In 1901, a man named E. Purnell Hooley [pause] really [laughter] invented a mixture of tar and a furnace waste material called slag, to come up with the infamous tar-penetration macadam -- Tarmac -- that improved the dust resistance on macadam roads. Soon, roads throughout England were resurfaced with Hooley's invention, and the company he founded, Tarmac Limited, became very profitable. During World War II, the British used Tarmac to build airstrips for jet fighters, which is why we still use the term Tarmac today as a synonym for runways and other paved airport areas. OK. Now from Britain, Tarmac spread to the United States, but Americans preferred asphalt, which is a substance that occurs naturally in lakes and rocks, as well as synthetically as a byproduct of petroleum production. Asphalt is more resilient than tar, and holds up better in a wider range of temperatures. Its first recorded use dates back to about 3,000 BC, when the Sumerians used it to, uh, preserve mummies, waterproof ships, and cement bricks. Hot-mix asphalt, or HMA, is a combination of aggregates - like sand, gravel or, um, crushed stone minerals - and an asphalt binder, like coal tar. It was first used in the US for crosswalks and sidewalks in the late 19 --er, 1860s. The first road was paved with HMA in 1870, in New Jersey. 

Until about 1900, US producers used natural asphalt, which they got mainly from two large lakes in Venezuela. Refined petroleum asphalt first appeared in the 1870s, and by 1907 its production out-paced natural asphalt. HMA pavement took its modern form in the early twentieth century, when Frederick Warren earned patents for a hot-mix asphalt paving that he termed "bitulithic." That's B-I-T-U-L-I-T-H-I-C. Typically, bitulithic mix contains ingredients that make it more "fluid" than sheet asphalt. Laura Ingalls Wilder, a noted American author, described this fluidity upon her first encounter with asphalt, as she watched ladies walk across the asphalt pavement. "Their heels dented the street, and while we watched, these dents slowly filled up and smoothed themselves out," she wrote. "It was like magic." 

Warren's patents expired in 1920, and since then asphalt mixes have improved. As the popularity of motor vehicles skyrocketed, local governments scrambled to construct more and better roads, leading to technological innovations in both asphalt production and spreading techniques. Today, HMA covers almost 95 percent of America's paved roadways, as well as most of its sidewalks, runways, driveways, parking lots and tennis courts.

A lecture from a life sciences class

To counter a point about handedness genetics

Why does the professor mention Japan and China?

Different parts of the brain control different body functions.

The same part of the brain controls all bodily functions.

It has been disproven by a recent archaeological study.

It does not seem to apply to determining handedness.

According to the professor, what is the problem with the concept of brain lateralization?

He wants to know if students read their assignment.

He wants to direct students' attention to a pun.

He wants to know if the students can hear him.

He wants to see if the students are paying attention.

Some scientists claim the only handedness is right and non-right.

Most scientists define handedness by manual performance accuracy.

Only 2 percent of all people are genuinely ambidextrous.

About 90 percent of left-handers process language in the left side of their left brains.

In the lecture, the professor mentions problems scientists have in determining handedness. Indicate which of the following statements is true.

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from a life sciences class. 

Prof: Raise your hand if you're right-handed. Yep, that looks typical. Most of us -- about ninety percent -- are right-handed. It's been that way throughout history. In ever...In nearly every culture, right has been associated with positive qualities, while the left has been associated with negative, or even evil, ones. In Latin, left means "sinister." In ancient Japan, men could reject, er, refuse, to marry women who were left-handed. Um, in modern China, teachers try to force left-handed students to learn to write with their right hands. And, as I'm sure all lefties know, everyday items, like, can openers, uh, scissors, and uh, computer keyboards, are designed for righties. In short, left-handers have been made to feel "left" out ... [pause]. Get it? (sound of groans). 

It might seem straightforward to you and I, but scientifically speaking, the basis of handedness is not well understood. Most scientists define right-handed or left-handed on the basis of a person's preferred writing hand. [Coughs] But some scientists claim it should be based on the hand that is, um, faster and more accurate in performing manual activities, like tightening a screw or, uh, tying a knot. Still others claim that ability doesn't matter; in other words, that handedness should denote only preference. Yes, question? 

S1: What about people who are anti, um, ambi, uh...who use both hands? 

P: You mean ambidextrous. Actually, most scientists agree that genuine ambidexterity is rare, and several of them believe it even rates its own special category as a distinct type of handedness. Uh, the reason for this is that most people can perform several functions relatively equally with either hand, which causes another scientific faction to argue that there are actually only two types of handedness - right and non-right. This group advocates measuring handedness on a continuum, from 100-percent right-handed to 100-percent left-handed. On this scale, we'd say something like, "I'm 60-percent right-handed," or "I'm eighty-two-point-five-percent right-handed" -- though how we'd determine who's more right-handed than another would open a whole new can of worms. OK, um, yes? 

S2: How do people become right-handed or left-handed in the first place? Does it come from your genes? 

P: Mostly, yes. Research shows that handedness is largely genetic. Er, interestingly, though, even when both parents are left-handed, the odds are no better than 50-50 that their children will be lefties. Some scientists believe there is a specific gene that determines right-handedness, but the, uh, trouble is that they can't pinpoint it. They think this gene also aids the development of speech and language comprehension. Many researchers believe that handedness is a result of something called brain lateralization, which is the, uh, concept that each hemisphere of the brain controls different bodily functions. Researchers have long been believed that a person's dominant hand is on the side opposite the brain hemisphere that controls their language specialization, so that right-handed people use the left half of their brain for processing language. But brain lateralization, is, um, not well documented, and there is evidence that seems to contradict this concept. For instance, while it's true that more than 90 percent of right-handed people do process language in their left hemisphere, recent research shows that about 40 percent of left-handed people also process language primarily in the left side of their brain. Additionally, only 10 percent of lefties rely primarily on their right brain to process language. 

So, um, what can we make of this? Though genetics clearly plays a vital role in determining handedness, environment also seems to be a fac [false start] an important factor. A recent archaeological study compared a group of modern Canadians with 1,000-year-old skeletons from a British farming community. The Canadians showed right-handed dominance by a nine-to-one ratio of larger right elbows than left ones. In the ancient skeletons, however, most right and left elbows were equal. Now, this doesn't prove that the British farmers were ambidextrous, but researchers say it does suggest that handedness can be subject to societal influence. So for many, the best hypothesis at this time is that handedness results from a complex interaction of nature and nurture.

A lecture from a social studies class

It improves rest by making Internet users tired.

It promotes a faster onset of the REM sleep stage.

It causes people to dream about being online.

It interferes with Internet users' brain waves.

According to the professor, what is one way that Internet Addiction Disorder affects sleep?

A new drug has proven successful in helping people with IAD.

Some doctors are treating IAD the same way as drinking and gambling addictions.

Ivan Goldberg says internet addicts cannot help themselves.

There are several successful cases of people overcoming IAD.

According to the lecture, which of the following statements is NOT true?

Chronic back pain from sitting down too long

A preference for increased social interactions

Disinterest in books and information about the Internet

According to the professor, what is a sign of Internet Addiction Disorder?

He believes most students use the Internet for school assignments.

He suspects that many of his students do not use the Internet for serious study.

He knows that few of his students would use the Internet for term papers.

He thinks that a majority of his students do not know how to use a computer.

What does the professor imply when he says this: Rumor has it some even use the Internet to research term papers [laughter].

Narrator Listen to part of a lecture from a social studies class. 

Prof: Students today learn how to use computers as early as age 5 or 6. They are also spending more time online, surfing the web, e-mailing, twittering, playing games, using Face Book, etc. Rumor has it some even use the Internet to research term papers [laughter]. The question I'd like us to consider is, are people spending too much time on their computers? Many, er, some doctors believe that people can misuse the Internet, the same way people drink too much or gamble too much. They call this problem Internet Addiction Disorder, or IAD for short.. 

The doctors have identified seven signs of Internet Addiction Disorder. The number...first sign is that a person wants more and more time on the Internet. One hour is not enough; it's got to be two or three. The second sign relates to what happens to people if they cannot get on the Internet. They might, um, dream about the Internet. During these dreams their bodies might tremble, and their fingers might move as if they were typing. The third sign is that they need to use the Internet to stop these things from happening to their bodies. In the same way that a few drinks will steady an alcoholic, being on the Internet actually improves the way their bodies feel. Fourth, people with IAD use the Internet more often and stay on line longer than they intended. For example, they might go online to check e-mail, but three or four hours later, they are still there, chatting or surfing the web, or whatever. Fifth, people spend a large amount of time doing things related to the Internet. They might, oh, read books about the Internet, for instance, or download new Internet programs, or attend Internet-related conferences. The sixth sign of IAD is that people substitute online time for social activities. Frankly, they prefer communicating electronically rather than face-to-face. The seventh and last sign is that Internet use becomes more important than almost anything else -- showering, schoolwork, losing a job, feeding children, even eating yourself. They will also lie about how much time they are spending online, and they will keep using the Internet even if they are punished for it. 

Any of this sound familiar? well, if so, don't panic. Some doctors discount the notion of IAD. They claim that IAD is not equal [false start] is not the same as drug addiction, because the Internet is a useful tool for getting information, and also a multi-faceted tool for communication. In other words, um, there is so much to do online that it takes a lot of time. If we think about that for a minute, it makes some sense. My, um, my wife, for example, uses the Internet for just about everything. The computer for her is a communications center, television, office, store, and music player. Yet still, most people agree that it's not good to spend too much time on the Internet. Everything in moderation, right? One US newspaper told about a woman who was on the Internet so often that her husband left her, and she forgot to buy food for her children. She, uh, also forgot to buy enough oil to heat her house. A Chinese magazine told about a teen-age boy who jumped off a roof and died, because he had said he wanted to be with the characters in his favorite computer game. The same magazine told stories of other children who skip school and go to Internet bars all day. It said that some of them can't sleep, and that their hands become numb. 

What can be done to help people like this? Well, doctors aren't sure. IAD is new, so they do not have much experience treating it. Some are trying programs similar to those that help people stop smoking and gambling. Ivan Goldberg, the doctor who invented the term IAD, says people who think they might be addicted to the Internet should try to help themselves. First, Goldberg advises them to examine their pattern of Internet use. They should know how much time they spend at the computer, and also should ask themselves how often they think about the Internet. Then they should ask why they use the computer so much? Are they escaping from a problem? The third step is to make a plan to solve the problem, as opposed to just ignoring it. Finally, they should make a plan to reduce their Internet use, such as trying to reduce their computer time a little bit each day. This, incidentally, raises the question of how much daily time someone should spend on the Internet. Doctors say there is perfect amount of time that is right for everyone. One doctor who has studied IAD says it's important to keep a balanced life. Time on the Internet should not distract people from doing other things they like, and it should not cause people to miss time with their family and friends.

A university science lecture on Island Biogeography

Which of these is most likely NOT an island in the broader sense?

Why does the Louisiade Archipelago host more bird species than the Hawaiian Islands?

As a proof of MacArthur and Wilson's theory

As an exception to MacArthur and Wilson's theory

Why does the lecturer introduce Krakatoa?

Which is NOT a significant determinant of island species density?

To show practical uses for MacArthur and Wilson's theory

To demonstrate MacArthur and Wilson's insight

Why does the lecturer mention other concepts of "island"?

Narrator Listen to part of a university science lecture on Island Biogeography. 

Professor: Today I'd like to look at the topic of island biogeography- the study of plant and animal distributions on islands. Studies in this field ballooned soon after the publication of MacArthur and Wilson's seminal Theory of Island Biogeography in 1967. 

Their theory is a simple, elegant bit of reasoning that was a major breakthrough in modern ecological thought. The Theory of Equilibrium in Island Biogeography says that the number of kinds of plants and animals on an undisturbed island- that is, a natural island unaffected by man or other calamity- is determined by two processes, immigration and extinction. In other words, the number of species on an island is the sum of the species that arrive, breed and live there successfully, minus the number of species that arrive but fail to breed or that eventually become extinct. 

If a new island starting with zero kinds of birds lies near a mainland that has 100 kinds of birds, then a certain percent of those mainland species are eventually going to find their way to the island. When the first species arrives and establishes itself, the potential number of immigrants decreases by one, since there are now only 99 potential immigrant species available from the mainland. At the same time, the potential for extinctions increases by one, because with the arrival of the first species, there is now also one species that could become extinct, where at first there was none. 

You may have heard of Krakatoa, which was famously all but destroyed by a volcanic explosion, exterminating every living thing on it, back in 1883. Well, between 1883 and 1933, 34 species of birds became established there, but 5 of them also became extinct. Then, from 1933 to 1985, 14 more species established themselves, while 8 went extinct. As the theory predicts, the rate of immigration declines as the island avifauna matures. As equilibrium approaches, turnover continues, but the total number of different species levels off. When the overall bird population finally reaches a mature equilibrium- when the arrival rate of new species balances the extinction rate of unsuccessful species- the island may host anywhere from only a few to almost all of those 100 mainland species, depending on the island's overall receptivity. 

Papua New Guinea has a very rich avifauna- almost 800 species of birds- while nearby Bali only has about 300 species. Why? There are several factors that determine these numbers, and we now need to consider them. 

The most obvious factor is island size. Papua New Guinea is over fifty times the area of Bali. There's just more space available on a bigger island, so there's more food, more places to hide, bigger territories- simply speaking, room for more birds. And the more individuals of a species there are, the bigger the gene pool, the greater the breeding opportunities, and the less danger of extinction. 

But size alone is not the whole story. Just as important is the variety of habitats. A larger island is likely to have more different habitats- forest, grassland, scrub, lakes, marshes- while a small island may offer only a single habitat of sand and palm trees. Islands with multiple habitats, multiple niches, can maintain more species. With just one or two habitats available, the species list is going to be very short. 

This can be seen by comparing islands that are otherwise the same size- as between coral atolls and volcanic islands, for instance. The Tuamotos Islands and the islands of Tonga both lie in the middle of the south Pacific. Both comprise many small islands with a total land area of about 800 square kilometers, but while the Tuamotos are all coral atolls with a maximum altitude of seven meters, Tonga also includes a couple of volcanic islands, one rising to 1033 meters, offering montane habitat in addition to lowlands. As we'd expect, the bird variety on Tonga- 75 species- is somewhat higher than the 57 species on the Tuamotos. 

Another important factor is the island's distance from the mainland or other species sources. Its colonists will have to come from whatever lands are nearby- and oceanic islands, islands farther away from these sources, will receive fewer species- though hardier ones- than will coastal islands closer to species sources, simply because it's harder, even for a bird, to get to a more distant location. This is why the Hawaiian Islands, ten times the area of the Louisiade Archipelago, has fewer native birds. The Louisiades lie only 200 km from species-rich New Guinea, while the Hawaiian Islands are 3,000 km from anywhere. 

So these are the main determinants of island species capacity- size, habitat diversity, and degree of isolation. And it turns out that MacArthur and Wilson's theory can be applied to other sorts of "islands", to other geographical areas that are isolated in some way by their surroundings. Just as an island is separated from other land by the ocean, lakes are isolated from other lakes by dry land, so that fish have as great a challenge in colonizing lakes as, say, rodents do in colonizing islands. Mountain tops are islands, separated from other mountain tops by ecologically quite different plains and valleys. And national parks are islands of original habitat isolated by the human developments around them. 

Today, such areas as national parks, forest preserves and other protected natural areas are increasingly becoming isolated fragments in a clipped and cultivated world. And it with these that lessons learned from the studies of island biogeography are being applied. In our western parks, for instance, the successful re-introduction and management of large mammals like the wolf and birds like the California condor depend on research into territorial demands and ecological requirements, crucial population sizes, and individual emigration to surrounding areas, where the impact on humans can be significant.

A university lecture by a professor in the College of Fine Arts

Which is a characteristic of realistic landscape paintings?

As an example of a single vanishing point

As an example of multiple vanishing points

Why does the professor mention Turner's painting, "Dido Building Cathay"?

It created an atmosphere of scientific curiosity.

It opened the Classics to European thought.

It debunked earlier theories of perspective.

It permitted the Dutch Masters to develop linear perspective.

According to the professor, why was the Renaissance conducive to art?

"Foreshortening" is a way of representing an object so that it conveys the illusion of depth, and its success often depends upon a point of view in which the sizes of near and far parts of a object contrast greatly. Foreshortening is an instance of what?

Narrator Listen to part of a university lecture by a professor in the College of Fine Arts. 

Professor: Good morning, everyone. Today, I want to start with a look at perspective, visual perspective. First, we'll look briefly at the kinds of perspective, and then we'll look very quickly at its history in art. Just in case you don't know what we're discussing- perspective in art is the way that artists represent three-dimensional objects on the two dimensions of their canvas. 

There are two basic sorts of visual perspective- aerial perspective and linear perspective. Aerial perspective- and 'aerial' just means 'air' or 'atmospheric', not your view from an airplane!- aerial perspective is the way that the atmosphere affects how we see things, especially distant things. I won't try to go into the laws of physics that are involved here, but it is aerial perspective that makes a mountain in the distance appear to be a different color, that makes it seem hazier- less distinct- than closer objects. These are effects that realistic artists attempt to reproduce carefully, and that impressionists use to create their own effects. Just think of many of Turner's landscapes- or cityscapes like his "Dido Building Carthage"- to get an idea of how the air can affect what we see. 

The other perspective, linear perspective, is the way that things seem to get smaller the farther away they get. A classic example of this is the way we perceive railroad tracks or a line of telephone poles running away from us. They seem to get smaller and smaller as they recede- until they vanish in a point on the horizon- and this point is appropriately called 'the vanishing point'. This effect happens whenever there are parallel lines, like the two train tracks, or the tops and bottoms of the telephone poles. 

Now, an object or a scene may have more than one vanishing point. A cube with one of its faces squarely perpendicular to us has a single vanishing point, directly behind it and on the horizon. But a cube with one of its vertical edges facing us has two vanishing points instead- one for the right-hand face and one for the left-hand face, and these points are off to the right and left respectively, on the horizon, where the parallel lines of the faces seem to converge. And then, if this same cube is viewed from somewhat above or below, it will have three vanishing points- one to the right, one to the left, and a third one behind it and below or above the horizon. This is easy to visualize if you look up at a corner building from its street intersection. You can look down one street to see the right-hand vanishing point, look down the cross-street to see the left-hand vanishing point, and then look up along the corner of the building to visualize the third vanishing point. 

These kinds of perspective are easy to see if we view geometrical shapes or manmade structures, but of course natural scenes don't have any sets of parallel lines, so they have no vanishing points- but that doesn't mean that they don't exhibit perspective. 

The laws of optics were not understood at all in early Western art. Artists recognized the effect, of course, but they were unable to figure out how to represent it accurately. From the paintings inside the Egyptian pyramids to the illustrations in medieval Christian churches, nearer people were simply drawn larger, or drawn lower in the picture, or drawn so as to cover the people farther away. There was no real understanding of how the physics of perception worked- they never got a grasp on the idea of the vanishing point. 

And then came the Renaissance, the rebirth of learning and the sciences. This was a hotbed of scientific thought- da Vinci, Galileo, Newton... and Filippo Brunelleschi. Brunelleschi was a fifteenth century Florentine architect who conducted several optical experiments and discovered the rules of perspective. With what he'd learned, he drew a very accurate picture of San Giovanni Bapistery in Florence, and then he made a small peep hole in the middle of it. He carried it into the street and amazed all his acquaintances by having them look through the peep hole from the back of his picture- first, at a mirror which reflected the image into the viewer's line of sight. Then, Brunelleschi would quickly withdraw the mirror- leaving the viewer peeping at the real Bapistery, whose perspective had been replicated perfectly! 

Other Italian artists, notably Donatello, began using Brunelleschi's methods for accurate linear perspective and his ideas soon spread throughout Europe. The development of effective aerial perspective, on the other hand, was developed by the Flemish and Dutch masters of this same period, and can be seen at its best in works like Jan van Eyck's "The Virgin of Chancellor Rolin". But that's another story.

TOEFL Lectures

To get a certificate, pass all tests in the «TOEFL Lectures» category

№ 1

№ 2

№ 3

№ 4

№ 5

№ 6

№ 7

№ 8

№ 9

№ 10

№ 11

№ 12

TOEFL Lectures

To get a certificate, pass all tests in the «TOEFL Lectures» category

.css-1sz0kkt{font-family:Lato,sans-serif;}№ 1

№ 2

№ 3

№ 4

№ 5

№ 6

№ 7

№ 8

№ 9

№ 10

№ 11

№ 12

№ 1