номер 4, страница 68 - гдз по английскому языку 5-11 класс учебник Latham-Koenig, Oxenden

4 READING

a Talk to a partner.

Have you ever...?

• been told to turn your phone off in a public place

• had something taken away from you at airport security

• been told to stop taking photographs in a public place

Did you think you were being treated reasonably?

b

Read three questions on the back cover of a book called In the Interests of Safety, which exposes the truth behind some of the rules which govern our lives. How would you answer the questions?

Can a mobile phone cause a major explosion at a petrol station?

What would happen if the no-liquids rule at airports was abolished?

And are all the child protection measures really making children safer?

1

Have you ever wondered why, if it is so dangerous to make a mobile phone call at a petrol station, you are even allowed to carry one in a car?

In fact, the chance of a spark from a mobile phone detonating petrol or diesel is effectively zero, because both these fuels are far less flammable than is ¹ Even dropped cigarettes don't ignite petrol. There has not been a single case of a phone igniting petrol. So what is the source of the phone myth? In the early days of mobile phones, manufacturers thought phone ignition was ² and included a warning about not using them near fuel, which led to the warnings at service stations. By the 1990s, this warning changed – now users were simply instructed to obey any signs telling them to switch their phones off. Meanwhile, petrol pump attendants recounted stories about pumps which had blown up because of a phone, even saying that they had seen footage on YouTube. However, no footage exists. It is true that using a phone might distract people while refuelling. So, rather than ³ stories about lethal mobile phones, shouldn't the authorities make it clear that this is the only real problem?

c

Now read three extracts from the book. In which extract do the authors say that...?

• the rule is based on something which is possible in theory, but not in practice

• no rule actually exists, only advice

• the rule is based on an outdated rumour

d

Read the extracts again and complete them with phrases A-J. There is one phrase you don't need.

• A a theoretical possibility

• B a very bad idea

• C actively encouraged

• D personal and private use only

• E going along with

• F nothing to that effect

• G always criticized

• H popularly supposed

• I to improve security

• J under any circumstances

e

What are the authors' answers to the three questions in b? Are you convinced by their arguments?

2

Scientist Richard Dawkins was queuing up recently at London Heathrow Airport's security when he saw a mother growing agitated because she was not allowed to take her young daughter's eczema cream on board. Dawkins wrote later, 'No sane person, witnessing that scene, seriously feared that this woman was planning to blow herself up on a plane.'

To passengers around the world, the 100 millilitre rule means one thing: airport security officials are stopping anyone from boarding with enough liquid to blow up the aircraft. But is liquid all you need to make up an explosive device? When we started asking experts, they confirmed that the explosive that most worried airlines was triacetone triperoxide (TATP). However, making TATP before boarding would be ⁴ as it is likely to detonate without warning, just as a result of physical movement. And mixing the ingredients on the plane would be even more complicated, as TATP must be prepared at a temperature of around 50 degrees Fahrenheit. You would also need a lot of scientific equipment, and making the liquid would take several hours. Even if no one knocked on the toilet door during the hours you were in there, you would then have to wait several more hours for the liquid to dry to a powder. No wonder the chemists we interviewed expressed disbelief about the whole idea. The only real justification for the liquids rule appears to be that giving people, especially nervous flyers, the idea that you are doing something ⁵ is a good thing. The irony is that passengers are not only allowed, but ⁶ to carry bottles of highly flammable alcohol onto airplanes.

3

Ken Paine was watching his son, Jake, play in a local under-sixteens' football match. When Ken tried to take a photo, the referee came over to him and told him he couldn't take photos, as it was against the Child Protection Act.

This was not an isolated incident. Many schools in the USA and Britain now have a policy that no parent may photograph any child, even their own, ⁷ on school property. One school in the UK told parents they could no longer take pictures during the Christmas school play or the sports day, and then employed an official photographer to record these events. The photos were then offered for sale to the parents. The referee who told Paine to put his camera away cited the Football Association and the Child Protection Act as responsible for the ban on photography. We decided to take Ken's case up with these two authorities.

The Football Association replied that they had no problem with parents taking still or video images of football matches involving children, so long as they were for ⁸ and were not posted on the internet. We then looked into the situation with the Child Protection Act. First, we approached the Local Government Association, which is responsible for many schools and sports facilities. They said they had no policy on photographing children, and referred us to the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS). The ADCS said, 'We offer no sort of guidance of this type. Each school makes their own decision.' Furthermore, we could find ⁹ in the text of the Child Protection Act. The only guideline which does exist (and remember this is not a law, or even a rule) boils down to: Be careful about sharing images of other people's children on the internet.

Adapted from In the Interests of Safety by Tracey Brown and Michael Hanlon

Каковы ответы авторов на три вопроса из пункта b? Убедили ли вас их аргументы?

Ответ:

1. Может ли мобильный телефон вызвать сильный взрыв на автозаправочной станции?

The authors argue that it cannot. The chance of a mobile phone spark igniting petrol is practically zero. This belief is an outdated myth from the early days of mobile phones. The only real danger is the distraction a phone can cause while refuelling.

Авторы утверждают, что не может. Шанс того, что искра от мобильного телефона воспламенит бензин, практически равен нулю. Это убеждение — устаревший миф, возникший на заре эры мобильных телефонов. Единственная реальная опасность — это отвлечение внимания, которое может вызвать телефон во время заправки.

2. Что произойдет, если правило о запрете жидкостей в аэропортах будет отменено?

According to the authors, abolishing the rule would not compromise security. They explain that creating a liquid explosive on a plane is nearly impossible due to the need for specific equipment, temperature conditions, and a lot of time. The rule's main purpose seems to be to make nervous passengers feel safer.

По мнению авторов, отмена этого правила не подорвет безопасность. Они объясняют, что создать жидкое взрывчатое вещество на борту самолета практически невозможно из-за необходимости специального оборудования, температурных условий и большого количества времени. Основная цель правила, по-видимому, заключается в том, чтобы заставить нервных пассажиров чувствовать себя в большей безопасности.

3. И действительно ли все меры по защите детей делают их жизнь безопаснее?

The authors believe that not all measures are effective or based on actual laws. They use the example of banning parents from taking photos at children's sports events, citing the Child Protection Act. Their investigation revealed that no such rule exists in the Act. The only official guidance is to be careful when sharing images of other children on the internet. Therefore, some measures are based on misunderstandings.

Авторы считают, что не все меры эффективны или основаны на реальных законах. В качестве примера они приводят запрет родителям фотографировать на детских спортивных мероприятиях, ссылаясь на Закон о защите детей. Их расследование показало, что в Законе такого правила нет. Единственное официальное руководство — быть осторожными при публикации фотографий других детей в интернете. Следовательно, некоторые меры основаны на недопонимании.

Yes, I am convinced by their arguments. They didn't just state opinions; they investigated the issues. They checked with official sources like the Football Association and looked into the actual laws. They also explained the science behind why making a bomb on a plane is so difficult. It shows that sometimes we follow rules that are based on fear or misinformation, not on real danger. It makes me want to question things more.

Да, их аргументы меня убедили. Они не просто высказывали мнения, а исследовали вопросы. Они сверялись с официальными источниками, такими как Футбольная ассоциация, и изучали реальные законы. Они также объяснили с научной точки зрения, почему так сложно сделать бомбу в самолете. Это показывает, что иногда мы следуем правилам, основанным на страхе или дезинформации, а не на реальной опасности. Это заставляет меня больше задавать вопросов.