Mock exam participants:  By taking the test you agree to the following:  "I swear on my honor that I have completed the translation and the essay within one continuous period of four hours (three hours for Magister-Zwischenprüfung/Vordiplom Nebenfach), with no aid except a monolingual English dictionary.  I have received no help from anyone.  I have not seen an English translation of the German text, and I have not used any sources (on the Internet or otherwise) to write my essay.  I read the article for the first time, and wrote my essay (400-600 words) about it, and completed the translation, all within a continuous four-hour period.  I understand that the essay should present an argument for or against something mentioned in the article, with a clear thesis and well-developed supporting points.  I will not summarize or quote extensively from the article, but will develop my own argument in my own words.  I understand that both the essay and the translation should be easily comprehensible to an English reader who knows no German and is unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Follow the instructions at www.mdmorrissey.com/mock.

Mock exam, May 28, 2004

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Ralph Naders einstündiges Treffen mit dem Präsidentschaftskandidaten der Demokraten John Kerry am 19. Mai dürfte all diejenigen ernüchtert haben, die den "unabhängigen" Kandidaten Nader für eine ernst zu nehmende oder grundsätzliche Alternative zum amerikanische Zweiparteiensystem halten.

Die Zusammenkunft hinter verschlossenen Türen fand auf Naders Wunsch hin in Kerrys Hauptquartier in Washington statt. Der Kandidat der Demokraten äußerte sich anschließend nur in ganz allgemeinen Wendungen über das Gespräch. Nader hingegen gab mehrere Presseinterviews, und seine Darstellung des Treffens wurde von Kerrys Mitarbeitern im Großen und Ganzen bestätigt.

Das wichtigste Thema der Wahlen 2004, der Krieg im Irak, blieb im Gespräch der beiden Kandidaten praktisch ausgeklammert. In einem Interview, das Nader der CNN-Reporterin Judy Woodruff kurz danach gewährte, erwähnte er von sich aus keinerlei Diskussion über den Krieg. Auf Woodruffs direkte Frage, ob das Thema angesprochen worden sei, antwortete Nader: "Ich sagte: Sie haben keine Ausstiegsstrategie. Er sagte, doch, die habe er."

Kerrys Berater Steve Elmendorf, der dem Treffen beigewohnt hatte, erklärte gegenüber der Presse, weder er noch die ebenfalls anwesende Wahlkampfmanagerin Mary Beth Cahill könnten sich irgendwelcher Äußerungen über den Irak entsinnen.

Translation (corrected)	Original
Ralph Nader's one- hour lasting meeting with the presidential candidate of the Democrats, John Kerry, on  May 19th have has probably brought another point of view to all those people who have thought that the ´independent` candidate Nader is a serious or a generalbasic alternative to the American party system of two top parties.	Ralph Nader’s hour-long meeting with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on May 19 should go a long way in disabusing those who harbor illusions that the “independent” presidential candidate represents a serious or principled alternative to the American two-party system.
Because of Naders`s wish, the meeting behind closed doors took place in Kerry`s main office in Washigton. Whereas afterwards the candidate of the Democrats talked only very generally about the conversation, Nader gave some moreseveral interviews to the press, and his descriptions of the meeting were a whole lot agreedgenerally confirmed by Kerry`s assistants.	The closed-door meeting was held at Nader’s request, at the headquarters of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in downtown Washington. Kerry himself would not comment on the subjects discussed, except in the most general terms. But Nader gave several press interviews afterwards and his description of the meeting was largely confirmed by Kerry’s aides.
The most important topic of the votes 2004 election, the war in Iraq, was nearly left out in the conversation of bothbetween the candidates.  In an interview, which Nader allowed the reporter of CNN reporter, Judy Woodruff, right after itthe meeting, he did not himself mention by himself any discussion about the war.  To Woodruffs direct question if the topic was spoken about, Nader answered: “ I said, you do not have any strategy to leave Iraq. He said, no, he has one.”	The most important issue in the 2004 election, the war in Iraq, went virtually without mention in the conversation between the two candidates. In an interview shortly after the meeting, with CNN’s Judy Woodruff, Nader volunteered no reference to any discussion on the war. When Woodruff directly asked him if the subject had come up, Nader responded, “I said, you have no exit strategy. He said he had one.”
Kerry`s consultant Steve Elmendorf, who was also joined at the meeting, declared to the press that weather neither he nor the campaign manager of vote competition, Mary Beth Cahill, who joined was at the meeting as well, could not remember any expressions discussion about Iraq.	Kerry adviser Steve Elmendorf, who attended the meeting, told the press that neither he nor campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill had any recollection of Iraq being discussed at all.

Essay:  Write an essay of 400-600 words (350-500 words for Sek. 1 candidates) agreeing or disagreeing with some point in ONE of the following texts.  Make sure your thesis (main point) and supporting points are clear and easy to follow, and relate to a specific point in the text.

Text 1:

May 24, 2004 (New York Times editorial)

Hustings and Pulpits

Things get sticky fast when religious leaders try to dictate public policy to their church members who hold elective office. Earlier this month, 48 Catholic members of Congress protested to ranking church officials in Washington about the "deeply hurtful" threats by some bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.

 

The fact that the protesting lawmakers are all Democrats is not insignificant, since the complaining bishops, while few in number, have attracted considerable attention by singling out Senator John Kerry, the party's likely presidential nominee. He considers himself a Catholic in good standing despite his pro-choice politicking.

 

The lawmakers, including some who are firmly anti-abortion, raised questions that show how shaky the footing becomes when religious leaders start dabbling in politics. They asked, for instance, why there is no comparable controversy over Catholic politicians who support capital punishment and the war in Iraq, despite church teachings.

 

Attempts to publicly punish Catholic politicians for pro-choice positions have so far been limited to only a few conservative clerics. The Catholic bishops are currently wrestling with the task of trying to produce recommendations for how they should relate to Catholic politicians. All this comes at a time when Catholic politicians can no longer be counted on to be passive when their clergy members speak out. On the Republican side of the aisle, Congressman Peter King, a New York Catholic, was recently incensed by a ranking Vatican official's contention that the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, with its offensive photos of sexual humiliation, was worse for America than the 9/11 attacks. "If there is anyone in the world who has no right to speak on sexual abuse, it is the Vatican," cautioned Mr. King, a supporter of the war and opponent of abortion.

 

While most American religious leaders are pleased when members of their flock undertake a life of public service, it is not surprising that they react with chagrin when those same churchgoers start voting for policies that contradict religious tenets. But any attempt to make elected leaders toe a doctrinal line when it comes to their public duties raises multiple risks. Breaching the church-state line that is so necessary to protect religious freedom is one. Figuring out when to stop is another.

 

Text 2:

May 24, 2004 (New York Times editorial)

A Call for a Gene Revolution

Few scientific developments have provoked more shouting than genetically modified foods. Plenty of people, especially in Europe, call them Frankenfoods and argue that we do not know if they cause cancer or fatal allergy. Genetically modified crops, which carry transplanted genes from other species to make them easier to grow or more nutritious, should indeed be the subject of intense debate — just not this debate.

 

Are these foods safe to eat? The evidence is overwhelming that they are, a conclusion endorsed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization last week in its 2004 annual report. The report's main contribution is that it focuses on the real problem with genetically modified crops: they are not aimed at helping the world's hungry.

 

The F.A.O.'s laudable message is that farmers in Africa struggling with a patch of millet, cowpeas or cassava — armed only with a hoe and a prayer — need crops engineered to resist drought or local pests. Agriculture is the livelihood of 70 percent of the world's poor, a population that is growing considerably, even as soil and water are becoming depleted. Billions are already malnourished because their staple crops supply few nutrients. Genetic engineering can help on both counts.

The poor need a "gene revolution" to follow the 1960's "green revolution," which helped hundreds of millions by increasing the yields of wheat, rice and other crops. But so far, there's only been a gene revolution for agribusiness. The genetically engineered food industry is controlled by a few corporations, such as Monsanto and DuPont. They have little incentive to work on crops poor people grow, or to share their licensed technology. To allow widespread research on poor-country crops, these companies must release the technology for humanitarian use.

 

Many poor countries, in addition, are suspicious of genetic engineering. The F.A.O. urges them to realize its potential and welcome engineered products. Wealthy countries must sponsor research, while critics of modified foods, especially in Europe, need to realize that their opposition is harming the developing world. They should be working not to ban these foods, but to put them in the mouths of the world's hungry.

 

Essay

 

In the article the pros and cons of genetically modified foods are considered. Especially the expectations about reducing famine are mentioned. Instead of a ´gene revolution` for concerned hungry people, as it is called in the article, genetic researches are not made for poor countries. It is also said that critics of genetically modified foods should consider that developing countries could profit from it. 

 

All things have two sides. There will always be the fight between research and moral. And in my opinion, using genetically modified nutritions is a question of moral. We have to answer the question in general weather we want to play god and weather we want to manipulate genetic material. Because, for me for example it is also the same with human genetic material.

 

Of course, I do understand the hopes and expectations about stopping famine and malnutrition. It probably sounds hard to people who are concerned but I think that we have to find different solutions for these problems! Interference in natural plans is an action of which results we cannot recognize nowadays. 

 

Solutions must be found in economy, bargain and policy and of course in behaviour and awareness of people in wealthy countries. Taking people of third-world countries seriously and integrating them in all economical actions instead of exploiting them would be better than finding dangerous recipes against famine. 

 

Furthermore, we have to ask ourselves why we do need genetically manipulated food in European countries and if there are no other solutions for the problems we expect to extinguish with these manipulations. In the article it is mentioned that they make plants easier to grow. I think, it is also used to make plants becoming more resistant against pests. Against this background one solution could be doing something against monoculture and trying to stop pests by natural possibilities.

 

Even if the United nations Food and Agriculture Organization found out that it is safe food the definite results referring to the safety of it cannot be proofed today. That is why even poor countries are suspicious.  You also have to consider that in European countries genetic food needs a signification whereas in poor countries, as I can imagine, will not be those significations and probably the hungry people would not care about them. 

 

To sum it up, I am against all use of genetically modified foods, even if world problems could maybe be solved by it, because new world problems could be made this way.

 

Essay (corrected)

 

In the article the pros and cons of genetically modified foods are considered. Especially the The expectations about reducing famine, especially, are mentioned. Instead of a ´gene revolution` for concerned hungry people, as it is called in the article, genetic researches are is not made done for poor countries. It is also said that critics of genetically modified foods should consider that developing countries could profit from itthem[mdm1] . 

 

All things have two sides. There will always be the a fight between researcherd and moral. ists? And But in my opinion, using genetically modified nutritions is a question of morality. We have to answer the general question in general wheather we want to manipulate genetic material and play god and weather we want to manipulate genetic material. Because, for me for example iIt is also the same with human genetic material.

 

Of course, I do understand the hopes and expectations about stopping malnutrition and famine and malnutrition. It probably sounds hard to people who are concerned affected?, but I think that we have to find different solutions for these problems! . Interference in natural plans processes is an action of whichsomething whose results we cannot recognize nowadayspredict. 

 

Solutions must be found in economy, bargain and policy and of course in behaviour and awareness of people in wealthy countries. [mdm2] Taking people of third-world countries seriously and integrating them in all economical actions instead of exploiting them would be better than finding dangerous recipes against famine[mdm3] . 

 

Furthermore, we have to ask ourselves why we do need genetically manipulated food in European countries and if there are no other solutions for the problems we expect to extinguish with these manipulations. In the article it is mentioned that they make plants easier to grow. I think, it is also used to make plants becoming more resistant against pests. Against this background one solution could be doing something against monoculture and trying to stop pests by natural possibilities.

 

Even if the United Nnations Food and Agriculture Organization found outhas declared that it is genetically modified food issafe, food the definite results referring to the safety of it cannot be proofed todaythis has not been proved. That is why even poor countries are suspicious.  You also have to consider that in European countries genetically modified food (GMF) needs a significationhas to be clearly labeled, whereas in poor other countries, as I can imagine, will not be those significations and probably the hungry people would not care about them this might not be the case[mdm4] . 

 

To sum it up, I am against all use of genetically modified foods, even if some of the world's problems could maybemight be solved by itthem, because new world problems could be made this waythey might create new problems[mdm5] .