Literasi Bahasa Inggris
1.
In the opinions of certain individuals, code-mixing is seen as advantageous as it:
Pilih semua pernyataan yang sesuai
Jawaban:
signals a willingness to break down linguistic hierarchies
offers a distinctive form of self-expression
reflects the cultural complexities in an interconnected world
helps individuals to communicate themselves more precisely
connects people from different linguistic backgrounds
​
2.
Which proponent(s) of code-mixing view(s) it as an expressive tool that allows for a
wider range of expression and nuanced meaning?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
3.
Icterus
Calypte
Nebulosa
Loxia and Calypte
Aethia and Aquila
In what manner do Icterus and Loxia hold differing opinions regarding
code-mixing?
A. Icterus perceives code-mixing as a barrier to communication, while Loxia sees it
as a valuable tool in improving communication among individuals speaking
different languages.
B. Icterus believes that code-mixing highlights the complex nature of language use,
while Loxia thinks that it enables people from different linguistic backgrounds to
communicate effectively.
C. Icterus expresses how code-mixing alienates him from certain communities, while
Loxia states that it can facilitate understanding between people from different
linguistic backgrounds.
D. Icterus indicates that he has a strong attachment to the languages he knows and
values their purity, while Loxia demonstrates how language is shaped by social,
cultural, and personal factors.
E. Icterus claims that code-mixing makes difficult for him to follow the conversation,
while Loxia proves that it can lead to feelings of social isolation and loneliness in
a globalized world.
​
4.
Which of the following opinions is most similar in tone to Aethia’s opinion?
A. In my experience, code-mixing is simply a fact of life for anyone living in a diverse,
global community. It can be a powerful way to bridge gaps between languages.
B. Code-mixing is an innate characteristic of human interaction, but more often than
not, it is a hindrance to understanding and should only be used as a last resort.
C. Mixing different languages in speech is a natural and necessary part of our
multicultural society. However, it's important to be mindful of one's audience.
D. To me, code-mixing can be a bit of a double-edged sword. Sometimes it can make
communication smoother, but other times it can create confusion and frustration.
E. I view code-mixing as a typical aspect of multilingualism. Its effectiveness depends
on the context, but it shouldn't be stigmatized as unintelligible.
5.
How do individuals who oppose code-mixing defend their stance?
Pilih semua pernyataan yang sesuai
Jawaban:
By suggesting that code-mixing may have detrimental implications for a person’s
credibility.
By noting how code-mixing can lead to feelings of alienation for individuals who are
not fluent in the language varieties being used.
By emphasizing the importance of being mindful of the context and situation when
using code-mixing.
By highlighting how code-mixing can further reinforce existing stereotypes and
prejudices of a particular culture.
By stating that code-mixing may influence how others view and engage with those
who use code-mixing.
​
6. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
What is the common topic of both passages?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Car-centric public policies
Effects of cars on urban spaces
Car dependency culture
Environmental problems with cars
Cars impeding growth of public transits
7. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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.
​
8. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
What can be understood from the last paragraph of passage 1?
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.
9. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
How does passage 1 differ from passage 2?
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. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
What does the word ‘alleviating’ mean in the context of passage 2?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Soothing
Improving
Weakening
Revitalizing
E. Worsening
11. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
Which of the following statements is/are opinions?
Pilih semua pernyataan yang sesuai
Jawaban:
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.
​
12. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
What is the author’s tone of passage 2?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
​
Impartial
Sarcastic
Disapproving
Hypercritical
Pragmatic
13. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason
for that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public
funds on highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger
rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which
represents one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the
automobile in American life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public
transportation and coax more people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is
necessary to tackle climate change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan
still needs to get through Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often
prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
Determine the accuracy of the statements below according to the passages.
Pilih benar/salah untuk masing-masing pernyataan
Jawaban:
PERNYATAAN
BENAR
SALAH
1. About 80% of the transportation budget is allocated for
infrastructure that facilitate cars
2. Cars do not only harm people directly through accidents, but
also indirectly through the air that we breathe.
3. There is not enough physical space for people because cars
and its infrastructure take it.
4. The main problem with cars is that they are wasteful of space
as they can only transport a few people at once.
5. The interstate highway system in 1956 was the beginning of
the public fund allocation in roads and highways.
14. Passage 1
If America is dominated by car culture and the call of the open road, there is a big reason for
that: Over the past 65 years, the United States has spent nearly $10 trillion in public funds on
highways and roads, and just a quarter of that on subways, buses and passenger rail.
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.
Recently, however, President Biden unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which represents
one of the most ambitious efforts yet to challenge the centrality of the automobile in American
life, by proposing to tilt federal spending far more toward public transportation and coax more
people out of their cars. Experts say that transformation is necessary to tackle climate
change, but could prove extremely difficult in practice. His plan still needs to get through
Congress, where lawmakers in rural and suburban districts often prefer money for roads.
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
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?
Source: New York Times (with modifications)
If the government … (initiate) excessive investment in highways and roads, Americans
... (be) less dependent on cars now.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
​
had not initiated, would be
had initiated, would have been
initiated, would be
did not initiate, would have been
had initiated, would be
15. [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
The passage characterizes language inclusion as ….
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
​
futile due to its limitations in representing minorities
detrimental to the development of inclusive society
a good scheme to ensure a safe space for conversations
an effective approach to combat regressive thinking
impractical when used in a generalized manner
16. [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
Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
​
Paragraph [1], Sentence (1)
Paragraph [1], Sentence (2)
Paragraph [1], Sentence (3)
Paragraph [4], Sentence (1)
Paragraph [4], Sentence (2)
17. [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
In the second paragraph, the author most likely includes the results of Pew Research
in order to …
Pilih semua pernyataan yang sesuai
Jawaban:
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
18. [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
The word “innocuous” in paragraph 1 means that ….
A. it is offensive
B.
C.
D.
E.
it is obscure
it is degrading
it is harmless
it is subtle
19. [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
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.
20. [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
Identify which statement(s) align with the author's perspective.
Pilih benar/salah untuk masing-masing pernyataan
Jawaban:
PERNYATAAN
1. When choosing inclusive terms, it's important to consider the
preferences of diverse individuals and communities.
2. It is important to use inclusive language to promote respect
and equity for all individuals, regardless of their background.
3. Inclusive language is a form of social engineering that
undermines traditional values and norms.
4. Inclusive language is an unnecessary burden that creates
confusion and divisiveness.
​
BENAR
SALAH