UTBK/SNBT Bahasa Inggris: Pertanyaan, Jawaban, Latihan Soal & Pembahasan

       There have been amazing world-breaking scientific advances. However, the dark cloud on the horizon is the emerging Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the warning undercurrent that comes with it. At the time of writing at least 7,000 people have been infected and half of those have died. It is estimated that the numbers can be doubled or even tripled. Also, because the rates of infection appear to be growing exponentially, tens of thousands, or even millions, might ultimately be affected.

        To put the scale of the present situation into perspective, since the first recorded case of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo 38 years ago, there have been fewer than 2,500 deaths documented in total. Thus, this single present outbreak is already three times larger than the entire Ebola death toll ever. It is also no longer just an African problem. The West has had its own wake-up call this week as the US and Spain, countries previously regarded as immune to the threat thanks to modern medicine, have reported imported cases of the condition and, despite strict infection-control guidelines and practices, onward transmissions of Ebola on their home soil.

     What is remarkable though is that, while Ebola is terrifying and dramatic in its impact when it causes an outbreak, it appears to be a relatively easy agent to fight. Experimental vaccines tested so far on animals have been impressively effective. The vaccines protect against even injection of the living Ebola virus. However, because they are at a test stage, these agents, which will be critical if we are to nip outbreak in the bus, are nowhere near ready for mass production. Trials are only now getting underway of human versions of the vaccines in the UK, and the US. “Way too late,” many are saying, to prevent the inevitable.

     Hence, why is it that, nearly 440 years after Ebola first surfaced, the world finds itself in a state of panic. Now, up to ten thousand people are dead, owing to a bug that is probably preventable thanks to scientific research done decades ago. The answer is that Ebola was regarded as someone else’s problem. It was a tropical disease of low importance and (presumed to be) constrained by geography and climate to a part of the world that held little economic interest to the rest of us. Still, therein lies a salutary lesson because, if even a tiny fraction had been spent 20 years ago to develop an Ebola vaccine, we probably would not be in this position now. The present outbreak is now costing the world in terms of lost productivity, humanitarian aid and human lives lost. It is easy to dismiss tropical diseases as an issue that will not affect the West. However, the present situation is a warning shot across our bows that we ignored at our peril.

Which of the following best restates ideas of paragraph 4?

There have been amazing world-breaking scientific advances. However, the dark cloud on the horizon is the emerging Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the warning undercurrent that comes with it. At the time of writing at least 7,000 people have been infected and half of those have died. It is estimated that the numbers can be doubled or even tripled. Also, because the rates of infection appear to be growing exponentially, tens of thousands, or even millions, might ultimately be affected.

To put the scale of the present situation into perspective, since the first recorded case of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo 38 years ago, there have been fewer than 2,500 deaths documented in total. Thus, this single present outbreak is already three times larger than the entire Ebola death toll ever. It is also no longer just an African problem. The West has had its own wake-up call this week as the US and Spain, countries previously regarded as immune to the threat thanks to modern medicine, have reported imported cases of the condition and, despite strict infection-control guidelines and practices, onward transmissions of Ebola on their home soil.

What is remarkable though is that, while Ebola is terrifying and dramatic in its impact when it causes an outbreak, it appears to be a relatively easy agent to fight. Experimental vaccines tested so far on animals have been impressively effective. The vaccines protect against even injection of the living Ebola virus. However, because they are at a test stage, these agents, which will be critical if we are to nip outbreak in the bus, are nowhere near ready for mass production. Trials are only now getting underway of human versions of the vaccines in the UK, and the US. “Way too late,” many are saying, to prevent the inevitable.

Hence, why is it that, nearly 440 years after Ebola first surfaced, the world finds itself in a state of panic. Now, up to ten thousand people are dead, owing to a bug that is probably preventable thanks to scientific research done decades ago. The answer is that Ebola was regarded as someone else’s problem. It was a tropical disease of low importance and (presumed to be) constrained by geography and climate to a part of the world that held little economic interest to the rest of us. Still, therein lies a salutary lesson because, if even a tiny fraction had been spent 20 years ago to develop an Ebola vaccine, we probably would not be in this position now. The present outbreak is now costing the world in terms of lost productivity, humanitarian aid and human lives lost. It is easy to dismiss tropical diseases as an issue that will not affect the West. However, the present situation is a warning shot across our bows that we ignored at our peril.

 

Paragraph 3 implies that ...

      There have been amazing world-breaking scientific advances. However, the dark cloud on the horizon is the emerging Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the warning undercurrent that comes with it. At the time of writing at least 7,000 people have been infected and half of those have died. It is estimated that the numbers can be doubled or even tripled. Also, because the rates of infection appear to be growing exponentially, tens of thousands, or even millions, might ultimately be affected.

        To put the scale of the present situation into perspective, since the first recorded case of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo 38 years ago, there have been fewer than 2,500 deaths documented in total. Thus, this single present outbreak is already three times larger than the entire Ebola death toll ever. It is also no longer just an African problem. The West has had its own wake-up call this week as the US and Spain, countries previously regarded as immune to the threat thanks to modern medicine, have reported imported cases of the condition and, despite strict infection-control guidelines and practices, onward transmissions of Ebola on their home soil.

     What is remarkable though is that, while Ebola is terrifying and dramatic in its impact when it causes an outbreak, it appears to be a relatively easy agent to fight. Experimental vaccines tested so far on animals have been impressively effective. The vaccines protect against even injection of the living Ebola virus. However, because they are at a test stage, these agents, which will be critical if we are to nip outbreak in the bus, are nowhere near ready for mass production. Trials are only now getting underway of human versions of the vaccines in the UK, and the US. “Way too late,” many are saying, to prevent the inevitable.

     Hence, why is it that, nearly 440 years after Ebola first surfaced, the world finds itself in a state of panic. Now, up to ten thousand people are dead, owing to a bug that is probably preventable thanks to scientific research done decades ago. The answer is that Ebola was regarded as someone else’s problem. It was a tropical disease of low importance and (presumed to be) constrained by geography and climate to a part of the world that held little economic interest to the rest of us. Still, therein lies a salutary lesson because, if even a tiny fraction had been spent 20 years ago to develop an Ebola vaccine, we probably would not be in this position now. The present outbreak is now costing the world in terms of lost productivity, humanitarian aid and human lives lost. It is easy to dismiss tropical diseases as an issue that will not affect the West. However, the present situation is a warning shot across our bows that we ignored at our peril.

Which sentences most effectively illustrate the current Ebola prevelance?

     There have been amazing world-breaking scientific advances. However, the dark cloud on the horizon is the emerging Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the warning undercurrent that comes with it. At the time of writing at least 7,000 people have been infected and half of those have died. It is estimated that the numbers can be doubled or even tripled. Also, because the rates of infection appear to be growing exponentially, tens of thousands, or even millions, might ultimately be affected.

        To put the scale of the present situation into perspective, since the first recorded case of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo 38 years ago, there have been fewer than 2,500 deaths documented in total. Thus, this single present outbreak is already three times larger than the entire Ebola death toll ever. It is also no longer just an African problem. The West has had its own wake-up call this week as the US and Spain, countries previously regarded as immune to the threat thanks to modern medicine, have reported imported cases of the condition and, despite strict infection-control guidelines and practices, onward transmissions of Ebola on their home soil.

     What is remarkable though is that, while Ebola is terrifying and dramatic in its impact when it causes an outbreak, it appears to be a relatively easy agent to fight. Experimental vaccines tested so far on animals have been impressively effective. The vaccines protect against even injection of the living Ebola virus. However, because they are at a test stage, these agents, which will be critical if we are to nip outbreak in the bus, are nowhere near ready for mass production. Trials are only now getting underway of human versions of the vaccines in the UK, and the US. “Way too late,” many are saying, to prevent the inevitable.

     Hence, why is it that, nearly 440 years after Ebola first surfaced, the world finds itself in a state of panic. Now, up to ten thousand people are dead, owing to a bug that is probably preventable thanks to scientific research done decades ago. The answer is that Ebola was regarded as someone else’s problem. It was a tropical disease of low importance and (presumed to be) constrained by geography and climate to a part of the world that held little economic interest to the rest of us. Still, therein lies a salutary lesson because, if even a tiny fraction had been spent 20 years ago to develop an Ebola vaccine, we probably would not be in this position now. The present outbreak is now costing the world in terms of lost productivity, humanitarian aid and human lives lost. It is easy to dismiss tropical diseases as an issue that will not affect the West. However, the present situation is a warning shot across our bows that we ignored at our peril.

 

The assumption the author has about the West is ...

There have been amazing world-breaking scientific advances. However, the dark cloud on the horizon is the emerging Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the warning undercurrent that comes with it. At the time of writing at least 7,000 people have been infected and half of those have died. It is estimated that the numbers can be doubled or even tripled. Also, because the rates of infection appear to be growing exponentially, tens of thousands, or even millions, might ultimately be affected.

        To put the scale of the present situation into perspective, since the first recorded case of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo 38 years ago, there have been fewer than 2,500 deaths documented in total. Thus, this single present outbreak is already three times larger than the entire Ebola death toll ever. It is also no longer just an African problem. The West has had its own wake-up call this week as the US and Spain, countries previously regarded as immune to the threat thanks to modern medicine, have reported imported cases of the condition and, despite strict infection-control guidelines and practices, onward transmissions of Ebola on their home soil.

     What is remarkable though is that, while Ebola is terrifying and dramatic in its impact when it causes an outbreak, it appears to be a relatively easy agent to fight. Experimental vaccines tested so far on animals have been impressively effective. The vaccines protect against even injection of the living Ebola virus. However, because they are at a test stage, these agents, which will be critical if we are to nip outbreak in the bus, are nowhere near ready for mass production. Trials are only now getting underway of human versions of the vaccines in the UK, and the US. “Way too late,” many are saying, to prevent the inevitable.

     Hence, why is it that, nearly 440 years after Ebola first surfaced, the world finds itself in a state of panic. Now, up to ten thousand people are dead, owing to a bug that is probably preventable thanks to scientific research done decades ago. The answer is that Ebola was regarded as someone else’s problem. It was a tropical disease of low importance and (presumed to be) constrained by geography and climate to a part of the world that held little economic interest to the rest of us. Still, therein lies a salutary lesson because, if even a tiny fraction had been spent 20 years ago to develop an Ebola vaccine, we probably would not be in this position now. The present outbreak is now costing the world in terms of lost productivity, humanitarian aid and human lives lost. It is easy to dismiss tropical diseases as an issue that will not affect the West. However, the present situation is a warning shot across our bows that we ignored at our peril.

 

Which of the following is most relevant with the idea of Ebola outbreak described in the passage?

        The present study sought to document the world reading and comprehension levels attained by children who were implanted by 5 year of age. It was hypothesized that the improved speech perception abilities acquired with cochlear implantation would promote phonological coding skills. (1)…

          Three subtests of diagnostic reading assessment batteries standardized on hearing children were administered to 181 children between 8 year 0 month and 9 year 11 month of age who had 4 to 6 years of implant experience. (2) … It included a lexical decision task, a rhyme task, and the digit span subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.

         Over half the children scored within the average range for their age compared with the normative data for hearing children. (3) … They were higher nonverbal intelligence, higher family socio-economic status, and later onset of deafness between birth and 36 months.

(Adapted from Journal of Ear and Hearing)

Which option best completes (2)?

Non-Verbal communication is defined as communication between people by means other than speech. Non-verbal communication (NVC) derives from the following major sources: (1) eye contact (amount of looking at another person's body and face); (2) mouth (especially smilling or grimacing in relation to eye contact); (3) posture (for example, siting forwards or backwards); (4) gesture (as with the use of arm movement when talking); (5) orientation (of the body to addressee); (6) body distance (as when we stand too close or too far away from others); (7) smell (including perfumes); (8) skin (including pigmentation, blushing and texture); (9) hair (including length, texture and style); (10) clothes (with particular reference to fashion).

Non-Verbal communication is not quite the same as 'body language' because any claim about a language must refer to an agreed and identifiable grammar and syntax. NVC is not always so precise or advanced; the vocabulary of non-verbal signs is more limited that speech. Even so, it is a mistake to consider NVC as isolated from speech. Instead, some complex interaction is envisaged between word and body signal, and one that is not always complementary. Imagine yourself interviewing job aplicants. You might not offer employment to a candidate who refuses to look at you, always frowns, hunches both shoulders, sweats a lot, and has a Mohican hair cut-despite the fact that he or she gives thoughtful and interesting replies to your questions.

Take eye contact as an example for discussion. Mutual eye contact (where both people look into each other's eyes) can be a sign of liking, but prolonged gaze leads to discomfort. The directed eye contact violates a code of looking, where eye contact is frequently broken but returned to, and leads to depersonalization of the victim because an aggressor deliberately breaks the rules which the victim adheres to. Eye contact is often enhanced by size of pupils, eyebrow inflection and movement, and smilling.

(Adapted from O'sullivan, Tim, et.al., 1994. Key concept in Communication and cultural studies. 2nd, Ed. New York: Routledge)

According to the text, NVC ...

Non-Verbal communication is defined as communication between people by means other than speech. Non-verbal communication (NVC) derives from the following major sources: (1) eye contact (amount of looking at another person's body and face); (2) mouth (especially smilling or grimacing in relation to eye contact); (3) posture (for example, siting forwards or backwards); (4) gesture (as with the use of arm movement when talking); (5) orientation (of the body to addressee); (6) body distance (as when we stand too close or too far away from others); (7) smell (including perfumes); (8) skin (including pigmentation, blushing and texture); (9) hair (including length, texture and style); (10) clothes (with particular reference to fashion).

Non-Verbal communication is not quite the same as 'body language' because any claim about a language must refer to an agreed and identifiable grammar and syntax. NVC is not always so precise or advanced; the vocabulary of non-verbal signs is more limited that speech. Even so, it is a mistake to consider NVC as isolated from speech. Instead, some complex interaction is envisaged between word and body signal, and one that is not always complementary. Imagine yourself interviewing job aplicants. You might not offer employment to a candidate who refuses to look at you, always frowns, hunches both shoulders, sweats a lot, and has a Mohican hair cut-despite the fact that he or she gives thoughtful and interesting replies to your questions.

Take eye contact as an example for discussion. Mutual eye contact (where both people look into each other's eyes) can be a sign of liking, but prolonged gaze leads to discomfort. The directed eye contact violates a code of looking, where eye contact is frequently broken but returned to, and leads to depersonalization of the victim because an aggressor deliberately breaks the rules which the victim adheres to. Eye contact is often enhanced by size of pupils, eyebrow inflection and movement, and smilling.

(Adapted from O'sullivan, Tim, et.al., 1994. Key concept in Communication and cultural studies. 2nd, Ed. New York: Routledge)

The author organizes the ideas in the text by ...

Non-Verbal communication is defined as communication between people by means other than speech. Non-verbal communication (NVC) derives from the following major sources: (1) eye contact (amount of looking at another person's body and face); (2) mouth (especially smilling or grimacing in relation to eye contact); (3) posture (for example, siting forwards or backwards); (4) gesture (as with the use of arm movement when talking); (5) orientation (of the body to addressee); (6) body distance (as when we stand too close or too far away from others); (7) smell (including perfumes); (8) skin (including pigmentation, blushing and texture); (9) hair (including length, texture and style); (10) clothes (with particular reference to fashion).

Non-Verbal communication is not quite the same as 'body language' because any claim about a language must refer to an agreed and identifiable grammar and syntax. NVC is not always so precise or advanced; the vocabulary of non-verbal signs is more limited that speech. Even so, it is a mistake to consider NVC as isolated from speech. Instead, some complex interaction is envisaged between word and body signal, and one that is not always complementary. Imagine yourself interviewing job aplicants. You might not offer employment to a candidate who refuses to look at you, always frowns, hunches both shoulders, sweats a lot, and has a Mohican hair cut-despite the fact that he or she gives thoughtful and interesting replies to your questions.

Take eye contact as an example for discussion. Mutual eye contact (where both people look into each other's eyes) can be a sign of liking, but prolonged gaze leads to discomfort. The directed eye contact violates a code of looking, where eye contact is frequently broken but returned to, and leads to depersonalization of the victim because an aggressor deliberately breaks the rules which the victim adheres to. Eye contact is often enhanced by size of pupils, eyebrow inflection and movement, and smilling.

(Adapted from O'sullivan, Tim, et.al., 1994. Key concept in Communication and cultural studies. 2nd, Ed. New York: Routledge)

It can be inferned from the text that verbal and non-verbal communication ...

Non-Verbal communication is defined as communication between people by means other than speech. Non-verbal communication (NVC) derives from the following major sources: (1) eye contact (amount of looking at another person's body and face); (2) mouth (especially smilling or grimacing in relation to eye contact); (3) posture (for example, siting forwards or backwards); (4) gesture (as with the use of arm movement when talking); (5) orientation (of the body to addressee); (6) body distance (as when we stand too close or too far away from others); (7) smell (including perfumes); (8) skin (including pigmentation, blushing and texture); (9) hair (including length, texture and style); (10) clothes (with particular reference to fashion).

Non-Verbal communication is not quite the same as 'body language' because any claim about a language must refer to an agreed and identifiable grammar and syntax. NVC is not always so precise or advanced; the vocabulary of non-verbal signs is more limited that speech. Even so, it is a mistake to consider NVC as isolated from speech. Instead, some complex interaction is envisaged between word and body signal, and one that is not always complementary. Imagine yourself interviewing job aplicants. You might not offer employment to a candidate who refuses to look at you, always frowns, hunches both shoulders, sweats a lot, and has a Mohican hair cut-despite the fact that he or she gives thoughtful and interesting replies to your questions.

Take eye contact as an example for discussion. Mutual eye contact (where both people look into each other's eyes) can be a sign of liking, but prolonged gaze leads to discomfort. The directed eye contact violates a code of looking, where eye contact is frequently broken but returned to, and leads to depersonalization of the victim because an aggressor deliberately breaks the rules which the victim adheres to. Eye contact is often enhanced by size of pupils, eyebrow inflection and movement, and smilling.

(Adapted from O'sullivan, Tim, et.al., 1994. Key concept in Communication and cultural studies. 2nd, Ed. New York: Routledge)

In which lines of the text does the author mention that NVC is inseparable form speech?