For and-against-by-l-g-alexander

author
SIXTY STEPS TO PRECIS
POETRY AND PROSE APPRECIATION
ESSAY AND LEITER·WRITING
A FIRST BOOK IN COMPREHENSION PRECIS AND COMPOSITION
ras CARTERS OF GREENWOOD (Cineloops)
DETECTIVES FROM SCOTLAND YARD (Longman Structural Readers, Stage 1)
CAR THIEVES [Longman Structural Readers, Stage 1)
WORTH A FORTUNE [Longman Structural Readers, Stage 2)
APRIL FOOLS’ DAY [Longman Structural Readers, Stage 2)
PROFESSOR BOFFIN’S UMBRELLA (Longman Structural Readers, Stage 2)
OPERATION MASfERMIND (Longman Structural Readers, Stage 3)
QUESTION AND ANSWER: Graded Aural/Oral Exercises
READING AND WRITING ENGLISH-A First Year Programme for Children
LOOK, LISTEN AND LEARNl Sets 1-4 An Integrated Course for Children
New Concept English
Uniform with this Volume:
FIRST THINGS FIRST: An Integrated Course for Beginners
PRACTICE AND PROGRESS: An Integrated Course for Pre-Intermediate Students
DEVELOPING SKILLS: An Integrated Course for Intermediate Students
FLUENCY IN ENGLISH: An Integrated Course for Advance Students
New Concept English in two Volume edition
FIRST THINGS FIRST PART 1·2
PRACTICE AND PROGRESS PART }-2

ORAL PRACTICE BOOK
FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS OF ENGLISH
L.G.ALEXANDER
•••….•••~
LONGMAN

House, Burnt Mill, Harlow,
Essex CM20 2iE, England
and Associated Companies throughout the world
© Longman Group Ltd. 1968
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the Publishers.
First published /968
Eighteenth impression /986
ISBN 0-582-52306-0
Produced by Longman Singapore Publishers Pte Ltd
Printed in Singapore

page I
I It’s high time men ceased to regard women as second-class
citizens 6
2 World governments should conduct serious campaigns against
smoking 8
3 Television is doing irreparable harm 10
4 Any form of education other than co-education is simply
unthinkable 12
5 Camping is the ideal way of spending a holiday 14
6 New fashions in clothing are created solely for the commercial
exploitation of women 16
7 We should all grow fat and be happy 18
8 The younger generation knows best 20
9 Only strieter traffic laws can prevent accidents 22
10 Parents are too permissive with their children nowadays 24
II Advertisers perform a useful service to the community 26
12 Pop stars certainly earn their money 28
13 Vicious and dangerous sports should bebanned by law 30
14 Transistor radios should be prohibited in public places 32
15 The only thing people are interested in today is earning more
money 34
16 Compulsory military service should be abolished in all countries 36
17 Childhood is certainly not the happiest time ofyour life 38
18 Untidy people are not nice to know 40
19 The only way to travel is on foot 42
20 Examinations exert a pernicious influence on education 44
21 Books, plays and films should be censored 46
22 People should be rewarded according to ability, not according to
age and experience 48
23 The tourist trade contributes absolutely nothing to increasing
understanding between nations So
24 Only a madman would choose to live in a large modern city S2
v

opportunity in the twentieth century has not
destroyed the classsystem 54
26 No one wants to live to be a hundred 56
27 Capital punishment is the only way to deter criminals 58
28 The space race is the world’s biggest money waster 60
29 Violence can do nothing to diminish race prejudice 62
30 The most important of all human qualities is a sense of humour 64
FORTY ADDITIONAL TOPICS 66
The arguments put forward in these
essays do not necessarily reflect the
personal opinions of the author.
vi

CONVERSATION LESSON
In most advanced English courses,time is usually set aside for conver-
sation lessons.These can be the most difficult and most unrewarding
of all the lessons the teacher is called upon to conduct. The root of
the trouble is that the teacher cannot predict the course ofeach lesson.
He sets a topic and then attempts to stimulate a class discussion by
asking questions, suggesting ideas and so on. How the students will
respond depends very much on their maturity, general knowledge,
range of interests and command of English. It depends, too, on
personal factors like shyness or sociability, etc., and even on such
things as the time of day and the mood of the class. With some
classes, teachers may find that they fail to get any response at all and
are finally driven to abandon conversation lessons altogether. With
others, the conversation may always be dominated by one or two
students, while the teacher spends most ofhis time coaxing reluctant
members of the class to join in. Whatever the case, the conversation
lesson tends to be a random, unprogrammed affair over which the
teacher has little control. More often than not, time is needlessly
frittered away and nothing effective is added to the student’s know-
ledge and skill.
BASIC AIMS
This book seeks to meet most of the problems posed by the advanced
conversation lesson by providing a flexible programme which the
teacher can manipulate according to the needs of his class. The book
contains material which can be used for routine drill work with an
unresponsive class, or conversely, the teacher may use it as a source
book for ideas and vocabulary with a highly responsive class. The
basic aim behind the book is to enable the teacher to predict, to a
certain extent, the course of each lesson and to ensure that it will be
suited to the requirements of his students.
More specifically, the book provides material which can be used
for the following:
Aural/Oral Comprehension
Reading Aloud
Oral Composition
Class Discussion
FOR WHOM THE BOOK IS INTENDED
This book should be found suitable for:
1 Secondary or adult students who are preparing for the Cambridge
1

Examination. The book may be used in
addition to an advanced course like Fluency in English.
2 Secondary or adult students who are not preparing for an exami-
nation of any kind and who are attending classes mainly to improve
their command of spoken English.
3 Schools and institutes where ‘wastage’ caused by irregular atten-
dance and late starters is a problem.
ASSUMED AURAL/ORAL ABILITY
Students who have completed elementary and intermediate courses
in spoken English should have no difficulty with this book. For and
Against may be used to follow up any of the following:
Conversation Exercisesin Everyday English (Jerrom and Szkutnik)
Question and Answer (Alexander)
The Carters of Greenwood (Cineloops) Elementary and Inter-
mediate Levels (Alexander)
In any case) the following skills have been assumed:
I The ability to understand English dealing with everyday subjects
and spoken at normal speed.
2 The ability to answer questions which require short or extended
answers.
3 The ability to ask questions to elicit short or extended answers.
4 The ability to use orally a large number of elementary and inter-
mediate sentence patterns.
5 The ability to reproduce orally the substance of a passage of
English (narrative and descriptive prose) after having heard it
several times and read it.
6 The ability to conduct a simple conversation on everyday subjects
(e.g, expressing preferences; polite interchange; careers; travel;
common experiences) etc.),
7 The ability to give a short talk (prepared or unprepared) lasting
up to five minutes on everyday subjects.
8 The ability to read a passage ofEnglish aloud. The student should
have a fair grasp of the rhythm of the language (stress and inton-
ation) even if he is unable to pronounce unfamiliar words
correctly.
9 The ability to read silently and understand works of fiction and
non-fiction of the level of Longmans’ Bridge Series, The
student’s passivevocabulary should be in the region of3000 words
(structural and lexical). The student should be sufficiently familiar
with a wide variety of English sentence patterns so that he can
‘get the gist’ of what he is reading even though he may not know
the meaning of individual words.
A DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIAL
Layout
ForandAgainst consists of thirty exercises each one of which is laid
2

pages. An argumentative essay always appears on the
left-hand page; and two sets of notes appear on the right-hand page.
Left-hand Pages: The Passages
Each essay is approximately 500 words in length and argues in
favour of a proposition. The passages are not academic essays; they
are lighr.informal and conversational in style. Only one side ofthe case
is presented and the argument is often deliberately provocative and
even bigoted and extremist. The intention is to motivate the students
by any means – even by making them angry – and spark off a
spontaneous debate in the classroom. The thirty essays cover a wide
range of subjects of general interest, some serious, some light-
hearted. Most of the topics have been tried out with considerable
success on mixed classes of adult students. With regard to the
subject-matter, it has been assumed that the student reads news-
papers (either in his own language or in English) and takes an interest
in topics which are frequently discussed in the papers, in magazines,
and on radio and television programmes. The passages are not
graded at all linguistically, but roughly in terms of intellectual
content, the more difficult subjects being presented in the latter part
of the book.
Right-handPages: The Notes
Each right-hand page is divided into two parts. The top half consists
of a list of numbered ‘key words’ and notes summarising the argu-
ment put forward in the essay. The lower half ofthe page consists of
‘key words’ and notes summarising the counter-argument: this
information is not derived from the essay. Brackets appear beside the
notes. These are intended to catch the student’s eye when he is
speaking impromptu from the notes. The brackets conveniently
group together the main sub-divisions in the argument and counter-
argument andmay befound useful for round-the-classexercises aswell.
Additional Topics
A list of forty additional topics appears at the end of the book.
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK
The teacher is obviously free to use the material in any way that best
suits his class. In general, it may be said that the less responsive the
class is, the more it will be necessary to adopt a fixed routine. With
highly articulate classes, the essays and notes may be referred to as
source material. Even with articulate classes, however, some teachers
prefer to adopt a fixed routine.
The ideas givenbelow should be treated as suggestions only. The
following procedure is recommended:
(a) Listening (books shut)
(b) Listening and understanding (books open)
3

shut)
(d) Reading aloud (books open)
(e) Answering mixed questions (books shut)
(f) Asking mixed questions (books shut)
(g) Oral composition (books open)
(h) Class discussion or debate (books open)
In practice, this would work as follows:
(a) Listening (books shut)
The teacher reads the passage once. The students listen only and try
to understand as much as they can at first hearing.
(b) Listening and understanding (books open)
The teacher reads the passage again, stopping at convenient points
to explain unfamiliar words and constructions. Rather than give
direct explanations, he tries to elicit as much information as possible
from the students. Explanations should be given entirely in English.
Translation into the students’ mother-tongue may, on occasion, be
used as a last resort and then only to translate lexical items, not
patterns. The teacher must ensure that the students understand the
text completely before proceeding to the next part of the lesson. The
students must, of course, read the text silently while the teacher is
going through it.
(c) Listening (books shut)
The teacher reads the passage once more. The students should now
be in a position to understand all of it.
(d) Reading aloud(books open)
Individual students are now asked to read small sections of the
passage. This is done quickly round the class.
(e) Answering mixedquestions (books shut)
The teacher asks questions about the passage to elicit short or ex-
tended answers. The questions are asked rapidly round the class.
(f) Asking mixedquestions (books shut)
The teacher may get the students to ask each other questions about
the passage, or he may choose to elicit questions in the following
manner:
Teacher: Ask me if it was printed in the papers.
Student: Was it printed in the papers?
Teacher: When …
Student: When was it printed in the papers? etc.
N.B. Iftime is short, or ifthe students are quite proficient at answer-
ing and asking questions, sections (e) and (f) may be omitted.
4

(books open)
The students may be asked to work in two ways:
I The students refer to the key words of the argument which appear
on the top half of the facing page. Individual students are asked
to reconstruct the argument, or part of the argument, by refer-
ring only to the key words. The bracketed notes will be found
useful for this purpose. At a later stage, when the students have
made some progress, they may be asked to make their own notes
of the argument and to compare them with the key words before
attempting oral reconstruction.
2 The students are then asked to refer to the key words of the
counter-argument on the lower half of the facing page. Individual
students are asked to construct the counter-argument orally by
referring only to the key words.
(h)Class discussion ordebate (books open)
The topic presented in the passage is now thrown open to the whole
classandisdiscussed. During the discussion, members of the class may
draw freely on the ideas ‘for’ and ‘against’ which are summarised in
note form. They should also, ifpossible, contribute ideas oftheir own.
Teachers may sometimes choose to conduct a full-scale debate as
this unfailingly adds spice and excitement to the lesson. One member
of class may be appointed to act as chairman and two main speakers
may be called upon to present their cases before the class participates
in the discussion. A vote may be cast at the end of the debate, though
as is usual in debates, the students should be asked to vote only on the
quality of the arguments they have heard. The way they vote need
not necessarily be consistent with their personal views.
ALLOCATION OF TIME
A conversation lesson falling into the eight distinct stages described
above may be conducted in an hour or an hour and a half, depending
on the size of the class. Ifone session a week is devoted to aural/oral
work, the material in the book will be completed in a year.
OTHER POSSIBLE USES
Though it is primarily intended for oral practice, this book may be
put to a variety of other uses. For instance, the teacher may occas-
sionally give dictation exercises, or the students may be asked to
draw on the notes to write argumentative compositions as homework.
Alternatively, the students may be asked to write a reported speech
summary ofthe class debate or discussion. Written exercises of this
kind may be found useful in consolidating aural/oral work done in the
classroom. Some teachers may also find the passages suitable for
speed reading tests.

time men ceased to regard women as
second-class citizens’
This is supposed to be an enlightened age, but you wouldn’t think so if
you could hear what the average man thinks of the average woman. Women
won their independence years ago. After a long, bitter struggle, they now
enjoy the same educational opportunities as men in most parts of the
5 world. They have proved repeatedly that they are equal and often superior
to men in almost every field. The hard-fought battle for recognition has
been won, but it is by no means over. It is men, not women who still carry
on the sex war because their attitude remains basically hostile. Even in the
most progressive societies, women continue to be regarded as second-rate
10 citizens. To hear some men talk, you’d think that women belonged to a
different species!
On the surface, the comments made by men about women’s abilities
seem light-hearted. The same tired jokes about women drivers are
repeated day in, day out. This apparent light-heartedness does not conceal
15 the real contempt that men feel for women. However much men sneer at
women, their claims to superiority are not borne out by statistics. Let’s
consider the matter of driving, for instance. We all know that women
cause far fewer accidents than men. They are too conscientious and
responsible to drive like maniacs. But this is a minor quibble. Women
20 have succeeded in any job you care to name. As politicians, soldiers,
doctors, factory-hands, university professors, farmers, company directors,
lawyers, bus-conductors, scientists and presidents of countries they have
often put men to shame. And we must remember that they frequently
succeed brilliantly in all these fields in addition to bearing and rearing
25 children.
Yet men go on maintaining the fiction that there are many jobs women
can’t do. Top-level political negotiation between countries, business and
banking are almost entirely controlled by men, who jealously guard their
so-called ‘rights’. Even in otherwise enlightened places like Switzerland
30 women haven’t even been given the vote. This situation is preposterous!
The arguments that men put forward to exclude women from these
fields are all too familiar. Women, they say, are unreliable and irrational.
They depend too little on cool reasoning and too much on intuition and
instinct to arrive at decisions. They are not even capable of thinking
35 clearly. Yet when women prove their abilities, men refuse to acknowledge
them and give them their due. So much for a man’s ability to think
clearly!
The truth is that men cling to their supremacy because of their basic
inferiority complex. They shun real competition. They know in their
40 hearts that women are superior and they are afraid of being beaten at
their own game. One ofthe most important tasks in the world is to achieve
peace between the nations. You can be sure that if women were allowed
to sit round the conference table, they would succeed brilliantly, as they
always do, where men have failed for centuries. Some things are too
45 important to be left to men I
6

words
I Supposed to be enlightened age: not really so.
2 Women won independence yean ago.
3 Long struggle: equal educational opportunities as men.
4 Proved repeatedly: equal, often superior to men in every field.
5 Battle not over: men carry on sex war; basically hostile.
6 Even in progressive societies: women second-rate citizens; different
speciesl
7 Light-hearted comments made by men: e.g, women drivers.
8 Does not conceal real contempt; but statistics disprove their claims.
9 Take driving: women: fewer accidents; responsible drivers, not
maniacs.
10 Success in any job: politicians, etc. – bear and rear children as well.
I I Men maintain fiction: women can’t do certain jobs.
I2 E.g. top-level politicalnegotiation, banking, no vote in certain countries.
13 Why? Familiar arguments: women unreliable, irrational, depend on
instinct, intuition.
14 Men refuse to acknowledge proven ability. Clear thinking?
15 Men cling to supremacy: inferiority complex.
16 Shun competition; may be beaten.
17 Most important task: world peace.
18 Success if negotiations by women; some things too important to be
done by men.
The counter-argument: key words
I Women: militant, shout louder because they have weak case.
2 Even now, they still talk like suffragettes.
3 It’s nonsense to claim that men and women are equal and have the
same abilities.
4 Women: different biological function; physically weaker; different,
not inferior, intellectually.
5 Impossible to be wives, mothers and successful career women.
6 Really are unreliable: employers can’t trust them. Not their fault:
leave jobs to get married, have children.
7 Great deal of truth in light-hearted jokes: e.g, women drivers. Women:
less practical, less mechanically-minded.
8 Most women glad to let men look after important affairs.
9 They know that bearing and rearing children are more important.
10 That’s why there are few women in politics, etc. They are not ex-
cluded; they exclude themselves.
II Anyway, we live in woman-dominated societies: e.g. USA, Western
Europe.
12 Who is the real boss in the average household? Certainly not father!
13 Men are second-class citizens and women should grant them equal
statusI
7

should conduct serious
campaigns against smoking’
Ifyou smoke and you still don’t believe that there’s a definite link between
smoking and bronchial troubles, heart disease and lung cancer, then you
are certainly deceiving yourself. No one will accuse you ofhypocrisy. Let
us just say that you are suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking.
5 This needn’t make you too uncomfortable because you are in good
company. Whenever the subject of smoking and health is raised, the
goverments of most countries hear no evil, see no evil and smell no evil.
Admittedly, a few governments have taken timid measures. In Britain,
for instance, cigarette advertising has been banned on television. The
10 conscience of the nation is appeased, while the population continues to
puff its way to smoky, cancerous death.
You don’t have to look very far to find out why the official reactions to
medical findings have been so luke-warm. The answer is simply money.
Tobacco is a wonderful commodity to tax. It’s almost like a tax on our
15 dailybread. In tax revenue alone, the government of Britain collectsenough
from smokers to pay for its entire educational facilities. So while the
authorities point out ever so discreetly that smoking may, conceivably, be
harmful, it doesn’t do to shout too loudly about it.
This is surely the most short-sighted policy you could imagine. While
20 money is eagerly collected in vast sums with one hand, it is paid out in
increasingly vaster sums with the other. Enormous amounts are spent on
cancer research and on efforts to cure people suffering from the disease.
Countless valuable lives are lost. In the long run, there is no doubt that
everybody would be much better-off if smoking were banned altogether.
25 Of course, we are not ready for such drastic action. But if the govern-
ments of the world were honestly concerned about the welfare of their
peoples, you’d think they’d conduct aggressive anti-smoking campaigns.
Far from it! The tobacco industry is allowed to spend staggering sums on
advertising. Its advertising is as insidious as it is dishonest. Weare never
30 shown pictures of real smokers coughing up their lungs early in the
morning. That would never do. The advertisements always depict virile,
clean-shaven young men. They suggest it is manly to smoke, even
positively healthy! Smoking is associated with the great open-air life, with
beautiful girls, true love and togetherness. What utter nonsense!
35 For a start, governments could begin by banning all cigarette and
tobacco advertising and should then conduct anti-smoking advertising
campaigns of their own. Smoking should be banned in all public places
like theatres, cinemas and restaurants. Great efforts should be made to
inform young people especially of the dire consequences of taking up the
40 habit. A horrific warning – say, a picture of a death’s head – should be
included in every packet of cigarettes that is sold. As individuals we are
certainly weak, but if governments acted honestly and courageously, they
could protect us from ourselves.
8

words
I Definite link: smoking and bronchial troubles, heart disease, lung
cancer.
2 Governments hear, see, smell no evil.
3 A few governments: timid measures.
4 E.g. Britain: TV advertising banned; nation’s conscience appeased;
cancerous death.
5 Official reactions to medical findings: luke-warm.
6 Tobacco: source of revenue. E.g. Britain: tobacco tax pays for educa-
tion.
7 A short-sighted policy.
8 Enormous sums spent fighting the disease; lives lost.
9 Smoking should be banned altogether.
·10 We are not ready for such drastic action.
I I But governments, if really concerned, should conduct aggressive anti-
smoking campaigns.
12 The tobacco industry spends vast sums on advertising.
13 Advertising: insidious, dishonest.
14 Never shown pictures of real smokers coughing up lungs, only virile
young men.
15 Smoking associated with great open-air life, beautiful girls, together-
ness. Nonsense!
16 All advertising should be banned; anti-smoking campaign conducted.
17 Smoking should be banned in public places.
18 Young people should be warned, dire consequences.
19 Warning, death’s head, included in every packet•
.20 Governments should protect us from ourselves.
The counter-argument: key words
1 There are still scientists who doubt smoking/cancer link.
2 People who don’t smoke should keep quiet.
3 Smoking brings many psychological benefits:
4 Relieves stresses of everyday life: provides constant consolation.
5 E.g. we smoke when taking exams, worried, bereaved, etc.
6 Associated with good living; social contacts made easier.
7 Smoking is very enjoyable: relaxing, e.g, with a cup of coffee; after a
meal, etc.
8 It’s absurd to suggest we ban it after so many hundreds of years.
9 Enormous interests involved: governments, tobacco growers, tobacco
industries, retail businesses.
10 Tax apart, important source of income to many countries: e.g. USA,
Rhodesia, Greece, Turkey.
I I People should be free to decide, not bullied by governments; banning
is undemocratic.
12 The tobacco industry spends vast sums on medical research.
13 Improved filters have resulted; e.g. Columbia University.
14 Now possible to smoke and enjoy it without danger.
9

doing irreparable harm’
‘Yes,but what did we use to dobefore there was television?’ How often we
hear statements like this! Television hasn’t been with us all that long, but
we are already beginning to forget what the world was like without it.
Before we admitted the one-eyed monster into our homes, we never found
S it difficult to occupy our spare time. We used to enjoy civilised pleasures.
For instance, we used to have hobbies, we used to entertain our friends and
be entertained by them, we used to go outside for our amusements to
theatres, cinemas, restaurants and sporting events. We even used to read
books and listen to music and broadcast talks occasionally. All that belongs
10 to the past. Now all our free time is regulated by the ‘goggle box’. We rush
home or gulp down our meals to be in time for this or that programme.
We have even given up sitting at table and having a leisurely evening meal,
exchanging the news of the day. A sandwich and a glass of beer will do-
anything, providing it doesn’t interfere with the programme. The monster
I S demands and obtains absolute silence and attention. Ifany member ofthe
family dares to open his mouth during a programme, he is quickly silenced.
Whole generations are growing up addicted to the telly. Food is left
uneaten, homework undone and sleep is lost. The telly is a universal
pacifier. It is now standard practice for mother to keep the children quiet
20 by putting them in the living-room and turning on the set. It doesn’t
matter that the children will watch rubbishy commercials or spectacles of
sadism and violence – so long as they are quiet.
There is a limit to the amount of creative talent available in the world.
Every day, television consumes vast quantities of creative work. That is
2 S why most ofthe programmes are so bad: it is impossible to keep pace with
the demand and maintain high standards as well. When millions watch the
same programmes, the whole world becomes a village, and society is
reduced to the conditions which obtain in pre-literate communities. We
become utterly dependent on the two most primitive media of communi-
30 cation: pictures and the spoken word.
Television encourages passive enjoyment. We become content with
second-hand experiences. It is so easy to sit in our armchairs watching
others working. Little by little, television cuts us off from the real world.
We get so lazy, we choose to spend a fine day in semi-darkness, glued to
3S our sets, rather than go out into the world itself. Television may be a
splendid medium of communication, but it prevents us from communi-
cating with each other. We only become aware how totally irrelevant
television is to real living when we spend a holiday by the sea or in the
mountains, far away from civilisation. In quiet, natural surroundings, we
40 quickly discover how little we miss the hypnotic tyranny of King Telly.
10

words
1 Beginning to forget what we did before television.
2 Always occupied our spare time; enjoyed civilised pleasures.
3 E.g. hobbies, entertaining, outside amusements: theatres, etc.
4 Even used to read books, listen to music, broadcast talks.
5 Free time now regulated by television.
6 Rush home, gulp food; sandwich, glass of beer.
7 Monster demands: absolute silence and attention; daren’t open your
mouth.
8 Whole generations growing up addicted; neglect other things.
9 Universal pacifier: mother and children.
10 Children exposed to rubbishy commercials, violence, etc.
II Limit to creative talent available.
12 Therefore many bad programmes; can’t keep pace with demand.
13 World becomes a village; pre-literate society; dependent on pictures
and words.
14 Passive enjoyment; second-hand experiences; sit in armchairs, others
working.
15 Cut off from real world.
16 Become lazy, glued to sets instead of going out.
17 Television totally irrelevant to real living.
18 E.g. holiday, natural surroundings; never miss hypnotic tyranny.
The counter-argument: key words
Nobody imposes TV on you. If you don’t like it, don’t buy a set – or
switch off!
2 We are free to enjoy ‘civilised pleasures’ and still do.
3 Only when there is lack of moderation can TV be bad – true for all
things.
4 People sometimes feel guilty watching TV; absurd idea.
5 If you boast you don’t watch TV, it’s like boasting you don’t read
books.
6 Must watch to be well-informed.
7 Considerable variety ufprogrammes; can select what we want to see.
8 Continuous cheap source of information and entertainment.
9 Enormous possibilities for education: e.g. close-circuit TV – surgery.
10 Schools broadcasts; educating adult illiterates; specialised subjects:
e.g. language teaching.
I I Education in broadest sense: ideals of democracy; political argument,
etc.
12 Provides outlet for creative talents.
13 Many playwrights, actors, etc., emerged from TV.
14 Vast potential still waiting to be exploited: colour TV; world network:
communication via satellite.
15 TV is a unifying force in the world.
II

of education other than co-education is
simply unthinkable’
Imagine being asked to spend twelve or so years of your life in a society
which consisted only of members of your own sex. How would you react?
Unless there was something definitely wrong with you, you wouldn’t be
too happy about it, to say the least. It is all the more surprising therefore
5 that so many parents in the world choose to impose such abnormal
conditions on their children – conditions which they themselves wouldn’t
put up with for one minute!
Any discussion of this topic is bound to question the aims of education.
Stuffing children’s heads full of knowledge is far from being foremost
10 among them. One ofthe chief aims of education is to equip future citizens
with all they require to take their place in adult society. Now adult society
is made up of men and women, so how can a segregated school possibly
offer the right sort of preparation for it? Anyone entering adult society
after years of segregation can only be in for a shock.
15 A co-educational school offers children nothing less than a true version
of society in miniature. Boys and girls are given the opportunity to get to
know each other, to learn to live together from their earliest years. They
are put in a position where they can compare themselves with each other
in terms of academic ability, athletic achievement and many of the extra-
20 curricular activities which are part of school life. What a practical advantage
it is (to give just a small example) to be able to put on a school play in
which the male parts will be taken by boys and the female parts by girls!
What nonsense co-education makes of the argument that boys are cleverer
than girls or vice-versa. When segregated, boys and girls are made to feel
25 that they are a race apart. Rivalry between the sexes is fostered. In a co-
educational school, everything falls into its proper place.
But perhaps the greatest contribution of co-education is the healthy
attitude to life it encourages. Boys don’t grow up believing that women are
mysterious creatures – airy goddesses, more like book-illustrations to a
30 fairy-tale, than human beings. Girls don’t grow up imagining that men are
romantic heroes. Years of living together at school dispel illusions of this
kind. There are no goddesses with freckles, pigtails, piercing voices and
inky fingers. There are no romantic heroes with knobbly knees, dirty
fingernails and unkempt hair. The awkward stage of adolescence brings
35 into sharp focus some of the physical and emotional problems involved in
growing up. These can better be overcome in a co-educational environment.
Segregated schools sometimes provide the right conditions for sexual
deviation. This is hardly possible under a co-educational system. When
the time comes for the pupils to leave school, they are fully prepared to
40 enter society as well-adjusted adults. They have already had years of
experience in coping with many ofthe problems that face men and women.
12

words
I Imagine spending 12 years with members of own sex. Reactions? –
wouldn’t enjoy it.
2 Many parents impose these conditions on theit children.
3 Discussion of topic must question aims of education.
4 Not only accumulation of knowledge.
5 Equipping future citizens for adult society.
6 Segregated schools: not the right sort of preparation.
7 Co-educational school: society in miniature.
8 Boys and girls learning to live together.
9 Can compare themselves: academic and athletic abilities; school
activities.
10 Many practical advantages: e.g, school plays.
I I Boys and girls not made to feel a race apart.
12 Co-education encourages healthy attitudes to life.
13 Boys: no illusions about women: airy goddesses.
14 Girls: no illusions about men: romantic heroes.
IS No goddesses with freckles, pigtails, piercing voices, etc.
16 No romantic heroes with knobbly knees, dirty fingernails, etc.
17 Physical and emotional adolescent problems best overcome in co-
educational environment.
18 Sexual deviation hardly possible.
19 Pupils enter society as well-adjusted adults.
The counter-argument: key words
I School is not a miniature society.
2 It is highly artificial; unrelated to outside world.
3 It is a training ground: a very special society in its own right.
4 Many teachers claim better work done in segregated schools.
5 Greater achievements academically, socially, in athletics, etc.
6 Children from segregated schools have greater self-confidence when
they leave.
7 Many more practical advantages in segregated schools: e.g, admini-
stration.
8 Adolescent problems better dealt with – easier for teachers to handle.
9 Sexual deviations, greatly exaggerated.
10 No distractions – co-educational schools often lead to disastrous early
marriages.
I I Segregated schools have successfully existed for centuries: a proof of
their worth.
12 In many countries, the most famous schools are segregated.
13 Thousands of great men and women attended segregated schools: e.g,
Churchill.

the ideal way of spending a holiday’
There was a time when camping was considered to be a poor way of
spending a holiday: OK for boy scouts and hard-up students, but hardly
the thing for sophisticated, comfort-loving adults. The adults have at last
discovered that the boy scouts have really been on to a good thing all these
5 years. If you go camping, it no longer means that you will be bitten to
death by mosquitoes; have to drink brackish coffee; live on corned beef;
suffocate or freeze in a sleeping-bag; hump gargantuan weights on your
back. Camping has become the great pursuit of motorists the world over.
All the discomforts associated with it have been miraculously whisked
10 away. For a modest outlay, you can have a comfortable, insulated tent. For
a not-so-modest outlay, you can have an elaborate affair which resembles
a portable bungalow, complete with three bedrooms, a living-room, a
kitchen and a porch. The portable furniture is light and comfortable; the
gas stove brews excellent coffee or grills a tender steak; the refrigerator
15 keeps the beer and ice-cream cold; and as for a good night’s rest, well, you
literally sleep on air. What more could you want?
No wonder the great rush is on. You see, camping has so much to offer.
You enjoy absolute freedom. You have none of the headaches of advance
hotel booking or driving round and round a city at midnight looking for a
20 room. There are no cold hotel breakfasts, no surly staff to tip. For a
ludicrously small sum, you can enjoy comforts which few hotels could
provide. Modem camping sites are well equipped with hot and cold
running water and even shops and dance floors! Low-cost holidays make
camping an attractive proposition. But above all, you enjoy tremendous
25 mobility. If you don’t like a place, or if it is too crowded, you can simply
get up and go. Conversely, you can stay as long as you like. You’re the
boss.
And then there’s the sheer fun of it – especially if you have a family.
Moping around a stuffy hotel room wondering what they are going to give
30 you for dinner is a tedious business. By comparison, it’s so exciting to
arrive at a camp site, put up your tent and start getting a meal ready. You
are active all the time and you are always close to nature. Imagine yourself
beside some clear stream with mountains in the background. Night is
falling, everything is peaceful – except for the delightful sound of chops
35 sizzling in the pan! Camping provides you with a real change from every-
day living. You get up earlier, go to bed earlier, develop a hearty appetite.
You have enormous opportunity to meet people of various nationalities
and to share your pleasures with them. People are so friendly when they
are relaxed. How remote the strained world of hotels seems when you are
40 camping! How cold and unfriendly the formal greetings that are exchanged
each day between the residents! For a few precious weeks in the year, you
really adopt a completely different way of life. And that’s the essence of
true recreation and real enjoyment.

words
I Camping once considered poor way of spending holiday: boy scouts j
students; no longer so.
2. No inconveniences (e.g. mosquitoes; brackish coffee; corned beef;
freeze, suffocate in sleeping-bag; hump great weights).
3 Pursuit of motorists everywhere: no discomforts.
4 Modest sum: insulated tent.
S Large sum: portable bungalow; three bedrooms, kitchen, etc.
6 Portable furniture: gas stove: coffee, steak; refrigerator: beer, ice-
cream.
. 7 Sleep on air.
8 The great rush is on; camping offers absolute freedom.
9 No advance hotel booking; driving round cities at midnight.
10 Low cost holidays; many comforts at modem sites: e.g. hot. cold
water. even dance floors!
II Great mobility: go or stay as you please.
12 Sheer fun of it: especially with family.
13 No moping round hotel rooms wondering about dinner.
14 Exciting to arrive at site, put up tent; prepare meal.
I S Always activej always close to nature.
16 Imagine clear stream; mountains; chops sizzling in pan.
17 A real change: get up early, go to bed early; hearty appetite.
18 Great opportunity to meet people; everyone relaxed, friendly.
19 Adopt completely different way of life: essence of relaxation, enjoy-
ment.
The counter-argument: key words
I Argument doesn’t mention any inconveniences.
2 What about rain. cold, mosquitoes, boring diet of fried food?
3 What about packing and re-erecting a wet tent?
4 What about vast number of things to be carried? Large car necessary.
5 Frequently setting up and disbanding house: enormously inconvenient
and tedious.
6 Most real beauty spots are inaccessible by car: everything must be
carried.
7 The real beauty spots have no amenities, not even running water.
S Camping sites are not beauty spots: primitive living conditions; like
ugly slums; each camper has little space.
9 Many official sites haven’t even primitive amenities.
10 Camping sites can be just as crowded as hotels.
II Camping is not a real holiday for the family.
12 Wife has to cook, etc., under primitive conditions; no change for her.
13 Husband must drive long distances; children get tired.
14 Even cheapest and simplest hotel provides rest and freedom from care
for everyone in the family.
IS You get what you pay for; when camping, you don’t pay much and
and don’t get much.
15

in clothing are created solely for the
commercial exploitation of women’
Whenever you see an old film, even one made as little as ten years ago, you
cannot help being struck by the appearance of the women taking part.
Their hair-styles and make-up look dated; their skirts look either too long
or too short; their general appearance is, in fact, slightly ludicrous. The
5 men taking part in the film, on the other hand, are clearly recognisable.
There is nothing about their appearance to suggest that they belong to an
entirely different age.
This illusion is created by changing fashions. Over the years, the great
rnajority of men have successfully resisted all attempts to make them change
10 their style of dress. The same cannot be said for women. Each year a few
so-called ‘top designers’ in Paris or London lay down the law and women
the whole world over rush to obey. The decrees of the designers are
unpredictable and dictatorial. This year, they decide in their arbitrary
fashion, skirts will be short and waists will be high; zips are in and buttons
15 are out. Next year the law is reversed and far from taking exception, no one
is even mildly surprised.
If women arc mercilessly exploited year after year, they have only
themselves to blame. Because they shudder at the thought of being seen in
public in clothes that arc out of fashion, they arc annually blackmailed by
20 the designers and the big stores. Clothes which have been worn only a few
times have to be discarded because of the dictates of fashion. When you
come to think of it, only a woman is capable of standing in front of a
wardrobe packed full of clothes and announcing sadly that she has nothing
to wear.
25 Changing fashions are nothing more than the deliberate creation of
waste. Many women squander vast sums of money each year to replace
clothes that have hardly been worn. Women who cannot afford to discard
clothing in this way, waste hours of their time altering the dresses they
have. Hem-lines are taken up or let down; waist-lines are taken in or let
30 out; neck-lines are lowered or raised, and so on.
No one can claim that the fashion industry contributes anything really
important to society. Fashion designers are rarely concerned with vital
things like warmth, comfort and durability. They arc only interested in
outward appearance and they take advantage of the fact that women will
35 put up with any amount of discomfort, providing they look right. There
can hardly be a man who hasn’t at some time in his life smiled at the sight
of a woman shivering in a flimsy dress on a wintry day, or delicately
picking her way through deep snow in dainty shoes.
When comparing men and women in the matter of fashion, the conclu-
40 sions to be drawn are obvious. Do the constantly changing fashions of
women’s clothes, one wonders, reflect basic qualities of fickleness and
instability? Men are too sensible to let themselves be bullied by fashion
designers. Do their unchanging styles of dress reflect basic qualities of
stability and reliability? That is for you to decide.
16

words
In old films women look odd: hair-styles, make-up, dress.
Men, dearly recognisable; don’t belong to different age.
This illusion created by changing fashions.
Most men have resisted fashion, but not women.
Top designers, Paris, London, lay down law; dictatorial.
One year, one thing; next year the reverse; no one is surprised.
Women mercilessly exploited; they are to blame.
Afraid to be seen in public in old-fashioned clothes.
Blackmailed by designers, big stores.
New clothes discarded; wardrobe full, but nothing to wear.
Changing fashions: the deliberate creation of waste.
Women waste money: throwaway new clothes. Waste time: alter hem-
lines, waist-lines, neck-lines, etc.
The fashion industry contributes nothing to society.
Designers not interested in important things: warmth, comfort,
durability.
Interested only in outward appearance.
Women put up with great discomfort: e.g, winter.
Comparing men and women: obvious conclusions to be drawn.
Women: fickle, unstable?
Men, not bullied by designers, stable, reliable? You decide.
The counter-argument: key words
Fashion adds spice to life: colour, variety, beauty.
Women follow fashions to please themselves – and men!
The world a dulI place if women always wore the same clothes.
There is no commercial exploitation: a huge demand for new styles
always exists.
Mass production makes well-designed clothes cheap, available to
everyone.
These days, men are fashion-conscious too: hair-styles, shirts, suits,
shoes, etc.
Men in drab unimaginative clothes rapidly becoming a minority.
It’s nonsense to draw conclusions about male-female characteristics
from attitudes to fashion; only a man would do that.
Changing fashion is not the deliberate creation of waste.
Enormous industry, providing employment for vast numbers: c.g,
sheep farmers, designers, textile mills, stores, etc.
Industrial research: new materials: nylon,. rayon, terylene, etc.
Huge import-export business, important to world trade.
Psychological importance of being well-dressed: confidence in one’s
appearance very important.
Fashion contributes a great deal to society.

all grow fat and be happy’
Here’s a familiar version ofthe boy-meets-girl situation. A young man has
at last plucked up courage to invite a dazzling young lady out to dinner.
She has accepted his invitation and he is overjoyed. He is determined to
take her to the best restaurant in town, even if it means that he will have
5 to live on memories and hopes during the month to come. When they get
to the restaurant, he discovers that this etherial creature is on a diet. She
mustn’t eat this and she mustn’t drink that. Oh, but ofcourse, she doesn’t
want to spoil hisenjoyment. Let him by all means eat as much fattening
food as he wants: it’s the surest way to an early grave. They spend a truly
10 memorable evening together and never see each other again.
What a miserable lot dieters are! You can always recognise them from
the sour expression on their faces. They spend most of their time turning
their noses up at food. They are forever consulting calorie charts; gazing
at themselves in mirrors; and leaping on to weighing-machines in the
15 bathroom. They spend a lifetime fighting a losing battle against spreading
hips, protruding tummies and double chins. Some wage all-out war on
FAT. Mere dieting is not enough. They exhaust themselves doing exercises,
sweating in sauna baths, being pummelled and massaged by weird machines.
The really wealthy diet-mongers pay vast sums for ‘health cures’. For two
20 weeks they can enter a ‘nature clinic’ and be starved to death for a hundred
guineas a week. Don’t think its only the middle-aged who go in for these
fads either. Many of these bright young things you see are suffering from
chronic malnutrition: they are living on nothing but air, water and the
goodwill of God.
25 .Dieters undertake to starve themselves of their own free will so why are
they so miserable? Well, for one thing, they’re always hungry. You can’t
be hungry and happy at the same time. All the horrible concoctions they
eat instead of food leave them permanently dissatisfied. ‘Wonderfood is a
complete food,’ the advertisement says. ‘Just dissolve a teaspoonful in
30 water… .’ A complete food it may be, but not quite as complete as a
juicy steak. And, of course, they’re always miserable because they feel so
guilty. Hunger just proves too much for them and in the end they lash out
and devour five huge guilt-inducing cream cakes at a sitting. And who
can blame them? At least three times a day they are exposed to ternpta-
35 tion. What utter torture it is always watching others tucking into piles of
mouth-watering food while you munch a water biscuit and sip unsweetened
lemon juice!
What’s all this self-inflicted torture for? Saintly people deprive them-
selves of food to attain a state of grace. Unsaintly people do so to attain a
40 state of misery. It will be a great day when all the dieters in the world
abandon their slimming courses; when they hold out their plates and
demand second helpings!
18

words
I Boy-meets-girl situation: young man invites young lady to dinner.
2 She accepts; he’s overjoyed; best restaurant in town.
3 She’s on a diet; doesn’t want to spoil his enjoyment.
4 Memorable evening; never see each other again.
5 Dieters: a miserable lot.
6 Sour expression on faces: always turning noses up at food.
7 Always consulting calorie charts; gazing at mirrors; weighing them-
selves.
8 Battle against: spreading hips; protruding tummies; double chins.
9 Some: all-out war on fat: exercises, sauna baths, etc.
10 The wealthy: health cures; starve for 100 guineas a week.
I I Not only middle-aged. Bright young things: malnutrition.
·12 Dieters miserable because they are always hungry.
13 Eat horrible concoctions; always dissatisfied; e.g, ‘Wonderfood’ and
juicy steak.
14 Feel guilt; hunger proves too much; eat five cream cakes.
15 Exposed to temptation three times a day.
16 Torture watching others eat; water biscuits, lemon juice.
17 Why all this torture?
18 Saints: deprive themselves: a state of grace. Others: a state of misery.
19 A great day when: dieters abandon slinuning cures; demand second
helpings.
The counter-argument: key words
I It’s a myth that all fat people are happy.
2 Dieters are usually fat people, or have tendency to get fat.
3 Obesity makes them objects of ridicule; miserable at school and as
grown-ups.
4 Overweight is bad for health: leads to heart diseases, high blood pres-
sure, etc.
5 Medical science has proved that animal fats, excessive sugar, carbo-
hydrates, etc., are harmful.
6 Fat people therefore suffer psychologically and physically.
7 People diet for a number of very good reasons:
8 The ideal human form is slim.
9 Fat men and women are unattractive to look at.
10 Ready-made clothes are hard to obtain.
I I Fat people tire easily.
12 Insurance companies charge higher premiums.
13 Overeating is common in many societies.
14 Dieting is associated with sensible living.
19

generation knows best’
Old people are always saying that the young are not what they were. The
same comment is made from generation to generation and it is always true.
It has never been truer than it is today. The young are better educated.
They have a lot more money to spend and enjoy more freedom. They grow
5 up more quickly and are not so dependent on their parents. They think
more for themselves and do not blindly accept the ideals of their elders.
Events which the older generation remembers vividly are nothing more
than past history. This is as it should be. Every new generation is different
from the one that preceded it. Today the difference is very marked indeed.
10 The old always assume that they know best for the simple reason that
they have been around a bit longer. They don’t like to feel that their values
are being questioned or threatened. And this is precisely what the young
are doing. They are questioning the assumptions of their elders and
disturbing their complacency. They take leave to doubt that the older
15 generation has created the best of all possible worlds. What they reject
more than anything is conformity. Office hours, for instance, are nothing
more than enforced slavery. Wouldn’t people work best if they were given
complete freedom and responsibility? And what about clothing? Who said
that all the men in the world should wear drab grey suits and convict
20 haircuts? If we turn our minds to more serious matters, who said that
human differences can best be solved through conventional politics or by
violent means? Why have the older generation so often used violence to
solve their problems? Why are they so unhappy and guilt-ridden in their
personal lives, so obsessed with mean ambitions and the desire to amass
25 more and more material possessions? Can anything be right with the rat-
race? Haven’t the old lost touch with all that is important in life?
These are not questions the older generation can shrug off lightly. Their
record over the past forty years or so hasn’t been exactly spotless. Tradi-
tionally, the young have turned to their elders for guidance. Today, the
30 situation might be reversed. The old – jf they are prepared to admit it –
could learn a thing or two from their children. One of the biggest lessons
they could learn is that enjoyment is not ‘sinful’. Enjoyment is a principle
one could apply to all aspects of life. It is surely not wrong to enjoy your
work and enjoy your leisure; to shed restricting inhibitions. It is surely not
35 wrong to live in the present rather than in the past or future. This emphasis
on the present is only to be expected because the young have grown up
under the shadow of the bomb: the constant threat of complete annihila-
tion. TIllS is their glorious heritage. Can we be surprised that they should
so often question the sanity of the generation that bequeathed it?
20

words
The young are not what they were: always true, generation to genera-
tion.
2 Today: the young are better educated; more money, freedom; grow up
more quickly; less dependent on parents.
3 Do not blindly accept ideals of elders.
4 Events vividly remembered by older generation: past history.
5 Every generation different; today, difference very marked.
6 The old assume they know best: more experience.
7 The young question values and assumptions; disturb elders’ com-
placency.
8 Old created best of all possible worlds?
9 The young reject conformity; regular office hours; freedom and re-
sponsibility are better.
10 Clothing: drab grey suits and convict haircuts best?
11 Serious questions: human differences best solved by conventional
politics, violent means?
12 The old: unhappy personal lives; mean ambitions; material possessions.
13 Rat-race: lost touch with important things.
14 Record of older generation past forty years, not spotless.
IS The old can learn from the young.
16 Enjoyment, not sinful: guiding principle for work and leisure; shed
inhibitions.
17 Live in the present, not the past or the future.
18 Emphasis on the present: the shadow of the bomb; annihilation.
19 The young: question sanity of generation that bequeathed it.
The counter-argument: key words
I The young do not seek responsibility: they evade it.
2 Too much money: they are spoilt.
3 Not interested in important questions; avoid involvement: e.g. major
political issues, etc.
4 Interested only in themselves: they want material possessions (cloth-
ing, cars, etc.) without working for them.
5 The young should be grateful to older generation.
6 Older generation bequeathed peace and freedom which the young
enjoy.
7 The older generation provided the young with good education, money
to spend.
8 The older generation fought in two world wars; faced real problems.
The young have had everything easy.
9 The young cling to passing fashions: clothes, pop music, etc.
10 Mass hysteria: a modern phenomenon.
11 Too much freedom, immorality; the young are shameless.
12 Appearance of many young people: disgusting: long hair; dirty,
scruffy, lazy.
13 The older generation too soft and kind with the young; a tougher
policy might work wonders.
14 The young are unadventurous; lack noble ideals; too clever by half.
15 Outlook for the world very bleak.
21

traffic laws can prevent accidents’
From the health point of view we are living in a marvellous age. We are
immunised from birth against many of the most dangerous diseases. A
large number ofonce fatal illnessescan now be cured by modem drugs and
surgery. It is almost certain that one day remedies will be found for the
5 most stubborn remaining diseases. The expectation of life has increased
enormously. But though the possibility of living a long and happy life is
greater than ever before, every day we witness the incredible slaughter of
men, women and children on the roads. Man versus the motor-ear! It is a
never-ending battle which man is losing. Thousands of people the world
10 over are killed or horribly mutilated each year and we are quietly sitting
back and letting it happen.
It has been rightly said that when a man is sitting behind a steering
wheel, his car becomes the extension of his personality. There is no doubt
that the motor-ear often brings out a man’s very worst qualities. People
15 who are normally quiet and pleasant may become unrecognisable when
they are behind a steering-wheel. They swear, they are ill-mannered and
aggressive, wilful as two-year-olds and utterly selfish. All their hidden
frustrations, disappointments and jealousies seem to be brought to the
surface by the act of driving.
20 The surprising thing is that society smiles so benignly on the motorist
and seems to condone his behaviour. Everything is done for his conveni-
ence. Cities are allowed to become almost uninhabitable because of heavy
traffic; towns are made ugly by huge ear parks; the countryside is
desecrated by road networks; and the mass annual slaughter becomes
25 nothing more than a statistic, to be conveniently forgotten.
It is high time a world code were created to reduce this senseless waste
of human life. With regard to driving, the laws of some countries are
notoriously lax and even the strictest are not strict enough. A code which
was universally accepted could only have a dramatically beneficial effect
30 on the accident rate. Here are a few examples of some of the things that
might be done. The driving test should be standardised and made far more
difficult than it is; all drivers should be made to take a test every three
years or so; the age at which young people are allowed to drive any vehicle
should be raised to at least 21; all vehicles should be put through stringent
35 annual tests for safety. Even the smallest amount of alcohol in the blood
can impair a person’s driving ability. Present drinking and driving laws
(where they exist) should be made much stricter. Maximum and minimum
speed limits should be imposed on all roads. Governments should lay down
safety specifications for manufacturers, as has been done in the USA. All
40 advertising stressing power and performance should be banned. These
measures may sound inordinately harsh, but surely nothing should be con-
sidered as too severeif it results in reducing the annual toll of human life.
After all,the world is for human beings, not motor-ears.
22

words
I Marvellous age from health point of view.
2 Immunisation from birth; cures: modem drugs, surgery.
3 Expectation of life increased.
4 But incredible slaughter on roads.
S Man versus car: man, loser.
6 Thousands killed, maimed: we let it happen.
7 Car: extension of man’s personality.
8 Brings out worst qualities: bad manners; aggression; selfishness.
9 Hidden frustrations, disappointments brought to the surface when
driving.
10 Society seems to condone motorists’ behaviour.
II Everything done for the motorists’ convenience: e.g. cines: heavy
traffic; towns: car parks; the countryside: road networks.
12 Mass slaughter: a statistic; soon forgotten.
13 World code necessary.
14 Laws vary in countries: some lax; none too strict.
IS Strict world code would have beneficial effect.
16 E.g. more difficult driving test; test drivers every three years; raise age
limit; annual safety test for vehicles; drinking and driving: stricter
laws; maximum and minimum speed limits on all roads; govern-
ment safety specifications: USA; curb advertising.
.17 Measures not too harsh if lives saved; world for people, not cars.
The counter-argument: key words
I Motor-cars are highly desirable for obvious reasons.
2 We should recognise this and adjust ourselves.
3 It’s no use complaining and attacking the motorist – most of us are
motorists.
4 It’s nonsense to say countryside desecrated, cities spoilt, etc. All part
of spread of communications.
5 The alternative is the isolated communities of the past.
6 Merely making stricter laws is not the best solution.
7 Will cost huge sums of money to enforce; perhaps not possible to en-
force.
8 Best solution: provide better road facilities.
9 E.g. world-wide network of motorways; use of computers; universal
adoption of multi-storey and underground car parks.
10 Possible introduction of small electric cars for cities in future; cars on
rails, etc.
I I Laws are already strict enough. E.g. drinking and driving laws in
Britain and other countries. Motorists – ordinary men and women –
treated as potential criminals.
12 Motorists make possible huge industry, provide employment.
13 Motorists pay vast sums to exchequer: road tax, purchase tax, oil tax,
etc.
14 Only a small proportion of money paid is used by governments to
improve road conditions.
IS If all this money were used on roads, etc., the accident problem would
be solved.
23

too permissive with their children
nowadays’
Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you
were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children
were to be seen and not heard. Freud and company did away with all that
and parents have been bewildered ever since. The child’s happiness is all-
5 important, the psychologists say, but what about the parents’ happiness?
Parents suffer constantly from fear and guilt while their children gaily
romp about pulling the place apart. A good old-fashioned spanking is out
of the question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such
barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout. Who knows
10 what deep psychological wounds you might inflict? The poor child may
never recover from the dreadful traumatic experience. So it is that parents
bend over backwards to avoid giving their children complexes which a
hundred years ago hadn’t even been heard of. Certainly a child needs love,
and a lot of it. But the excessivepermissiveness of modern parents is surely
15 doing more harm thangood.
Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents’ confidence in
their own authority. And it hasn’t taken children long to get wind of the
fact. In addition to the great modern classics on child care, there are
countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited
20 advice flying about, mum and dad just don’t know what to do any more.
In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in
charge and parents lives are regulated according to the needs of their
offspring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete
control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against
25 parents all the more violent. Ifthe young people are going to have a party,
for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely
spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey?
Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would
have us believe) and most of them survive the harmful influence of
30 extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern
household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency
in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that
little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from
school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing-line between
35 permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine indeed.
The psychologists have much to answer for. They should keep their
mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are
knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much.
At least this will help them to develop vigorous viewsof their own and give
40 them something positive to react against. Perhaps there’s some truth in
the idea that children who’ve had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood
emerge like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life.
24

words
lOne can’t defend Victorian attitude to children, but position clear
then: children seen, not heard.
2 Freud and Co. have done away with this view.
3 Psychologists: child’s happiness important. Parents’?
4 Parents: fear and guilt; spanking forbidden; barbarity.
5 Not even shouting: psychological wounds; traumatic experience.
6 Parents try to avoid giving complexes unknown 100 years ago.
7 Love, yes, but excessive permissiveness harmful.
8 Psychologists undermined parents’ confidence in authority.
9 Children aware of this.
10 Bombarded with child-care books, articles, etc., parents don’t know
what to do; do nothing.
I I Regulate lives according to children’s needs.
12 Lax authority: adolescent rebellion all the more violent.
13 E.g. parties: parents not wanted.
14 Children: hardy creatures; most survive permissiveness.
IS Many don’t: juvenile delinquency; e.g, Johnny roams streets•
.16 Dividing line, permissiveness and negligence very fine.
17 Psychologists to blame: leave parents alone.
18 If children knocked about a bit – not important.
19 Develop vigorous views, something positive to react against.
,20 Surfeit of happiness: stodgy puddings?
The counter-argument: key words
I If parents err today in bringing up children, they err on the right side.
2 There is no defence for Victorian harshness, hypocrisy, lack of under-
standing, barbarity.
3 We can only be grateful to Freud and Co.: an age of enlightenment.
4 Child-care manuals: sensible and practical; not authoritarian.
5 We know too much to be authoritarian these days.
6 Of course love is all important.
7 Love and care is not the same as permissiveness and negligence.
8 No one would defend parental laxity.
9 We are not concerned here with delinquent children, but with children
from happy home backgrounds.
10 Psychological wounds can be very real.
I I E.g. can later lead to mental illness, etc.
12 Children today: healthy in body and mind; parents really care.
13 Develop more quickly than previous generation.
14 Soon gain independence from parents.
15 Grow up to be mature, responsible adults.
25

a useful service to the
community’
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they’re always coming
in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair
for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around.
‘It’s iniquitous,’ they say, ‘that this entirely unproductive industry (if we
5 can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes
to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don’t they
stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it’s the
consumer who pays… .’
The poor old consumer! He’d have to pay a great deal more ifadvertising
10 didn’t create mass markets for products. It is precisely because ofthe heavy
advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea
ifwe think the only purpose ofadvertising is to sell goods. Another equally
important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have
about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read.
15 Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us ofthe existence
of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing-
machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding perform-
ance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this
20 claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertise-
ments these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think what a
railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements.
Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway bye-laws while
waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely-printed columns of
25 news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a
difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calami-
ties.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribu-
tion to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies
30 could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so
little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is
due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a news-
paper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn’t forget is the ‘small ads.’ which are in virtually
35 every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they
perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished
through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a
house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the
‘hatch, match and dispatch’ columns; but by far the most fascinating
40 section is the personal or ‘agony’ column. No other item in a newspaper
provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into
human nature. It’s the best advertisement for advertising there is!
26

words
I Advertisers think big, always criticised.
2 Critics resent self-promotion, vast sums spent.
3 Arguments: unproductive ‘industry’, waste of money.
4 Stop advertising and reduce price of goods; consumer pays.
5 Advertising creates mass markets, therefore goods are cheap.
6 Purpose is not only to sell goods, but to inform.
7 We get information about household goods from advertisements.
8 E.g. washing-machine: details performance, price, etc.
9 Some claim they never read advertisements: doubtfuL
10 Brighten up railway stations, newspapers.
I I Prefer blank wall, reading bye-laws, waiting for train?
I2 Prefer newspapers full of calamities?
13 Contribution to our pockets.
14 Revenue for newspapers, commercial broadcasting.
IS Cost of newspaper if we paid full price?
16 Small ads: service to community.
17 Anything can be accomplished.
18 E.g. find job, buy, sell house, announce birth, marriage, death.
19 Personal column most fascinating: insight human nature.
20 Best advertisement for advertising.
The counter-argument: key words
It’s frivolous to defend advertising because it provides cheerful reading
matter.
2 Advertisements: an insidious form of brainwashing, using same tech-
niques: slogans, catch-phrases, etc.
3 Creates demand for things we don’t need.
4 Creates acquisitive society: demand for material things.
5 Advertising is offensive: appeals to baser instincts.
6 E.g. preys on our fears, our vanity, our greed, etc.
7 We are encouraged to buy insurance (fear); buy cosmetics (vanity);
eat more than necessary (greed).
8 Advertisements unsightly: hoardings spoil countryside.
9 Cheapen the quality of life: most advertisements are in poor taste.
10 We have no choice: they are imposed on a captive audience: e.g, on
television.
I I Shocking interruption of television programmes.
12 There’s no doubt the big companies make too much profit.
13 E.g. ‘free’ gifts in soap packets; coupons in cigarette packets, etc.
14 Prices maintained high by artificial means.
IS Better and far more honest to sell in open competition on free market.
16 Good quality products don’t need to be advertised.

certainly earn their money’
Pop stars today enjoy a style of living which was once the prerogative only
of Royalty. Wherever they go, people turn out in their thousands to greet
them. The crowds go wild trying to catch a briefglimpse of their smiling,
colourfully-dressed idols. The stars are transported in their chauffeur-
5 driven Rolls-Royces, private helicopters or executive aeroplanes. They are
surrounded by a permanent entourage of managers, press-agents and
bodyguards. Photographs of them appear regularly in the press and all
their comings and goings are reported, for, like Royalty, pop stars are news.
If they enjoy many of the privileges of Royalty, they certainly share many
10 of the inconveniences as well. It is dangerous for them to make unscheduled
appearances in public. They must be constantly shielded from the adoring
crowds which idolise them. They are no longer private individuals, but
public property. The financial rewards they receive for this sacrificecannot
be calculated, for their rates of pay are astronomical.
15 And why not? Society has always rewarded its top entertainers lavishly.
The great days ofHollywood have become legendary: famous stars enjoyed
fame, wealth and adulation on an unprecedented scale. By today’s
standards, the excesses of Hollywood do not seem quite so spectacular. A
single gramophone record nowadays may earn much more in royalties than
20 the films of the past ever did. The competition for the title ‘Top of the
Pops’ is fierce, but the rewards are truly colossal.
It is only right that the stars should be paid in this way. Don’t the top
men in industry earn enormous salaries for the services they perform to
their companies and their countries? Pop stars earn vast sums in foreign
25 currency – often more than large industrial concerns – and the taxman can
only be grateful for their massive annual contributions to the exchequer.
So who would begrudge them their rewards?
It’s all very well for people in humdrum jobs to moan about the
successes and rewards of others. People who make envious remarks should
30 remember that the most famous stars represent only the tip of the iceberg.
For every famous star, there are hundreds of others struggling to earn a
living. A man working in a steady job and looking forward to a pension at
the end of it has no right to expect very high rewards. He has chosen secur-
ity and peace ofmind, so there will always be a limit to what he can earn.
35 But a man who attempts to become a star is taking enormous risks. He
knows at the outset that only a handful of competitors ever get to the very
top. He knows that years of concentrated effort may be rewarded with
complete failure. But he knows, too, that the rewards for success are very
high indeed: they are the recompense for the huge risks involved and if
40 he achieves them, he has certainly earned them. That’s the essence of
private enterprise.
28

words
I Pop stars: style of living once the prerogative only of Royalty.
2 Crowds to greet them everywhere.
3 Transported by Rolls-Royces, helicopters, executive aeroplanes.
4 Permanent entourage: managers, press agents, bodyguards.
5 Comings and goings recorded in press; pop stars are news.
6 Enjoy privileges of Royalty; share inconveniences.
7 No unscheduled appearances; must be shielded from adoring crowds.
8 Not private individuals; public property; astronomical rewards for
this sacrifice.
9 Why not? Society always rewards top entertainers.
10 E.g. the legendary days of Hollywood; stars: fame, wealth, adulation.
I I Today even greater: one gramophone record may earn more than a
film.
12 Fierce competition: Top of the Pops. Rewards colossal.
13 So they should be: compare top men in industry.
14 Foreign currency earned, often more than industrial concerns: massive
contribution to exchequer.
15 People moan, envious of successes and rewards of others.
16 Most famous stars: tip of iceberg; hundreds struggling.
17 Compare man in steady job; no big rewards: security.
18 Would-be star: great risks; few reach the top; many fail.
19 Rewards for success: very high; the essence of private enterprise.
The counter-argument: key words
I Rewards of pop stars make nonsense of sense of values in society.
2 Pop stars: a frivolous contribution to society; what they offer is wholly
unnecessary.
3 Compare essential services: e.g. a surgeon saving people’s lives: poor
rewards by comparison.
4 Pop stars style of living outrageous: so much poverty in the world.
5 Big reputations are often artificially created.
6 Demand created by ‘plugging’ records.
7 ‘Public image’ of pop stars: the work of promoters.
8 Many lack real talent, even a knowledge of music; succeed in spite of
this.
9 Pop stars exert undesirable influence in society.
10 E.g. mass hysteria among young people.
1 I Create fashions: way of life, style of dress, etc., considered as ideal.
12 Pop music often associated with sub-culture: e.g, drug-taking and
movements against the best interests of society.
13 Pop stars never use wealth and power to exert good influence.
14 Personal profit the sole motive.
29

dangerous sports should be banned by
law’
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made,
it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak
contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies
of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because
5 they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them
condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no
better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less
blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches) for instance) attract such universal
interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some
10 violence? Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The
only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were
honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing
people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated
arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago;
15 sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bear-
baiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow
hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch
two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be
20 relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing
and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the
sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports
because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast
sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match,
25 for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big
fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment
because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing
prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You
30 may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilised. For centuries
man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally –
admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight
of madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings or any of the
countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past.
35 Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social
welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts
are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come
about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably
improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The
40 law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may
exert great civilising influence. If we banned dangerous and violent
sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We
would recognise that violence is degrading and unworthy of human
beings.
30

words
. I Great technological progress; little in other respects.
2 We may despise the Romans: orgies of slaughter; entertainment
2000 years ago.
3 Are we less bloodthirsty?
4 E.g. boxing matches: spectators hope to see violence.
5 The Romans: honest enjoyment: lions eating people alive.
6 We have sophisticated arguments to defend barbaric sports.
. 7 We allow hunting, bull-fighting, boxing, car-racing.
8 ‘Sporting spirit’: sheer hypocrisy.
9 Participants take part for big rewards.
10 Spectators pay vast sums to see violence.
I I E.g. boxing matches: front page news.
12 Two rounds, not fifteen: disappointment.
.13 Spectators deprived of pleasure: prolonged torture and violence.
·14 Must ban violent sports: uncivilised,
15 Man: trying for centuries to improve spiritually, emotionally.
16 E.g. do not tolerate madmen in cages, public floggings, other barbaric
practices.
17 Improvements: prisons, social welfare, fair distribution of wealth.
18 Positive steps to change society through the law.
19 Law: instrument of social change, civilising influence.
.20 Ban sports: improve mankind; violence degrading.
The counter-argument: key words
I Who is to decide which Sports are violent and dangerous?
2 E.g. is football violent? What about unruly crowds?
3 Isn’t deep-sea diving dangerous?
4 All the sports mentioned (boxing, etc.): thrilling to watch.
5 Sports like car-racing: not violent; explore limits of human skill and
endurance.
6 Small element of violence does no harm: part of human nature.
7 Millions watch boxing matches: an emotional outlet.
8 Sports like this do good to community: help to get violence out of our
systems.
9 Barbaric practices of the past (floggings, etc.): nothing to do with
modern sports.
10 Sports have rarely been enforced or banned by law.
11 Sports evolved slowlyand are refined: e.g. boxing: bare fists and today.
12 Elements of real danger removed: e.g, boxing matches are stopped;
crashes on race tracks fairly rare.
13 There are elements of danger in all sports: that is their point.
14 Supreme tests of human skill: universal enjoyment.
31

should be prohibited in public
places’
We have all heard of the sort of person who drives fifty miles into the
country, finds some perfectly delightful beauty spot beside a quiet lake and
then spends the rest of the day cleaning his car. Compared with those
terrible fiends, the litter-bugs and noise-makers, this innocent creature
5 can only be an object of admiration. He interferes with no one’s pleasure.
Far from it: after all, cleanliness is said to be next to godliness. It is the
noise-makers who invade the quietest corners of the earth that must
surely win the prize for insensitivity. They announce their arrival with a
flourish that would put the Royal Heralds to shame. Blaring music (never
10 classical) seems to emanate mysteriously from their persons and their
possessions. Ifyou travel up the remotest reaches ofthe Amazon, surviving
attacks by crocodiles and vicious piranha, don’t be surprised if you hear
cheering crowds and a football commentary shattering the peace of the
jungle. It is only one of our friends with his little transistor radio. The
IS transistor radio, that great wonder of modem technology, often no bigger
than a matchbox, must surely be the most hideous and diabolic of all
human inventions.
People are arrested, fined, imprisoned, deported, certified as insane or
executed for being public nuisances. You can’t loiter outside a shop for
20 five minutes or sing the opening bars of Figaro in public without arousing
the suspicion ofevery policeman in the neighbourhood. But you can walk
on to a beach or into a park and let all hell loose with your little transistor
and no one will tum a hair – no one in authority, that is. Most of the people
around you will be writhing in agony, but what can they do about it? Have
25 you ever tried asking the surly owner of a transistor to turn it off? This is
what will happen ifyou do: you will either be punched on the nose for your
impertinence, or completely ignored. After that you can be sure that the
radio will be turned up louder than ever before.
Noise is one of the most unpleasant features of modern life. Who knows
30 what it invisibly contributes to irritability and stress? Governments
everywhere go to tremendous lengths to reduce noise. Traffic sounds are
carefully measured in decibels; levelsof tolerance are recorded and statistics
produced to provide the basis for future legislation. Elaborate and
expensive tests are conducted to find out our reactions to supersonic bangs.
35 This is all very commendable, but surely the interest in our welfare is
misplaced. People adjusted to the more obvious sources of noise ages ago.
It is the less obvious sources that need attention. And the transistor radio
is foremost among them. It is impossible to adjust to the transistor radio
because the noise it produces is never the same: it can beanything from a
40 brass band to a news commentary. Being inconsiderate is not a crime. But
interfering with other people’s pleasure certainly should be. It is ridiculous
that the law should go on allowing this indecent assault on our ears.

words
I A person drives fifty miles: beauty spot beside lake; spends day clean-
ing car.
2 An innocent creature compared with litter-bugs, noise-makers; inter-
feres with no one’s pleasure.
3 Noise-makers invade quietest corners of earth: win prize for insensi-
tivity.
4 Announce arrival noisily: blaring music emanates from them.
5 Go up Amazon, survive crocodiles, piranha: hear cheering crowds,
football commentary; transistor.
6 One of the great wonders of technology: most hideous, diabolic of
human inventions.
7 People fined, imprisoned, etc., as public nuisances.
8 If you loiter outside shop, sing in public, attract policemen in neigh-
bourhood.
9 But walk on beach transistor blaring, no one in authority notices.
10 Most people writhing in agony, can’t do anything about it.
II Ever asked owner to turn off transistor?
12 Either punched on nose or ignored; radio louder than before.
13 Noise: one of the most unpleasant features of modern life.
14 Contributes invisibly to irritability, stress.
15 Governments try to reduce noise.
16 Traffic sounds measured, decibels; levels tolerance recorded; statistics,
basis legislation; elaborate tests: supersonic bangs.
17 Interest misplaced; people adjusted long ago.
18 Less obvious source needs attention: transistor radio; people can’t
adjust; noise varies.
19 Should be a crime to interfere with others’ pleasure.
The counter-argument: key words
You can’t call music, etc., ‘noise’! Can’t compare it with cars, planes,
etc.
2 Transistor owners perform a public service: share their pleasure.
3 Everyone enjoys sport, music, etc.
4 E.g. see how crowd collects round a transistor to hear a match com-
mentary on beach.
5 Pleasant background music; no worse than music in restaurant.
6 Can’t prohibit transistors legally, restrict human freedom.
7 Everyone has the right to listen to the radio.
8 If you prohibit transistors, you must ban other things too.
9 E.g. windows must be kept shut when radio is playing loudly.
10 Car radios must not play when a vehicle is stationary.
I I Open-air performances of music (brass bands, etc.) must be prohibited.
12 Open-air speeches, etc., must be prohibited.
13 Clearly this would be absurd legislation.
14 Who is trying to interfere with others’ pleasure: those who want to
prohibit transistors j
33

thing people are interested in today is
earning more money’
Once upon a time there lived a beautiful young woman and a handsome
young man. They were very poor, but as they were deeply in love, they
wanted to get married. The young people’s parents shook their heads.
‘You can’t get married yet,’ they said. ‘Wait till you get a good job with
5 good prospects.’ So the young people waited until they found good jobs
with good prospects and they were able to get married. They were still
poor, of course. They didn’t have a house to live in or any furniture, but
that didn’t matter. The young man had a good job with good prospects, so
large organisations lent him the money he needed to buy a house, some
10 furniture, all the latest electrical appliances and a car. The couple lived
happily ever after paying off debts for the rest of their lives. And so ends
another modern romantic fable.
We live in a materialistic society and are trained from our earliest years
to be acquisitive. Our possessions, ‘mine’ and ‘yours’ are clearly labelled
15 from early childhood. When we grow old enough to earn a living, it does
not surprise us to discover that success is measured in terms of the money
you earn. We spend the whole ofour lives keeping up with our neighbours,
the Joneses. If we buy a new television set, Jones is bound to buy a bigger
and better one. Ifwe buy a new car, we can be sure that Jones will go one
20 better and get two new cars: one for his wife and one for himself. The most
amusing thing about this game is that the Joneses and all the neighbours
who are struggling frantically to keep up with them are spending borrowed
money kindly provided, at a suitable rate of interest, of course, by friendly
banks, insurance companies, etc. .
25 It is not only in affluent societies that people are obsessed with the idea
of making more money. Consumer goods are desirable everywhere and
modern industry deliberately sets out to create new markets. Gone are the
days when industrial goods were made to last forever. The wheels of
industry must be kept turning. ‘Built-in obsolescence’ provides the means:
30 goods are made to be discarded. Cars get tinnier and tinnier. You no
sooner acquire this year’s model than you are thinking about its replace-
ment.
This materialistic outlook has seriously influenced education. Fewer and
fewer young people these days acquire knowledge only for its own sake.
35 Every course ofstudies must lead somewhere: i.e, to a bigger wage packet.
The demand for skilled personnel far exceeds the supply and big companies
compete with each other to recruit students before they have completed
their studies. Tempting salaries and ‘fringe benefits’ m.:e offered to them.
Recruiting tactics of this kind have led to the ‘brain drain’, the process by
40 which highly skilled people offer their services to the highest bidder. The
wealthier nations deprive their poorer neighbours of their most able
citizens. While Mammon is worshipped as never before, the rich get
richer and the poor, poorer.

words
1 Once upon a time: young woman, young man; poor, in love.
2 Parents objected to marriage: good job, good prospects first.
3 Young people complied: could get married.
4 Still poor: borrowed money for house, furniture, car, etc.
5 Lived happily ever after paying off debts; modem romantic fable.
6 We live in materialistic society; trained to be acquisitive.
7 ‘Mine’, ‘yours’ concepts from early childhood.
8 Success measured by money.
9 Keeping up with the [oneses: e.g, new TV; new car.
10 Jones and neighbours spending borrowed money, paying interest rates.
11 Not only affluent societies want more money; consumer goods de-
sirable everywhere.
I2 Modem industry creates new markets.
13 Wheels of industry: built-in obsolescence: e.g, cars.
14 Materialism influences education.
15 No knowledge for its own sake; purpose, more money.
16 Big firms compete; recruit students: big salaries, ‘fringe benefits’.
17 Brain drain: services to highest bidder.
18 Wealthy nations deprive poorer neighbours of talented people.
19 Rich get richer; poor, poorer.
The counter-argument: key words
I Interest in earning money not a modern phenomenon, but people not
interested only in that.
2 Young people borrow money: a satisfactory arrangement: inde-
pendent of parents, can start lives.
3 The argument proves nothing: only that living standards are better.
4 People interested in living decent lives consistent with human dignity.
5 Education is not money-orientated; it’s skill-orientated; necessary be-
cause of modem technology.
6 Technology requires professionals, not amateurs.
7 Brain drain: skilled people are not always after more money but better
work facilities.
8 A marked swing away from scientific studies has been noted: return to
humanities; knowledge for its own sake.
9 Many young people not motivated by money: many reject materialistic
values.
10 Many voluntary organisations (e.g. Peace Corps): idealistic, work
without reward.
I I A marked reluctance to work long hours for money: desire to enjoy
life.
I2 Social welfare in many countries makes it unnecessary for people to
struggle for money.
13 State provides: education, medical services, etc.
14 High taxes: a disincentive.
35

dangerous sports should be banned by
law’
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made,
it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak
contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies
of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because
5 they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them
condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no
better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less
blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal
interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some
10 violence? Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The
only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were
honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing
people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated
arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago;
15 sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bear-
baiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow
hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch
two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be
20 relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing
and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the
sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports
because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast
sums ofmoney to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match,
25 for instance, is front page news. Millions ofpeople are disappointed ifa big
fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment
because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing
prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You
30 may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilised. For centuries
man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally –
admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight
of madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings or any of the
countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past.
35 Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social
welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts
are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come
about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably
improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The
40 law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may
exert great civilising influence. If we banned dangerous and violent
sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We
would recognise that violence is degrading and unworthy of human
beings.
30

words
– I Great technological progress; little in other respects.
2 We may despise the Romans: orgies of slaughter; entertainment
2000 years ago.
3 Are we less bloodthirsty?
4 E.g. boxing matches: spectators hope to see violence.
5 The Romans: honest enjoyment: lions eating people alive.
6 We have sophisticated arguments to defend barbaric sports.
7 We allow hunting, bull-fighting, boxing, car-racing.
8 ‘Sporting spirit’: sheer hypocrisy.
9 Participants take part for big rewards.
10 Spectators pay vast sums to see violence.
I I E.g. boxing matches: front page news.
12 Two rounds, not fifteen: disappointment.
,13 Spectators deprived of pleasure: prolonged torture and violence.
’14 Must ban violent sports: uncivilised.
IS Man: trying for centuries to improve spiritually, emotionally.
16 E.g. do not tolerate madmen in cages, public floggings, other barbaric
practices.
17 Improvements: prisons, social welfare, fair distribution of wealth.
18 Positive steps to change society through the law.
19 Law: instrument of social change, civilising influence.
.20 Ban sports: improve mankind; violence degrading.
The counter-argument: key words
. I Who is to decide which sports are violent and dangerous?
2 E.g. is football violent? What about unruly crowds?
3 Isn’t deep-sea diving dangerous?
4 All the sports mentioned (boxing, etc.): thrilling to watch.
5 Sports like car-racing: not violent; explore limits of human skill and
endurance.
6 Small element of violence does no harm: part of human nature.
7 Millions watch boxing matches: an emotional outlet.
8 Sports like this do good to community: help to get violence out of our
systems.
9 Barbaric practices of the past (floggings, etc.): nothing to do with
modern sports.
10 Sports have rarely been enforced or banned by law.
II Sports evolved slowly and are refined: e.g. boxing: bare fists and today.
12 Elements of real danger removed: e.g, boxing matches are stopped;
crashes on race tracks fairly rare.
13 There are elements of danger in all sports: that is their point.
14 Supreme tests of human skill: universal enjoyment.
31