Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GTO Zen Lbi
GTO Zen Lbi
nebulosa
Personally, I find code-mixing to be a wonderful way to express myself. It's
posted: October
like having a whole palette of colors to paint with, allowing me to convey
19, 2023 at 08:27
subtle shades of meaning that might not be possible otherwise.
p.m.
icterus
For me, I often find code-mixing to be frustrating and exclusionary. When
posted: October
people use words and phrases from languages I don't know, it can make me
20, 2023 at 01:19
feel left out of the conversation.
a.m.
loxia
In my experience, code-mixing can be a useful tool for bridging
posted: October
communication gaps between individuals who speak different languages,
20, 2023 at 03:46
promoting cross-cultural understanding and cooperation.
a.m.
calypte
I think that code-mixing fosters inclusivity and social harmony, and I find it
posted: October
fascinating to see how different languages can come together to create a
20, 2023 at 11:34
unique way of expressing oneself.
a.m.
aquila
As someone who values strong language proficiency, I believe code-mixing
posted: October
can be a sign of poor language skills and may reflect negatively on an
20, 2023 at 06:22
individual's educational or professional qualifications.
p.m.
When Congress writes new multibillion-dollar transportation bills every few years,
typically about four-fifths of the money goes to highways and roads, a pattern that
has held since the early 1980s. To many, that disparity makes sense. After all, roughly
80 percent of trips Americans take are by car or light truck, with just 3 percent by
mass transit.
But some experts say this gets the causality backward: Decades of government
investment in roads and highways — starting with the creation of the interstate
highway system in 1956 — have transformed most cities and suburbs into sprawling,
car-centered environments where it can be dangerous to walk or bike. In addition to
that, other reliable transit options are scarce.
Passage 2
You already know what’s terrible about cars: They’re dirty. They’re dangerous. They’re
expensive to buy and maintain, and environmentally hazardous to produce and
operate. Automobiles kill around 90,000 Americans every year — about 40,000 in car
accidents, and an estimated 50,000 more from long-term exposure to air pollution
emitted by cars.
A lot of urbanists have been calling attention to a less-discussed problem with cars.
Automobiles are not just dangerous and bad for the environment; they are also
profoundly wasteful of the land around us, taking up way too much physical space to
transport too few people. It’s geometry.
In most American cities, wherever you look, you will see a landscape constructed
primarily for the movement and storage of automobiles, not for the enjoyment of
people: endless wide boulevards and freeways for cars to move swiftly; each road
lined with parking spaces for cars at rest; retail establishments ringed with spots for
cars; houses built around garages for cars; and a gas station, for cars to feed, on
every other corner.
Given how completely automobiles rule most cities, calling for their outright
banishment can sound almost ludicrous. Instead of fighting a war on cars, urbanists
should fight a war on car dependency — on cities that leave residents with few
choices other than cars. Alleviating car dependency can improve commutes for
everyone in a city.
At the moment, many of the most intractable challenges faced by America’s urban
centers stem from the same cause — a lack of accessible physical space. We live in a
time of epidemic homelessness. There’s a national housing affordability crisis caused
by an extreme shortage of places to live. And now there’s a contagion that thrives on
indoor overcrowding.
Given these threats, how can American cities continue to justify wasting such
enormous tracts of land on death machines?
7. Why do experts say ‘this gets the causality backward’ in paragraph 3 of passage 1?
A. They think that the disparity between public budget for cars and for public transits
does not actually make a lot of sense.
B. They disagree that the high budget toward car infrastructure is the cause of the
huge proportion of trips taken by cars as opposed to public transits.
C. They think that reliable transit alternatives are difficult to find therefore cars are
more appealing and cause the budget for highways and roads to inflate.
D. They think that the high number of car trips is caused by the repeating huge
budget allocated toward highways and roads.
E. They disagree that the congress should write multibillion-dollar transportation bills
to facilitate cars instead of public transits.
A. Biden’s plan to improve the public transits and encourage people not to use cars is
yet to be approved by the rather pro-car Congress.
B. Biden is ambitious to have challenged the status quo by decreasing the federal
spending for cars, forcing people to use public transits.
C. Public transportation is necessary to reduce the pollution so Biden’s plan is likely to
be welcomed by the lawmakers.
D. The $2 trillion budget plan for public transportation is deemed to be one of the
most ambitious projects of Biden’s administration.
E. Through the $2 trillion infrastructure plan, public transportation will improve and
people will do away with their cars.
A. Passage 1 illustrates the policies that cause cars to be the center of American
lifestyle while passage 2 proposes a policy that will reverse that.
B. Passage 1 discusses the possible cause of American dependency on cars while
passage 2 explains an aspect in which car dependency is problematic.
C. Passage 1 explains the effects of car culture on public transits while passage 2
explains the effects of car culture on public space.
D. Passage 1 rationalizes American obsession with using cars over public transits
while passage 2 gives an excuse why the American landscape is car-centered.
E. Passage 1 focuses on Biden’s administration plan to reduce car usage and passage
2 argues that the need for space for cars can lead to other major problems.
10. What does the word ‘alleviating’ mean in the context of passage 2?
A. Soothing
B. Improving
C. Weakening
D. Revitalizing
E. Worsening
○ Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public
funds on highways and roads.
○ Automobiles kill around 90,000 Americans every year — about 40,000 in car
accidents, and an estimated 50,000 more from long-term exposure to air
pollution emitted by cars.
○ Given how completely automobiles rule most cities, calling for their outright
banishment can sound almost ludicrous.
○ Instead of fighting a war on cars, urbanists should fight a war on
car dependency — on cities that leave residents with few choices other than cars.
○ At the moment, many of the most intractable challenges faced by America’s
urban centers stem from the same cause — a lack of accessible physical space.
A. Impartial
B. Sarcastic
C. Disapproving
D. Hypercritical
E. Pragmatic
13. Determine the accuracy of the statements below according to the passages.
Pilih benar/salah untuk masing-masing pernyataan
[1] Inclusive language starts with good intentions (1). Avoiding offensive statements
and gestures is a basic common courtesy (2). A heightened awareness of where
certain words come from and what they might imply helps us keep racist, sexist, and
otherwise discriminatory terms out of our vocabulary (3). But the more closely we
examine everyday language, the fuzzier the line between offensive
and innocuous becomes (4).
[2] It's worth noting that some terms considered inclusive may not align with the
preferences of the communities they describe. For example, some proponents of the
neologism "Latinx" argue that it is more inclusive of all genders, while critics see it as
unnecessary and even elitist. For instance, South Carolina resident Enrique Salas told
NBC News that "Latinos" is already a sufficient term. According to a widely cited Pew
Research survey, only 3% of Hispanic adults in the US describe themselves as "Latinx",
with 4% supporting its use as a pan-ethnic term and 76% unaware of it. While
"Latinx" is intended to be inclusive, it may not reflect the preferences of the majority
of the community it describes.
[3] Similar problems emerge with gender-inclusive terminology. US Congresswoman
Cori Bush sparked controversy last spring after describing mothers as “birthing
people” in a speech to Congress. Proponents argue that “birthing people” is simply
more inclusive, recognizing that transgender men or nonbinary people give birth.
Critics find the term derogatory and insulting, noting that it, along with phrases like
“chestfeeding,” “human milk,” “front holes” and “vulva owners,” reduces women to a
conglomerate of abstract, dehumanized body parts.
[4] All of these instances exemplify how easily linguistic conventions meant to create
inclusive environments can end up alienating individuals instead (1). If we really want
to change the way people speak, we should choose the small selection of labels that
truly degrade others and tread carefully when generalizing about the preferences of
entire populations (2). Amidst a sea of politically loaded, ever-changing terminology
where the consequences of misspeaking can be severe, we risk losing all the good
intentions behind inclusive language (3).
Source: The Stanford Daily
16. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?
17. In the second paragraph, the author most likely includes the results of Pew
Research in order to…
Pilih semua pernyataan yang sesuai
○ support the argument that the term “Latino” is a sufficient term for most people
in Hispanic communities
○ back the idea that the inclusive term “Latinx” might not be as inclusive as it is
meant to be
○ validate the notion that determining which term should be made inclusive might
be tricky
○ give an example of how inclusive language should be determined based on the
preferences of certain groups
○ describe a case where there is an ongoing issue with implementing inclusive
language
19. What is the significance of paragraph [3] to the whole discussion in the passage?
A. It adds another layer to the complexity of inclusive language by showing that it's
not just about avoiding discriminatory terms but also about choosing language that
respects the identities of diverse groups of people.
B. It summarizes the idea that creating an inclusive language is a complex process,
but an essential one in promoting equity and respect for all individuals.
C. It supports the main idea about how inclusive terms should be chosen based on
preference rather than gender since it is difficult to assign gender qualities to certain
limited terms.
D. It emphasizes the notion in the discussion that there is a danger of inclusive
language being impractical and only catering to an exclusive group of people;
alienating the rest.
E. It deflects the discussion to an entirely different direction by taking an example of
the use of inclusive terms that explains how inclusive language also addresses gender
differences.