Reading Part3 Comprehension Multiple Choice PDF

Preview

Summary

ingles B2...

Description

PART 3: COMPREHENSION MULTIPLE CHOICE EX1: THE ECONOMY: SHADES OF GREY The London Times reports that a Spanish tax inspector boarded a Mediterranean cruise ship incognito. He sought to check whether the returns made by the cruise company, in respect of food and drink consumed, tallied with reality. He put on his brightest holiday clothes and went aboard. Two things followed quickly. First, his disguise was found to be inadequate; he was discovered immediately. Secondly, it happened that the ship had a large number of British holiday-makers aboard. These merry jokers forced him to walk the plank. While he was swimming around in the water, some of the merrier girls dived in after him and merrily removed his shorts. We may feel sorry for the poor fellow, who was only doing his job, but the story does show that tax collectors are as unpopular now as they were in the days of Robin Hood or George Washington.

Tax inspectors are universally unpopular, not simply because they collect money, but because they are the greatest of all bureaucrats. They put their little restrictions upon every aspect of ordinary life. In Britain, if you drive a friend to the station, babysit for the neighbours, fix a car engine in exchange for a bottle of whisky, or make a pot of jam for charity, then technically, you have become a part of the shadow economy. The estimates of the size of the shadow economy vary greatly, from two per cent to 15 per cent of the national income, the difference in Britain of between four and 54 billion pounds. The best estimate puts it at around five per cent. One of the reasons for the difference is the definition which is used. The black economy is only the darkest side of the picture. For example, the shadow economy runs from voluntary work for charities, to barter between neighbours, to housework. But it also takes in handling stolen goods, tax evasion, and working while drawing welfare payments.

One area of growth of the shadow economy in Britain has been household employment, and services to help the working mother. Clearly, no one pays their window-cleaner by cheque, not if they want to see him again. But, more importantly, in the last 25 years, as married women flooded out to work, they have begun again to do what their grandmothers did, to pay others to look after their homes and children. This area of home help has become a deep grey as far as the tax authorities are concerned. In general, the shadow economy becomes pitch black once money changes hands, in used notes: for example, when we pay each other for child-minding rather than taking it in turns to run a playgroup.

While the tax authorities have their beady eye on payment in kind, there may be another distinction, between regular work on the one hand, and occasional, irregular favours on the other. Even so, it would seem that moonlighting, the second job, the odd extra evening work, is what makes up most of the shadow economy. A more useful distinction lies between the trivial and the substantial. There is a lot of difference between giving someone a regular lift to the station in the mornings, perhaps in exchange for some help with the petrol bill, and loaning him a company car which is not declared on his tax returns.

A large proportion of the shadow economy might not be liable to tax anyway. Small traders, for example, prefer cash as much to avoid office work as to cut their sales tax. But, at the bottom end of the scale, even very small cash earnings can cause trouble to the unemployed. The reason lies in the speed with which unemployment support benefits are withdrawn if even small amounts of money are earned. Conservative politicians are always saying that a large proportion of Britain s unemployed are earning a healthy living in the shadow economy. With three million officially, and four million unofficially, out of work, they are more likely to be picking at bones rather then living off the fat of the land. The shadow economy may be essential to the health of the country. Of course, tax enforcement is necessary, but snooping is not and that is where one loses sympathy with the Spanish tax inspector. There needs to be a balance which can possibly be achieved by limiting the state s legal interest in small sums, the taxation of which is more expensive than the revenue collected.

Select the answer most likely to be correct. 01. Why did the Spanish tax inspector end up in the Mediterranean? ....................... A. He was travelling incognito. B. The passengers were British. C. His disguise was penetrated. D. He was disliked.

02. Why did the passengers force him to walk the plank? .............................. A. They were playing at being pirates. B. The ship was under construction. C. To prove he was sober. D. Because he was a tax inspector. 03. Why are tax inspectors so unpopular? ............................. A. They persecute people. B. They have no sense of humour. C. They send us forms to fill in. D. They are petty-minded. 04. When does the grey economy become black? .............................. A. When people exchange services. B. When cash changes hands. C. When people barter goods. D. When a person handles stolen goods. 05. When a person moonlights, what does he do? ............................. A. Works at night, in the dark. B. Has a second job, apart from his main work. C. Works for himself, as self-employed. D. Runs a nightclub or disco or other entertainment. 06. What are Britain's unemployed most likely to be doing? ............................. A. Earning a good living in the shadow economy. B. Eking out a bare living. C. Being investigated by bureaucrats. D. Living off the fat of the land.

EX2: PRIVATE SCHOOLS Most countries have had, and some still have, educational systems that are, in one way or another, social disasters. The English educational system is unique, however, in the degree to which it has created educational institutions which perpetuate privilege and social division. Most countries have some private schools for the children of the wealthy; the English have dozens of them. In fact, about 3,000. Some nine million children are educated at state schools; just under half a million are educated at private schools.

What is the result of such a system? The facts seem to speak for themselves. In the state system, about eight per cent make it to university; in the private system, almost half the students go on to university. But those statistics are deceptive: middle class children do better at examinations than working class, and most of them stay on at school after 16. Private schools are entirely middle class, and so this positive attitude creates an environment of success.

Private schools are enormously expensive, as much as £18,000 a year for a boarder at somewhere like Eton or Harrow to at least £8,000 a year almost everywhere. Why are parents, many of whom are not wealthy or even comfortably off, willing to sacrifice so much in the cause of their children's schooling? One father replied to this question by saying: "Everything is on the margin. If my son gets a five per cent better chance of going to university, that may be the difference between success and failure." You can believe him if you like, but £50,000 minimum is a lot to pay for a five per cent better chance. Most children, given the choice, would take the money. The real reason parents fork out the cash is prejudice: they don't want little Henry mixing with the workers, or getting his accent wrong. And anyway, at your next dinner party it won't sound too good if all the guests are sending their kids to St Swotting-by-the-Sea, and you say your kid is going to the state school down the road even if, as a result, you are able to serve Chateau Margaux with the filet steak.

Of course, at many of the best private schools, your money buys you something. One school, with 500 pupils, has 11 science laboratories; another, with 800, has 30 music practice rooms; another has 16 squash courts, and yet another has its own beach. On investment in buildings and facilities, the private schools spend £300 per pupil; the state system spends less than £50. On books, the ratio is £150 to £50. One of the things that your money buys which is difficult to quantify is the appearance of the school, the way it looks. Most private schools are established in beautiful, well-kept country houses, with extensive grounds and gardens. They look good in contrast with the state schools, the worst of which, like public lavatories, are tiled or covered in graffiti, and the best of which have architectural design on the level of an industrial shed.

Leaving aside the question of money, the attitudes generally to be found in the private schools are repellent. In a book published in 1988, some former Etonians were invited to talk about themselves and their old school. One of them said: "At school you could point out the freaks very easily. Freaks were spotty or ugly, freaks were scholars, basically people who had too many brains, and were looked down upon because they didn't pay." Yet another talked of the hunger marchers of the thirties who came through Windsor like "some sort of cloth-capped cavalcade", and went on "one was more aware of George V dying, because you were part of the same village." Another said that saving up to send a son to Eton was "the wrong thing... you're bred in terms of privilege and education to be a racehorse, and you end up having to toil in some office block somewhere in the City..., it's a waste of an expensive training. You don't go and run a donkey in the Derby, do you?"

One old Etonian tells how he was received by the printers when he went to work on a provincial newspaper. Printers were wellknown as belonging to the most left-wing of all unions, and yet: "They loved me, they adored me... because I was nice and jolly with them, I was little Lord Fauntleroy, and they used to say, `Isn't it marvellous, he was at Eton and he still talks to us, and he jokes and laughs and he's really quite a nice guy.'"

Some, perhaps many, private school pupils find life there unpleasant in the extreme. Such a one was Graham Greene. Yet he still sent his own son to the same school. In another case, an Old Etonian admitted the school was "a ghastly hideous place, it was a nightmare" and yet he too wishes the school upon his son: "I found it was a reflex that, as soon as Alexander was born, within three weeks I went and registered him." Rather, when one thinks about it, as one might register a pedigree dog with the Kennel Club.

One has to ask the question if such privileges and attitudes are relevant to a country in which there is almost as great a chance of an individual attending psychiatric hospital as of going to university.

01. The English educational system is different from any other because A. has a balance between state and private education B. has more private schools than anywhere else C. contributes to creating a class system D. has so many things wrong with it 02. More private school children go to university because A. they are better taught

B. their parents are middle class C. the schools create success D. they stay at school longer 03. Parents most often send their children to private school A. for social reasons B. for a margin of success C. to show how much money they have D. to pass university entrance examinations 04. Children at private schools A. work very hard all the time B. are conformist and prejudiced C. are very clever and highly educated D. are well-bred and cultivated 05. Former students of private schools A. automatically send their children there B. are inclined to think it is not worth the money C. are worried that they might end up in psychiatric hospital D. think carefully and then enrol their child in the best school

EX3: SAFETY AT SEA Catastrophes at sea and in the air make grim headlines: they represent a great deal of sorrow for the families of the dead and injured. Why do they occur? Terrorists plant bombs, as in the case of the destruction of the American airliner over Lockerbie in Scotland. Pyromaniacs light fires, as in the case of the ferry, Scandinavian Star, sailing from Norway to Denmark. In the week following that tragedy, there were two other cases of fires on board ferries: on one plying between Wales and Ireland, and on another between Portsmouth and Cherbourg. In both of them, a man died.

Clearly, fire is a commonplace hazard, and a very dangerous one, at sea. Talking after the Scandinavian Star had been towed into the small port of Lysekil, a Swedish police spokesman made it clear how awful if had been. He said: "The toll from the blaze that engulfed the ferry south of Oslo fjord is still officially 75 dead and 60 missing but about 100 bodies have already been taken off the ship and as many as 50 to 100 could still be on board. People tried to save themselves in the cabins and they are lying in big piles and it's difficult to figure out how many there are. There are a lot of children."

In the immediate aftermath of such catastrophes reports of inadequate safety measures circulate. On board the Scandinavian Star, a fireman said the ferry had only one system to pump and spray water on to the flames and that pumping and spraying had to be done alternately. On a wider scale, newspapers reported once again on the world-wide system of "flagging-out" which means that ships are not registered in the countries where they operate, and where the regulations are strict and expensive, but in places like Panama and Cyprus and the Bahamas, where they are lax and cheap. The Scandinavian Star, although Danishowned, was registered in the Bahamas.

One of the more outrageous cases came to light in October 1989. A general cargo ship named the Bosun set sail from Hamburg under the flag of the small central American state of Belize. West German police arrested and charged two men, the ship's British master and its German owner. They were charged with flying a false flag, and forgery of Belize government documents. A police officer said: "Belize was not the latest entrant in the cheap flag stakes; they in fact operate no shipping whatsoever. When we contacted the Belize High Commission in London, they were astonished to learn that a ship was pretending to be registered in their country."

Rules are laid down for ship safety by United Nations organisations. The rules are strict, and specify that a ship must be built with heat and fire resistant bulkheads, fire doors to passenger and crew areas, sealed cable and air conditioning trunking to block smoke, non-combustible materials and/or sprinkler systems, smoke detectors and alarms, and signposted emergency exits. But all these rules of ship design are meaningless according to an expert from the Nautical Institute. He explains: "The big loophole is the lack of power to test whether these rules are being enforced. The port state is entitled to carry out spot checks on ships to make sure their safety certificates are in order; the lifeboats are all there and don't have holes in them; and that there are the necessary charts, life-jackets in the racks, and fire hoses in their reels. But they don't have the power to test whether they all work, or the crews know how to use them. I think the public has a right to be worried." He goes on to point out that the Scandinavian Star would have been built to a very high design standard. However, it is likely that neither her crew nor her safety equipment could have been checked in the Bahamas before she began carrying passengers.

Why do the shipowners do it? According to the Secretary of the National Union of Seamen, the answer is cost. He says: "The Danish owners of the ill-fated Scandinavian Star could have registered her in Denmark and employed ratings belonging to the appropriate union. These would have been properly trained in fire-fighting and lifeboat drills and been able to communicate with their officers and the passengers in the event of an emergency. The ship would have come under the rigorous scrutiny of the Danish port inspectorate.

"But the inspectors might have insisted on potentially costly modifications and the ratings would have asked for Danish wages and accompanying social benefits. Much simpler (not to mention cheaper) to register her in the Bahamas and at a stroke free the owners from such irksome restrictions. Among the survivors of this horrific tragedy there may be some ideologues who share this free-market philosophy, but I doubt it."

01. Fires sometimes occur on board ships A. because someone deliberately lights them B. when there are inadequate safety measures C. when the crew has not been trained D. because the safety measures are inadequate ............... 02. Flagging-out A. is common all over the world B. means that ships must register C. is a matter of flying the national flag D. helps poor nations export ............... 03. The Belize High Commission was surprised to have a ship registered in the country because A. they had only just started registering shipping B. it is a land-locked country, like Switzerland C. no ships operate under the Belize flag D. it was the first time forged Belize documents had been used ............... 04 When are the strict rules of shipbuilding ineffective?

A. When the crew is untrained. B. When the safety equipment does not work. C. If regulations are not enforced. D. If there are not enough lifeboats. ............... 05. Being involved in a serious accident at sea is likely to make people sceptical of A. free-market economics B. ship builders C. ship owners D. government restrictions ...............

EX4: INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Domestic waste is one thing; industrial waste is another. Industrial waste may contain such nasty things as compounds of heavy metals and dioxins and PCBS. Nobody, but nobody, wants that cancerous stuff in their own backyard. So what do you do? According to one man in the business: "It's simple - you go to Senegal, Djibouti or somewhere like Mauritania, all poor and semi-desert countries. You contact the local authorities and they take you somewhere really crazy, out in the middle of nowhere, just scorpions and snakes. You pay well, and then you start to dig your pit, some 30 metres down, all water-proof and according to the US, Swiss and EC. regulations. finally, you can start your shipments."

In Europe it costs about $500 a ton to dispose of hazardous waste; in Africa, it can cost as little as $2.50 a ton. Like the drugs rackets or the armaments business, the trade in toxic waste frequently involves a man, a telephone and a small office, registered in a country where owners do not have to be named. Payments made to African companies and individuals are sometimes bigger than the entire GNP of those countries. But those payments are not revealed. The business goes on in a sort of twilight zone between the legal and the illegal. The director of the United Nations Register of Toxic Chemicals explains: "What we have seen is the formation of middlemen, a telephone and a company registered in Liechtenstein or the Isle of Man. They know nothing of who is generating the waste, or possibly even what the waste is, but they get import permits in African countries and then go to companies in Europe who have waste to dispose of." The sums of money involved in the business are astronomical: according to a report in The Independent, an African diplomat in London said he was offered £3 million by a company dealing in toxic waste for an introduction to his country's president. A proverb from northern England says: "Where there is muck, there is money." How true!

A typical case is that of Benin. Benin signed a ten-year deal with a Gibraltar-based company to store up to one million tons of industrial waste a year from several European countries. The price was $2.50 a ton, plus local investment. When one considers that the customer will be charged one hundred times as much - $250 a ton - it is quite clear a lot of money is being made by someone, especially over ten years. In this case the company concern...