Chapter 1 |Reading| Knowledge of the world

stubbornnessuglyΒιοτεχνολογία

12 Δεκ 2012 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

250 εμφανίσεις


1

Chapter 1 |Reading| Knowledge of the world


Labour and Tories clash over "climate
-
sceptic MPs"

1 Ed Miliband

accuses Conservatives of being deeply "ambivalent"
over climate change and seizes upon apparent suggestion that Ken
Clarke is "climate sceptic"

By James Murray
,
19 Apr 2010


2
Labour has today 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.


5

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 Danny Alexander and Conservative
shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband accused the Tories of
failing to translate green words into action.


10

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, Miliband 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 year

when shadow business secretary Ken Clarke said he was opposed to
15

onshore wind farms as indicative of deep
-
rooted Conservative opposition to renewable energy projects.


6
Hunt r
esponded 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 tar
gets.

20


7
He also noted that all the main political parties contain some "climate sceptics", prompting Miliband to interject
to ask if Hunt had confirmed that Clarke 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 ken clarke's oppn to onshore wind
25

he says every party has its 'climate sceptics'!" [sic].


9
Hunt reiterated his view that all the main parties contained some climate sceptics, and insisted that the
leade
rship remained fully committed to its green agenda, praising David Cameron's "Nixon to China" moment
when he overhauled the Conservative Party's traditional pro
-
business stance in favour of a more progressive
30

approach to environmental issues.


10
However,
Miliband insisted that the Conservatives remained deeply ambivalent about the need for onshore
wind farms and criticised David Cameron's high
-
profile visit to the Arctic during the first few months of his
leadership as little more than a "photo opportunity
".

35


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
ne
wspaper 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 text
s like the one in this chapter.



2

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:

, m
ember 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


and check your answers.

__________________________________________________________________________________
1

What are scientists warning 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.

True

b.

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.

Fact

b.

Fiction

5

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

a.

Half as fast

b.

The same

c.

Twice as fast

d.

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
ra
in 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.

Australia

b.

Canada

c.

Kuwait

d.

United Arab Emirates

e.

USA

8

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

a.

Germany

b.

Sweden

c.

Switzerland

d.

UK

e.

USA

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


3

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

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


energy?


b. And how can you prove from the text the Conser
vatives paid attention to this issue as well?


c. What was their point of view?

5 What do you think "climate
-
sceptic MPs" are (title)? And what is "climate
-
ambivalence" (sub
-
title)?

6 This
text contains a
clear

example of redundancy. In fact, paragraph

2 and 3 say
near
ly the same.


Forget about the words you don't know and the sub
-
sentences and summarize these paragraphs in


one short sentence.

7 What political motive did Miliband have according to paragraph 4?

8 What example of " increased
renewable energy capacity"

(l. 4)

is mentioned in paragraph 4?

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

10 a.
"Nixon to China" moment:


if you don't know about Nixon's visit to China in 1972, you will have



to find out from the context what a "Nixon to China" moment is.


Which word tells you it must


be something positive?


b. In the sub
-
sentence this moment is described. What did Cameron do?


c. Now give a synonym for "Nixon to Chi
na" moment.

11 What three negative points about the Conservatives does Miliband bring up (last two


paragraphs)?

4

Chapter 2

|Speaking| Politics and
the environment

First study these words:

A Types of government

republic
: a state governed
by representatives and, usually, a president

monarchy
: a state ruled by a king or queen

democracy
: government of, by and for the people

dictatorship
: system of government run by a

dictator

independence
: freedom from outside control; self
-
governing




The United Kingdom and



The Republic of Ireland

B People and bodies involved in politics

Member of Parliament (MP)
: a representative of the people in Parliament

politician
: someone for whom politics is a career

statesman/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 minist
ers in the government

President

and
Vice
-
President
: the head of state in many modern states

Mayor
: head of a town or city council

ambassador
: top diplomat representing his/her country abroad

embassy
: the building where an ambassador and his/her staff are
based

ministry
: 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
-
renewable

CO
2
emission (greenhouse
effect)

Noisy

Cheap / expensive to build

Remote locations

Floods a large area

Reliable / unreliable

Depends on the weather

Waste

High/ low
cost per unit of
electricity

Risk of big accident

Unsightly

Free energy resource

Small amount of fuel produces
a lot of electricity

Popular / unpopular

Safe / unsafe




5

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

Parlia
ment 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 Pri
me 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 pol
itical 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











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 the
y 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 last time, it is said that some MPs don't
believe in "
the scientific consensus on climate change". Brainstorm what you know about this
subject.
T
ake 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 world
1
,
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
non
-
human creatures are held in higher esteem than God
2

a
nd 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 y
ou should deal with environmental issues as a Christian.




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.”

2

Romans 1:25
:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created th
ings
rather than the Creator

who is forever praised. Amen
.


7

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 G
od 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 conve
ntional 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 exi
stence 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 the
odicy 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)
there is evil. The most reasonable, parsimonious answ
er 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 E
lie 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
extenuati
ng 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?










5









10







15









20









25









30


8

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 th
ere 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 c
ontrast. What is the contrast here?

3.

How many reasons does the author give for his opinion of
Night
?
Number them.

4.

But

(line 8
) suggests a contrast. What is the contrast here? Explain in Dutch.

5.

L. 8
: What does
even

suggest? Which words in the paragraph explain the use of the word
even
?

Underline them.

6.

Paragraph
3:
How many "conventional id
eas of God"(l.

10
) are mentioned? Number them.

7.

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?

8.

L. 16
: What does
same

refer to? Which two other terms are used to refer to this same
theory?

Underline them.

9.

How many explanations are given for the term
theodicy
(l. 17
)? Number them.

10.

What is exactly the problem

with theodicy

(paragraph 5)
? Why is that a problem?

11.

What two observations does the author mention in paragraph 5?

Underline them.

12.

Suppose you don't know the meaning of

reconcile
. What is the problem of these two
observations for many people? So what must
reconcile

mean?

13.

What is the best solution, according to the author? Why is this not an option?

14.

Yet
(l. 26
) implies a contrast. What is the contrast?

15.

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

16.

In order to find out
what Wiesel means, we are going to look at the story that is told
. It
gives an explanation. L. 28
:
a group of Jews put God on trial.

What was the accusation and
verdict in the trial against God?

17.

What is the reason why the Jews continued to study Talmud)? F
ormulate your answer like
this: Not because … , but because …

18.

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

19.

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. T
o

whom do we pray?

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


9

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 and


gases pour from a mountain]


war / civil war



Verbs connected with these words

A volcano has
erupted

in Indonesia. Hundreds are feared dead.

The flu epidemic
spread

rapidly throughout the country.

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 s
wept 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 in
j
ured 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]

_________________________________________________
_________________________________


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

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: i
s the
situation getting
worse
or
better,
has a disaster has
happened
or been
avoided/prevented.


Exercise 3: (in pairs) Read the following text and underline six arguments that are used to explain
su
ffering. 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 Ausch
witz 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 did
n
'
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
suff
ered 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 h
umiliation, isolation and death only because they were
Jewish? “These questions have been haunting me for more than five decades. You
Poison gas
cloud spreads

AIDS time
-
bomb ticking
away

POLICE DEFUSE
TERRORIST
BOMB

All survive
jumbo crash
-
landing

Oil slick
recedes

Flood warnings
not heeded in
time


11

have vocal defenders, you know. Many theological answers were given me, such as:
„God is God. He alone knows what He is do
ing. 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 an
swers. 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 tha
t 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 chi
ldren, 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.

1

2

3


Exercise 5: (in pairs)
D
o 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.





12

Chapter 5 |Reading|
Redundancy


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 sl
avery. 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 ins
istence 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 o
ther 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 marketi
ng 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
finan
cial 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 it
self. 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 the
y
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

excellen
ce

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 ma
nner 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 Chri
stianity 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
new institutions. Th
ey didn’t set out to ‘get control’ of a pagan culture. They let the gospel change








5






10






15





20






25






30






35


13

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 base
d 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 ev
entually 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 reali
ze 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
sente
nces 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.

Read on until the words
see souls saved
(line 6
).
Before you
started
read
ing the e
xample, you
already knew what Keller wanted
to
illustrate
. So when you read about the churche
s that
said it was not their calling

to
be involved with

culture, you also know that Keller thinks
this

is
not possible. Why do
you

think this is not possible? St
ar
t

your answer with: If you don't
change the culture,...

3.

When you read on in line 6, you will find the answer to question 2. In how many ways does
Keller formulate this answer?

Number them

in the text
.

4.

Now go back to line 3, where abolitionists are
mentioned. If you don't know what the word
means, you can make a guess by looking at what they wanted: they wanted Christians to
stamp out slavery. Make a guess what "abolitionists" means.

5.

In line 11

part of the
text was

left out. Look at the bold typed se
ntence in the first paragraph
and
make up two sub
-
sentences that fit

in the gaps

in paragraph 2.

6.

The sentence
Every

vocational field is distorted by idolatry

may be hard to understand. But it
is preceded by the word "so" (dus). How does this word help you
to find the meaning of the
sentence? Explain the sentence in your own word
s

with the help of this clue.

7.

Very often

a paragraph
starts with

a sentence that summarizes the paragraph

in advance.
Sometimes however, there is

summarizing sentence is at the end o
f the pa
ragraph
-

as is the
case in paragraph

3. Read this sentence and explain it in your own words.

8.

There are four examples of th
is statement in the paragraph.
Number them

in the text
.

9.

In paragraph

4 Keller mentions two opposite mistakes you can make. Sc
an the text and find
out by which
signal words

these mistakes are introduced.
Underline

them, but don't read the
sentences
describing the mistakes
yet.

10.

Now read the first mistake he mentions. Explain in your own words.


40






45


14

11.

Knowing that the second mistake is th
e opposite of the first mistake, what do you think it
must be? Write it down and check in the text
if your guess was correct (l. 25
-

27
).

12.

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.

13.

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

14.

So in what way do Christians "shape
cult
ure"(see also l. 1)?

15.

What is th
e difference between
cultural renewal

and
cultural shaping
?

16.

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?

17.

Yet how did they succeed in changing pagan culture?

18.

Now ch
eck if your answer to question 15
is correct.

19.

In the last paragraph a similar thing occur
s to

what occurred in paragraph 4. First Keller
mentions two kingdoms, then he describes them. Use the same strategy as in questions
9
-

11 and by doing so use redund
ancy to understand the paragraph better. In which paragraph
can you find the same ideas as the ones St. Augustine mentions?

20.

What aspect gives
conflict and tension,
and what aspect gives

hope and assurance
?


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



15

Chapter 6



|Speaking|



Making choices,
Cultural r
enewal


Study these words:

Verbs connected with beliefs and opinions

You 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
j
ob. [strong personal opinion]

5.

I
reckon

they'll get married soon. [informal, u
sually an opinion about what is likely to
happen / to be true]

6.

I
doubt

we'll ever see total world peace. [don't believe]

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 opinion

In 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]

F
rom a teacher's
point of view
, the new exam
inations are a disaster.
[how teachers see
things,
or are affected]


Prepositions used with belief and opinion words

Do 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 ad
j
ectives for describing people's beliefs and views, in pairs of similar, but n
ot the same,
meaning.

fanatical/obsessive


eccentric/odd



conservative/traditional

middle
-
of
-
the
-
road/moderate

dedicated/committed


firm/strong

____________________________________________________________
___________________________



16

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)

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 moralist


an intellectual


a traditionalist

middle
-
of
-
the
-
road


a radical thinker


narrow
-
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 education

stopping 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)



17

Chapter 7 |Reading| Text structure




Just how vital are your organs?


...

but kidney doctoring is bad
by Barbara Gunnell

1
A delicate busi ness, medical et hics, 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 Lancet
3
)
last week.

3
Let's just recall the disgust and outrage th
at
are

not good enough reasons. A lucrative trade
in the kidneys of impoverished Turks was
exposed in our very own Harley Street
1
). 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 we
althy
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
l anguage before you
were goi ng t o ask

t he

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
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 non
smoker 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'.

1. An article consists of an introduction in which a problem is posed, a middle part in which it
is
worked out and a conclusion in which the answer to the problem is given. Read the 1
st

and the last
paragraph of the text and write down what the article is about and what the conclusion of the author
seems to be.

2.
To

understand the structure of a text

better, it
's a good idea to make a diagram of an article, so
that you can see how the author has built it up. Look at the diagram and fill in sentences that
summarize (or explain) the paragraphs.



18




























6. Two things the doctors point out:

2. R
eason
to say "no"

and counter
-
argument:

3. Explanation of reason
to say
"no"
:

1. Introduction: This article is about the
question

5. What the doctors decide (and what the
author thinks of this):

4. Elaboration (uitwerking) of
paragraph 3:

7.
Comment of the author:

On the one hand

But on the other hand: the shortage of kidneys

1
.

2.

And:

8. What is not a solution:


Because:

9. What
isn't a good solution either
:

A good solution:

10. Conclusion:

Before the author comes to his

point:

What the article is really about


19

3. Do you think the solution that Barbara Gunnell prop
o
ses
should be taken

seriously?
Why (not)?

4. What words in the text indicate that Gunnell's tone is ironical and/or
critical? Mention at least
three examples.

5. Now do the Cito
-
questions to see if you've understood the text well.
Note: open questions should
be answered in Dutch!

1
Welke ethische kwestie stelt Barbara Gunnell aan de orde in haar artikel? Formuleer je

a
ntwoord 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 paragra
ph 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 Gunn
ell’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 m
ight … 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.


If you use your knowledge of common text
-
structur
e well, it will help you to read texts. You might
decide to start each text reading only the first and last paragraph, before you read the middle part. In
that way you will know beforehand what the author is going to say
-

which will make it easier for you

to understand what the author is saying in the middle part.


20

Chapter 8

|Speaking
, writing
| Organ donation

Exer
cise 1 (pairs): Below you find 6

reasons why people might decide not to donate their organs
after death
.
Read them aloud
,
t
alk 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
tis
sues.


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.


Exe
r
cise 2

(pairs)
: Now look
at the counter
-
arguments provided by an American site.
Read them
aloud in your very best English. Then c
ompare 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.


Christian Church in America

The Christian Church encourages organ and tissue donation, stating that we were created for God's
glor
y 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, a
nd they usually need organs
smaller than those an adult can provide.


21

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 b
ased 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
su
itable 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:
Think of 3

reasons why
paying someone

to donate
his

kidney
, bone marrow, blood or
part of his

liver is a good idea.

1

2

3

Now think of three reasons
why paying
someone

to donate
his

kidney

etc.
is
not
a good idea.

1

2

3

In the Netherlands doctors are thin
king 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.

1

2

3



Exercise 4: (in pairs) D
o 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
.


Writing assignment

Exercise 5 (individually): 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. Write down
what you are going to decide and give at least

three arguments (60
-

80 words).


22

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 ge
nes. 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 ge
netic 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 take
n, 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 Uni
ted 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 ch
ildren 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. I
n 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
partner
s.

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 implantin
g 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 lin
e 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

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 ot
her 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 “arm
s 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 wi
ll 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


No
w you’ve worked with four differ
ent 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 yours
elf, 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 ge
netic science?

6.

What two reasons are mentioned to
predict

rising life insurance

premiums?

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 childre
n are mentioned. What two ways?

11.

Which of the two will lead to "better" children? So word(s)what 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: can you think of both "perils" and "blessings"?

15.

Read paragraph 11. What two examples are given of choices that are positive for the
individu
al but negative for the group?
Underline them and e
xplain.

16.

Read paragraph 12.
That is not a future that any of us should approve
(last sentence).

Explain
what the author means by this.


24

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.

Exercise 1
:

Listening

Watch the following youtube
-
film and answer the questions. First take your time to read all
questi
ons.

Arthu
r 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 anymor
e 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 challe
nge we are facing as a society?

4.

What does Gaplan want to show with the example of the deaf couple?

5.

What r
eason does

Gaplan give for saying "no" to the deaf couple?

6.

Why does Gaplan call for rules and regulations?


Exercise 2:

Listening

Now w
atch the follow
ing 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: w
hat two characteristics should the embryo have?

2.

Why did it take so much time before the procedure could be do
ne?

3.

What was the result of the procedure?


Exercise 3
: speaking

Talk 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 do
es the example of the deaf coup
le 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 selecti
on implies: creating several embryos and using the best. What ethical
problem does that give?



25

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 week
s). 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?