UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL ALTIPLANO

ESCUELA PROFESIONAL DE INGENIERÍA AGRONÓMICA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUALIFIED PRACTICE: ENGLISH I

A: Analyze the statements bellow, and identify the verbs used in each example:

 Present tense
 Simple past tense
 Past participle tense

1. I put learning about irregular verbs at the top of my to-do list today (present tense of put).
2. Yesterday, I put irregular verbs at the top of my list of things to learn (present tense of put and
learn).
3. I should have put irregular verbs on my list of things to learn much sooner (present tense of put
and learn).
4. I drink only occasionally (present tense of drink).
5. I drank socially last weekend (simple past tense of drink).
6. I have drunk socially at most parties I attended in college (past participle tense of drink).
7. I make coffee as soon as I awake (present tense of make and awake).
8. I made coffee as soon as I awoke (simple past of make and awake).
9. I had made coffee as soon as I awoke (past participle tense of make and awake).
10. I need to go to the store (present tense of need and go).
11. I went to the store earlier (simple past tense of go).
12. I have gone to the store already today (past participle tense of go).

B: Midwar has a job interview tomorrow with a large Agronomic Engineering Company. Give
him some advice using Should / Shouldn´t.
1. Be late …..............................You shouldn`t be late……
2. Practice answering questions with a Friend ........You should practice answering questions with a
Friend...............
3. Be honest. Exaggerate your skills. ..You should be honest. You shouldn’t exaggerate your skills.
4. look at the floor when you speak........You shouldn’t look at the floor when you speak .............
5. Sit straight and look confident.....…...You should sit straight and look confident...................
6. Dress smartly .......................You should dress smartly...........................................
7. Prepare some questions of your own.......You should prepare some questions of your own...........
8. Read up as much as you can about the company....You should read up as much as you can about
the company.......................................................................
9. Look at all the interviewers... You should look at all the interviewers................................
10. Lean back and look bored............You shouldn’t lean back and look bored............
C: Review the comparative and superlative spelling rules, then write into the chart three (3)
examples according each rule.

Adjectives Comparative Comparative Superlative Superlative adjectives

form adjectives spelling form spelling rules
rules
1. Smart Smarter One syllable The smartest One syllable adjectives,
2. Cold Colder adjectives, add “… The coldest add “....…est”
3. Short Shorter er” The shortest
One syllable One syllable adjectives,
1. Cute Cuter adjectives, ending in The cutest ending in “…e”, add”
2. Fine Finer “…e”, add”…r” The finest. the…st”
3. Late Later The latest
1. Busy Busier Two syllable The busiest. Two syllable adjectives,
2. Pretty Prettier adjectives, ending in The prettiest. ending in “y”, change “y”
3. Dirty Dirtier “y”, change “y” to The dirtiest. to “i” and add “ …est”
“i” and add “…er”
One syllable One syllable adjectives,
1. Fat Fatter adjectives, one The fattest. one vowel and one
2. Hot Hotter vowel and one The hottest. consonant, double the
3. Big Bigger consonant, double The biggest consonant, then add “..…
the consonant, then est”
add “…er”
Adjectives with two The most Adjectives with two or
1. Popular More popular or more syllables, popular. more syllables, write
2. Beautiful More write “more” before The most “most” before adjectives.
3. Creative beautiful. adjectives. beautiful.
More The most
creative creative
Irregular adjectives, The best Irregular adjectives, write
1. Good Better write different The worst different.
2. Bad Worse The farthest
3. Far Farther

II. Read the text, and answer the question. Then translate the text into your language.
 Abstract

Agriculture should now provide not only high yields but also sustainable development with a
sound management of the diversity of ecosystems. Due to this increased complexity of
objectives, models have recently become major tools that can integrate several parameters.
Failure to apply models outside research is however a major issue. Here, to identify the precise
grounds of this failure, we analyzed what models are intended for by scientists during their
design. We performed a literature analysis on agronomic modelling practices. Specifically, we
analyzed 518 scientific article abstracts reporting either new models or improved existing
models. Articles were published in eight mainstream agronomy journals over a 10-year period.
We also analyzed 25 full-text contents randomly selected from the initial dataset. In order to
assess how models match the uses they are intended for, we first analyzed the design
methodology used to build models. Second, we studied how authors defined the potential use of
models by analyzing both the claimed objectives and references to model use and users. We
then compared our findings on design methodology with our findings on intended use. Our
results first show that the design methodology for modelling is presented as a segmented and
standardized process. Each article refers to one or more of the following six steps to describe
the design process for modelling: (1) description of the model structure, inputs, outputs and
validity domain, (2) description of the data used to build the model, (3) model formalism, (4)
calibration parameterization, (5) validation, and (6) application.

We found that information about the design process like iterations, errors, improvements is
never emphasized in the abstracts, whereas this information is sometimes quoted in the full-text
contents. This finding demonstrates that the design methodology for modelling is not addressed
as a research topic. Second, we show that whereas 88.8% of authors claim in their abstracts that
the major objective of their models is to improve understanding as opposed to support action,
19.5% of authors also quote a possible use of their models outside research. The initial
objective of understanding is thus extended to use the models as tools for action. Overall, we
conclude that the agricultural research community is not highly concerned by the effects of the
design methodology on the suitability of the model structure and on potential applications.
Moreover, although the six steps of the design process may be appropriate for designing models
devoted to improve understanding, no specific methods are proposed to design models for
action. We did not find evidence that the modellers connect the design of the model with its use
by end-users. We suggest that this issue could be solved by developing participatory
methodology design involving end-users in model design.

1. What is this abstract about?

.................................................................................................................................................................
The abstract deals with modeling to develop high yields and sustainable development in agriculture,
literature analyzes were carried out to evaluate if the models coincide with the uses, in the end it was
concluded that the agricultural research community does not care about the effects of the modeling
design methodology.......................................................................
2. Translate the text into your language.
La agricultura debería proporcionar ahora no solo altos rendimientos, sino también desarrollo
sostenible con una gestión sólida de la diversidad de ecosistemas. Debido a esta mayor complejidad
de objetivos, los modelos se han convertido recientemente en herramientas importantes que pueden
integrar varios parámetros. Sin embargo, la falta de aplicación de modelos fuera de la investigación
es un problema importante. Aquí, para identificar los motivos precisos de esta falla, analizamos qué
modelos están destinados a los científicos durante su diseño. Realizamos un análisis de la literatura
sobre prácticas de modelado agronómico. Específicamente, analizamos 518 resúmenes de artículos
científicos que informan sobre modelos nuevos o modelos existentes mejorados. Los artículos se
publicaron en ocho revistas de agronomía convencionales durante un período de diez años. También
analizamos 25 contenidos de texto completo seleccionados al azar del conjunto de datos inicial. Para
evaluar cómo los modelos coinciden con los usos para los que están destinados, primero analizamos
la metodología de diseño utilizada para construir modelos. En segundo lugar, estudiamos cómo los
autores definen el uso potencial de modelos analizando tanto los objetivos pretendidos como las
referencias al uso y usuarios del modelo. Luego comparamos nuestros hallazgos sobre la
metodología de diseño con nuestros hallazgos sobre el uso previsto. Nuestros resultados muestran
primero que la metodología de diseño para el modelado se presenta como un proceso segmentado y
estandarizado. Cada artículo se refiere a uno o más de los siguientes seis pasos para describir el
proceso de diseño para el modelado: (1) descripción de la estructura del modelo, entradas, salidas y
dominio de validez, (2) descripción de los datos utilizados para construir el modelo, ( 3) formalismo
del modelo, (4) parametrización de la calibración, (5) validación y (6) aplicación.

Descubrimos que la información sobre el proceso de diseño, como iteraciones, errores, mejoras,
nunca se enfatiza en los resúmenes, mientras que esta información a veces se cita en el contenido del
texto completo. Este hallazgo demuestra que la metodología de diseño para el modelado no se
aborda como un tema de investigación. En segundo lugar, mostramos que mientras que el 88,8% de
los autores afirman en sus resúmenes que el principal objetivo de sus modelos es mejorar la
comprensión en lugar de apoyar la acción, el 19,5% de los autores también cita un posible uso de sus
modelos fuera de la investigación. El objetivo inicial de comprensión se amplía así para utilizar los
modelos como herramientas de acción. En general, llegamos a la conclusión de que la comunidad de
investigación agrícola no está muy preocupada por los efectos de la metodología de diseño sobre la
idoneidad de la estructura del modelo y las aplicaciones potenciales. Además, aunque los seis pasos
del proceso de diseño pueden ser apropiados para diseñar modelos destinados a mejorar la
comprensión, no se proponen métodos específicos para diseñar modelos de acción. No encontramos
evidencia de que los modeladores relacionen el diseño del modelo con su uso por parte de los
usuarios finales. Sugerimos que este problema podría resolverse desarrollando un diseño de
metodología participativa que involucre a los usuarios finales en el diseño del modelo.