Soal bahasa Inggris reading 4 empat

TUGAS MANDIRI

READING  4

(BING3307)

PETUNJUK: UNTUK SOAL NOMOR   1  SAMPAI DENGAN 30. PILIHLAH SATU JAWABAN YANG PALING TEPAT!

I was born in Kashmir. I grew up in its apple orchards and lush green meadows, dreamed on the banks of its freshwater streams, I went to school there, sitting on straw mats and memorizing tables by heart. After school my friends and I would rush half-way home, tear off our uniforms and dive into the cold water. Then we would quickly dry our hair, so our parents would not find out what we had done. Sometimes, when we felt especially daring, we would skip an entire day of school to play cricket.

My village lies in the foothills of the Himalayas. During summer breaks, we would trek to the meadows high in the mountains carrying salt slates for the family cattle, sit around a campfire and play the flute for hours. The chilling winter would turn the boys and girls of our small village onto one huge family - huddled together in big room, we would listen to stories till late into the night. Sipping hot cups of the traditional salt tea, the village elder who had inherited the art of storytelling would transport us to the era of his tales. He had never been to school but he remembered hundreds of beautiful stories by heart. Kashmir was like a big party, full of love and life. Today death and fear dominate everything.

I was in Kashmir too when the first bomb exploded in 1988. People first thought it was the outcome of a small political feud, although everybody knew the pot was boiling after years of political discontent. Then that September a young man, Ajaz Dar, died in a violent encounter with the police. Disgruntled by the farce of decades of ostensible democracy under Indian rule, a group of Kashmiri young men had decided to fight. They had dreamt of an independent Kashmir free from both India and Pakistan. Although this young man was not the first Kashmiri to die fighting for this cause, his death was the beginning of an era of tragedy.

Separatist sentiment had been dominant among Kashmiris since 1947, when Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan during partition, and the two countries fought over it. But it was not until 40 hears later that most of the youngsters opted for guns against Indian rule, in reaction to the government-sponsored rigging of the assembly polls, aimed at crushing dissent.

It is not a surprise that India’s most wanted Kashmiri militant leader, Syed Salahudin, contested that assembly election from Srinagar, nor that, unofficially, he was winning by a good margin. When the elections were rigged, he lost not only the election but faith in the process as well. His polling agents and supporters were arrested and tortured; most of them later became militants.

Neighboring Pakistan, which occupies a third of Kashmir, also smelled the changing mood in Kashmir and offered a helping hand by providing arms training and AK-47 rifles. Violence was introduced amid growing dissent against India and hundreds of young people joined the armed movement. Kashmir was changing.

I had just completed secondary school then and was enrolled in a college - a perfect potential recruit: the entire militant movement belonged to my generation. The movement was the only topic of discussion in the street, in the classroom and at home. Soon people started coming out onto the streets, thousands would march to the famous Sufi shrines or to the United Nations office, shouting slogans in favour of ‘Azadi!’ (freedom). These mass protests became an everyday affair, frustrating the authorities, who began to use force to counter them. Dozens of protesters were killed by police fire.

Many of my close friends and classmates began to join. One day, half of our class was missing. They never returned to school again, and nobody even looked for them, because it was understood.

Although the reasons for joining the militant movement varied from person to person, the majority of Kashmiris never felt that they belonged to India. What had been a relatively dormant separatist sentiment was finally exploding into a fully-fledged separatist uprising.

I too wanted to join, though I didn’t know exactly why or what it would lead to. Most of us were teenagers and had not seriously thought about the consequences. Perhaps the rebel image was subconsciously attracting us all.

I also prepared for the dangerous journey from our village in north Kashmir to Pakistan-controlled

Kashmir where all the training camps were. One didn’t just have to avoid being sighted by the Indian soldiers who guarded the border round the clock, but also defeat the fierce cold and the difficulties of hiking over the snow-clad Himalayan peaks that stood in the way. I acquired the standard militant’s gear: I bought the Wellington boots, prepared a polythene jacket and trousers to wear over my warm clothes, and found some woolen cloth to wrap around my calves as protection from frostbite.

Fortunately, I failed. Three times a group of us returned from the border. Each time something happened that forced our guide to take us back. The third time, 23 of us had started our journey on foot from Malangam, not far away from my village, only to be abandoned in a dense jungle. It was night, and the group had scattered after hearing gunshots nearby, sensing the presence of Indian army men. In the morning, when we gathered again, our guide was missing. Most of the others decided to continue on their own, but a few of us turned back. We had nothing to eat but leaves for three days. We followed the flight of crows, hoping to reach a human settlement. I was lucky. I reached home and survived.

As the days and months passed, and as the routes the militants took to cross the border became known to Indian security forces, the bodies began to arrive. Lines of young men would disappear on a ridge as they tried to cross over or return home. The stadiums where we had played cricket and football, the beautiful green parks where we had gone on school excursions as children, were turned into martyrs’ graveyards. One after another those who had played in those places were buried there, with huge marble epitaphs detailing their sacrifice. Many had never fired a single bullet from their Kalashnikovs.

1.   What did the writer do on his way to his home from school?      

A.   playing cricket

B.   swimming in the river

C.   helping his parents

D.   washing his hair

2.   How did the village children spend the night?

A.   setting a fire

B.   playing the flute for hours

C.   listening to story-telling

D.   learning to memorize stories

     

3.   What marked a new are in Kashmir?

A.   bomb explosion

B.   political conflict

C.   the death of Ajaz Dar

D.   Kashmir’s independence

4.   When was Kashmir divided into two territories?

A.   in 1940

B.   in 1947

C.   in 1987

D.   in 1907

5.   What happened to the majority of Syed Salahudin’s men?

A.   They became militants.

B.   They were arrested.

C.   They were tortured.

D.   They disappeared.

6.   Who sponsored changes in Kashmir?

A.   Kashmir

B.   India

C.   Young people

D.   Pakistan

7.   What was the typical issue in Kashmir?

A.   militant movement

B.   college enrollment

C.   people’s freedom

D.   mass protests

8.   A  lot of school children disappeared from their school because ....

A.   They were abducted.

B.   They joined the militant movement.

C.   Everybody understood.

D.   They crossed the boarder.

9.   How did the writer feel about the trip from his village to another part of Kashmir?

A.   It was difficult.

B.   It was easy.

C.   It was challenging.

D.   It was dangerous.

10.   How many times did the militants try to cross the border?

A.   once

B.   twice

C.   three times

D.   four times

11.   How did they escape from the jungle?

A.   by eating leaves

B.   by tracing cow’s footsteps

C.   by turning back

D.   by taking a short cut

12.   What is the best titles for the story?

A.   My lost country

B.   Separatist’s movement

C.   A dangerous journey

D.   People’s adventure

13.   The word ‘lush’ in paragraph 1 means ....

A.   very beautiful

B.   very healthy

C.   very large

D.   sparkling

14.   The explanation ‘drink by taking a small amount a time’ is closest in meaning to ....

A.   huddled (paragraph 2)

B.   ripping (paragraph 2)

C.   trek (paragraph 2)

D.   disgruntled (paragraph 3)

15.   What does the word ‘They’ in paragraph 3 refer to?

A.   policemen

B.   Kashmiri young men

C.   people

D.   ruler

Airbus and Boeing prepare for worse as orders slump.

With sales hard to come by since the 11 September terror attacks, manufacturers are facing an uncertain couple of years.

Airbus and Boeing have battened down the hatches for a rough ride in 2002 following the order slump in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks last September. The two rivals secured orders for 710 aircraft last year, but the net rally (less cancellations and adjustments) fell to 546 units. The spoils were divided equally, and represented a 50% drop on 2000.

Flight International estimates that last year’s combined gross order intake was worth around $74 billions (Boeing value based on average 2001 list princes). The 164 cancellations/adjustments reduces the order value to $62 billion-down 25% on 2000’s $83 billion.

Significantly, around 80% of last year’s orders were placed in the eight months prior to 11 September. The attacks stopped airlines and lessons in their tracks and from then on most were only interested in talking deferrals. The manufacturers are under no illusions as to what the next 12-24 months have in store.

From the start of last year, the manufacturers had already accepted that they were facing a major drop in orders for 2001, and midyear estimates were put at a combined 800 aircraft. They can take some solace from the fact that their gross performance was within 10% of their forecasts, despite the airlines’ unprecedented slump from September onwards.

Airbus executive vice-president customer affairs John Leahy forecasts that the two manufacturers’ combined orders are set to tumble by another 50% this year to around 300-350 aircraft. Boeing has so far been unwilling to make any predictions about orders in 2002, despite securing a welcome Ryanair order for 100 737-800s last week.

Thanks largely to its 85 A380 sales, Airbus has for the first time beaten Boeing handsomely in the order value stakes, with net orders of $37 billion. Despite a 40% drip in order intake on 2000, the value of Airbus’s 2001 net orders is $2 billion higher than the year before. It is also 50% more than the $24.5 billion Flight International estimates Boeing’s 2001 net orders were worth.

Deliveries were up 7% last year, as Airbus set a personal best of 325 aircraft and Boeing ramped up to 527 units from its reduced output in 2000. With Airbus taking the honours in the order stakes, Boeing has been at pains to point out that it delivered over 60% of the world’s jet airliners (excluding regional jets) last year.

Based on announced turnover and revenue figures from Airbus and Boeing, 2001 deliveries were worth almost $56 billion. However based on 2001 “sticker” prices, Flight International estimates that the deliveries were worth $69 billion. Boeing’s quoted 2001 revenue of $35 billion for its commercial aircraft division is $10 billion lower than our estimate, which chief executive Phil Condit puts down to discounts offered to airlines from the quoted list price.

Output this year is set to fall by 20% to around 680 aircraft. Airbus chief executive Noel Forgeard predicts that Airbus will produce 300 aircraft, while Boeing is targeting around 380. Forgeard says that based on current orders, the European manufacturer will maintain its 2002 output level into 2003. However he cautions that experience with previous recessions suggests that the next 18-24 months will see output reaching the bottom of the current cycle which could therefore force further production cuts. Forgeard says that he and Leahy will hold meetings with customers this spring to determine actual production for next year.

Airbus has made it clear publicly that it will not entertain major discounts to encourage airlines to take delivery of aircraft during the downturn. “We are not about to sell aircraft below the cost of production,” says Leahy. Boeing has already accepted that 2003 will be lower, currently forecasting 275-300 deliveries. It adds that 2002’s production allocation is “virtually sold out” and 75% of its lower 2003 production estimate has been sold.

The two companies’ combined backlog has fallen 10% to 2,932 aircraft at the end of 2001, worth an estimated $250 billion. A year ago, the backlog was split equally between the two rivals, but Airbus has edged ahead with 54% of the total, worth an estimated $131 billion. Boeing’s share is worth an estimated $119 billion.

16.   What was last year’s total joint production of Airbus and Boeing?

A.   710 aircraft

B.   546 aircraft

C.   355 aircraft

D.   273 aircraft

17.   How much value did they loose last year?

A.   $62 billion

B.   $74 billion

C.   $83 billion

D.   $164 billion

18.   What were their estimates in the middle of the year?

A.   10 aircraft

B.   720 aircraft

C.   800 aircraft

D.   810 aircraft

19.   What was this year’s combined orders?

A.   300-350 aircraft

B.   350-400 aircraft

C.   737-800s aircraft

D.   837-900s aircraft

20.   What was last year’s Boeing’s net orders?

A.   $2 billion

B.   $37 billion

C.   $40 billion

D.   $24.5 billion

21.   How many aircraft did Boeing deliver last year?

A.   7

B.   60

C.   325

D.   527

22.   What was last year’s figure for the manufacturer’s turnover and income?

A.   $10 billion

B.   $35 billion

C.   $56 billion

D.   $69 billion

23.   When are they going to meet their customers?

A.   this year

B.   this spring

C.   2002

D.   2003

24.   What will Boeing do in the year 2002?

A.   increase deliveries

B.   decrease deliveries

C.   maintain the same number of deliveries as before

D.   accept all orders

25.   What does ‘battened down the hatched’ mean? (paragraph 1) ....

A.   change directions

B.   show some connection with

C.   support the truth of

D.   fasten with boards of woods

26.   What does lessors mean? (paragraph 3) ....

A.   a person who is given the use of a building

B.   a person who sells a building

C.   a person who lets a building

D.   a person who leases a building

27.   The word ‘unprecedented’ in paragraph 4 means ....

A.   never happened before

B.   not showing sign of size

C.   not showing unfair judgement

D.   not skilful because of lack of experience

28.   The explanation ‘the period of time flows it and the situation resulted from it’ ....

A.   slump (paragraph 4)

B.   aftermath (paragraph 1)

C.   deferrals (paragraph 3)

D.   solace (paragraph 4)

29.   The explanation ‘the value of the goods or services that a company has sold’ is closest in meaning to ....

A.   forecast (paragraph 5)

B.   prediction (paragraph 5)

C.   turnover (paragraph 8)

D.   revenue (paragraph 8)

30.   The explanation ‘a decline in the economy or in success of a company’ is closest in meaning to ....

A.   recessions (paragraph 9)

B.   discounts (paragraph 8)

C.   downturn (paragraph 10)

D.   backlog (paragraph 12)

PETUNJUK: UNTUK SOAL NOMOR   31   SAMPAI   45   PILIHLAH:

A.   JIKA 1) DAN 2) BENAR!

B.   JIKA 1) DAN 3) BENAR!

C.   JIKA 2) DAN 3) BENAR!

D.   JIKA 1), 2), DAN 3) SEMUANYA BENAR!    

A road not taken

The genesis of the recent horrifying attacks on US targets may lie in the 1980s, when Washington gave its backing to the wrong guerrilla groups in Afghanistan by Julian Gearing.

If I said the United States might be indirectly responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks that paralyzed New York, Washington and the world, you would probably dismiss the suggestion as callous. But bear with me while I relate a tale of blunders and opportunities lost.

 It was 1984, and I was on assignment for CBS TV News in war-torn Afghanistan, on a mission to interview the one man who might make a difference to the Afghan people’s struggle against occupying Soviet forces. That man was guerrilla commander Ahmad Shah Massoud. Rounding a corner on the trail, I came across a Westerner making his way back to Pakistan from Massoud’s hideout in the Panjshir Valley. “Philip, what are you doing here?” I said, remembering I’d met this former British SAS soldier before in London. Philip was adamant that he wasn’t who I thought he was. But when I recounted where we had last met, he finally admitted that, yes, he was indeed Philip. But my question didn’t get a proper answer. “What are you doing here?” I asked again. “Er, working for Saudi TV,” he said, unconvincingly.

As I watched him walk off, heading for the Pakistan border, I didn’t see the large Rambo-type knife he had hidden under his clothes. That was colorfully described to me a few years later in London, when I met his traveling companion. Rambo Philip, it turned out, was working freelance for the British intelligence services, gathering information and providing limited military help and training for Massoud. The British and French had cottoned on early to the importance of Massoud in the Cold War struggle against communism in Afghanistan. The Americans had not.

The governments of president Ronald Reagen and of the current president’s father, George Bush, channelled millions of dollars of military aid and support to the wrong guerrilla groups. The reason? The Americans were backing Pakistan’s agenda on Afghanistan, and this meant going along with Pakistani support for Gulbudeen Hekmatyar’s Hesbe Islami  organization - a force that seemed to spend more time fighting other guerrillas than taking on the Soviets.

It would be wrong to say no. US military aid got to Massoud. I discovered this in 1987, when I stumbled tired and hungry into a trailside tea-shop tent in the Panjshir Valley. I exchanged greetings with a man I recognized as one of Massoud’s close aides. He handed me a cup of tea and pointed to what I was sitting on: two boxes of US Stinger anti-air-craft missile launchers - powerful enough to blow a Soviet MiG jet or an Mi-24 helicopter gunship out of the sky. “Khub ast,” the man said, grinning - good. Good, maybe, but the arms had been supplied to Massoud by another guerrilla group. It wasn’t until the next year, 1988, that Massoud received direct supplies from the Americans - and even then it was just a handful of weapons. The bulk of US aid continued to go to Hekmatyar and other less effective groups.

Washington’s silent support for Pakistan’s creation of the Taliban helped establish the world’s most dangerous breeding ground for terrorists. Holed up somewhere in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden has good reason to thank the US

Of course, I am not arguing that if Washington had given Massoud the support he needed, he, and not the Taliban, would have come to power. Afghan politics are more complex than that. But by backing Pakistan’s line, Washington helped divide the guerrillas, arguably prolonging the war. Even worse, Washington’s silent support for Pakistan’s creation of the Taliban helped establish the world’s most dangerous breeding ground for terrorists. Osama bin Laden, holed up some where in Afghanistan, has a lot to thank the Americans for.

Flash forward in time to Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a day most people on this planet will remember as the most shocking they have ever known. It was evening in Bangkok, half a world away from Manhattan, and I was having a drink with a colleague, discussing the suicide attack two days before that we now know killed Massoud. The Taliban denied involvement, but official sources speculated that bin Laden might have carried the attack out as a favor to Afghanistan’s rulers.

It was in this frame of mind that my colleague and I sat idly watching the TV, tuned into a news channel. Suddenly, live footage showed one of the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan billowing smoke. The TV commentator wondered if it was an accident, relating how an aircraft had just crashed into the building. Then the second plane appeared, headed for the other tower. My friend and I exchanged glances. Two decades of covering conflict and terrorism in Asia, and the fact we had just been talking about Massoud, bin Laden and Afghanistan, made the moment all the more dramatic.

As President Bush prepares to unleash retaliation against Afghanistan and bin Laden, he would do well to ponder those past miscalculations and blunders. They may have helped lead to the tragic events that befell the United States last week.

31.   The writer describes the terrorist attacks on the US as ....

1)   horrifying

2)   cruel

3)   wrong

32.   Which of the following places functioned improperly on the day of the attack?

1)   New York

2)   Washington

3)   Afghanistan

33.   Who did the writer meet with while he was in Afghanistan?

1)   Ahmad Shah Massoud

2)   A Soviet soldier

3)   Rambo Philip

34.   The white man he met ....

1)   was traveling to Pakistan

2)   was returning from Panjshir Village

3)   used to be a British soldier

35.   Where did the writer meet Philip and also hear about him?

1)   In Pakistan

2)   In Afghanistan

3)   In London

36.   What did the writer know about Philip?

1)   He worked for the British Intelligence Services as a freelance.

2)   He trained Massoud’s men.

3)   He normally carried a knife with him.

37.   Which foreigners had interests in Afghanistan during the Cold War?

1)   Americans

2)   British

3)   French

38.   What were Philip’s duties in Afghanistan?

1)   collecting information

2)   giving restricted military assistance

3)   training Massoud’s guerrillas

39.   Who provided military aid and support for the wrong guerrilla groups in Afghanistan?

1)   Ronald Reagan

2)   George Bush

3)   George W. Bush

40.   What were the reasons for the support?

1)   to support Pakistan’s agenda on Afghanistan

2)   to fight against an Islamic organization

3)   to fight against other guerrillas

41.   What were the evidences of the US military aid supplied to Massoud?

1)   anti-aircraft missile launchers

2)   weapons

3)   helicopter gunships

42.   Which parties in Afghanistan received benefit from Washington’s support?

1)   Taliban

2)   Pakistan

3)   Osama bin Laden

43.   According to official sources, who were likely to be responsible for the attack?

1)   Massoud

2)   Bin Laden

3)   Afghanistan’s ruler

44.   What made the writer’s and his colleague moment more astonishing?

1)   his coverage of conflict and terrorist in Asia

2)   live TV footage

3)   a talk about Massoud, bin Laden and Afghanistan

45.   According to the writer, what does President Bush have to take into consideration?

1)   past miscalculations

2)   past big mistakes

3)   the tragic events