READING PASSAGE 1

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1-13 which are based on Reading Passage 1 below.

The Beginning of Football!

A

Football as we now know it developed in Britain in the 19th century, but the game is far older than this. In fact, the term has historically been applied to games played on foot, as opposed to those played on horseback, so ‘football’ hasn’t always involved kicking a ball. It has generally been played by men, though at the end of the 17th century, games were played between married and single women in a town in Scotland. The married women regularly won.

B

The very earliest form of football for which we have evidence is the ‘tsu’chu’, which was played in China and may date back 3,000 years. It was performed in front of the Emperor during festivities to mark his birthday. It involved kicking a leather ball through a 30-40 cm opening into a small net fixed onto long bamboo canes – a feat that demanded great skill and excellent technique.

C

Another form of the game, also originating from the Far East, was the Japanese ‘kemari’ which dates from about the fifth century and is still played today. This is a type of circular football game, a more dignified and ceremonious experience requiring certain skills, but not competitive in the way the Chinese game was, nor is there the slightest sign of struggle for possession of the ball. The players had to pass the ball to each other, in a relatively small space, trying not to let it touch the ground.

D

The Romans had a much livelier game, ‘harpastum’. Each team member had his own specific tactical assignment took a noisy interest in the proceedings and the score. The role of the feet was so small as scarcely to be of consequence. The game remained popular for 700 or 800 years, but, although it was taken to England, it is doubtful whether it can be considered as a forerunner of contemporary football.

E

The game that flourished in Britain from the 8th to the 19th centuries was substantially different from all the previously known forms – more disorganised, more violent, more spontaneous and usually played by an indefinite number of players. Frequently, the games took the forms of a heated contest between whole villages. Kicking opponents were allowed, as in fact was almost everything else.

F

There was tremendous enthusiasm for football, even though the authorities repeatedly intervened to restrict it, as a public nuisance. In the 14th and 15th centuries, England, Scotland and France all made football punishable by law, because of the disorder that commonly accompanied it, or because the well-loved recreation prevented subjects from practicing more useful military disciplines. None of these efforts had much effect.

G

The English passion for football was particularly strong in the 16th century, influenced by the popularity of the rather better organised Italian game of ‘calcio’. English football was as rough as ever, but it found a prominent supporter in the school headmaster Richard Mulcaster. He pointed out that it had positive educational value and promoted health and strength. Mulcaster claimed that all that was needed was to refine it a little, limit the number of participants in each team and, more importantly, have a referee to oversee the game.

H

The game persisted in a disorganised form until the early 19th century, when a number of influential English schools developed their own adaptations. In some, including Rugby School, the ball could be touched with the hands or carried; opponents could be tripped up and even kicked. It was recognised in educational circles that, as a team game, football helped to develop such fine qualities as loyalty, selflessness, cooperation, subordination and deference to the team spirit. A ‘games cult’ developed in schools and some form of football became an obligatory part of the curriculum.

I

In 1863, developments reached a climax. At Cambridge University, an initiative began to establish some uniform standards and rules that would be accepted by everyone, but there were essentially two camps: the minority – Rugby School and some others – wished to continue with their own form of the game, in particular allowing players to carry the ball. In October of the same year, eleven London clubs and schools sent representatives to establish a set of fundamental rules to govern the matches played amongst them. This meeting marked the birth of the Football Association.

J

The dispute concerning kicking and tripping opponents and carrying the ball was discussed thoroughly at this and subsequent meetings, until eventually, on 8 December, the die-hard exponents of the Rugby style withdrew, marking a final split between rugby and football. Within eight years, the Football Association already had 50 member clubs, and the first football competition in the world was started – the FA Cup.

Questions 1-7

Reading Passage 1 has ten paragraphs A-J.

Choose the correct headings for paragraphs D-J from the list of headings below.

Write the correct number i-x in boxes 1-7 on your answer sheet.

List of Headings

i           Limited success in suppressing the game

ii          Opposition to the role of football in schools

iii         A way of developing moral values

iv         Football matches between countries

v          A game that has survived

vi         Separation into two sports

vii        Proposals for minor improvements

viii       Attempts to standardize the game

ix         Probably not an early version of football

x          A chaotic activity with virtually no rules

Example          Paragraph C                Answer v

1   Paragraph D 

2   Paragraph E

3   Paragraph F

4   Paragraph G

5   Paragraph H

6   Paragraph I

7   Paragraph J

Questions 8-13

Complete each sentence with the correct ending A-L from the box below.

Write the correct letter A-F in boxes 8-13 on your answer sheet.

A   was seen as something to be encouraged in the young.

B   involved individual players having different responsibilities.

C   was influenced by a game from another country.

D   was a cooperative effort by all the players.

E   distracted people from more important activities.

F   was played by teams of a fixed size.

G   was less popular than it later became.

H   was often played by one community against another.

I   formed part of a celebration.

8   Tsu’chu

9   Kemari

10   Harpastum

11   From the 8th centuries, football in the British Isles

12   In the past, the authorities legitimately despised the football and acted on the belief that football.

13   When it was accepted in academic settings, football.

READING PASSAGE 2

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14–26, which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.\

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD ?

The prospects for humanity and for the world as a whole are somewhere between glorious and dire. It is hard to be much more precise.

A. By ‘glorious’ I mean that our descendants – all who are born on to this Earth – could live very comfortably and securely, and could continue to do so for as long as the Earth can support life, which should be for a very long time indeed. We should at least be thinking in terms of the next million years. Furthermore, our descendants could continue to enjoy the company of other species – establishing a much better relationship with them than we have now. Other animals need not live in constant fear of us. Many of those fellow species now seem bound to become extinct, but a significant proportion could and should continue to live alongside US. Such a future may seem ideal, and so it is. Yet I do not believe it is fanciful. There is nothing in the physical fabric of the Earth or in our own biology to suggest that this is not possible.

B. ‘Dire’ means that we human beings could be in deep trouble within the next few centuries, living but also dying in large numbers in political terror and from starvation, while huge numbers of our fellow creatures would simply disappear, leaving only the ones that we find convenient – chickens, cattle – or that we can’t shake off, like flies and mice. I’m taking it to be self-evident that glory is preferable.

QUESTIONS

Questions 14-19

Do the following statements reflect the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 2? In boxes 14-19 on your answer sheet write

YES if the statement is true
NO if the statement is false
NOT GIVEN if the formation is not given to the passage

14. It seems predictable that some species will disappear.

15. The nature of the Earth and human biology make it impossible for human beings to survive another million years,

16. An eruption by Yellowstone is likely to be more destructive than previous volcanic eruptions.

17. There 18 a greater chance of the Earth being hit by small asteroids than by large ones.

18. If the world becomes uninhabitable, It is most likely to be as a result of a natural disaster.

19. Politicians currently in power seem unlikely to change their way of thinking.

Questions 20-25

Complete the summary below.
Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer. Write your answers in boxes 20-25 on your answer sheet

The Earth could become uninhabitable, like other planets, through a major change in the 20 Volcanic eruptions of 21 can lead to shortages of 22 in a wide area.

An asteroid hitting the Earth could create a 23that would result in a new 24Plans are being made to use 25to deflect asteroids heading for the Earth.

Question 26

Choose the correct letter. A, B, C or D.
Write your answer in box 26 on your answer sheet What is the writer’s purpose in Reading Passage 2?

A. to propose a new theory about the causes of natural disasters

B. to prove that generally held beliefs about the future are all mistaken

C. to present a range of opinions currently held by scientists

D. to argue the need for a general change in behavior

26 )

READING PASSAGE  3

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27-40 which are based on Reading Passage 1 below.

Personality and Appearance

When Charles Darwin applied to be the “energetic young man” that Robert Fitzroy, the Beagle’s captain, sought as his gentleman companion, he was almost let down by a woeful shortcoming that was as plain as the nose on his face. Fitzroy believed in physiognomy—the idea that you can tell a person’s character from their appearance. As Darwin’s daughter Henrietta later recalled, Fitzroy had “made up his mind that no man with such a nose could have energy”. This was hardly the case. Fortunately, the rest of Darwin’s visage compensated for his sluggardly proboscis: “His brow saved him.”

The idea that a person’s character can be glimpsed in their face dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was most famously popularised in the late 18th century by the Swiss poet Johann Lavater, whose ideas became a talking point in intellectual circles. In Darwin’s day, they were more or less taken as given. It was only after the subject became associated with phrenology, which fell into disrepute in the late 19th century, that physiognomy was written off as pseudoscience.

First impressions are highly influential, despite the well-worn admonition not to judge a book by its cover. Within a tenth of a second of seeing an unfamiliar face we have already made a judgement about its owner’s character—caring, trustworthy, aggressive, extrovert, competent and so on. Once that snap judgement has formed, it is surprisingly hard to budge. People also act on these snap judgements. Politicians with competent-looking faces have a greater chance of being elected, and CEOs who look dominant are more likely to run a profitable company. There is also a wellestablished “attractiveness halo”. People seen as good-looking not only get the most valentines but are also judged to be more outgoing, socially competent, powerful, intelligent and healthy.

In 1966, psychologists at the University of Michigan asked 84 undergraduates who had never met before to rate each other on five personality traits, based entirely on appearance, as they sat for 15 minutes in silence. For three traits extroversion, conscientiousness and openness—the observers’ rapid judgements matched real personality scores significantly more often than chance. More recently, researchers have re-examined the link between appearance and personality, notably Anthony Little of the University of Stirling and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, both in the UK. They pointed out that the Michigan studies were not tightly controlled for confounding factors. But when Little and Perrett re-ran the experiment using mugshots rather than live subjects, they also found a link between facial appearance and personality—though only for extroversion and conscientiousness. Little and Perrett claimed that they only found a correlation at the extremes of personality.

Justin Carre and Cheryl McCormick of Brock University in Ontario, Canada studied 90 ice-hockey players. They found that a wider face in which the cheekbone-tocheekbone distance was unusually large relative to the distance between brow and upper lip was linked in a statistically significant way with the number of penalty minutes a player was given for violent acts including slashing, elbowing, checking from behind and fighting. The kernel of truth idea isn’t the only explanation on offer for our readiness to make facial judgements. Leslie Zebrowitz, a psychologist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, says that in many cases snap judgements are not accurate. The snap judgement, she says, is often an “overgeneralisation” of a more fundamental response. A classic example of overgeneralisation can be seen in predators’ response to eye spots, the conspicuous circular markings seen on some moths, butterflies and fish. These act as a deterrent to predators because they mimic the eyes of other creatures that the potential predators might see as a threat.

Another researcher who leans towards overgeneralisation is Alexander Todorov. With Princeton colleague Nikolaas Oosterhof, he recently put forward a theory which he says explains our snap judgements of faces in terms of how threatening they appear. Todorov and Oosterhof asked people for their gut reactions to pictures of emotionall neutral faces, sifted through all the responses, and boiled them down to two underlying factors: how trustworthy the face looks, and how dominant. Todorov and Oosterhof conclude that personality judgements based on people’s faces are an overgeneralisation of our evolved ability to infer emotions from facial expressions, and hence a person’s intention to cause us harm and their ability to carry it out. Todorov, however, stresses that overgeneralisation does not rule out the idea that there is sometimes a kernel of truth in these assessments of personality.

So if there is a kernel of truth, where does it come from? Perrett has a hunch that the link arises when our prejudices about faces turn into self-fulfilling prophecies—an idea that was investigated by other researchers back in 1977. Our expectations can lead us to influence people to behave in ways that confirm those expectations: consistently treat someone as untrustworthy and they end up behaving that way. This effect sometimes works the other way round, however, especially for those who look cute. The Nobel prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz once suggested that baby-faced features evoke a nurturing response. Support for this has come from work by Zebrowitz, who has found that baby-faced boys and men stimulate an emotional centre of the brain, the amygdala, in a similar way. But there’s a twist. Babyfaced men are, on average, better educated, more assertive and apt to win more military medals than their mature-looking counterparts. They are also more likely to be criminals; think Al Capone. Similarly, Zebrowitz found baby-faced boys to be quarrelsome and hostile, and more likely to be academic highfliers. She calls this the “self defeating prophecy effect”: a man with a baby face strives to confound expectations and ends up overcompensating.

There is another theory that recalls the old parental warning not to pull faces, because they might freeze that way. According to this theory, our personality moulds the way our faces look. It is supported by a study two decades ago which found that angry old people tend to look cross even when asked to strike a neutral expression. A lifetime of scowling, grumpiness and grimaces seemed to have left its mark.

QUESTIONS

Questions 27 – 31

Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in Reading Passage?

In boxes 27-31 on your answer sheet, write

YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer

NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say that the writer thinks about this

27 Robert Fitzroy’s first impression of Darwin was accurate.

28 The precise rules of “physiognomy” have remained unchanged since the 18th century.

29 The first impression of a person can be modified later with little effort.

30 People who appear capable are more likely to be chosen to a position of power.

31 It is unfair for good-looking people to be better treated in society.

Questions 32-36

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

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

32 What’s true about Anthony Little and David Perrett’s experiment?

A. It is based on the belief that none of the conclusions in the Michigan experiment is accurate.

B. It supports parts of the conclusions in the Michigan experiment.

C. It replicates the study conditions in the Michigan experiment.

D. It has a greater range of faces than in the Michigan experiment.

33 What can be concluded from Justin Carre and Cheryl McCormick’s experiment?

A. A wide-faced man may be more aggressive.

B. Aggressive men have a wide range of facial features.

C. There is no relation between facial features and an aggressive character.

D. It’s necessary for people to be aggressive in competitive games.

34 What’s exemplified by referring to butterfly marks?

A. Threats to safety are easy to notice.116

B. Instinct does not necessarily lead to accurate judgment.

C. People should learn to distinguish between accountable and unaccountable judgments.

D. Different species have various ways to notice danger.

35 What is the aim of Alexander Todorov’s study?

A. to determine the correlation between facial features and social development

B. to undermine the belief that appearance is important

C. to learn the influence of facial features on judgments of a person’s personality

D. to study the role of judgments in a person’s relationship

36 Which of the following is the conclusion of Alexander Todorov’s study?

A. People should draw accurate judgments from overgeneralization.

B. Using appearance to determine a person’s character is undependable.

C. Overgeneralization can be misleading as a way to determine a person’s character.

D. The judgment of a person’s character based on appearance may be accurate.

Questions 37 – 40

Complete each sentence with correct ending, A—F, below.

Write the correct letter, A-F, in boxes 37-40 on your answer sheet.

A. judge other people by overgeneralization,

B. may influence the behaviour of other people,

C. tend to commit criminal acts.

D. may be influenced by the low expectations of other people.

E. may show the effect of long-term behaviours.

F. may be trying to repel the expectations of other people.

37 Perret believed people behaving dishonestly

38 The writer supports the view that people with babyish features

39 According to Zebrowitz, baby-faced people who behave dominantly

40 The writer believes facial features