SUMMER PART-TIME JOBS FOR UNDERGRADUATES

Techworld Magazine is delighted to announce two IT assistant vacancies up for (1) _______ this summer. The better understanding of STEM you have, (2) _______ likely you are to be selected! Successful applicants will get plenty of hands-on experience, good pay, and access to the local STEM community.

(3) _______, we offer flexible working hours and remote options for those living far away. On top of that, (4) _______ position requires previous experience as new recruits are provided with in-service training sessions.

Applications (5) _______ be submitted to us at [email protected] by 30 June.

Never before has there been such a(n) (6) _______ opportunity to kick-start your career in STEM. Don't let this chance slip through your fingers – apply today!

Money has many ironies, and here is an important one: wealth is what you do not see. On spotting a Ferrari driving around, (7) _______. In reality, however, many drivers of expensive cars turn out to be only mediocre successes who spend a huge percentage of their paycheck on a vehicle. Someone driving a hundred-thousand-dollar car might indeed be wealthy. Yet the only firm data point you have about their wealth is that they have a hundred thousand dollars less than they did before they bought the car or a hundred thousand dollars more in debt. (8) _______.

We tend to judge wealth by what we see (9) _______. We cannot peer into people's bank accounts or brokerage statements, so we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success: cars, houses, photographs on social media. Modern capitalism has turned helping people fake it until they make it into a cherished industry. (10) _______. Wealth hides in the nice car not purchased, the diamonds left in the shop and the first-class upgrade declined. Wealth is the financial assets that have not yet been converted into the stuff you see.

Hence, we should be careful (11) _______. It is more than mere semantics; not knowing the difference is the source of countless poor money decisions.

(Adapted from Psychology of Money)

Money has many ironies, and here is an important one: wealth is what you do not see. On spotting a Ferrari driving around, (7) _______. In reality, however, many drivers of expensive cars turn out to be only mediocre successes who spend a huge percentage of their paycheck on a vehicle. Someone driving a hundred-thousand-dollar car might indeed be wealthy. Yet the only firm data point you have about their wealth is that they have a hundred thousand dollars less than they did before they bought the car or a hundred thousand dollars more in debt. (8) _______.

We tend to judge wealth by what we see (9) _______. We cannot peer into people's bank accounts or brokerage statements, so we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success: cars, houses, photographs on social media. Modern capitalism has turned helping people fake it until they make it into a cherished industry. (10) _______. Wealth hides in the nice car not purchased, the diamonds left in the shop and the first-class upgrade declined. Wealth is the financial assets that have not yet been converted into the stuff you see.

Hence, we should be careful (11) _______. It is more than mere semantics; not knowing the difference is the source of countless poor money decisions.

(Adapted from Psychology of Money)

Money has many ironies, and here is an important one: wealth is what you do not see. On spotting a Ferrari driving around, (7) _______. In reality, however, many drivers of expensive cars turn out to be only mediocre successes who spend a huge percentage of their paycheck on a vehicle. Someone driving a hundred-thousand-dollar car might indeed be wealthy. Yet the only firm data point you have about their wealth is that they have a hundred thousand dollars less than they did before they bought the car or a hundred thousand dollars more in debt. (8) _______.

We tend to judge wealth by what we see (9) _______. We cannot peer into people's bank accounts or brokerage statements, so we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success: cars, houses, photographs on social media. Modern capitalism has turned helping people fake it until they make it into a cherished industry. (10) _______. Wealth hides in the nice car not purchased, the diamonds left in the shop and the first-class upgrade declined. Wealth is the financial assets that have not yet been converted into the stuff you see.

Hence, we should be careful (11) _______. It is more than mere semantics; not knowing the difference is the source of countless poor money decisions.

(Adapted from Psychology of Money)

Money has many ironies, and here is an important one: wealth is what you do not see. On spotting a Ferrari driving around, (7) _______. In reality, however, many drivers of expensive cars turn out to be only mediocre successes who spend a huge percentage of their paycheck on a vehicle. Someone driving a hundred-thousand-dollar car might indeed be wealthy. Yet the only firm data point you have about their wealth is that they have a hundred thousand dollars less than they did before they bought the car or a hundred thousand dollars more in debt. (8) _______.

We tend to judge wealth by what we see (9) _______. We cannot peer into people's bank accounts or brokerage statements, so we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success: cars, houses, photographs on social media. Modern capitalism has turned helping people fake it until they make it into a cherished industry. (10) _______. Wealth hides in the nice car not purchased, the diamonds left in the shop and the first-class upgrade declined. Wealth is the financial assets that have not yet been converted into the stuff you see.

Hence, we should be careful (11) _______. It is more than mere semantics; not knowing the difference is the source of countless poor money decisions.

(Adapted from Psychology of Money)

Money has many ironies, and here is an important one: wealth is what you do not see. On spotting a Ferrari driving around, (7) _______. In reality, however, many drivers of expensive cars turn out to be only mediocre successes who spend a huge percentage of their paycheck on a vehicle. Someone driving a hundred-thousand-dollar car might indeed be wealthy. Yet the only firm data point you have about their wealth is that they have a hundred thousand dollars less than they did before they bought the car or a hundred thousand dollars more in debt. (8) _______.

We tend to judge wealth by what we see (9) _______. We cannot peer into people's bank accounts or brokerage statements, so we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success: cars, houses, photographs on social media. Modern capitalism has turned helping people fake it until they make it into a cherished industry. (10) _______. Wealth hides in the nice car not purchased, the diamonds left in the shop and the first-class upgrade declined. Wealth is the financial assets that have not yet been converted into the stuff you see.

Hence, we should be careful (11) _______. It is more than mere semantics; not knowing the difference is the source of countless poor money decisions.

(Adapted from Psychology of Money)

For decades, students have been convinced that academic success is largely dependent upon meticulous notetaking. What has changed in recent years is not the importance of the practice but the tools used to perform it. The keyboard has subtly supplanted the pen, and with it, the nature of how information is recorded during a lecture has shifted unbeknownst to students.
Researchers in cognitive psychology have begun to examine what this change has cost learners. In a series of comparative studies, students taking notes by hand consistently outperformed those using laptops on questions that demanded conceptual understanding, even when both groups had access to the same material. The reason, according to the researchers, lies less in the technology itself than in what each method asks of the brain. Typing rewards speed; handwriting forces selection.
The act of writing by hand is slower, and that slowness appears to be its hidden virtue. Unable to capture every word, students are obliged to listen, decide what matters and condense ideas into their own phrasing. This continuous filtering, referred to as encoding by psychologists, turns out to be instrumental in aiding long-term recall. One lecturer summarised the striking contrast after reviewing her students' work: the laptops, she said, had produced transcripts, while the notebooks had produced understanding.
It would be misleading, of course, to claim that handwriting is inherently superior or that all keyboards undermine learning. Hard-working typists can summarise, while indolent writers can drift. What the research highlights is not a conclusion on devices but a question about effort: which tool, in a given context, asks more of the learner. As a ban on students’ use of laptops in classrooms remains a bone of contention among tertiary institutions, the deeper challenge may be helping students recognise that what feels easier in the moment is not always what serves them best afterwards.
(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu/)

For decades, students have been convinced that academic success is largely dependent upon meticulous notetaking. What has changed in recent years is not the importance of the practice but the tools used to perform it. The keyboard has subtly supplanted the pen, and with it, the nature of how information is recorded during a lecture has shifted unbeknownst to students.
Researchers in cognitive psychology have begun to examine what this change has cost learners. In a series of comparative studies, students taking notes by hand consistently outperformed those using laptops on questions that demanded conceptual understanding, even when both groups had access to the same material. The reason, according to the researchers, lies less in the technology itself than in what each method asks of the brain. Typing rewards speed; handwriting forces selection.
The act of writing by hand is slower, and that slowness appears to be its hidden virtue. Unable to capture every word, students are obliged to listen, decide what matters and condense ideas into their own phrasing. This continuous filtering, referred to as encoding by psychologists, turns out to be instrumental in aiding long-term recall. One lecturer summarised the striking contrast after reviewing her students' work: the laptops, she said, had produced transcripts, while the notebooks had produced understanding.
It would be misleading, of course, to claim that handwriting is inherently superior or that all keyboards undermine learning. Hard-working typists can summarise, while indolent writers can drift. What the research highlights is not a conclusion on devices but a question about effort: which tool, in a given context, asks more of the learner. As a ban on students’ use of laptops in classrooms remains a bone of contention among tertiary institutions, the deeper challenge may be helping students recognise that what feels easier in the moment is not always what serves them best afterwards.
(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu/)

For decades, students have been convinced that academic success is largely dependent upon meticulous notetaking. What has changed in recent years is not the importance of the practice but the tools used to perform it. The keyboard has subtly supplanted the pen, and with it, the nature of how information is recorded during a lecture has shifted unbeknownst to students.
Researchers in cognitive psychology have begun to examine what this change has cost learners. In a series of comparative studies, students taking notes by hand consistently outperformed those using laptops on questions that demanded conceptual understanding, even when both groups had access to the same material. The reason, according to the researchers, lies less in the technology itself than in what each method asks of the brain. Typing rewards speed; handwriting forces selection.
The act of writing by hand is slower, and that slowness appears to be its hidden virtue. Unable to capture every word, students are obliged to listen, decide what matters and condense ideas into their own phrasing. This continuous filtering, referred to as encoding by psychologists, turns out to be instrumental in aiding long-term recall. One lecturer summarised the striking contrast after reviewing her students' work: the laptops, she said, had produced transcripts, while the notebooks had produced understanding.
It would be misleading, of course, to claim that handwriting is inherently superior or that all keyboards undermine learning. Hard-working typists can summarise, while indolent writers can drift. What the research highlights is not a conclusion on devices but a question about effort: which tool, in a given context, asks more of the learner. As a ban on students’ use of laptops in classrooms remains a bone of contention among tertiary institutions, the deeper challenge may be helping students recognise that what feels easier in the moment is not always what serves them best afterwards.
(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu/)

For decades, students have been convinced that academic success is largely dependent upon meticulous notetaking. What has changed in recent years is not the importance of the practice but the tools used to perform it. The keyboard has subtly supplanted the pen, and with it, the nature of how information is recorded during a lecture has shifted unbeknownst to students.
Researchers in cognitive psychology have begun to examine what this change has cost learners. In a series of comparative studies, students taking notes by hand consistently outperformed those using laptops on questions that demanded conceptual understanding, even when both groups had access to the same material. The reason, according to the researchers, lies less in the technology itself than in what each method asks of the brain. Typing rewards speed; handwriting forces selection.
The act of writing by hand is slower, and that slowness appears to be its hidden virtue. Unable to capture every word, students are obliged to listen, decide what matters and condense ideas into their own phrasing. This continuous filtering, referred to as encoding by psychologists, turns out to be instrumental in aiding long-term recall. One lecturer summarised the striking contrast after reviewing her students' work: the laptops, she said, had produced transcripts, while the notebooks had produced understanding.
It would be misleading, of course, to claim that handwriting is inherently superior or that all keyboards undermine learning. Hard-working typists can summarise, while indolent writers can drift. What the research highlights is not a conclusion on devices but a question about effort: which tool, in a given context, asks more of the learner. As a ban on students’ use of laptops in classrooms remains a bone of contention among tertiary institutions, the deeper challenge may be helping students recognise that what feels easier in the moment is not always what serves them best afterwards.
(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu/)

For decades, students have been convinced that academic success is largely dependent upon meticulous notetaking. What has changed in recent years is not the importance of the practice but the tools used to perform it. The keyboard has subtly supplanted the pen, and with it, the nature of how information is recorded during a lecture has shifted unbeknownst to students.
Researchers in cognitive psychology have begun to examine what this change has cost learners. In a series of comparative studies, students taking notes by hand consistently outperformed those using laptops on questions that demanded conceptual understanding, even when both groups had access to the same material. The reason, according to the researchers, lies less in the technology itself than in what each method asks of the brain. Typing rewards speed; handwriting forces selection.
The act of writing by hand is slower, and that slowness appears to be its hidden virtue. Unable to capture every word, students are obliged to listen, decide what matters and condense ideas into their own phrasing. This continuous filtering, referred to as encoding by psychologists, turns out to be instrumental in aiding long-term recall. One lecturer summarised the striking contrast after reviewing her students' work: the laptops, she said, had produced transcripts, while the notebooks had produced understanding.
It would be misleading, of course, to claim that handwriting is inherently superior or that all keyboards undermine learning. Hard-working typists can summarise, while indolent writers can drift. What the research highlights is not a conclusion on devices but a question about effort: which tool, in a given context, asks more of the learner. As a ban on students’ use of laptops in classrooms remains a bone of contention among tertiary institutions, the deeper challenge may be helping students recognise that what feels easier in the moment is not always what serves them best afterwards.
(Adapted from https://www.brookings.edu/)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Environmental services, even when they arise without any human labour, are by no means cost-free. Every cost should be understood in terms of opportunity cost. For environmental services, the opportunity cost amounts to the net gain relinquished because the resources are no longer available for their second-best application. Whenever a resource has alternative uses, it cannot legitimately be deemed free.
For instance, a section of river might serve as a site used for either white-water canoeing or hydroelectric generation. Constructing a dam to produce electricity would flood the rapids, so this makes white-water canoeing here out of the question. The opportunity cost of preserving the river for canoeing equals the net benefit of the electricity that would otherwise have been produced, once the expenses of generation and distribution have been subtracted. By the same token, the opportunity cost of erecting the dam involves everything the river in its natural state would have provided – leisure activities, wildlife, scenic beauty, and whatever worth future generations might attach to experiencing the rapids.
This understanding carries considerable weight for planning development. [I] Numerous decisions initially appearing to be cost-free moves in favour of growth prove, when examined carefully, to be against something else. [II] Clearing a forest to make way for crops is hardly without cost; it is paid for through losses in carbon storage, biological diversity, and all the functions the forest once performed unnoticed. [III] Channelling a river for irrigation has its price – namely, whatever the river was doing before its course was altered. [IV] Even leaving a swathe of land alone exacts a cost, since the earnings that intensive exploitation might have produced are equally sacrificed.
From this perspective, economic development can never be reduced to whether a project delivers a positive return. Rather, what must be asked is whether that return outweighs the value of sacrifices. Policies considering this – by pricing scarce environmental services, or obliging those in charge to consider both sides – are not against development. What they demand is that development should be worth its true cost. The danger lies not in counting too much, but in counting too little.
(Adapted from Environmental Economics and Policy)

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.
GREEN HANDS CAMPAIGN
The School Youth Union is officially launching the “Green Hands” eco-friendly campaign. We invite every student to participate in this vital project. If everyone (35) ______ together, we will make a difference at our school.
The primary goal is to expand students’ (36) ______ of plastic pollution. To achieve this, the school will have colour-coded bins (37) ______ in the schoolyard. Also, waste-disposal workshops will be held to teach students to (38) ______ out plastics properly. These sessions ensure resources are reused effectively.
We aim to (39) ______ sustainable habits through consistent daily activities. We firmly believe that small individual efforts will turn into long-lasting changes.
Volunteers will help remove plastics from every corner of the schoolyard. Please sign up online. Your (40) ______ is essential for success. Don’t miss out – join hands with us today!

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.
GREEN HANDS CAMPAIGN
The School Youth Union is officially launching the “Green Hands” eco-friendly campaign. We invite every student to participate in this vital project. If everyone (35) ______ together, we will make a difference at our school.
The primary goal is to expand students’ (36) ______ of plastic pollution. To achieve this, the school will have colour-coded bins (37) ______ in the schoolyard. Also, waste-disposal workshops will be held to teach students to (38) ______ out plastics properly. These sessions ensure resources are reused effectively.
We aim to (39) ______ sustainable habits through consistent daily activities. We firmly believe that small individual efforts will turn into long-lasting changes.
Volunteers will help remove plastics from every corner of the schoolyard. Please sign up online. Your (40) ______ is essential for success. Don’t miss out – join hands with us today!

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.
GREEN HANDS CAMPAIGN
The School Youth Union is officially launching the “Green Hands” eco-friendly campaign. We invite every student to participate in this vital project. If everyone (35) ______ together, we will make a difference at our school.
The primary goal is to expand students’ (36) ______ of plastic pollution. To achieve this, the school will have colour-coded bins (37) ______ in the schoolyard. Also, waste-disposal workshops will be held to teach students to (38) ______ out plastics properly. These sessions ensure resources are reused effectively.
We aim to (39) ______ sustainable habits through consistent daily activities. We firmly believe that small individual efforts will turn into long-lasting changes.
Volunteers will help remove plastics from every corner of the schoolyard. Please sign up online. Your (40) ______ is essential for success. Don’t miss out – join hands with us today!

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.
GREEN HANDS CAMPAIGN
The School Youth Union is officially launching the “Green Hands” eco-friendly campaign. We invite every student to participate in this vital project. If everyone (35) ______ together, we will make a difference at our school.
The primary goal is to expand students’ (36) ______ of plastic pollution. To achieve this, the school will have colour-coded bins (37) ______ in the schoolyard. Also, waste-disposal workshops will be held to teach students to (38) ______ out plastics properly. These sessions ensure resources are reused effectively.
We aim to (39) ______ sustainable habits through consistent daily activities. We firmly believe that small individual efforts will turn into long-lasting changes.
Volunteers will help remove plastics from every corner of the schoolyard. Please sign up online. Your (40) ______ is essential for success. Don’t miss out – join hands with us today!

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.
GREEN HANDS CAMPAIGN
The School Youth Union is officially launching the “Green Hands” eco-friendly campaign. We invite every student to participate in this vital project. If everyone (35) ______ together, we will make a difference at our school.
The primary goal is to expand students’ (36) ______ of plastic pollution. To achieve this, the school will have colour-coded bins (37) ______ in the schoolyard. Also, waste-disposal workshops will be held to teach students to (38) ______ out plastics properly. These sessions ensure resources are reused effectively.
We aim to (39) ______ sustainable habits through consistent daily activities. We firmly believe that small individual efforts will turn into long-lasting changes.
Volunteers will help remove plastics from every corner of the schoolyard. Please sign up online. Your (40) ______ is essential for success. Don’t miss out – join hands with us today!

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.
GREEN HANDS CAMPAIGN
The School Youth Union is officially launching the “Green Hands” eco-friendly campaign. We invite every student to participate in this vital project. If everyone (35) ______ together, we will make a difference at our school.
The primary goal is to expand students’ (36) ______ of plastic pollution. To achieve this, the school will have colour-coded bins (37) ______ in the schoolyard. Also, waste-disposal workshops will be held to teach students to (38) ______ out plastics properly. These sessions ensure resources are reused effectively.
We aim to (39) ______ sustainable habits through consistent daily activities. We firmly believe that small individual efforts will turn into long-lasting changes.
Volunteers will help remove plastics from every corner of the schoolyard. Please sign up online. Your (40) ______ is essential for success. Don’t miss out – join hands with us today!