Mock exam, July 9, 2004

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Es ist wieder einmal der Vierte Juli. Für Millionen überarbeiteter und schlecht bezahlter Amerikaner ist er einer der seltenen freien Tage, die sie mit ihrer Familie verbringen können. Für die bürgerlichen Politiker ist es einmal mehr eine günstige Gelegenheit, sich in das Sternenbanner zu hüllen und schwülstige Reden über die Vorzüge von Nationalismus, Militarismus und das Gebot des "freien Unternehmertums" zu halten.

Zweifellos werden die offiziellen Feiertagsreden jeder ernstgemeinten Betrachtung dieses Gedenktages aus dem Weg gehen, der ja eigentlich an den Kampf um Freiheit erinnern sollte, wie er einst Menschen auf der ganzen Welt inspirierte.

Der Minister für innere Sicherheit, Tom Ridge, hat den Feiertag mit weiteren düsteren Warnungen und Anspielungen auf drohende Terrorangriffe eingeleitet, ohne jedoch nähere Angaben zu machen, wie, wann oder wo solche Gräueltaten zu erwarten seien.

Es soll sich bloß niemand daran erinnern, dass das Feuerwerk an diesem Tag eigentlich symbolisch für eine bewaffnete Revolution gegen Tyrannei und Kolonialismus steht. Und dennoch stellen sich 228 Jahre nach dem ersten Vierten Juli jene Fragen, die im Zentrum der damaligen Revolution standen, mit größerer Schärfe als jemals zuvor in der Landesgeschichte.  (Published July 3, 2004)

 

 

Translation a	Original
It is once again the fourth Fourth of July. For millions of overworked and badly paid Americans, it is one of the rare days off, which they can spend with their families. For civil politicians, it is once again a convenient opportunity to drape themselves with the starry banner and to make  over-the-top speeches on the advantages of nationalism, militarism and the amendment advantages of “free entrepreneurship”.   Without doubt, the official legal holiday speeches will avoid any serious concern with this day of commemoration, which should actually remind us of the struggle for freedom and how it once inspired people in all over the whole world.	The Fourth of July is once again upon us. For millions of overworked and underpaid Americans, it is one of the few occasions for a day off with their families. For the big business politicians, it is one more opportunity to wrap themselves in the Stars and Stripes and mouth speeches promoting nationalism, militarism and the virtues of “free enterprise.” Inevitably, the official holiday pronouncements will omit any serious consideration of what this day commemorates: a struggle for freedom that once inspired peoples throughout the world.
The Homeland Security SecretaryMinister of Interior Security, Tom Ridge, introduced the legal holiday with further dark warnings and allusions to the threat of terrorist attacks but without giving further details of how, when and or where such horrible deeds were to be expected.	Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has ushered in the holiday with another set of vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, with no information as to how, when or where such atrocities might occur.
No one is supposed to remember that the fireworks on this day are actually a symbol of an armed revolution against tyranny and colonialism. And nNevertheless, 228 years after the first fourth of July, these questions, which were at the center of the then revolution then, are asked with greater sharpness than ever before in the history of the country.	No one is urged to dwell on the fact that the day’s fireworks displays are symbolic of an armed revolution against tyranny and colonialism. Yet, 228 years after the first July 4th, the issues arising from that revolution are posed more sharply than at any time in the country’s history.

 

Translation b	Original
Once again it is the fourth of July. For millions of overworked and badly paid Americans it is one of the few holidays that they can spend with their family. For local  politicians it is one more time aanother good opportunity to wrap themselves up in a bannerthe flag and to hold greasy slimy speeches about the advantages of nationalism, militarism and the amendment of independent worker??.   Without any doubt, the official speeches will have a lack of any serious view on of this national holiday, which is supposed to remember remind us of the struggle for freedom, how it once inspired people in all over the whole world.	The Fourth of July is once again upon us. For millions of overworked and underpaid Americans, it is one of the few occasions for a day off with their families. For the big business politicians, it is one more opportunity to wrap themselves in the Stars and Stripes and mouth speeches promoting nationalism, militarism and the virtues of “free enterprise.” Inevitably, the official holiday pronouncements will omit any serious consideration of what this day commemorates: a struggle for freedom that once inspired peoples throughout the world.
The Homeland Security Secretaryminister of inner security, Tom Ridge, opened the holiday with more dark warnings and links ?? to coming terror attacks, but without making closer remarksgiving any details about how, when and or where such cruel actionshorrible events should be expected.	Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has ushered in the holiday with another set of vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, with no information as to how, when or where such atrocities might occur.
Nobody shall is supposed remember that the fireworks at on this day actually stand symbolically for an armed revolution against tyranny and colonialism. And furthermore,But 228 years after the first fourth of July, those the questions occur, which stood in at the centre of the formerthat revolution are being asked now with greater sharpness than ever before in American history.	No one is urged to dwell on the fact that the day’s fireworks displays are symbolic of an armed revolution against tyranny and colonialism. Yet, 228 years after the first July 4th, the issues arising from that revolution are posed more sharply than at any time in the country’s history.

 

Translation c	Original
It is July, 4 once again.  It is one of the rare public holidays that millions of exhausted and low low-paid Americans can spend with their family. It is an additional opportunity for civil politicians to wrap themselves in banners the flag and held hold speeches about the advantages of Nationalismnationalism, Militarism militarism and the rule virtues of “free entrepreneurship”.   Doubtless the official speeches on this public holiday will not reflect the seriousness of this memory memorial day, which should actually remember remind us of the fight for freedom that once inspired people all over the world.	The Fourth of July is once again upon us. For millions of overworked and underpaid Americans, it is one of the few occasions for a day off with their families. For the big business politicians, it is one more opportunity to wrap themselves in the Stars and Stripes and mouth speeches promoting nationalism, militarism and the virtues of “free enterprise.” Inevitably, the official holiday pronouncements will omit any serious consideration of what this day commemorates: a struggle for freedom that once inspired peoples throughout the world.
The American Security AdviserSecretary, Tom Ridge, opened up the public holiday  with more gloomy warnings and references to menacing imminent/expected terrorist attacks. But he could not say how, when or where the horrible attacks are to take place.	Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has ushered in the holiday with another set of vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, with no information as to how, when or where such atrocities might occur.
It seems like nobody should remember that the fireworks on this day symbolizes an armed Revolution revolution against tyranny and colonialism. Nevertheless, 228 years after the first July Fourth, the same worries that were at the heart of the former revolution are more keen than ever in the history of the country.	No one is urged to dwell on the fact that the day’s fireworks displays are symbolic of an armed revolution against tyranny and colonialism. Yet, 228 years after the first July 4th, the issues arising from that revolution are posed more sharply than at any time in the country’s history.

 

Essay:  Write a letter to the editor (400-600 words) agreeing or disagreeing with some point in one of the following texts (A or B).  Do not summarize or quote extensively from the text. Make sure your thesis (main point) and supporting points are clear and easy to follow.

Text A

The Olympic Test This Summer (New York Times editorial, July 7, 2004)

The Summer Olympics in Athens will be far more than a test of the athletes. The greater challenge is whether the elaborate Games can be staged safely in an age of terrorism, and whether a small nation like Greece can hold them without bungling the job or bankrupting itself in the process.

 

Athens was an unexpected winner when it was tapped in 1997 for the 2004 Games. The International Olympic Committee was clearly worried about the ability of Athens to stage the Games, and when the Greeks frittered away three years without doing much, the anxiety mounted. Only the infusion of new leadership four years ago and stronger government support brightened the outlook.

 

How well Athens is doing now is hard to say. The Games' signature architectural feature — a technologically intricate roof over the main stadium — was successfully put in place, defying predictions of failure, but other features, like a roof to shade the swimming site, have been jettisoned.

 

The most troubling issue is security, and delays in completing sports sites and transportation links are adding to the sense of vulnerability. A sophisticated security command center will not be operational until mid-July, so there may not be enough time for its surveillance systems to be completely checked and its personnel fully trained.

 

Athens, unlike Sydney and Salt Lake City, the last Olympic hosts, is no stranger to terrorism. The city is at the crossroads of a volatile region. It can be reached quickly by air from all directions, and has a long, hard-to-secure coastline. To defend against the worst, Greece is spending enormous sums — more than $1.2 billion by one recent count — on things like deploying tens of thousands of soldiers and police officers and monitoring thousands of surveillance cameras. NATO forces and antiterrorism experts from seven nations are helping in the effort.

 

The Games are already far over budget because of expanded security, last-minute construction and the high cost of transportation measures. To a large extent, Greece is using the Olympics as a prod to complete projects long contemplated but never built — just what the proponents of New York's bid for the 2012 Games hope to do. Whether that investment has been sound isn't yet clear. As was the case with Mexico City in 1968, a lot is riding on how well Athens manages the Games. If it's successful, it could pave the way for other small nations to become hosts. If Athens falls on its face, the Olympic movement may have to decide whether to limit the Games to a small number of cities with sports complexes and other structures already in place — or downsize the Games to fit the capabilities of a wider range of aspiring nations.

 

Essay c (original)

Dear Editor,

the author of the article says that the great challenge for the small nation Athens during the coming Summer Olympics will be the security matter. I agree with him on that, because since the attacks on the twin towers, we are living in a world without safety, and terrorists always choose places where they can get as much victims as possible to portray their attacks.

Terrorism has a very long history and it has always been internationally used by those feeling that their rights are violated or ignored, or by people that are oppressed as a means of  Extortion. The attacks are generally accompanied by a letter or a video message, in which terrorists give not only the reasons for their gloomy actions but also they warn for more attacks if there will be no change. This is what we are now witnessing very often since America invaded Iraq a few months ago. In fact terrorism in the most cases is a psychological game between groups that have different kind of powers. But the exercise of this power is in all cases destructive. The invader or oppressor has the military power to decide about the destiny of the oppressed people, and the oppressed people feel that the only mean by which they can protect their interests is to kill those belonging to the oppressing nations. This is the same thing going on between Israel and Palestine since 1948.

Terrorist attacks are in the most cases intended to kill masses of people and the Summer Olympics could be a good target.  Moreover most of the athletes who are going to gather there come from countries who ally with America to fight against terrorism. One of the big task of the organizing committee and of the host country for the moment is to assure those who would like to come to Athens for this occasion that all measures are taken, so that there will be no incident. But these measures could rather have a negative effect than expected on those who have the intention to go to Athens. The fact that tens of thousands of policemen and soldiers are going to be deployed in Athens can create an atmosphere of  insecurity among the population. People might feel like being on a battle field and might not trust themselves out of their house or hotels.

It is  obvious that as a small nation Greece needs international support to create a sophisticated security system. But this is and can never be a guaranty for a safe country. The attacks on the twin towers is the best example for that. Terrorists often act where nobody expects them.

To sum up, I would say that as long as those who are responsible for  terrorist attacks would not have their requirements take into consideration, we will have to leave in uncertainty.

Essay c (corrected)

Dear Editor,

the author of the article saysYou say that the great challenge for the small nation Athens of Greece during the coming Summer Olympics will be the security matter. I agree with him you on that, because since the attacks on the twin towers, we are have been living in a world without safety, and terrorists always choose places where they can get as much many victims as possible to portray their attacks. [mdm1] 

 

Terrorism has a very long history, and it has always been internationally used internationally by those feeling that their rights are being violated or ignored, or by people that are oppressed as a means of  Extortionextortion[mdm2] . The attacks are generally accompanied by a letter or a video message, in which the terrorists not only give not only the reasons for their gloomy horrible actions, but also they warn for of more attacks if there will be is no change. This is what we are now witnessing very often, and have been since America invaded Iraq a few14 months ago. In fact, terrorism in the most cases is a psychological game between groups that have different kinds of powers. But the exercise of this power is in all cases destructive. The invader or oppressor has the military power to decide aboutdetermine the destiny of the oppressed people, and the oppressed people feel that the only means by which they can protect their interests is to kill those belonging to the oppressing nations. This is the same thingwhat has been going on between Israel and Palestine since 1948.

 

Terrorist attacks are in the most cases intended to kill masses of people, and the Summer Olympics could be a good target.  Moreover, most of the athletes who are going to gather there come from countries who ally with America to fight against terrorism. One of the big tasks of the organizing committee and of the host country for the moment is to assure those who would like to come to Athens for this occasion that all possible security measures are taken, so that there will be no incident. But these measures could rather have a more negative effect than expected on those who have the intention to go to Athens. The fact that tens of thousands of policemen and soldiers are going to be deployed in Athens can create an atmosphere of  insecurity among the population. People might feel like being they were/as if they were on a battle field and might not trust themselves out of their house or hotels.

 

It is  obvious that as a small nation Greece needs international support to create a sophisticated security system. But this is and can never be a guaranty guarantee for a safe country. The attacks on the twin towers is the best example for of that. Terrorists often act where nobody expects them.

 

To sum up, I would say that as long as those who are responsible for  terrorist attacks would do not have their requirements demands taken into consideration, we will have to leave in uncertainty[mdm3] .

 

Text B

Where There's Smoke and No Fire (New York Times editorial, July 7, 2004)

The realization that smoking harms more than those doing the puffing has created a new category of law that sets smokers apart. In New York, where a pack of cigarettes can cost more than anywhere else in the nation and regulation is especially tough, smokers cannot light up in public indoor spaces. That sends them to the sidewalks outside bars and offices, where smoke-sensitive passers-by run their gantlet — although that space may shrink as jurisdictions consider creating buffer zones to keep tobacco smoke away from doors and windows. There's always the beach — except in California, where cigarettes are banned in some places as an anti-litter move, an idea that could migrate east.

 

Now the State of New York is coming up with another smoking challenge: cigarettes that can snuff themselves if smokers don't keep puffing. Beginning this week, cigarettes sold in the state are required to be "fire-safe," which means that each cigarette must be wrapped in thin paper with two bands along its length that are supposed to inhibit burning.

 

Smokers may believe that this is being done to torment them further, but the risk of fire from cigarettes is real. They are the leading cause of fatal residential fires nationwide, killing some 1,000 people every year. About a dozen other states are considering versions of the New York law.

 

The question is whether the newfangled smokes can make a difference. Even with the special safety paper, a forgotten cigarette may burn for several minutes before going out on its own. And some smokers may try to defeat the law by buying cigarettes outside the state.

 

Then there's the potential added hazard to smokers, who may take more and deeper drags to make sure that they won't have to light up again. Still, if it's a choice between further endangering the people who smoke by choice or the potential victims of fires set by cigarettes, we'd opt for the former.

 

Essay a (original)

 

How many of your friends smoke? Their smoking, however, does not only harm them but also the health of the people around them, the so-called passive smokers. Furthermore, cigarettes may cause a fire when people forget to extinguish them. In the New York Times article “Where There’s Smoke and No Fire”, the solution to this problem is presented: a cigarette which will go out on its own after some minutes. It was introduced in New York at the beginning of this week. Because of health risks and the danger of fire, all US states should adopt New York’s jurisdictions and prohibit smoking in indoor public places and only sell the supposedly “fire-safe” cigarette after a trial run in New York.

 

As pointed out above, research has shown that smoking endangers the health of non-smokers. Some scientists even argue that passive smoking is more dangerous than active smoking. It is particularly harmful to little children. If they are exposed to smoke, they are, for example, more likely to get respiratory diseases than children who are not passive smokes. By banning smoking from public places such as restaurants the health of children and adults can be improved.

 

It could even protect smokers, of course against their own will. For the ban would automatically reduce the number of cigarettes a smoker lights up when he or she is in a public indoor space to zero. Since it is improbable that smokers will keep away from all public places  because of the ban, this would also lead to a decrease in  the overall amount of smoked cigarettes. To some it could even be an incentive to quit smoking.

 

Cigarettes do not only carry  health risks but also the risk of fire. According to the article, forgotten cigarettes cause the death of about 1,000 people a year in the US through residential fires. In addition, they also set fire to many forests. Therefore a cigarette which is supposed to be  “fire-safe” because it goes out on its own after burning for several minutes would lower the number of residential and forest fires. Before restricting so-called normal cigarettes in all states, a trial run in New York should be made in order to observe the effects of these new cigarettes.  

 

As my arguments show, all states should adopt the New York regulations thus prohibiting smoking in public indoor places and banning cigarettes which are not “fire-safe”. By introducing these laws, one has to keep in mind, though, that smokers are part of American society and should not be excluded from it just because they light up a cigarette once in a while. Nevertheless, non-smokers should be able to decide whether they want to be exposed to smoke or not. 

 

Essay a (corrected)

 

How many of your friends smoke? [mdm4] Their smoking, however[mdm5] , does not only harm them but also the health of the people around them, the so-called passive smokers. Furthermore, cigarettes may cause a fire when people forget to extinguish them. In the New York Times article “Where There’s Smoke and No Fire”, the solution to this problem is presented: a cigarette which will go out on its own after some minutes. It was introduced in New York at the beginning of this week. [mdm6] Because of health risks and the danger of fire, all US states should adopt New York’s jurisdictions initiative and prohibit smoking in indoor public places and only sell the supposedly “fire-safe” cigarette after a trial run in New York.

 

As pointed out above, rResearch has shown that smoking endangers the health of non-smokers. Some scientists even argue that passive smoking is more dangerous than active smoking. It is particularly harmful to little children. If they are exposed to smoke, they are, for example, more likely to get respiratory diseases than children who are not passive smokes. By banning smoking from public places such as restaurants, the health of children and adults can be improved.

 

It could even protect smokers, of course against their own will. For the ban would automatically reduce the number of cigarettes a smoker lights up when he or she is in a public indoor space to zero. Since it is improbable that smokers will keep away from all public places  because of the ban, this would also lead to a decrease in  the overall amount of smoked cigarettes[mdm7] . To some it could even be an incentive to quit smoking.

 

Cigarettes do not only carry  health risks but also the risk of fire. According to the article, forgotten cigarettes cause the death of about 1,000 people a year in the US through residential fires. In addition, they also set fire to many forests. Therefore a cigarette which is supposed to be  “fire-safe” because it goes out on its own after burning for several minutes would lower the number of residential and forest fires. Before restricting so-called normal cigarettes in all states, a trial run in New York should be made in order to observe the effects of these new cigarettes[mdm8] .  

 

As my arguments show, aAll states should adopt the New York regulations thus prohibiting smoking in public indoor places and banning cigarettes which are not “fire-safe”. By introducing these laws, one has to keep in mind, though, that smokers are part of American society and should not be excluded from it just because they light up a cigarette once in a while[mdm9] . Nevertheless, non-smokers should be able to decide whether they want to be exposed to smoke or not[mdm10] 

 

Essay b (original)

 

Everyone has tried a cigarette at least once in his or her Life. Some people smoke their whole lives, others only for a certain period. A lot of pregnant women quit smoking and do not start again after having the child. However, others just can not make it to stop smoking. They smoke instead of breakfast, after lunch, after dinner and a last cigarette in bed. And this is where the problem starts. Many fires are caused by people who fall asleep while smoking. 1,000 people every year are killed by fires caused by cigarettes. To slow down this development cigarettes are invented that snuff themselves after not puffing for a while. As it is stated in the text “the question is whether the newfangled  smokes can make a difference” (line 18).

 

This new invention will not help people to stop smoking or prevent non-smokers to start. However, this is not what the idea is about. We need to keep in mind that smokers exist in our society. The idea of self-snuffing cigarettes is not about preventing to start smoking but about preventing fires.

 

One argument needs to be taken in consideration. The invention of self-snuffing cigarettes may make people even more careless. A lot of people might use this creation as an insurance to smoke in bed or to not pay attention to their burning cigarette. But I think that people who have not smoked in bed before will not start it because of the self-snuffing effect. Some people are careless anyway and the invention tries to fight fires caused by them.

 

In former years, campaigns to make people aware of the problem have not been very successful. Of course, the change of attitudes takes starts in a person’s head but if you can not do anything against his or her way of thinking you have to take action in a different way. The invention of self-snuffing cigarettes is a good idea to prevent fires.

 

A fact that smokers will like about this newfangled cigarette is the fact that it keeps the cigarette from burning down while being busy. Many people have to get the telephone, hold a conversation or watch television while smoking and tend to forget about the burning cigarette. This invention will keep the cigarette from burning down without not being smoked. The self-snuffing cigarette does not only prevent fires but makes the cigarette also reusable.

 

The production of these kinds of cigarettes will be much more expensive. To make this special paper, which snuffs after a while, will cost more than the normal one. But the ones who have to pay for that are the consumers themselves. Furthermore, one has to consider that any action of the fire department would cost even more. To fight a fire it requires firemen, water, volunteers and so on. To pay more for some cigarettes if you can prevent a fire with it is a good investment.

 

Most of the arguments seem to support the idea of self-snuffing cigarettes. However, two aspects against it are reasonable. It might make people even more careless and it will not change people’s attitude towards smoking in bed. But all in all this invention will have rather good effects than bed ones.

 

Essay b (corrected)

 

Everyone has tried a cigarette at least once in his or her Life life. Some people smoke their whole lives, others only for a certain period. A lot of pregnant women quit smoking and do not start again after having the child. However, others just can not make itmanage to stop smoking. They smoke instead of breakfast, after lunch, after dinner and a last cigarette in bed. And this is where the problem starts. Many fires are caused by people who fall asleep while smoking. 1,000 people every year are killed by fires caused by cigarettes. To slow down this development, cigarettes are invented that snuff themselves after not puffing for a while. As it is stated in the text “the question is whether the newfangled  smokes can make a difference” (line 18).[mdm11] 

 

This new invention will not help people to stop smoking or prevent non-smokers to from starting. However, this is not what the idea is about. We need to keep in mind that smokers exist in our society. The idea of self-snuffing cigarettes is not about preventing to start smoking but about preventing fires.

 

One argument needs to be taken in consideration. The invention ofBut self-snuffing cigarettes may make people even more careless. A lot of people might use this creation as an insurance encouragement to smoke in bed or to not pay attention to their burning cigarette. But I think that people who have not smoked in bed before will not start it because of the self-snuffing effect. Some people are careless anyway and the invention tries to fight fires caused by them. [mdm12] 

 

In former years,Previous campaigns to make people aware of the problem have not been very successful. Of course, the a change of in attitudes takes starts in a person’s head, but if you can not do anything against his or her way of thinkingchange the way people think you have to take action in a different way. The invention of self-snuffing cigarettes is a good idea to prevent fires.

 

A fact that smokers will like about this newfangled [mdm13] cigarette is the fact that it keeps the cigarette from burning down while being busy[mdm14] . Many people have to gettalk on the telephone, hold a conversation or watch television while smoking and tend to forget about the burning cigarette. This invention will keep the cigarette from burning down without not being smoked. The self-snuffing cigarette does not only prevent fires but makes the cigarette also reusable.[mdm15] 

 

The production of these kinds of cigarettes will be much more expensive. To make this special paper, which snuffs after a while, will cost more than the normal one. But the ones who have to pay for that are the consumers themselves. Furthermore, one has to consider that any action of the fire department would cost even more. To fight a fire it requires firemen, water, volunteers and so on. To pay more for some cigarettes if If you can prevent a fires with these cigarettes, it is a good investment[mdm16] .

 

Most of the arguments seem to support the idea of self-snuffing cigarettes. However, two aspects against it are reasonable. It might make people even more careless and it will not change people’s attitude towards smoking in bed. But all in all, this invention will have rather good effects rather than bed bad ones.