Dân Tộc được Hiểu Theo Nghĩa: | Cungthi.online

• Bạn cần trợ giúp không?
• [email protected]

• Đăng nhập
• Đăng ký
• Liên hệ

Đăng nhập

• Trang chủ
• Dân tộc được hiểu theo nghĩa:

Câu 1: Dân tộc được hiểu theo nghĩa: A. Một dân tộc ít người B. Một dân tộc thiểu số C. Một bộ phận dân cư của một quốc gia D. Một cộng đồng có chung lãnh thổ

Những câu hỏi này đến từ bài kiểm tra này. Bạn có muốn thực hiện bài kiểm tra thử không?

40 câu hỏi trắc nghiệm Bài 5: Quyền bình đẳng giữa các dân tộc và tôn giáo - GDCD lớp 12

• 50 phút
• 40 câu hỏi

Làm bài kiểm tra

Một số câu hỏi từ cùng một bài kiểm tra

Một số câu hỏi khác bạn có thể quan tâm

• Choose the underlined word (A,B,C or D)that is not correct in Standard English

  I used to went swimming when I was a child.

• Cho các phát biểu sau:

  Tính chất hóa học đặc trưng của kim loại là tính khử

  Trong các hợp chất, các kim loại đều chỉ có 1 mức oxi hóa cao nhất

  Ở điều kiện thường, tất cả các kim loại ở trạng thái rắn

  Tính chất vật lí chung của kim loại đều có các electron tự do gây ra

  Các kim loại Na, K và Al đều có thể tan tốt trong dung dịch KOH ở điều kiện thường

  Kim loại Cu khử được Fe2+ trong dung dịch

  Để hợp kim Fe-Ni ngoài không khí ẩm thì thanh kim loại Ni bị ăn mòn điện hóa học

  Số phát biểu sai là:

• Mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate t he word that differs from the other three in the position of primary stress in each of the following questions.

• She asked me: “Do you know which buses go to downtown?”

• Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 35 to 42.

  In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.

  Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.

  But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?

  Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.

  Of course, there's always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn't been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds – or avoid doing anything incriminating in public – for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

  The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.

  The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet – but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."

  What does the author imply in paragraph 3?

• We like playing soccer but  listening to music in our free time.