Chapter 1 |Reading| Knowledge of the world

Labour and Tories clash over "climate-sceptic MPs"By James Murray

1 Jeremy Corbyn accuses Conservatives of being deeply "ambivalent" over climate change and seizes upon apparent suggestion that Boris Johnson’s cabinet is "climate sceptic"

2 Labour has accused the Conservatives of failing to back up its green rhetoric with real action and being "ambivalent" about the case for increased renewable energy capacity.

3 Speaking as part of a debate on the three main parties' manifestos broadcast by the Guardian and grassroots campaign group 38 Degrees, alongside Liberal Democrat chief of staff Ben Williams and Conservative shadow culture secretary Tom Watson, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the Tories of failing to translate green words into action.4 Attempting to draw a dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives during a debate in which all the parties outlined their manifesto commitments to increase support for the low-carbon economy, Corbyn referred to research showing that Conservative-run councils are behind the majority of objections to new wind farms.5 He also highlighted the incident last month when the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary Greg Clark said he was opposed to onshore wind farms as indicative of deep-rooted Conservative opposition to renewable energy projects.6 Watson responded by arguing that Conservative councils inevitably led the majority of objections to wind farms as the party ran the majority of rural councils. But he insisted that the Conservatives remained fully committed to meeting the UK's renewable energy targets.7 He also noted that all the main political parties contain some "climate sceptics", prompting Corbyn to interject to ask if Watson had confirmed that Clark is sceptical about the scientific consensus on climate change.8 Following the debate he tweeted: "there's a funny thing: when i ask him abt greg clark's oppn to onshore wind he says every party has its 'climate sceptics'!" [sic].9 Watson reiterated his view that all the main parties contained some climate sceptics, and insisted that the leadership remained fully committed to its green agenda, praising Ben Johnson’s "Nixon to China" moment when he overhauled the Conservative Party's traditional pro-business stance in favour of a more progressive approach to environmental issues.10 However, Williams insisted that the Conservatives remained deeply ambivalent about the need for onshore wind farms and criticised Ben Johnson’s recent visit to the Arctic as little more than a "photo opportunity"11 He also cited a recent poll of 200 prospective Conservative MPs, which he said showed that many "did not even believe climate change is happening".

The more you know about your world, the better you will understand all texts. People who read the newspaper every day can expect to gain higher marks for all subjects (yes, even Latin and Greek), than people who don't.

And for English it is also important to be familiar with British and American politics, education, judicial system, etc. Cito expects you to know about British and American culture, and tests this by using texts like the one in this chapter.

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 Test your knowledge of British political facts. Fill in the answers.

a. Labour stands for: and Tories is another word for:b. Mps: House of Commons: House of Lords:c. The difference between the British and Dutch election system:

d. The three major political parties in Britain:e. The present Prime Minister of Britain:

member of which political party:f. A manifesto is:

2 Now find out how much you know about the subject of the debate: climate change. Do the quiz.

2

1 What scientists warning(s) might become increased concerns in Britain in the next 50 years as the climate warms?

a. Scorpions b. Sharks c. West Nile Virus d. All of the above

2 Human CO2 emissions are small compared with natural CO2 exchange. Is this statement true or false?

a. Trueb. False

3 Some scientists say that North Sea cod stocks are slumping faster than over-fishing can account for. They say climate change maybe to blame - but why?

a. Rising temperatures have disrupted the fish's breeding cycle

b. Sea birds migrating later are eating large numbers of cod fry

c. The plankton composition of the North Sea is changing, reducing food stocks for cod larva

d. All of the above

4 Cows are guilty of speeding up global warming. Fact or fiction?

a. Factb. Fiction

5 Roughly how fast is the Arctic warming in comparison to the rest of the world?

a. Half as fastb. The samec. Twice as fastd. Three times as fast

6 Acid rain might have an unforeseen effect on climate change. What is it?

a. Speeding it up because the sulphur in acid rain can act as a greenhouse gas

b. Slowing it down by reducing methane levels

c. Speeding it up by increasing the heat given off by cities

d. Slowing it down because dissolved sulphur makes ice melt slower

7 Which country has the highest CO2 emissions per capita?

a. Australiab. Canadac. Kuwaitd. United Arab Emiratese. USA

8 Emissions trading (betalen voor uitstoot) has become a key concept in reducing greenhouse gases worldwide. Which country invented it?

a. Germanyb. Swedenc. UKd. USA

3 Write down all names in the article and indicate to which political party these people belong.

3

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

4 a. What do you think Labour has stated in its Manifesto about the climate change and green energy?

b. Prove from the text the Conservatives paid attention to this issue as well.

c. What was their point of view?

5 This text contains a clear example of redundancy. In fact, paragraph 2 and 3 say nearly the same. Forget about the words you don't know and the sub-sentences and summarize these paragraphs in one short sentence.

6 How does Watson try to bend a negative remark into something positive in paragraph 6?

10 What three negative points about the Conservatives does Corbay bring up (last two paragraphs)?

1

2

3

Answers 2: 1D, 2A, 3C, 4A, 5C, 6B, 7D, 8D

4

95

100

105

110

Chapter 2 |Speaking| Politics and the environment

First study these words:

A Types of government

republic: a state governed by representatives and, usually, a presidentmonarchy: a state ruled by a king or queen democracy: government of, by and for the people dictatorship: system of government run by a dictatorindependence: freedom from outside control; self-governing The United Kingdom and The Republic of IrelandB People and bodies involved in politics

Member of Parliament (MP): a representative of the people in Parliament politician: someone for whom politics is a careerstatesman/woman: someone who uses an important political position wisely and well Prime Minister: the head of government or leading minister in many countries chamber: hall used by a group of legislators; many countries have two chambers cabinet: a committee of the most important ministers in the government President and Vice-President: the head of state in many modern statesMayor: head of a town or city councilambassador: top diplomat representing his/her country abroadembassy: the building where an ambassador and his/her staff are basedministry: a department of state headed by a minister.candidate: someone who stands in an election.majority: the number of votes by which a person wins an election.vote: to choose in a formal way.elect: to choose someone or something by voting.

C Energy and climate change

Global warming Risk of acid rain Renewable / non-renewableCO2 emission (greenhouse

effect)Noisy Cheap / expensive to build

Remote locations Floods a large area Reliable / unreliableDepends on the weather Waste High/ low cost per unit of

electricityRisk of big accident Unsightly Free energy resource

Small amount of fuel produces a lot of electricity

Popular / unpopular Safe / unsafe

5

115

120

125

130

135

140

5

Exercise 1: Look at this text about politics in the UK. Fill in the missing words.

Parliament in the UK consists of two (1___________) : the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In the House of Commons there are 650 (2___________) , each representing one (3______________) . The ruling party in the Commons is the one which gains a (4_____________) of seats. The main figure in that party is called the (5______________) . The Commons is elected for a maximum period of 5 years although the Prime Minister may call a general (6____________) at any time within that period.

Exercise 2: (in pairs) Try this political quiz.

1 Name three monarchies.2 Which is the oldest parliament in the world?3 Name the President and the Vice-President of the USA.4 Who is the Mayor of the place where you live?5 What politicians represent you in local and national government?6 What do these political abbreviations stand for — MP, PM, UN, EU, NATO, OPEC?

Exercise 3: Energy resources.

a. In pairs, talk about different kinds of energy used to produce electricity. Explain to each other how they work and mention advantages and disadvantages. Make a list (if you don’t know the word in English, use a dictionary).

6

145

150

155

160

b. Are these energy resources renewable or non-renewable? Read the following text and complete the table below. Energy resources provide us with energy. There are different types of energy resources, including fossil fuels such as coal or oil, and stores of energy such as batteries or the wind. We can divide energy resources into two categories, non-renewable and renewable. Non-renewable energy resources cannot be replaced once they are all used up. That means they cannot be renewed or replenished. Once they are gone they cannot be used again. Renewable energy resources can be replaced, and will not run out.

RENEWABLE NON-RENEWABLE

c. In order to prevent climate change, it's necessary to use renewable energy resources. However, in the text about climate-sceptic MPs that you studied, it is said that some MPs don't believe in "the scientific consensus on climate change". Brainstorm what you know about this subject. Take into account the quiz you did to test your knowledge. Write down key-words.

d. The website gotquestions.org provides answers to people's questions from a biblical point of view. About global warming it says: "As Christians, we should be concerned about our effect on our environment. God appointed man to be the steward of this world1, not the destroyer of it. However, we should not allow environmentalism to become a form of idolatry, where the “rights” of an inanimate planet and its 1 Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

7

165

170

175

180

10

non-human creatures are held in higher esteem than God2 and man created in His image. With global warming, as with any other topic, it is crucial to understand what the facts are, who those facts come from, how they are interpreted, and what the spiritual implications should be."Talk about this and decide how you should deal with environmental issues as a Christian.

Chapter 3 |Reading| Using signal words

Auschwitz: God on   Trial by John Donald Smith

1 While I haven’t read Elie Wiesel’s The Trial of God, I have read his Night. I found Night to be one of the most

ghastly things I’ve ever read, due to its simple descriptions and basis in the reality of the Holocaust. In Night, Elie

Wiesel describes the hanging of a child in Auschwitz. In A History of God, Karen Armstrong describes the episode

thus:

2 It took the child half an hour to die, while the prisoners were forced to look him in the face. The same man

asked again: “Where is God now?” And Wiesel heard a voice within him make this answer: “Where is He? Here

He is—He is hanging here on this gallows.”

3 Dostoevsky had said that the death of a single child could make God unacceptable, but even he, no stranger to

inhumanity, had not imagined the death of a child in such circumstances. The horror of Auschwitz is a stark

challenge to many of the more conventional ideas of God. The remote God of the philosophers, lost in

transcendent apatheia, becomes intolerable. Many Jews can no longer subscribe to the biblical idea of God who

manifests himself in history, who, they say with Wiesel, died in Auschwitz. The idea of a personal God, like one of

us writ large, is fraught with difficulty. If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was

unable to stop in, he is impotent and useless; if he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster. Jews

are not the only people who believe that the Holocaust put an end to conventional theology.

4 These same struggles have been a prominent thread in theology throughout its history. The ‘problem of evil’ is

called theodicy. How do we reconcile the existence of suffering and of evil (whether or not they are synonymous)

with the existence of God? How can there be wars, terrorism or plagues such as AIDS and an all-loving, all-

powerful God? If God allows free will, or created a universe in which Satan exists, does not that suffering in some

way emanate from God?

5 The problem with theodicy is that it presupposes the existence of God. Most of the numbingly thick and tedious

volumes written on the subject begin with two observations and try to reconcile them: a) there is a God, and b)

2 Romans 1:25: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

5

10

15

20

25

30

8

185

190

195

200

205

210

there is evil. The most reasonable, parsimonious answer to the existence of suffering may be that God, as we

have thought we knew Him, does not exist. As long as that answer is simply not an option on the table, the study

of theodicy is incomplete.

6 Finally, Armstrong summarizes another episode related by Elie Wiesel: Yet it is also true that even in Auschwitz

some Jews continued to study the Talmud and observe the traditional festivals, not because they hoped that God

would rescue them but because it made sense. There is a story that one day in Auschwitz, a group of Jews put

God on trial. They charge him with cruelty and betrayal. Like Job they found no consolation in the usual answers

to the problem of evil and suffering in the midst of this current obscenity. They could find no excuse for God, no

extenuating circumstances, so they found him guilty and, presumably, worthy of death. The Rabbi pronounced the

verdict. Then he looked up and said that the trial was over: it was time for the evening prayer.

7 God is dead. To whom do we pray?

In this lesson we are going to study the use of pointers in a text: we will pay attention to signal words as well as punctuation and text-structure. It would be a really good idea from now on to read every text with a pencil in hand. Underline signal words, add numbers when there is a sequence and underline names. All this will help you understand the structure of a text.

Answer the following questions in English:

1. Read the complete text and underline all names you encounter.2. Paragraph 1 starts with While. This word suggests a contrast. What is the contrast here?

3. How many reasons does the author give for his opinion of Night? Number them.4. Paragraph 3: How many "conventional ideas of God"(l. 10) are mentioned? Number them.5. The use of if suggests the use of then. How many if-then constructions are used in paragraph

3? What is the train of thought?

6. L. 16: What does same refer to? Which two other terms are used to refer to this same theory? Underline them.

7. How many explanations are given for the term theodicy (l. 17)? Number them.8. What is exactly the problem with theodicy (paragraph 5)?

Why is that a problem?

9. What two observations does the author mention in paragraph 5? Underline them.

10. What is the best solution, according to the author?

9

215

220

Why is this not an option?

11. What reason does Wiesel give why the Jews continued to study Talmud in Auschwitz?

12. What is the reason why the Jews continued to study Talmud)? Not becausebut because

13. So in what way does paragraph 6 illustrate what is said in paragraph 5?

NOTE: in a Cito exam you might expect the following question: What is the function of

paragraph 6? Answer:

14. Look at the names you've underlined. Decide which name belongs to which statement:a. said the death of a single child can make God unacceptable.b. describes two episodes from Wiesel's book.c. said some Jews continued to study the Talmud because it made sense.d. found Night to be one of the most ghastly things he'd ever read.e. wrote a History of God.f. wrote The trial of God.

g. said: God is dead. To whom do we pray?

In the next chapter we will talk about the problem of theodicy, the fact that God and evil exist.

Chapter 4 |Speaking| Global problems, God and Auschwitz

Study these words:

Disasters/tragedies

Earthquakes explosions (e.g. a bomb)[the earth moves/trembles]

hurricanes / tornadoes / typhoons [violent winds/storms]

volcanoes [hot rock andgases pour from a mountain] war / civil war

Verbs connected with these wordsA volcano has erupted in Indonesia. Hundreds are feared dead. The flu epidemic spread rapidly throughout the country.

major accidents [e.g. a plane crash]

floods [too much rain] drought [no rain]famine [no food]

epidemics [diseases affecting large numbers of people]

10

225

230

235

15

Millions are starving as a result of the famine.A big earthquake shook the city at noon today.The area is suffering its worst drought for many years.Civil war has broken out in the north of the country.A tornado swept through the islands yesterday.

Remember: injure [people], damage [things]:200 people were injured and dozens of buildings were damaged in the hurricane.

Words for people involved in disasters/tragedies

The explosion resulted in 300 casualties. [dead and injured people]The real victims of the civil war are the children left without parents. [those who suffer the results of the disaster]There were only three survivors. All the other passengers died instantly. [people who live through a disaster]Thousands of refugees have crossed the border looking for food and shelter.During the battle, the dead and wounded were flown out in helicopters. [wounded: injured in a battle/by a weapon]

__________________________________________________________________________________

Exercise 1: (in pairs) Talk about what type of disaster these sentences are about.Example: The lava flow destroyed three villages. This is about a volcano eruption; lava is the hot

rocks and gases that pour from a mountain.1 The earth is cracked and vegetation has withered.2 The tremor struck at 3.35 p.m. local time.3 People had boarded up shops and houses during the day before, and stayed indoors. 4 Shelling and mortar fire could be heard all over the town.5 Witnesses said they saw a fire-ball fall out of the sky.6 People were stranded in the upper floors and sometimes on the roofs of their homes, unable to move about.

Exercise 2: (in pairs) Read these headlines and describe what has happened. Think of: is the situation getting worse or better, has a disaster has happened or been avoided/prevented.

11

240

245

250

255

260

265

Exercise 3: (in pairs) Read the following text and underline six arguments that are used to explain suffering. Write down key-words for these arguments and then say them in your own words.

We cannot conclude our reflections on God and the Holocaust without mentioning Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel. Elie came from a strict Chassidic background in Romania, and was deported to Auschwitz at the age of 15. He survived physically but his soul was scarred. As a result of his incarceration in Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel came to doubt the existence of God but some 50 years later he found his way back to the faith of his fathers. He didn't have his questions answered but like so many who have suffered profoundly he came to the conclusion that life without God is a tale told by an idiot. We are put in mind of Job, who also suffered profoundly and who also didn't receive answers, yet was able to say, “Though you slay me, yet will I trust you.” This is what Elie Wiesel says of his journey back to God: “Where were you, God of Kindness, in Auschwitz? What was going on in heaven, at the celestial tribunal, while your children were marked for humiliation, isolation and death only because they were Jewish? “ These questions have been haunting me for more than five decades. You have vocal defenders, you know. Many theological answers were given me, such as: “God is God. He alone knows what He is doing. One has no right to question Him or His ways.‟ Or: “Auschwitz was a punishment for European Jewry's sins of assimilation and/or Zionism.‟ And: “Isn't Israel the solution? Without Auschwitz, there would have been no Israel.‟ “I reject all these answers. Auschwitz must and will forever remain a question mark only: it can be conceived neither with God nor without God. At some point, I began wondering whether I was not unfair with you, Master of the universe. After all, Auschwitz was not something that came down ready-made from heaven. It was conceived by men, implemented by men, staffed by men. And their aim was to destroy not only us but you as well. Ought we not to think of your pain, too? Watching your children suffer at the hands of your other children, haven't you also suffered?” Profound words.

from: The Resurrection of Hebrew by dr. Gary Porton

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exercise 4: (in pairs) Talk about the question what to say when people ask why God allows so much suffering in this world and think of at least 3 different answers. Write down key-words.

12

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

1

2

3

Exercise 5: (in pairs) Do a role-play in which one of you is a person who is critical of the existence of a loving God in this suffering world, while the other one is trying to explain why God allows this to happen.

13

310

Chapter 5 |Reading| Redundancy

To practice the use of redundancy: don’t read the text first, start with the questions below.Work and Cultural Renewal

by Tim Keller

1. I am often asked: “Should Christians be involved in shaping culture?” My answer is that we can’t not be involved in shaping culture. To illustrate this, I offer a very sad example. In the years leading up to the Civil War many southerners resented the interference of the abolitionists, who were calling on Christians to stamp out the sin of slavery. In response, some churches began to assert that it was not the church’s (nor Christians’) job to try to ‘change culture’ but only to preach the gospel and see souls saved. The tragic irony was that these churches were shaping culture. Their very insistence that Christians should not be changing culture meant that those churches were supporting the social status quo. They were defacto endorsing the cultural arrangements of the Old South. 2. This is an extreme example, but it makes the point that when Christians work in the world, they will either .... or .... This is especially true in the area of work. Every culture works on the basis of a ‘map’ of what is considered most important. If God and his grace are not at the center of a culture, then other things will be substituted as ultimate values. So every vocational field is distorted by idolatry. 3. Christian medical professionals will soon see that some practices make money for them but don’t add value to patients’ lives. Christians in marketing and business will discern accepted patterns of communication that distort reality or which play to and stir up the worst aspects of the human heart. Christians in business will often see among their colleagues’ behavior that which seeks short-term financial profit at the expense the company’s long-term health, or practices that put financial profit ahead the good of employees, customers, or others in the community. Christians in the arts live and work in a culture in which self-expression is an end in itself. And in most vocational fields, believers face work-worlds in which ruthless, competitive behavior is the norm. 4. There are two opposite mistakes that a Christian can make in addressing the idols of their vocational field. On the one hand they can seal off their faith from their work, laboring according to the same values and practices that everyone else uses. Or they may loudly and clumsily declare their Christian faith to their co-workers, often without showing any grace and wisdom in the way they relate to people on the job. 5. At Redeemer*, especially through the Center for Faith and Work, we seek to help believers think out the implications of the gospel for art, business, government, media, entertainment, scholarship. We teach that excellence in work is a crucial means to gain credibility for our faith. If our work is shoddy, our verbal witness only leads listeners to despise our beliefs. If Christians live in major cultural centers and simply do their work in an excellent but distinctive manner it will ultimately produce a different kind of culture than the one in which we live now. 6. I like the term ‘cultural renewal’ better than ‘culture shaping’ or ‘culture changing/transforming.’ The most powerful way to show people the truth of Christianity is to serve the common good. The monks in the Middle Ages moved out through pagan Europe, inventing and establishing academies, universities, and hospitals. They transformed local economies and cared for the weak through these

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

14

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

new institutions. They didn’t set out to ‘get control’ of a pagan culture. They let the gospel change how they did their work and that meant they worked for others rather than for themselves. Christians today should be aiming for the same thing. 7. As Roman society was collapsing, St Augustine wrote The City of God to remind believers that in the world there are always two ‘cities’, two alternate ‘kingdoms.’ One is a human society based on selfishness and gaining power. God’s kingdom is the human society based on giving up power in order to serve. Christians live in both kingdoms, and although that is the reason for much conflict and tension, it also is our hope and assurance. The kingdom of God is the permanent reality, while the kingdom of this world will eventually fade away.

*Redeemer is the congregation of which Tim Keller is a minister.

This lesson is to make you aware of the fact that texts are redundant. That authors say more than is strictly necessary to understand what they want to say. If you realize that all texts are redundant, it will make you feel less nervous when you read a text and you find there are many words you don't know.

This exercise is only useful if you stick to the rules. In this case the rule is: don't read further than the sentences indicated to answer the questions.

1. Read lines 1 and 2. The author first makes a statement, then says that he will show this by giving an example. What is the statement?

2. In line 11 part of the text is left out. Look at the bold typed sentence in the first paragraph and make up two sub-sentences that fit in the gaps in paragraph 2.They will either:or:

3. The sentence Every vocational field is distorted by idolatry may be hard to understand. But it is preceded by the word "so" (dus). Explain the sentence in your own words with the help of this clue.

4. Very often a paragraph starts with a sentence that summarizes the paragraph in advance. Sometimes however, there is summarizing sentence at the end of the paragraph - as is the case in paragraph 3. Read this sentence and explain it in your own words.

5. There are four examples of this statement in the paragraph. Number them in the text.6. In paragraph 4 Keller mentions two contrasting mistakes you can make. Underline the signal

words by which these mistakes are introduced. 7. When someone says what you shouldn't do, he often also says what you should do. Before

you read Keller's suggestion, think of a way in which Christians should be real Christians at work.

8. Now read paragraph 5 and say in your own words what Keller says about how Christians should be Christians at work.

40

45

15

360

365

20

9. What is the difference between cultural renewal and cultural shaping (par 6)?

10. If you find it hard to find the answer to the former question, first look at the example that Keller gives. What did the monks NOT do?

11. Yet how did they succeed in changing pagan culture?

12. Now check if your answer to question 9 is correct.13. In which paragraph can you find the same ideas as the ones St. Augustine mentions? (typical

Cito question)

14. What aspect gives conflict and tension, and what aspect gives hope and assurance?

Having read this article, you might wonder in which way you, as a Christian, can help to change our culture. Next lesson will be a speaking exercise about making choices.

Chapter 6 |Speaking| Making choices, Cultural renewal

Study these words:

Verbs connected with beliefs and opinionsYou probably already know think and believe; here are more.

1. I'm convinced we've met before. [very strong feeling that you're right]2. I've always held that compulsory education is a waste of time. [used for very firm

beliefs; maintain could be used here]3. She maintains that we're related, but I'm not convinced. [insist on believing, often

against the evidence; hold could not be used here]4. I feel she shouldn't be forced to do the job. [strong personal opinion]5. I reckon they'll get married soon. [informal, usually an opinion about what is likely to

happen / to be true]6. I doubt we'll ever see total world peace. [don't believe]

16

370

375

380

7. I suspect a lot of people never even think about pollution when they're driving their own car. [have a strong feeling about something negative]

Phrases for expressing opinionIn my view / in my opinion, we haven't made any progress. She's made a big mistake, to my mind. [fairly informal] If you ask me, he ought to change his job. [informal]From a teacher's point of view, the new examinations are a disaster. [how teachers see things, or are affected]

Prepositions used with belief and opinion wordsDo you believe in God? What are your views on divorce?What do you think of the new boss? I'm in favour of long prison sentences. Are you for or against long prison sentences? I have my doubts about this plan.conservative Darwinist vegetarian Muslim pacifist

Some adjectives for describing people's beliefs and views, in pairs of similar, but not the same, meaning.

fanatical/obsessive eccentric/odd conservative/traditionalmiddle-of-the-road/moderate dedicated/committed firm/strong_______________________________________________________________________________________

Exercise 1: Draw lines connecting the left and right, as in the example, adding the appropriate preposition.

1. I have strong views my opinion.2. Most people believe the proposed changes.3. I was in favour marriage.4. What does she think my mind.5. This is absurd of life after death.6. He's quite wrong the new teacher?7. Well, that's just silly our point of view.

Exercise 2: Say these sentences in another way using the verbs in brackets.

1. I've always suspected that ghosts don't really exist. (doubt)2. My view has always been that people should rely on themselves more. (hold)3. Claudia is convinced that the teacher has been unfair to her. (maintain)4. I felt a very strong feeling that I had been in that room before. (convince)

17

385

390

395

400

405

410

415

5. In his view, we should have tried again. (feel)

Exercise 3: (in pairs) Are you...? Talk about which of these words apply to you, and in what situations. Some ideas for situations are given in the box, but you can add your own. Look up any words you don't know in a dictionary.

a perfectionist a philosopher open-minded left-wing a moralistan intellectual a traditionalist middle-of-the-road a radical thinkernarrow-minded dedicated dogmatic

Exercise 4: (in pairs) Keller states in his article that as a Christian you cannot avoid shaping culture. Look at the following subjects, choose one or more and discuss what choice you think you ought to make when you want to live according to the gospel.

giving money to a beggar biological products third world countries educationstopping at traffic lights becoming a professional football player joining Greenpeace chick literature what you watch listening to music what you buy (cheap meat, latest iPhone)

Chapter 7 |Reading| Text structure

Just how vital are your organs? ... but kidney doctoring is bad by Barbara Gunnell

1 A delicate business, medical ethics, and the International Forum for Transplant Ethics was wise to observe a long period of silence on the sale of organs for transplant after the Turkish kidney donor scandal of the Eighties. But time is a great healer (though less so if you've had one of your kidneys stolen), and the Forum now wants to re-examine the rights and wrongs of rich people buying the kidneys of poor people.

2 'Most people will recognise in themselves the feelings of outrage and disgust that led to an outright ban on kidney sales ... Nevertheless, we need better reasons than our own feelings of disgust ... if we are to deny treatment to the suffering and dying,' wrote members of the Forum in The Lancet3) last week.

3 Let's just recall the disgust and outrage that are not good enough reasons. A lucrative trade in the kidneys of impoverished Turks was exposed in our very own Harley Street1). The gaff was blown when one poorly Turk had to carry his even more poorly compatriot out of

the private clinic that had purchased their kidneys for £3,000 and resold them for at least 10 times that.

4 Called before the General Medical Council to defend their trade, doctors said they had thought all the impoverished Turkish donors they saw were volunteer relatives of the wealthy recipients, who, strangely, were Greek, Israeli, Libyan — every nationality but Turkish. 'One almost has to make an effort to be as unwitting as this. How many Turks were going to come along not speaking the same language before you were going to ask the question?!' one member of the General Medical Council asked a

doctor.5 Unabashed, the dog now returns to its vomit.6 'The best way to address such problems

would be by regulation and perhaps a central purchasing system, to provide screening, counselling, reliable payment, insurance and financial advice,' write the ethical experts, concluding with a flourish that `feelings of

18

420

425

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

repugnance cannot justify removing the only hope of the destitute and dying.'

7 The logic here is a bit assailable (we could, for example, look for better ways of helping the destitute than dismantling them). None the less the doctors are right that a shortage of kidneys for transplant is causing suffering and death — as well as a substantial loss of profits, with an estimated 38,000 patients waiting for kidneys in the United States alone.

8 So what have we, the squeamish, to offer as a solution? Human rights considerations militate against regularising the illicit but flourishing trade in the organs of executed

Chinese prisoners: livers for $40,000, kidneys for $20,000, guaranteed nonsmoker lungs, etc. One might find the number of executions rising uncannily.

9 But consider: the destitute and dispossessed, with their inadequate diets and degraded environments, need both their poison filters. The rich, with their sanitised lives and Perrier water, can easily get by on just one. Doctors seem confident that removal is a simple risk-free operation. We suggest they lead the way — make donating a kidney part of the rite of passage for all doctors entering private practice.

10 No cash, no ethical dilemma.

`The Observer'.

Cito questions:

1 Welke ethische kwestie stelt Barbara Gunnell aan de orde in haar artikel? Formuleer je antwoord in de vorm van een vraag.

2 Wie worden bedoeld met ‘the suffering and dying’ in alinea 2?

3. In alinea 3 laat Barbara Gunnell zich kritisch uit over Harley Street. Waarop komt haar kritiek neer?

4. Which of the following is made clear in paragraph 4? A Cultural and linguistic barriers prevented effective communication between doctors and patients. B Doctors could not be expected to concern themselves with their patients’ personal histories. C The argument doctors used to justify their practices cannot be taken seriously.

5. Wat wil Barbara Gunnell duidelijk maken met ‘the dog … vomit’ (alinea 5)?

6. How can ‘as well … alone’ (end of paragraph 7) be characterised? As showing A Barbara Gunnell’s compassion with poor people who would trade their kidneys for money. B Barbara Gunnell’s concern about the number of people waiting for a kidney transplant. C Barbara Gunnell’s doubt about doctors’ concern over people who need a transplant.

‘One might … uncannily.’ (laatste zin alinea 8) 7 In welk geval zou dit kunnen gaan gebeuren?

8 Which of the following is true for paragraph 9? A It cynically generalises the issue discussed. B It is an urgent appeal to doctors to get personally involved. C It paints a hopeful picture for people needing a kidney transplant. D It sarcastically offers an absurd solution to the issue discussed. E It strongly stresses the need for more donors to come forward.

19

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

540

2025

Chapter 8 |Speaking, writing| Organ donation

Exercise 1 (pairs): Below you find 7 reasons why people might decide not to donate their organs after death. Read them aloud, talk about them and try to write down counter-arguments for each reason.

No. 1. If I agree to donate my organs, my doctor or the emergency room staff won't work as hard to save my life. They'll remove my organs as soon as possible to save somebody else.

No. 2. Organ donation is against my religion.

No. 3. I'm under age 18. I'm too young to make this decision.

No. 4. I'm too old to donate. Nobody would want my organs.

No. 5. I'm not in the greatest health, and my eyesight is poor. Nobody would want my organs or tissues.

No. 6. Rich, famous and powerful people always seem to move to the front of the line when they need a donor organ. There's no way to ensure that my organs will go to those who've waited the longest or are the neediest.

Exercise 2 (pairs): Now look at the counter-arguments provided by an American site. Read them aloud in your very best English. Then compare them to yours and discuss them.

Myth No. 1. Reality. When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else's. The doctor in charge of your care has nothing to do with transplantation.

Myth No. 2. Reality. The Christian Church (in America) encourages organ and tissue donation, stating that we were created for God's glory and for sharing God's love. The church encourages “members of the Christian Church to enroll as organ donors in the name of Christ, who gave his life that we might have life in its fullness. Christians see it as "...an expression of sacrificial love for a neighbor in need."

Myth No. 3. Reality. That's true, in a legal sense. But your parents can authorize this decision. You can express to your parents your wish to donate, and your parents can give their consent knowing that it's what you wanted. Children, too, are in need of organ transplants, and they usually need

21

545

550

555

560

565

organs smaller than those an adult can provide.

Myth No. 4. Reality. There's no defined cutoff age for donating organs. Organs have been successfully transplanted from donors in their 70s and 80s. The decision to use your organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age.

Myth No. 5. Reality. Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify you from donating organs. The decision to use an organ is based on strict medical criteria. It may turn out that certain organs are not suitable for transplantation, but other organs and tissues may be fine.

Myth No. 6. Reality. The rich and famous aren't given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else.

Exercise 3: A Think of 3 reasons why paying someone to donate his kidney, bone marrow, blood or part of his liver is a good idea.

123

B Now think of three reasons why paying someone to donate his kidney etc. is NOT a good idea.

123

C In the Netherlands doctors are thinking of other ways (instead of paying money) to reward people for donating an organ. Try to think of several possibilities to reward people for donating their organs and write them down.

123

Exercise 4: (in pairs) Do a role-play in which one of you is a doctor that urgently needs a heart to save a patient's life, while the other one is a parent who has just heard that his/her son has been in an accident. The doctor must bring the news that the son has died - and ask the parent to donate the son's organs.

Exercise 5: All Dutch people that reach the age of 18 get a request from the government to indicate whether or not they want to donate their organs after death. Discuss what you are going to decide and why.

22

570

575

580

585

590

595

Chapter 9 |Reading| Strategic reading

The costly appliance of science

Genetic selection has some alarming implications - and could widen the wealth gap beyond repair. By Peter Singer.

1 The advance of knowledge is often a mixed blessing. Over the past 60 years, nuclear physics has been one obvious example of this truth. Over the next 60 years, genetics may be another.

2 Today, enterprising firms offer, for a fee, to tell you about your genes. They claim that this knowledge will help you live longer and better. You might, for example, have extra checkups to detect early signs of the diseases that you are most at risk of contracting, or you could alter your diet to reduce that risk. If your chances of a long lifespan are not good, you might buy more life insurance, or even retire early to have enough time to do what you always wanted to do.

3 Defenders of privacy have worked, with some success, to prevent insurance companies from requiring genetic testing before issuing life insurance. But if individuals can do tests from which insurance companies are barred, and if those who receive adverse genetic information then buy additional life insurance without disclosing the tests that they have taken, they are cheating other holders of life insurance. Premiums will have to increase to cover the losses, and those with a good genetic prognosis may opt out of life insurance to avoid subsidising the cheats, driving premiums higher still.

4 -2- . The United States government accountability office sent identical genetic samples to several of the testing companies, and got widely varying, and mostly useless, advice. But as the science improves, the insurance problem will have to be faced.

5 Selecting our children raises more profound ethical problems. This is not new. In developed countries, the routine testing of older pregnant women, combined with the availability of abortion, has significantly reduced the incidence of conditions such as Down’s

syndrome. In some regions of India and China where couples are anxious to have a son, selective abortion has been the ultimate form of sexism, and has been practised to such an extent that a generation is coming of age in which males face a shortage of female partners.

6 Selection of children need not involve abortion. For several years, some couples at risk of passing a genetic disease on to their children have used in vitro fertilisation, producing several embryos that can be tested for the faulty gene and implanting in the woman’s uterus only those without it. Now couples are using this technique to avoid passing on genes that imply a significantly elevated risk of developing certain forms of cancer.

7 Since everyone carries some adverse genes, there is no clear line between selecting against a child with above-average risks of contracting a disease and selecting for a child with unusually rosy health prospects. -5- , genetic selection will inevitably move towards genetic enhancement.

8 For many parents, nothing is more important than giving their child the best possible start in life. They buy expensive toys to maximise their child’s learning potential and spend much more on private schools or after-school tutoring in the hope that he or she will excel in the tests that determine entry to elite universities. It may not be long before we can identify genes that improve the odds of success in this quest.

9 Many will condemn this as a resurgence of “eugenics”, the view, especially popular in the early 20th century, that hereditary traits should be improved through active intervention. So it is, in a way, and in the hands of authoritarian regimes, genetic selection could resemble earlier forms of eugenics, with their advocacy of odious, pseudoscientific official policies, particularly concerning “racial hygiene”.

10 In liberal, market-driven societies, however, eugenics will not be coercively imposed by the state for the collective good. Instead, it will be

23

600

605

610

615

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

660

665

670

675

680

685

the outcome of parental choice and the workings of the free market. If it leads to healthier, smarter people with better problem-solving abilities, that will be a good thing. But even if parents make choices that are good for their children, there could be perils as well as blessings.

11 In the case of sex selection, it is easy to see that couples who independently choose the best for their own child can produce an outcome that makes all their children worse off than they would have been if no one could select the sex of their child. Something similar could happen with other forms of genetic selection. Since above-average height correlates with above-average income, and

there is clearly a genetic component to height, it is not fanciful to imagine couples choosing to have taller children. The outcome could be a genetic “arms race” that leads to taller and taller children, with significant environmental costs in the additional consumption required to fuel larger human beings.

12 The most alarming implication of this mode of genetic selection, however, is that only the rich will be able to afford it. The gap between rich and poor, already a challenge to our ideas of social justice, will become a chasm that mere equality of opportunity will be powerless to bridge. That is not a future that any of us should approve.The Guardian

Now you’ve worked with four different reading strategies, it’s time to combine them. In that way you use your logic to understand texts. Using your logic means: being able to ask the right questions – if you can do that, you will be able to use your reading strategies.

So for the next exercise, take care you don’t just try to find the correct answers, but look at the kind of questions that are asked – next time you should be able to ask them yourself.

1. Look at the title and the subtitle. What is the article about?

When you read the words genetic selection, what do you think of?

How could the gap between rich and poor become bigger by genetic selection?

2. Read paragraph 1. What is nuclear genetics an example of? Explain why.

3. Read paragraph 2. What advantage of genetics is mentioned in par. 2?

And what disadvantage can you think of?

4. Read paragraph 3. What possible disadvantage for individuals is mentioned in paragraph 3?

5. What disadvantage do insurance companies have due to genetic science?

6. What two reasons are mentioned to predict rising life insurance premiums? 1

24

690

695

700

705

710

715

720

725

730

735

740

745

750

2

7. Read paragraph 4. "But" suggest a contradiction. What is the contradiction here?

8. Read paragraph 5. What profound ethical problems does the selection of children create?

What two examples are mentioned? Number them in the text.

9. Read paragraph 6. The author obviously thinks ivf is different from abortion. What is the difference?

10. Read paragraph 7. Two possible ways of selecting children are mentioned. What two ways?1

2

11. Which of the two will lead to "better" children?

So what word(s) might fit in the gap (number 7)?

12. Read paragraph 8. What does "this quest" refer to?

What has it got to do with genes?

13. Read paragraphs 9 and 10. However (par. 10) suggests a contradiction. What is the contradiction?

14. Before you read paragraph 11: What are possible "perils" and "blessings" of eugenetics?

15. Read paragraph 11. What two examples are given of choices that are positive for the individual but negative for the group? Underline them and explain.

16. Read paragraph 12. That is not a future that any of us should approve (last sentence). Explain what the author means by this.

25

755

760

765

775

785

790

795

30

Chapter 10 |Listening, speaking| Genetic engineering

First you are going to listen to two doctors who work with genetic selection. After that, you're going to list its advantages and disadvantages and decide where you stand.

While listening, make a word web with terms you might want to learn in order to prepare for your test

EUGENETICS

Exercise 1: ListeningWatch the following youtube-film and answer the questions. First take your time to read all questions. Discuss the m after watching.Arthur Gaplan on The ethics of genetically engineering children, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQ7bUAQVuE&feature=fvw

1. Why might the costs for some diseases not be paid for anymore in the future?2. What does Gaplan mean when he says: "We don't lock up the Amish"?

Note: Amish are people in America who have strict religious principles and live according to them. For example, they live without electricity, cars, etc.

3. What is the challenge we are facing as a society?

moral dilemma

genetic engineering

hereditary disease

26

800

805

810

815

820

825

4. What does Gaplan want to show with the example of the deaf couple?5. What reason does Gaplan give for saying "no" to the deaf couple?6. Why does Gaplan call for rules and regulations?

Exercise 2: ListeningNow watch the following youtube-film and answer the questions. First read all questions.Alan Trounson on Saving lives with designer babies, in which he talks about parents with a child that suffered from Franconi Anemia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Z0J4SCqek&feature=channel

1. In this case: what two characteristics should the embryo have?2. Why did it take so much time before the procedure could be done?3. What was the result of the procedure?

Exercise 3: speakingTalk about the questions, then write one sentence for each to summarize your answer.

1. Gaplan mentioned a few advantages of genetic selection. What are they?

2. Gaplan also mentions some dangers. What does the example of the deaf couple show? Can you imagine their wish? Why (not)?

3. Another danger is: being forced to use genetic selection. Think of examples in which people might get into trouble by not using genetic selection.

4. Using genetic selection implies: creating several embryos and using the best. What ethical problem does that give?

5. A difficult question is: when does life begin? Some say: from the very first cell. Others say: as soon as the embryo is complete in the womb (after about 12 weeks). Others say: as soon as it is able to live outside the womb (after about 24 weeks). Talk about this question and list ethical problems that come up when you choose for either of them.

6. Genetic engineering is often called: "playing God". Why do you think this term is used?

7. You can fight diseases by using preventative injections against major diseases, by using medicine or by using genetic selection. What is the difference? Does either possibility give ethical problems?

8. Do you think genetic designing to save a person's life is acceptable? List the pros and cons.

9. Do you think genetic engineering is or will ever be acceptable? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not?

27

830

835

840

845

850

855

860

865

28