如何選擇英文單字書?
Many students struggle to find suitable learning materials. Here are six tips to help you find the perfect vocabulary book.
1.了解學習英語的目的! Focus!
在挑單字書前,要先釐清您的目的是在日常會話中學習詞彙或是準備像SAT,TOEFL或IELTS這樣的標準化測驗?又或許您正在學習與特定工作領域相關的專業術語,因此您應該選擇一本書來幫助您滿足這些需求。
Understand your goals for learning English.
Are you learning vocabulary words for daily conversations or preparing for standardized assessments like the SAT, TOEFL, or IELTS? If you are studying for work-related purpose and need technical, domain-specific vocabulary words, you should pick a book that helps you meet these needs.
★★★★★★★★★★★★
2.選擇一本以各種方式呈現單詞的書。Employ diverse learning strategies!
好的詞彙書通常有定義、音節、搭配詞、插圖、文字網、概念圖和單字音檔來幫助您理解新的單詞和短語。每個人的學習方式都不同,最好是找到一本可以幫助您記憶詞彙的書。這本書還應該包括告訴您在學習這個單字時可能會有的疑難點,例如,specie(貨幣)不是species(物種)的單數型,這麼一來您可以避免這樣的錯誤。
Pick a book that presents words in diverse ways.
Good vocabulary books often have definitions, syllabification, collocations, illustrations, word webs, concept maps, and audio recordings to help you understand new words and phrases. Everyone learns differently, and it is best if you find a book that can help you commit these words to memory. The book should also include expected errors (e.g. specie is not the singular form of species) so you can avoid making them.
★★★★★★★★★★★★
3.這本書有附練習嗎?Practice!
學習新單詞最有效的練習之一是單字填空練習。這本書是否有克漏字、選擇選、單字配對和其他有益的練習?是否含有口說、聽力、閱讀和寫作活動可以幫助您記憶,甚至是在語境中使用學到的單詞?
Does the book have exercises?
One of the most effective exercises for learning new words is a cloze exercise. Does the book have cloze, multiple choice, matching, and other exercises that help you remember the words? Are there speaking, listening, reading, and writing activities that help you retain and even use the words in context?
★★★★★★★★★★★★
4. 這本書有提供資源幫助你複習嗎? Always review!
如果不進行反覆和持續的練習,很難牢記單字。您的這本單字書是否包含閃字卡或類似Quizlet的練習程式,可以幫助您在學習這些單字的數月後查看學習成效?這也是您購書時要考量的重點之一。
Does the book have resources to help you review?
Without drilling and continuous review, it is difficult to commit new information to memory. Does the book include flashcards or apps like Quizlet that help you review the words months after you learned it?
★★★★★★★★★★★★
5.是否有定期和最終的評量?Assessments and evaluations!
您的單字書是否在幾個學習單元之後有附上單字測驗幫助您評估目前的學習程度和進步的狀況? 好的單字書應該是結構化的,包括單字測驗,以幫助您了解您的進展。
Does the book have periodic assessments and a final evaluation?
Assessments are needed to know your current level and your progress. Exercises serve as a good way to measure your understanding of the words, but are there quizzes and tests every few chapters in your book? The book should be structured and include assessments and a final evaluation to help you know your progress.
★★★★★★★★★★★★
6. 這本書能引起你的興趣嗎?Learning should be fun~
有時候,我們會為了考試的目的購買詞彙書,但這並不代表它一定是無趣的。除了單純表列單字和短語的單字書外,您應該要找到具有功能性且富知識性的單字書,讓單字學習變得有趣並使您保持學習的興趣!
Does the book keep you interested?
Sometimes, we purchase vocabulary books for test-taking purposes but that does not mean it can’t be interesting. Find a book that includes practical tidbits of knowledge to help make learning interesting and keep you motivated!
★★★★★★★★★★★★
英文單詞學習資源
Video Discussions
1. 為何英文能力無法提升? (影片)
https://goo.gl/49zf2E
2. 如何牢記和應用剛學到的英文單詞? (影片)
https://goo.gl/mGiMeY
3. 來測試一下你的英文詞彙層次! Tier 1, 2, 3? (影片)
https://goo.gl/SzCqte
4. 7個教/學英文詞彙的關鍵步驟 (影片)
https://goo.gl/Z4Yub4
5. 如何有效率的認知和應用學科單字 (影片): https://www.cctalk.com/v/15178710492881
6. 免費線上高頻率學術單詞課:
https://goo.gl/forms/UVnVBFvmduaGp17T2
★★★★★★★★★★★★
Image source: NPR.org
「form 3 english reading exercise」的推薦目錄:
- 關於form 3 english reading exercise 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於form 3 english reading exercise 在 Scholarship for Vietnamese students Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於form 3 english reading exercise 在 姚松炎 Edward Yiu Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於form 3 english reading exercise 在 Form 3 English Unit 7 Reading Part 1 - YouTube 的評價
- 關於form 3 english reading exercise 在 READING 3 FORM | Reading comprehension skills ... 的評價
form 3 english reading exercise 在 Scholarship for Vietnamese students Facebook 的最讚貼文
[HANNAHED ENGLISH CLUB] IELTS READING PHƯƠNG PHÁP LÀM DẠNG TRUE /FALSE/ NOT GIVEN
Đối với một số bạn, dạng T/F/NG trong IELTS Reading có thể là một dạng rất khó nhằn. Cả nhà hãy đọc bài post này thật kĩ nhá. Bài không dài lắm đâu hehe.
----
Bắt đầu với dạng TRUE /FALSE/ NOT GIVEN. Với dạng bài này, đề bài sẽ đưa ra cho các bạn một loạt các nhận định (statement) và yêu cầu bạn phải chọn đó là “True”, “False” hay “Not given”. Lưu ý:
+ TRUE: Nếu nhận định trùng khớp với ý đưa ra trong bài đọc (nhớ rằng ý nghĩa của nhận định và ý bài đọc phải giống hệt nhau 100% (same). Nếu ý đưa ra chỉ tương tự (similar) hoặc gần giống (nearly the same) -> FALSE
+ FALSE: Nếu ý của nhận định trái ngược hoặc mâu thuẫn với ý bài đọc -> FALSE
+ NOT GIVEN: Khi câu nhận định có 1 thông tin (dù là nhỏ nhất) mà bài đọc không có
(Lưu ý: ‘Not Given’ không có nghĩa là không có thông tin. Có thể thông tin của câu nhận định sẽ xuất hiện trong bài đọc, nhưng thông tin đó không dùng hoặc không đủ để trả lời câu hỏi).
CÁC BƯỚC KHI LÀM:
B1. Tìm keywords trong câu nhận định và nhìn lên đoạn văn -> xác định vị trí của thông tin ở đâu.
B2. Tìm những từ trong câu nhận định đồng nghĩa với từ trong đoạn văn (để dựa vào đó đưa ra câu trả lời).
B3. Đọc kỹ câu văn nhận định và đoạn văn chứa thông tin để trả lời câu hỏi.
VÍ DỤ:
IELTS Reading: Yes, No, Not Given
Read the following passage about 'habits'.
“All our life, so far as it has definite form, is but a mass of habits,” William James wrote in 1892. Most of the choices we make each day may feel like the products of well-considered decision making, but they’re not. They’re habits. And though each habit means relatively little on its own, over time, the meals we order, what we say to our kids each night, whether we save or spend, how often we exercise, and the way we organize our thoughts and work routines have enormous impacts on our health, productivity, financial security, and happiness. One paper published by a Duke University researcher in 2006 found that 40 percent or more of the actions people performed each day weren’t actual decisions, but habits.
Do the statements below agree with the ideas expressed by the author? Write YES, NO or NOT GIVEN.
1. The majority of choices we make on a daily basis are conscious decisions.
2. Saving money is the key to financial security.
3. Habits account for at least 40 percent of the things we do each day.
Note:
The passage above comes from a book I read recently called The Power of Habit. If you're looking for a book to read, I definitely recommend it.
(Bài đọc này mình lấy ở trang ielts-simon.com).
🌞 ĐÁP ÁN VÀ GIẢI THÍCH CHI TIẾT
1) The majority of choices we make on a daily basis are conscious decisions.
+ Keywords là “choices” và “decisions” -> quay ngược lên đoạn văn xác định tìm thông tin ở câu 2 của đoạn văn.
+ Tìm những từ trong câu hỏi nghĩa tương tự so với đoạn văn ở trên (xem dòng 1,2,3 bảng keywords table ở dưới).
+ Đọc kỹ câu hỏi và câu trong đoạn văn để trả lời.
Câu nhận định: phần lớn quyết định hằng ngày của chúng ta là những quyết định có ý thức.
Câu văn trong bài: “feel like the products of well-considered decision making, but they’re not. They’re habits” (những quyết định hằng ngày có vẻ như là những quyết định được cân nhắc kỹ lưỡng, nhưng không phải như vậy. Chúng là thói quen). -> NO
2) Saving money is the key to financial security.
+ Keywords là “financial security” -> quay ngược lên đoạn văn xác định tìm thông tin ở câu 4 của đoạn văn.
+ Tìm những từ trong câu hỏi nghĩa tương tự so với đoạn văn ở trên (xem dòng 4 của bảng keywords table ở dưới).
+ Đọc kỹ câu hỏi và câu trong đoạn văn để trả lời.
Câu nhận định: Saving money is the key to financial security (Tiết kiệm tiền là chìa khóa cho việc đảm bảo kinh tế).
Tuy nhiên dựa vào thông tin trong bài đọc, mình không thể biết việc “saving money” có tác động đến “financial security” hay không (đoạn văn chỉ nêu “Whether we save or spend... enormous impacts on financial security”) -> NOT GIVEN
3) Habits account for at least 40 percent of the things we do each day.
+ Keywords là “40 percent” -> quay ngược lên đoạn văn xác định tìm thông tin ở câu cuối cùng của đoạn văn.
+ Tìm những từ trong câu hỏi nghĩa tương tự so với đoạn văn ở trên (xem dòng 5,6 của bảng keywords table ở dưới).
+ Đọc kỹ câu hỏi và câu trong đoạn văn để trả lời.
Câu nhận định: Habits account for at least 40 percent of the things we do each day. (thói quen chiếm ít nhất 40 phần trăm những việc chúng ta làm hằng ngày)
So sánh với bài đọc có nêu: that 40 percent or more of the actions people performed each day weren’t actual decisions, but habits. (40 phần trăm hoặc hơn những quyết định của con người hằng ngày không phải là quyết định thực sự (actual decision) mà là thói quen (habits)” -> YES
Sau khi làm xong 1 bài Reading và hiểu cặn kẽ như vậy. Các bạn nên tổng kết thành bảng keyword table như thầy Simon làm ở hình dưới và sử dụng để ôn tập. Nhớ rằng người ra đề cũng sử dụng cách paraphrase các từ khóa để viết câu hỏi cho các bạn. Xem ở đây: https://bit.ly/2FFhXRQ
Chúc các bạn học tốt.
----
Source: Ngoc Bach
Link full bài viết ở đây nhé: https://bit.ly/2ATPdkk
Cả nhà join vào group này để học Tiếng Anh cũng hay nè, rất bổ ích và bài có chọn lọc nha: https://bit.ly/2MiisE8
<3 Chia sẻ và tag bạn bè mình nếu các em thấy có ích nhé <3
#HannahEd #duhoc #hocbong #sanhocbong #scholarshipforVietnamesestudents
#HannahEdEnglishClub
form 3 english reading exercise 在 姚松炎 Edward Yiu Facebook 的精選貼文
ultra vires
【回覆選舉主任的追問】(Please scroll down for English version)
(選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問: https://goo.gl/unqfuP )
我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任,內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助,大家可參考他的文章:
村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎!
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD
全文:
「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函,現謹覆如下:
█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題
1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥
2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定,「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明,示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區,否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」
《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定,為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」,「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。
3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步,假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力,而這並無違反人權),「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯,亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。
區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定),將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立, 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。
但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋, 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」
4. 再者,立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時,完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般,考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容,背後更無任何有約束力 的決定,要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。
反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出,「本條例草案的目的,是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文,以確保選舉公開、公平和公正,並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。
5. 無論如何,即使區慶祥法官亦須承認,任何有關的聲明規定, 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下,實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。
法律上,選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:
'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting
Wade and Forsyth.
(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)
在這方面,《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的,是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下,並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區,亦即提名的有效性,並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念,《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問,否則他或她行事的目的,就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查,而非確保提名的有 效性。
故此,我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。
█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題,我並不同意你的說法,因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制,因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而,正如我昨日的回覆所指,「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革,包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條,作為中共封殺真普選後,港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時,我沒有主張「香港獨立」。
█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」,不過,提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人,不單自己不可主張港獨,也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障,亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。
請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆,決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料,請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。
2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」
【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】
Mr. Yuen,
I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:
█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination
1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.
2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.
3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.
Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’
4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)
5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).
In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:
'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.
(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)
In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.
Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.
█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".
█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.
Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.
form 3 english reading exercise 在 READING 3 FORM | Reading comprehension skills ... 的推薦與評價
Vocabulary reading and comprehension exercise about the origin of Easter.***Easter is the greatest festival of the Christian church. ... <看更多>
form 3 english reading exercise 在 Form 3 English Unit 7 Reading Part 1 - YouTube 的推薦與評價
Form 3 English Unit 7 Reading Part 1. 1.7K views · 2 years ago ...more. E ... Close-up B1 Track 7.1 Listening - Page 88 - Exercise B. MOHD ADI ... ... <看更多>