There are already 15 ful tests and 8 MCQ and Gap-fill tests available for a price of 💵 150,000 UZS
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from My writings
The chart below shows the expenditure on three categories among different age groups of residents in the UK in 2004. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Forwarded from My writings
The bar chart compares the prevalence of hearing loss across different age groups for men and women in the USA.
Overall, hearing loss is most prevalent among adults aged 20 to 59, with men experiencing a higher rate than women within these age groups. Individuals younger than 20 and older than 60 appear less affected, particularly males.
Examining the data more closely, those aged between 20-39 and 40-59 are commonly found to experience the onset of hearing loss. Around 34% men and 32% women are prone to the onset of hearing impairment. The gender gap got most pronounced in the young age group, with 33% males being likely to report this issue as opposed to 20% females.
The youngest age groups were the least affected by hearing loss. Only 2% of males and 3% of females aged 0-5 reported issues, with a similar pattern for those 6-19 (12% male, 13% female). Prevalence increased significantly with age, particularly for women. In the 60-69 bracket, approximately 12% of men and 17% of women experienced the start ofhearing loss. This trend continued into the 70+ group, though with lower overall percentages (8% male, 16% female)
Overall, hearing loss is most prevalent among adults aged 20 to 59, with men experiencing a higher rate than women within these age groups. Individuals younger than 20 and older than 60 appear less affected, particularly males.
Examining the data more closely, those aged between 20-39 and 40-59 are commonly found to experience the onset of hearing loss. Around 34% men and 32% women are prone to the onset of hearing impairment. The gender gap got most pronounced in the young age group, with 33% males being likely to report this issue as opposed to 20% females.
The youngest age groups were the least affected by hearing loss. Only 2% of males and 3% of females aged 0-5 reported issues, with a similar pattern for those 6-19 (12% male, 13% female). Prevalence increased significantly with age, particularly for women. In the 60-69 bracket, approximately 12% of men and 17% of women experienced the start ofhearing loss. This trend continued into the 70+ group, though with lower overall percentages (8% male, 16% female)
Censorship - a necessary evil
Censorship. The word coils on the tongue, a viper of restriction. A slap across the face of freedom, a whisper hissing "conform, obey, submit". It's the neatly trimmed lawn in an untidy world, hiding the weeds of dissent and the bold flowers of uncomfortable truth.
In the shadows, it lurks. In totalitarian regimes, a blunt instrument, crushing minds under the jackboot of state-mandated ideology. No dissonance here, just the echoing of the official line. Art becomes propaganda, books pyres, and the silence speaks louder than any scream.
Yet, it raises a thorny question: is a touch of censorship necessary for the greater good? Like a drop of poison to combat a disease, can a dash of control serve to protect and uplift society?
They say a line must be drawn to defend the vulnerable – shield young eyes from violence that seeps too easily from screen to reality; bar words that incite hatred, that stoke the fires of division. A slippery slope, some whisper, but where does it end?
Therein lies the eternal tug-of-war. Free speech: the bedrock, the oxygen of democracy. But what when free speech becomes a battering ram? Do we let lies masquerade as truth, drowning out facts that might save us as a species? Do platforms hold no duty to the common good, even as they rake in profits from outrage and manipulation?
Censorship. A beast both ugly and sometimes strangely tempting. It's a tool wielded too eagerly by power, a crutch for those afraid of the messy, the complicated. And in this age of the instant take, the soundbite, the virality of rage... perhaps the question isn't whether we censor but how.
Can we build defenses – a critical mind, a hunger for sources, a willingness to question, to see nuance – a fortress against the lies? Can we teach our children to swim in the churning waters of ideas, teach them the difference between persuasion and poison?
No easy answers. Censorship sits there like a broken bottle: dangerous, yet sometimes all you have to staunch a wound. Let us use it sparingly, with fear and trembling, and never stop working for a world where its sharp edge is no longer needed.
Censorship. The word coils on the tongue, a viper of restriction. A slap across the face of freedom, a whisper hissing "conform, obey, submit". It's the neatly trimmed lawn in an untidy world, hiding the weeds of dissent and the bold flowers of uncomfortable truth.
In the shadows, it lurks. In totalitarian regimes, a blunt instrument, crushing minds under the jackboot of state-mandated ideology. No dissonance here, just the echoing of the official line. Art becomes propaganda, books pyres, and the silence speaks louder than any scream.
Yet, it raises a thorny question: is a touch of censorship necessary for the greater good? Like a drop of poison to combat a disease, can a dash of control serve to protect and uplift society?
They say a line must be drawn to defend the vulnerable – shield young eyes from violence that seeps too easily from screen to reality; bar words that incite hatred, that stoke the fires of division. A slippery slope, some whisper, but where does it end?
Therein lies the eternal tug-of-war. Free speech: the bedrock, the oxygen of democracy. But what when free speech becomes a battering ram? Do we let lies masquerade as truth, drowning out facts that might save us as a species? Do platforms hold no duty to the common good, even as they rake in profits from outrage and manipulation?
Censorship. A beast both ugly and sometimes strangely tempting. It's a tool wielded too eagerly by power, a crutch for those afraid of the messy, the complicated. And in this age of the instant take, the soundbite, the virality of rage... perhaps the question isn't whether we censor but how.
Can we build defenses – a critical mind, a hunger for sources, a willingness to question, to see nuance – a fortress against the lies? Can we teach our children to swim in the churning waters of ideas, teach them the difference between persuasion and poison?
No easy answers. Censorship sits there like a broken bottle: dangerous, yet sometimes all you have to staunch a wound. Let us use it sparingly, with fear and trembling, and never stop working for a world where its sharp edge is no longer needed.
dustlar sizlar bilan endi har kun birga task 2 yozamz livestreamda
'I've been here before': the deja vu feeling
Most people - two out of three, according to surveys - have experienced déjà vu (French for 'already seen'). It is that weird sensation of having 'been here before' or having 'lived this moment already'. You may be visiting some entirely unfamiliar town, for instance, and 'realise' that you have already been in that precise spot, even though you know it is impossible. The feeling goes way beyond any vague sense of having seen or done something similar before - it feels identical to a past experience. Yet trying to pin down the memory is like trying to catch a dream - just as you think you are homing in on it, it turns to vapour. The eeriness of this has led to all sorts of spooky theories. A popular one is that it is the memory of a dream in which the person has lived through the current moment in advance. In recent years, however, neuroscientists have discovered enough about perception and memory to piece together a more plausible explanation. Every conscious experience we have is 'constructed' by our brain out of lots of different components, rather as a car might be made in a factory. We tend to think of an event as a bundle of sensations: sight, sound, etc., but there is actually much more to it. If you (literally) bump into someone in the street, for example, you will be aware of the sight of them, the touch of them as you bump, the sound each of you makes, and so on. But you will also be aware of the meaning, tone and intention of the sound, the pain from the bump, a sense of irritation or embarrassment; a thought, perhaps, that you, or the other person, is clumsy, and so on. There is much more to experience than simple sensations.
For most people, déjà vu is a rare and fleeting phenomenon, intriguing rather than disturbing. And it doesn't seem to be unhealthy -- indeed, déjà vu is most commonly reported by people who are young, intelligent and well-educated. Given that it is actually a minor brain malfunction, this may seem strange. The explanation may be that young brains are more recognition sensitive', so they are more easily triggered into familiarity mode. Similar sensitivity may also be a factor in intelligence - bright people 'see things' more readily than others, and intelligent people tend to go on to higher education. So déjà vu may be a side effect of having a brain that is quick to recognise things.
For an unfortunate few, though, déjà vu is a constant companion, and a serious blight on their lives. Dr Chris Moulin is a psychologist who is studying this strange disorder. He first came across it when he was working in a memory clinic: "We had a peculiar referral from a man who said there was no point visiting the clinic because he'd already been there, although this would have been impossible. Déjà vu had developed to such an extent that he had stopped watching TV because it seemed to be a repeat. He even believed he could hear the same bird singing the same song in the same tree every time he went out.
Apart from the sheer tedium of chronic déjà vu, the condition can also get people into social difficulties. 'Some patients feel that everyone they meet is familiar, and this makes them dangerously trusting of strangers,' says Moulin. 'If they don't constantly remind themselves that the sensation is false, they are at risk of being exploited.' So next time you find yourself re-living' an experience, don't struggle to recall the previous time. Just sit back and relax. And make sure that you don't sign on the dotted line until the moment has passed.
Most people - two out of three, according to surveys - have experienced déjà vu (French for 'already seen'). It is that weird sensation of having 'been here before' or having 'lived this moment already'. You may be visiting some entirely unfamiliar town, for instance, and 'realise' that you have already been in that precise spot, even though you know it is impossible. The feeling goes way beyond any vague sense of having seen or done something similar before - it feels identical to a past experience. Yet trying to pin down the memory is like trying to catch a dream - just as you think you are homing in on it, it turns to vapour. The eeriness of this has led to all sorts of spooky theories. A popular one is that it is the memory of a dream in which the person has lived through the current moment in advance. In recent years, however, neuroscientists have discovered enough about perception and memory to piece together a more plausible explanation. Every conscious experience we have is 'constructed' by our brain out of lots of different components, rather as a car might be made in a factory. We tend to think of an event as a bundle of sensations: sight, sound, etc., but there is actually much more to it. If you (literally) bump into someone in the street, for example, you will be aware of the sight of them, the touch of them as you bump, the sound each of you makes, and so on. But you will also be aware of the meaning, tone and intention of the sound, the pain from the bump, a sense of irritation or embarrassment; a thought, perhaps, that you, or the other person, is clumsy, and so on. There is much more to experience than simple sensations.
For most people, déjà vu is a rare and fleeting phenomenon, intriguing rather than disturbing. And it doesn't seem to be unhealthy -- indeed, déjà vu is most commonly reported by people who are young, intelligent and well-educated. Given that it is actually a minor brain malfunction, this may seem strange. The explanation may be that young brains are more recognition sensitive', so they are more easily triggered into familiarity mode. Similar sensitivity may also be a factor in intelligence - bright people 'see things' more readily than others, and intelligent people tend to go on to higher education. So déjà vu may be a side effect of having a brain that is quick to recognise things.
For an unfortunate few, though, déjà vu is a constant companion, and a serious blight on their lives. Dr Chris Moulin is a psychologist who is studying this strange disorder. He first came across it when he was working in a memory clinic: "We had a peculiar referral from a man who said there was no point visiting the clinic because he'd already been there, although this would have been impossible. Déjà vu had developed to such an extent that he had stopped watching TV because it seemed to be a repeat. He even believed he could hear the same bird singing the same song in the same tree every time he went out.
Apart from the sheer tedium of chronic déjà vu, the condition can also get people into social difficulties. 'Some patients feel that everyone they meet is familiar, and this makes them dangerously trusting of strangers,' says Moulin. 'If they don't constantly remind themselves that the sensation is false, they are at risk of being exploited.' So next time you find yourself re-living' an experience, don't struggle to recall the previous time. Just sit back and relax. And make sure that you don't sign on the dotted line until the moment has passed.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
In many countries, a small number of people earn extremly high salaries. Some people believe that this is good for the country, but others think that goverments should not allow salaries above a certain level. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
ensuring-our-future-food-supply.pdf
638.8 KB
TODAY'S PASSAGE 1️⃣
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
More and more people today are spending large amounts of money on their complexions in order to look younger.
Why do people want to look younger?
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
Our society is gripped by a pervasive and ultimately damaging obsession with looking younger. Billions are funneled into an anti-aging industry that preys on anxieties, pushing a distorted view of beauty and well-being. This relentless pursuit of youth is not a positive development; it's a cultural sickness with far-reaching consequences.
One key driver of this obsession is the media's relentless portrayal of unrealistic beauty standards. Photoshopped celebrities and models present a facade of ageless perfection. Wrinkles are airbrushed away, replaced with an impossible smoothness. This bombardment creates a distorted reality where the natural signs of aging are seen as flaws to be rectified, not a normal part of life. People internalize these messages, feeling pressured to conform to a standard that doesn't truly exist.
Beyond vanity, the fear of ageism fuels this obsession. In a culture that equates youth with competence and desirability, the threat of being overlooked in the workplace or dismissed socially fuels insecurity. This pressure to maintain a youthful appearance creates a cycle of anxiety, leading individuals to prioritize aesthetics over skills and experience. This ultimately harms both the individual, who may neglect valuable skills development, and society, which misses out on the contributions of experienced individuals.
The consequences of this obsession are far-reaching. It breeds insecurity and dissatisfaction. When people are constantly bombarded with images of unattainable youth, it's easy to feel inadequate, leading to low self-esteem and body image issues. Furthermore, the financial burden of anti-aging treatments creates a system of disparity, where those with greater resources can buy a temporary reprieve from aging, while others are left feeling ostracized.
This focus on youth also disrespects the wisdom and experience that come with age. It paints aging as something shameful, a narrative that diminishes the contributions of older generations. Society loses out on the invaluable perspectives and leadership of those with a lifetime of accumulated knowledge.
To conclude, in an age obsessed with youth, people allocating substantial resources to maintin youth complexions are in the wrong. Instead of striving for a fleeting illusion of youth, we should focus on health and well-being at every stage. Inner confidence and a life well-lived radiate far more beauty than any cream or procedure ever can.
#Gemini
Why do people want to look younger?
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
Our society is gripped by a pervasive and ultimately damaging obsession with looking younger. Billions are funneled into an anti-aging industry that preys on anxieties, pushing a distorted view of beauty and well-being. This relentless pursuit of youth is not a positive development; it's a cultural sickness with far-reaching consequences.
One key driver of this obsession is the media's relentless portrayal of unrealistic beauty standards. Photoshopped celebrities and models present a facade of ageless perfection. Wrinkles are airbrushed away, replaced with an impossible smoothness. This bombardment creates a distorted reality where the natural signs of aging are seen as flaws to be rectified, not a normal part of life. People internalize these messages, feeling pressured to conform to a standard that doesn't truly exist.
Beyond vanity, the fear of ageism fuels this obsession. In a culture that equates youth with competence and desirability, the threat of being overlooked in the workplace or dismissed socially fuels insecurity. This pressure to maintain a youthful appearance creates a cycle of anxiety, leading individuals to prioritize aesthetics over skills and experience. This ultimately harms both the individual, who may neglect valuable skills development, and society, which misses out on the contributions of experienced individuals.
The consequences of this obsession are far-reaching. It breeds insecurity and dissatisfaction. When people are constantly bombarded with images of unattainable youth, it's easy to feel inadequate, leading to low self-esteem and body image issues. Furthermore, the financial burden of anti-aging treatments creates a system of disparity, where those with greater resources can buy a temporary reprieve from aging, while others are left feeling ostracized.
This focus on youth also disrespects the wisdom and experience that come with age. It paints aging as something shameful, a narrative that diminishes the contributions of older generations. Society loses out on the invaluable perspectives and leadership of those with a lifetime of accumulated knowledge.
To conclude, in an age obsessed with youth, people allocating substantial resources to maintin youth complexions are in the wrong. Instead of striving for a fleeting illusion of youth, we should focus on health and well-being at every stage. Inner confidence and a life well-lived radiate far more beauty than any cream or procedure ever can.
#Gemini
https://youglish.com/pronounce/culinary/english
apparently, the word "culinary" is pronounced like "ˈkʌlɪn(ə)ri/" , not "kulineri". I had thought both versions are ok
apparently, the word "culinary" is pronounced like "ˈkʌlɪn(ə)ri/" , not "kulineri". I had thought both versions are ok
Correct answer is 🔤
negative emotions = insecurities and emergencies
part of daily life = but which nevertheless have a significance which goes beyond that individual
negative emotions = insecurities and emergencies
part of daily life = but which nevertheless have a significance which goes beyond that individual
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM