LISTENING

SECTION 1. QUESTIONS 1-10

Questions 1-5Complete the information below. Write NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS AND/OR A
NUMBER for each answer.

City Library

Head Librarian Example: Mrs. Phillips

Hours (1)……… to 4:30

Books  

Ground floor (2)……

Second floor Adult collection

Third floor (3) ………

Book carts  

Brown cart books to re-shelve

Black cart books to (4)………

White cart books to (5)………

Questions 6-10

Complete the library schedule below.

Write NO MORE THAN ONE WORD OR A NUMBER for each answer.

Activity Location Day and Time

Story Time Children's Room (6)…… at 11:00

(7)……….. Reference Room Saturday at (8)……..

Lecture Series (9)…………Room Friday at (10)………

SECTION 2. QUESTIONS 11-20

Questions 11-15

Choose FIVE letters, A—I. Which FIVE activities are available at Golden Lake

Resort?
 A swimming
F golf
В boating
G horseback riding
С waterskiing
H hiking
D fishing
I arts and crafts
E tennis

Questions 16-20

Complete the schedule below. Write NO MORE THAN ONE WORD for each
answer.

Night Activity

Sunday (16)…………

Monday Dessert night

Tuesday (17)……….night

Wednesday (18)………….

Thursday (19)………..

Friday Talent show

Saturday (20)………….

SECTION 3. QUESTIONS 21-30

Questions 21-23

Choose THREE letters, A-F. Which THREE things are the students required to

submit to their professor?

A  . a written summary D.  charts and graphs

B.maps E.  a list of resources used

C.a case study F.a video

Questions 24 and 25 Answer the questions by completing the gaps below. Write NO MORE THAN
THREE WORDS for each answer.

24. What two sources of information will the students use when preparing their presentation?

………………………….and…………………

25. What will the students show during their presentation?.........................................................

Questions 26-30

Choose the correct letter, A, B, or C to complete the speakers' advice.

26. Only rescue birds that are  28. Put the bird in a

A. all alone. A. cage.

B. obviously hurt. B. box.
C. sitting on the ground. C. bag.

 27. Protect yourself by wearing  29. Keep the bird calm by

A. gloves. A. petting it.

B. a hat. B. talking to it.
C. protective glasses. C. leaving it alone.

 30. When transporting the bird,

A. speak quietly.
B. play music.
C. .drive very slowly.

SECTION 4. QUESTIONS 31-40

Questions 31-33

Complete the information about the Great Barrier Reef.

Write NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS for each answer.

The Great Barrier Reef is made up of 3,000 (31)…………..….and 600 (32)…………… Over 400 kinds
of (33………… can be found there.

Questions 34-38

Choose FIVE letters, A-I. Which FIVE оf these binds of animals inhabiting the Great Barrier Reef are
mentioned?

A. sharks D. clams G. sea turtles

B. starfishes E. whales H. crocodiles

C. seahorses F. dolphins I. frogs

Questions 39 and 40

Answer the questions below. Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS for each answer.

39. What causes coral bleaching?................................................................................

40. What has been one response to this problem?..........................................................

READING PASSAGE 1
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1–16, which are based on Reading Passage 1 below.

Sea monsters are the stuff of legend - lurking not just in the depths of the oceans, but
also the darker corners of our minds. What is it that draws us to these creatures?

"This inhuman place makes human monsters," wrote Stephen King in his novel The Shining.
Many academics agree that monsters lurk in the deepest recesses, they prowl through our
ancestral minds appearing in the half-light, under the bed - or at the bottom of the sea. 

"They don't really exist, but they play a huge role in our mindscapes, in our dreams, stories,
nightmares, myths and so on," says Matthias Classen, assistant professor of literature and
media at Aarhus University in Denmark, who studies monsters in literature. "Monsters say
something about human psychology, not the world." 

One Norse legend talks of the Kraken, a deep sea creature that was the curse of fishermen. If
sailors found a place with many fish, most likely it was the monster that was driving them to the
surface. If it saw the ship it would pluck the hapless sailors from the boat and drag them to a
watery grave. 

This terrifying legend occupied the mind and pen of the poet Alfred Lord Tennyson too. In his
short 1830 poem The Kraken he wrote: "Below the thunders of the upper deep, / Far far
beneath in the abysmal sea, / His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep / The Kraken
sleepeth." 

The deeper we travel into the ocean, the deeper we delve into our own psyche. And when we
can go no further - there lurks the Kraken. 

Most likely the Kraken is based on a real creature - the giant squid. The huge mollusc takes
pride of place as the personification of the terrors of the deep sea. Sailors would have
encountered it at the surface, dying, and probably thrashing about. It would have made a weird
sight, "about the most alien thing you can imagine," says Edith Widder, CEO at the Ocean
Research and Conservation Association. 

"It has eight lashing arms and two slashing tentacles growing straight out of its head and it's got
serrated suckers that can latch on to the slimiest of prey and it's got a parrot beak that can rip
flesh. It's got an eye the size of your head, it's got a jet propulsion system and three hearts that
pump blue blood." 

The giant squid continued to dominate stories of sea monsters with the famous 1870 novel,
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, by Jules Verne. Verne's submarine fantasy is a
classic story of puny man against a gigantic squid. 

The monster needed no embellishment - this creature was scary enough, and Verne
incorporated as much fact as possible into the story, says Emily Alder from Edinburgh Napier
University. "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and another contemporaneous book,
Victor Hugo's Toilers of the Sea, both tried to represent the giant squid as they might have been
actual zoological animals, much more taking the squid as a biological creature than a mythical
creature." It was a given that the squid was vicious and would readily attack humans given the
chance. 

That myth wasn't busted until 2012, when Edith Widder and her colleagues were the first
people to successfully film giant squid under water and see first-hand the true character of the
monster of the deep. They realised previous attempts to film squid had failed because the bright
lights and noisy thrusters on submersibles had frightened them away. 

By quietening down the engines and using bioluminescence to attract it, they managed to see
this most extraordinary animal in its natural habitat. It serenely glided into view, its body rippled
with metallic colours of bronze and silver. Its huge, intelligent eye watched the submarine warily
as it delicately picked at the bait with its beak. It was balletic and mesmeric. It could not have
been further from the gnashing, human-destroying creature of myth and literature. In reality this
is a gentle giant that is easily scared and pecks at its food. 

Another giant squid lies peacefully in the Natural History Museum in London, in the Spirit
Room, where it is preserved in a huge glass case. In 2004 it was caught in a fishing net off the
Falkland Islands and died at the surface. The crew immediately froze its body and it was sent to
be preserved in the museum by the Curator of Molluscs, Jon Ablett. It is called Archie, an
affectionate short version of its Latin name Architeuthis dux. It is the longest preserved
specimen of a giant squid in the world. 

"It really has brought science to life for many people," says Ablett. "Sometimes I feel a bit
overshadowed by Archie, most of my work is on slugs and snails but unfortunately most people
don't want to talk about that!" 

And so today we can watch Archie's graceful relative on film and stare Archie herself (she is a
female) eye-to-eye in a museum. But have we finally slain the monster of the deep? Now we
know there is nothing to be afraid of, can the Kraken finally be laid to rest? Probably not says
Classen. "We humans are afraid of the strangest things. They don't need to be realistic. There's
no indication that enlightenment and scientific progress has banished the monsters from the
shadows of our imaginations. We will continue to be afraid of very strange things, including
probably sea monsters." 

Indeed we are. The Kraken made a fearsome appearance in the blockbuster series Pirates of
the Caribbean. It forced Captain Jack Sparrow to face his demons in a terrifying face-to-face
encounter. Pirates needed the monstrous Kraken, nothing else would do. Or, as the German
film director Werner Herzog put it, "What would an ocean be without a monster lurking in the
dark? It would be like sleep without dreams." 

 Questions 1–7

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?

In boxes 1–7 on your answer sheet, write

 TRUE                          if the statement agrees with the information

FALSE                        if the statement contradicts the information

NOT GIVEN                if there is no information on this

1. Matthias Classen is unsure about the possibility of monster's existence.                           

2. Kraken is probably based on an imaginary animal.                           
3. Previous attempts on filming the squid had failed due to the fact that the creature was
scared.                  
4. Giant squid was caught alive in 2004 and brought to the museum.                             
5. Jon Ablett admits that he likes Archie.                        
6. According to Classen, people can be scared both by imaginary and real monsters
7. Werner Herzog suggests that Kraken is essential to the ocean.                        

Questions 8–12

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

Write the correct letter in boxes 8–12 on your answer sheet.

8. Who wrote a novel about a giant squid?

A. Emily Alder
B. Stephen King
C. Alfred Lord Tennyson
D. Jules Verne

9. What, of the featuring body parts, mollusc DOESN'T have?

A. two tentacles
B. serrated suckers
C. beak
D. smooth suckers

10.Which of the following applies to the bookish Kraken?

A.notorious

B.scary

C.weird

D.harmless

11. Where can we see a giant squid?

A. at the museum

B.at a seaside

C.on TV

D.supermarkets

12.The main purpose of the text is to:

A. help us to understand more about both mythical and biological creatures of the deep

B.illustrate the difference between Kraken and squid

C.shed the light on the mythical creatures of the ocean

D.compare Kraken to its real relative

Questions 13–16

Complete the sentences below.

Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Write your answers in boxes 13–16 on your answer sheet.

 13. According to the Victor Hugo's novel, the squid would ……………………………………..if he

had such opportunity.

14. The real squid appeared to be……………………. and………………………………….

15. Archie must be the………………………………………………of its kind on Earth.

16. We are able to encounter the Kraken's…………………………………. in a movie franchise.

PASSAGE2 :

The atom bomb was one of the defining inventions of the 20th Century. So how did
science fiction writer HG Wells predict its invention three decades before the first
detonations?

(A)  Imagine you're the greatest fantasy writer of your age. One day you dream up the idea of
a bomb of infinite power. You call it the "atomic bomb". HG Wells first imagined a uranium-
based hand grenade that "would continue to explode indefinitely" in his 1914 novel The World
Set Free. He even thought it would be dropped from planes. What he couldn't predict was how a
strange conjunction of his friends and acquaintances - notably Winston Churchill, who'd read all
Wells's novels twice, and the physicist Leo Szilard - would turn the idea from fantasy to reality,
leaving them deeply tormented by the scale of destructive power that it unleashed.

(B)  The story of the atom bomb starts in the Edwardian age, when scientists such as Ernest
Rutherford were grappling with a new way of conceiving the physical world. The idea was that
solid elements might be made up of tiny particles in atoms. "When it became apparent that the
Rutherford atom had a dense nucleus, there was a sense that it was like a coiled spring," says
Andrew Nahum, curator of the Science Museum's Churchill's Scientists exhibition. Wells was
fascinated with the new discoveries. He had a track record of predicting technological
innovations. Winston Churchill credited Wells for coming up with the idea of using aeroplanes
and tanks in combat ahead of World War One.

(C)  The two men met and discussed ideas over the decades, especially as Churchill, a highly
popular writer himself, spent the interwar years out of political power, contemplating the rising
instability of Europe. Churchill grasped the danger of technology running ahead of human
maturity, penning a 1924 article in the Pall Mall Gazette called "Shall we all commit suicide?". In
the article, Churchill wrote: "Might a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a
secret power to destroy a whole block of buildings - nay to concentrate the force of a thousand
tons of cordite and blast a township at a stroke?" This idea of the orange-sized bomb is credited
by Graham Farmelo, author of Churchill's Bomb, directly to the imagery of The World Set Free.

(D)  By 1932 British scientists had succeeded in splitting the atom for the first time by artificial
means, although some believed it couldn't produce huge amounts of energy. But the same year
the Hungarian emigre physicist Leo Szilard read The World Set Free. Szilard believed that the
splitting of the atom could produce vast energy. He later wrote that Wells showed him "what the
liberation of atomic energy on a large scale would mean". Szilard suddenly came up with the
answer in September 1933 - the chain reaction - while watching the traffic lights turn green in
Russell Square in London. He wrote: "It suddenly occurred to me that if we could find an
element which is split by neutrons and which would emit two neutrons when it absorbed one
neutron, such an element, if assembled in sufficiently large mass, could sustain a nuclear chain
reaction."

(E)  In that eureka moment, Szilard also felt great fear - of how a bustling city like London and
all its inhabitants could be destroyed in an instant as he reflected in his memoir published in
1968:
"Knowing what it would mean - and I knew because I had read HG Wells - I did not want this
patent to become public." The Nazis were on the rise and Szilard was deeply anxious about
who else might be working on the chain reaction theory and an atomic Bomb. Wells's novel
Things To Come, turned into a 1936 film, The Shape of Things to Come, accurately predicted
aerial bombardment and an imminent devastating world war. In 1939 Szilard drafted the letter
Albert Einstein sent to President Roosevelt warning America that Germany was stockpiling
uranium. The Manhattan Project was born.

(F)  Szilard and several British scientists worked on it with the US military's massive financial
backing. Britons and Americans worked alongside each other in "silos" - each team unaware of
how their work fitted together. They ended up moving on from the original enriched uranium
"gun" method, which had been conceived in Britain, to create a plutonium implosion weapon
instead. Szilard campaigned for a demonstration bomb test in front of the Japanese
ambassador to give them a chance to surrender. He was horrified that it was instead dropped
on a city. In 1945 Churchill was beaten in the general election and in another shock, the US
government passed the 1946 McMahon Act, shutting Britain out of access to the atomic
technology it had helped create. William Penney, one of the returning Los Alamos physicists,
led the team charged by Prime Minister Clement Atlee with somehow putting together their
individual pieces of the puzzle to create a British bomb on a fraction of the American budget.

(G)  "It was a huge intellectual feat," Andrew Nahum observes. "Essentially they reworked the
calculations that they'd been doing in Los Alamos. They had the services of Klaus Fuchs, who
[later] turned out to be an atom spy passing information to the Soviet Union, but he also had a
phenomenal memory." Another British physicist, Patrick Blackett, who discussed the Bomb after
the war with a German scientist in captivity, observed that there were no real secrets. According
to Nahum he said: "It's a bit like making an omelette. Not everyone can make a good
one."When Churchill was re-elected in 1951 he "found an almost complete weapon ready to test
and was puzzled and fascinated by how Atlee had buried the costs in the budget", says Nahum.
"He was very conflicted about whether to go ahead with the test and wrote about whether we
should have 'the art and not the article'. Meaning should it be enough to have the capability…
[rather] than to have a dangerous weapon in the armoury."

(H)  Churchill was convinced to go ahead with the test, but the much more powerful hydrogen
bomb developed three years later worried him greatly.HG Wells died in 1946. He had been
working on a film sequel to The Shape of Things To Come that was to include his concerns
about the now-realised atomic bomb he'd first imagined. But it was never made. Towards the
end of his life, says Nahum, Wells's friendship with Churchill "cooled a little". "Wells considered
Churchill as an enlightened but tarnished member of the ruling classes." And Churchill had little
time for Wells's increasingly fanciful socialist utopian ideas.

(I)  Wells believed technocrats and scientists would ultimately run a peaceful new world order
like in The Shape of Things To Come, even if global war destroyed the world as we knew it first.
Churchill, a former soldier, believed in the lessons of history and saw diplomacy as the only way
to keep mankind from self-destruction in the atomic age. Wells's scientist acquaintance Leo
Szilard stayed in America and campaigned for civilian control of atomic energy, equally
pessimistic about Wells's idea of a bold new scientist-led world order. If anything Szilard was
tormented by the power he had helped unleash. In 1950, he predicted a cobalt bomb that would
destroy all life on the planet. In Britain, the legacy of the Bomb was a remarkable period of elite
scientific innovation as the many scientists who had worked on weaponry or radar returned to
their civilian labs. They gave us the first commercial jet airliner, the Comet, near-supersonic
aircraft and rockets, highly engineered computers, and the Jodrell Bank giant moveable radio
telescope.

(J)  The latter had nearly ended the career of its champion, physicist Bernard Lovell, with its
huge costs, until the 1957 launch of Sputnik, when it emerged that Jodrell Bank had the only
device in the West that could track it. Nahum says Lovell reflected that "during the war the
question was never what will something cost. The question was only can you do it and how
soon can we have it? And that was the spirit he took into his peacetime science." Austerity and
the tiny size of the British market, compared with America, were to scupper those dreams. But
though the Bomb created a new terror, for a few years at least, Britain saw a vision of a benign
atomic future, too and believed it could be the shape of things to come.

Questions 17–25
Reading Passage 2 has ten paragraphs, A–J.

Which paragraph contains the following information?

Write the correct letter, A–J, in boxes 17–25 on your answer sheet. Note that one paragraph is
not used.

17. Scientific success……………….

18. Worsening relations…………..

19. The dawn of the new project………….

20. Churchill's confusion……………

21. Different perspectives………………

22. Horrifying prediction………………

23. Leaving Britain behind the project……………

24. Long-term discussion………………..

25. New idea…………………….

 Questions 26–27

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

Write the correct letter in boxes 26–27 on your answer sheet.

26. How can you describe the relations between Churchill and Wells throughout the years?
A. passionate → friendly → adverse
B. curious → friendly
C. respectful → friendly → inhospitable
D. friendly → respectful → hostile

27. What is the type of this text?

A. science-fiction story
B. article from the magazine
C. historical text
D. Wells autobiography

READING PASSAGE 3
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 28–40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

As More Tech Start-Ups Stay Private, So Does the Money

 Not long ago, if you were a young, brash technologist with a world-conquering start-up idea,
there was a good chance you spent much of your waking life working toward a single business
milestone: taking your company public. 

Though luminaries of the tech industry have always expressed skepticism and even hostility
toward the finance industry, tech’s dirty secret was that it looked to Wall Street and the ritual of
a public offering for affirmation — not to mention wealth. 

But something strange has happened in the last couple of years: The initial public offering of
stock has become déclassé. For start-up entrepreneurs and their employees across Silicon
Valley, an initial public offering is no longer a main goal. Instead, many founders talk about
going public as a necessary evil to be postponed as long as possible because it comes with
more problems than benefits. 

“If you can get $200 million from private sources, then yeah, I don’t want my company under
the scrutiny of the unwashed masses who don’t understand my business,” said Danielle Morrill,
the chief executive of Mattermark, a start-up that organizes and sells information about the start-
up market. “That’s actually terrifying to me. 

Silicon Valley’s sudden distaste for the I.P.O. — rooted in part in Wall Street’s skepticism of
new tech stocks — may be the single most important psychological shift underlying the current
tech boom. Staying private affords start-up executives the luxury of not worrying what outsiders
think and helps them avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill. 

It also means Wall Street is doing what it failed to do in the last tech boom: using traditional
metrics like growth and profitability to price companies. Investors have been tough on Twitter,
for example, because its user growth has slowed. They have been tough on Box, the cloud-
storage company that went public last year, because it remains unprofitable. And the e-
commerce company Zulily, which went public last year, was likewise punished when it cut its
guidance for future sales. 

Scott Kupor, the managing partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and his
colleagues said in a recent report that despite all the attention start-ups have received in recent
years, tech stocks are not seeing unusually high valuations. In fact, their share of the overall
market has remained stable for 14 years, and far off the peak of the late 1990s. 

That unwillingness to cut much slack to young tech companies limits risk for regular investors. If
the bubble pops, the unwashed masses, if that’s what we are, aren’t as likely to get washed
out. 

Private investors, on the other hand, are making big bets on so-called unicorns — the Silicon
Valley jargon for start-up companies valued at more than a billion dollars. If many of those
unicorns flop, most Americans will escape unharmed, because losses will be confined to
venture capitalists and hedge funds that have begun to buy into tech start-ups, as well as tech
founders and their employees. 
 The reluctance — and sometimes inability — to go public is spurring the unicorns. By relying on
private investors for a longer period of time, start-ups get more runway to figure out sustainable
business models. To delay their entrance into the public markets, firms like Airbnb, Dropbox,
Palantir, Pinterest, Uber and several other large start-ups are raising hundreds of millions, and
in some cases billions, that they would otherwise have gained through an initial public
offering. 

“These companies are going public, just in the private market,” Dan Levitan, the managing
partner of the venture capital firm Maveron, told me recently. He means that in many cases,
hedge funds and other global investors that would have bought shares in these firms after an
I.P.O. are deciding to go into late-stage private rounds. There is even an oxymoronic term for
the act of obtaining private money in place of a public offering: It’s called a “private I.P.O.” 

The delay in I.P.O.s has altered how some venture capital firms do business. Rather than
waiting for an initial offering, Maveron, for instance, says it now sells its stake in a start-up to
other, larger private investors once it has made about 100 times its initial investment. It is the
sort of return that once was only possible after an I.P.O. 

But there is also a downside to the new aversion to initial offerings. When the unicorns do
eventually go public and begin to soar — or whatever it is that fantastical horned beasts tend to
do when they’re healthy — the biggest winners will be the private investors that are now bearing
most of the risk. 

It used to be that public investors who got in on the ground floor of an initial offering could earn
historic gains. If you invested $1,000 in Amazon at its I.P.O. in 1997, you would now have
nearly $250,000. If you had invested $1,000 in Microsoft in 1986, you would have close to half a
million. Public investors today are unlikely to get anywhere near such gains from tech I.P.O.s.
By the time tech companies come to the market, the biggest gains have already been extracted
by private backers. 

Just 53 technology companies went public in 2014, which is around the median since 1980, but
far fewer than during the boom of the late 1990s and 2000, when hundreds of tech companies
went public annually, according to statistics maintained by Jay Ritter, a professor of finance at
the University of Florida. Today’s companies are also waiting longer. In 2014, the typical tech
company hitting the markets was 11 years old, compared with a median age of seven years for
tech I.P.O.s since 1980. 

Over the last few weeks, I’ve asked several founders and investors why they’re waiting; few
were willing to speak on the record about their own companies, but their answers all amo 
unted to “What’s the point?”

Initial public offerings were also ways to compensate employees and founders who owned lots
of stock, but there are now novel mechanisms — such as selling shares on a secondary market
— for insiders to cash in on some of their shares in private companies. Still, some observers
cautioned that the new trend may be a bad deal for employees who aren’t given much
information about the company’s performance. 

“One thing employees may be confused about is when companies tell them, ‘We’re basically
doing a private I.P.O.,’ it might make them feel like there’s less risk than there really is,” said Ms.
Morrill of Mattermark. But she said it was hard to persuade people that their paper gains may
never materialize. “The Kool-Aid is really strong,” she said. 

If the delay in I.P.O.s becomes a normal condition for Silicon Valley, some observers say tech
companies may need to consider new forms of compensation for workers. “We probably need to
fundamentally rethink how do private companies compensate employees, because that’s going
to be an issue,” said Mr. Kupor, of Andreessen Horowitz. 

During a recent presentation for Andreessen Horowitz’s limited partners — the institutions that
give money to the venture firm — Marc Andreessen, the firm’s co-founder, told the journalist
Dan Primack that he had never seen a sharper divergence in how investors treat public- and
private-company chief executives. “They tell the public C.E.O., ‘Give us the money back this
quarter,’ and they tell the private C.E.O., ‘No problem, go for 10 years,’ ” Mr. Andreessen
said. 

At some point this tension will be resolved. “Private valuations will not forever be higher than
public valuations,” said Mr. Levitan, of Maveron. “So the question is, Will private markets
capitulate and go down or will public markets go up?” 

If the private investors are wrong, employees, founders and a lot of hedge funds could be in for
a reckoning. But if they’re right, it will be you and me wearing the frown — the public investors
who missed out on the next big thing. 

 Questions 28–31

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

Write the correct letter in boxes 28–31 on your answer sheet.

 28. How much funds would you gain by now, if you had invested 1000$ in the Amazon in 1997?

A. 250,000$
B. close to 500,000$
C. It is not stated in the text
D. No funds

29. Nowadays founders talk about going public as a:

A. necessity.
B. benefit.
C. possibility.
D. profit.

30. In which time period was the biggest number of companies going public?

A. early 1990s
B. late 1900s and 2000s
 C. 1980s
D. late 1990s

31. According to the text, which of the following is true?

A. Private valuations may be forever higher than public ones.
B. Public valuations eventually will become even less valuable.
C. The main question is whether the public market increase or the private market decrease.
D. The pressure might last for a long time.

Questions 32–36

Complete the sentences below.

Write ONLY ONE WORD from the passage for each answer.

Write your answers in boxes 32–36 on your answer sheet.

 32. Skepticism was always expected by the……………………….of tech industry.

33. The new aversion to initial offerings has its………………………….

34. Selling shares on a secondary market is considered a………………………..mechanism.

35. Workers' compensation might be an………………..

36. The public investors who failed to participate in the next big thing might be the ones wearing
the…………………

Questions 37–40

Do the following statements agree with the information in the IELTS reading text?

In boxes 37–40 on your answer sheet, write

 TRUE                          if the statement agrees with the information

FALSE                        if the statement contradicts the information

NOT GIVEN                if there is no information on this

 37. Private investors are bearing most of the risk.                                             

38. Not many investors were willing to speak on the record.                                                

39. The typical tech company hitting the markets in 1990s was 5 years old.                                
40. Marc Andreessen,the firm's co-founder, expressed  amazement with divergency in how
investors treat public.

IELTS Academic Writing

Task 1.

You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.

The bar chart shows the number of visitors to three London Museums between 2007 and 2012.

Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where
relevant.

Write at least 150 words.

IELTS Writing Task 2 

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Today's teenagers have more stressful lives than previous generations.

Discuss this view and give your own opinion.

ANSWERS

LISTENING

Section 1 Section 3

1. 8:30 / 8:30 AM / eight thirty 21. A

2. Reference books 22. C
3. Children’s books 23. E
4. Be repaired / repair 24. Interviews, journal articles
5. Be sold / sell 25. Photos (of birds)
6. Thursday 26. B
7. Movies 27. A
8. 2:30 / 2:30 PM / 14:30 28. B
9. Meeting 29. C
10. 6:30 / 6:30 PM / 18:30 30. A

Section 2 Section 4

11. A 31. Individual reefs/Coral reefs

12. B 32. Islands
13. D 33. Coral(s)
14. G 34. A
15. I 35. D
16. Film 36. E
17. Discussion 37. H
18. Lectures 38. I
19. Games 39. Rising sea temperatures
20. Dance 40. Shading the reef/Shading certain areas

READING

Section 1 13. readily attack 22. A

(humans)
23. F
1. False 14. balletic, mesmeric
24. C
2. False 15. longest preserved
25. B
3. True specimen
26. C
4. False 16. fearsome
appearance
5. Not Given Section 3
6. True Section 2
27. A
7. Not Given
17. D 28. A
8. D
18. H 29. B
9. D
19. E 30. C
10. B
20. G 31. luminaries
11. A
21. I 32. downside
12. A
33. novel 36. True 39. False
34. issue 37. True 40. B
35. frown 38. Not Given