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, June 18, 2004

There are seven exams here (a-g).

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Auch wenn US-Präsident Bush die neue irakische Interimsregierung als "einen weiteren Schritt in Richtung Demokratie" bezeichnet hat, zeigt der Ablauf ihrer Einsetzung doch überdeutlich, dass es sich bei dieser Behauptung um eine Täuschung handelt. Der neue irakische Präsident, die Vizepräsidenten und Minister wurden allesamt hinter verschlossenen Türen vom amerikanischen Statthalter im Irak Paul Bremer ausgesucht. Bei dieser Aufgabe stand ihm der UN-Sondergesandte Lakhdar Brahimi zur Seite. Beratend wirkten bei der Auswahl auch die handverlesenen Strohmänner vom Irakischen Regierungsrat mit.

Alle Neuernannten wurden aus einem kleinen Kreis von politischen Figuren, Bürokraten und Geschäftsleuten ausgewählt, die enge Verbindungen zu Bremers Provisorischer Koalitionsregierung unterhalten. Die wichtigste Qualifikation für die Ämter bestand in einer fortgesetzten Unterstützung und Verteidigung der brutalen Besatzung des Iraks unter amerikanischer Führung. Es muss kaum erwähnt werden, dass die große Mehrheit der irakischen Bevölkerung kein Wort mitzureden hatte bei der Auswahl der neuen Marionettenregierung, der am 30. Juni die "volle Souveränität" übertragen werden soll.

Translation a	Original
Although US-President Bush has called the new Iraqi interim government as “another step via to democracy,” the procedure of their installationway they were installed shows more than obviously that this statement is a delusionfalse. The new Iraqi President, the vice- Presidents presidents and the ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by Paul Bremer, the American governor in Iraq. Lakhdar Brahimi, the special representative of the UN, assisted him doing in this job. The well carefully chosen front men from the Iraqi government Government council Council cooperated consultativeacted as consultants during the selection.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the new designated leaders/officials were chosen from a little circle of political figures, bureaucrats and business people who have close connections with Bremer’s coalition Coalition provisory Provisory governmentGovernment. The most important qualification for the post consisted of the continuous continuing support and defense of the brutal occupation of the Iraq leaded by the Americans. It barely hardly has to be mentioned that the leading great majority of the Iraqi population had nothing to say about the selection of the new puppet government that shall will get the “full sovereignty” on June 30th.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation b	Original
Even if President Bush has called the new Iraqi government “a further step towards democracy”, the way it came into action being obviously implies that this statement is a deception. The American Statthalter governor Paul Bremer has appointed the new Iraqi President, and all the Vice Presidents and all the Ministers behind closed doors. For In this task he was with helped by the UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. An An Aadvisory function for this selection hadwas filled by some specially selected men from the Iraqi Governing Councilgovernment.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the people who were appointed had been selected from a small circle of political figures, bureaucrats and business men who have a close relationship with Bremer´ s provisory provisional coalition government. The most important qualification for the positions was the further support and defense of the cruel brutal occupation of Iraq under American leadership. There is not much need to mention that the majority of the Iraqi citizens did not have the opportunity to interfere participate in the matter of selecting the new marionette government, which should is supposed to get the wholefull sovereignty at on the 30th of June.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation c	Original
Even though US-President Bush called the new temporary Iraqi government “a further step towards democracy”, the way of putting it to in power clearly shows that this claim was a deception. The new Iraqi president, the vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by Paul Bremer, the American representative in Iraq. For this task, he had at his side Lakhar Brahimi, the special UN-delegate. Counseling, also the deliberatelyCarefully chosen helpers members of the Iraqi government Government council Council helped with the choice.acted as consultants.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the new-lyappointed members were chosen out of a small group of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen which has have close connections to Bremer’s preliminary Provisional coalition Coalition governmentGovernment. The most important qualification for the positions was a continuing support and defense of the brutal occupation of Iraq under an American leadership. Needless to say, the big large majority of Iraqi citizens had no say in the choice of the new “puppet” government, to whom “full sovereignty” will be transferred on June 30th.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation d	Original
Even if US President Bush called the new Iraqi interimin government a ´further step to in the direction of democracy,` the succession of hiringway it was set up/established, nevertheless, shows more than clearly that this charge is a deception. The new Iraqi President, the vice-presidents and ministers were all together chosen behind closed doors by the American governmental governor assistant in Iraq Paul Bremer. Doing In this task he was accompanied assisted by the UN special agent envoy Lahkdar Brahimi. The specially selected substitutes members of the Iraqi government Government Council, which were involved in this choice, also were lent a helping hand.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the new announced people/newly appointed people, which have tight connections to Bremer`s provisioned Provisional coalition   Coalition   governmentGovernment,  and were chosen out offrom a small group of political figures, bureaucrats and dealersbusinessmen. The most important qualification for these offices was a continuing support and defence of the brutal intervention occupation of Iraq. There is no need to mention that most of the Iraqi people were not able to take part at in the choice of the new puppet government, which will have the ´full souvereignty` on June 30	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation e	Original
Even if US President Bush called the new Iraqi temporary government as “a further step towards democracy“, the course of events shows evidently clearly that this statement is obviously a cheaterdistortion. The new Iraqi President, the Vicevice-presidents and Ministers ministers were chosen behind closed doors by the American governor in Iraq Paul Bremer. In this task, UN-special representative Lakhdar Brahimi stood by his sideassisted him. In addition, the Washington's allies of in the Iraqi senior government Governing Council contributed this selectionacted as consultants.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All new nominees were chosen out offrom a concise small group of political politiianspeople, bureaucrats and business persons, who all have close connections to Bremer’s provisional Provisional coalition Coalition governmentGovernment. The most important qualification for these positions consisted in a continuing support and defence of the brutal American occupying force in Iraq. It must hardly be mentioned that the large majority of the Iraqi people had no say in the selection of the new regime of marionettes, to which the ”full sovereignty” will be assigned on June 30.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation f	Original
Even if US president Bush has called the new Iraqi interims government “a further step towards democracy”, the course of its insertion alreadyway it was set up/established shows all too clearly that this assertions are was only illusionsa lie/falsehood. The new Iraqi president, the vice-presidents and ministers – all of them have been chosen behind closed doors by Paul Bremer, who is the American governor in Iraq. On his side stoodT the UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi who helped him, and (Washington's) to fulfil these tasks. The handpicked fronts from the Iraqi government officials gave their advices as well.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the newly chosen men have beenwere selected out offfrom a small circle of political figures, bureaucrats and business men who have strong connections to Bremer´s provisional Provisional coalition Coalition governmentGovernment. The most important qualification for the post consisted of an on-going support and defence of the cruel brutal occupying forces of in Iraq by under American leadership. It hardly has to be mentioned that the great majority of the Iraqi public have not ahad no say concerning the selection of the new marionette government, which should get the “complete sovereignty” on June 30.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation g	Original
Even if President Bush talked about the new interim government in Iraq as a step forward to a democratic system, it became obvious by the way it was constituted, that his statement was meant to deceive. The new president of Iraq, the vice presidents, and his ministers had were all been chosen behind closed doors by the American governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer. He was supported by U.S. -ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi in his work. Other advisors to assist him in making his choice were included some hand-picked puppet-c Iraqi Governing Council members of Iraq.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the newly-elected officials had beenwere chosen out offrom a small circle of political figures, bureaucrats, and businessmen, and they all had close connections to Bremer's provisional Provisional coalition Coalition governmentGovernment. The most important qualification to apply for for this office was to continue the active support of Iraq under the brutal American guidanceoccupation. It needs hardly be mentioned that the great majority of the population of Iraq did not have a voice when the puppet-government was selected, which will have the full sovereignty of Parliament on July 30.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

 

Translation h	Original
Even though US President Bush described the new Iraqi government as “a further step towards democracy”, the process of establishing the government’s establishment shows more than clearly that Bush’s claim is a lie. The new Iraqi president, the vice presidents and ministers were all secretly chosen by the American governor in Iraq, Paul Bremer. Lakhdar Brahimi, a special member envoy of the UN, helped Bremer with the decision. Some carefully chosen Secret agentsmembers of the Iraqi government acted as Bremer’s advisers.	While US President Bush immediately hailed the new Iraqi interim government installed on Tuesday as being “one step closer to democracy,” the entire process demonstrates the claim to be a sham. The new Iraqi president, vice-presidents and ministers were all chosen behind closed doors by the US proconsul in Iraq Paul Bremer III, aided and abetted by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, in consultation with Washington’s handpicked stooges from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
All the new members of the Iraq government were chosen from a small group of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen, who have close connections to Bremer’s provisional Provisional coalition Coalition governmentGovernment. The most important qualification for the positions was a continuing support and defence for of the brutal occupation of Iraq under American leadership. It is almost not necessary to mention that the vast majority of the Iraqi people were not allowed to contribute to the decision on the new puppet government, which will be given full sovereignty on June 30.	All the new appointees were selected from a limited circle of political figures, bureaucrats and businessmen who have close relations with Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The chief qualification for the job was to continue to support and defend the illegitimate and brutal US-led occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population had no say whatsoever in determining the new puppet regime, to which “full sovereignty” is due to be handed on June 30.

Text 1:

Candide's Advice

VERLYN KLINKENBORG, New York Times,  June 18, 2004

 

The most famous line in Voltaire's "Candide" is the final one: "We must cultivate our garden." That is Candide's response to the philosopher Pangloss, who tries again and again to prove that we live in the best of all possible worlds, no matter what disasters befall us. Ever since "Candide" was published in February 1759, that line has seemed to express a reluctance to get involved, an almost quietist refusal to be distracted by the grand chaos of earthly events. And that reading might make sense, if Candide hadn't already lived through a lifetime of woe. In fact, that line is the summation of Candide's wisdom, his recognition that no matter how you choose to explain the world, the garden still needs cultivating.

 

I thought of Candide the other morning at 6:15, on hands and knees in my own garden. I was transplanting tomatoes and peppers. It takes some practice getting on hands and knees at first. Not physically — that comes easily enough. The hard part is psychological. Walking through the garden, upright, I can maintain a certain aloofness. But to kneel in the straw-bedded pathways, to pluck lamb's-quarters from among the kale, is a powerful form of submission. The first time I really surrendered to my garden work this season, I remember thinking that none of this seemed very important, the weeding, the watering, the planting. It is such a tiny gesture, after all, to pull up a mallow or an oxalis before it gets away from you. Surely there were more important things to do: calls to make, books and articles and editorials to write, news to follow, beat by beat.

 

I wondered, on that first day on hands and knees, just what I was avoiding by weeding so meticulously. That's what brought "Candide" to mind. I had to reread the story to realize that Candide was avoiding nothing. What mattered was what he was facing. A vegetable garden seems like such a simple thing. The seeds lie in wait for just the right moment. With the first day of heat this past week, the corn and beans that hadn't risen suddenly rose. The beets snapped to attention.

 

Candide's most important lesson comes from a Turk who sends his fruit to be sold in Constantinople. "Work," the Turk says, "keeps us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need." But even this is too much explanation. As the garden takes on substance, it grows in imagination, too. It wakes me up at first light, when the air is still cool. I go out with a basket of seeds and a small hand-hoe, and nothing seems more important.

 

Essay b

After reading the article “Candide´ s Advice,” written by Verlyn Klinkenborg, I saw myself transplanting vegetable seeds in my garden, too. As long as I can remember, my family and I we had a little garden not far from where I live. I had my own bed with some flowers and some herbs. But after a few years we sold our little garden, and I felt a bit sad. But my grandfather had a garden, too, and he taught me how to plant flowers and how to make them grow. He had beautiful roses in his garden and every time when it came toon my birthday, he always gave me a bunch of roses. When I now see my own herbs, tomatoes and flowers, I think of him. He was the one who taught me what we call the green thumb, and in those memories he continues living.

To work in my little garden makes me happy because I like to see my plants growing. It is not only because I want to eat the tomatoes or the strawberry´ s, it is mainly because it is a kind of life that rises slowly. As we are living in a world with too much traffic, and too many buildings and highways, there is not enough space for forests or meadowsgrasslands?. Therefore, I think that everybody can should do at least a little bit in order to make our world a bit more green. I am not a greenpeace Greenpeace activist or so,. I only think that some trees, or even only some plants at home, can create a feeling of happiness. I only have a little garden, and I have to admit that it is not even a real garden. I have a few plants and flowers standing on my balcony. But nevertheless, my plants need watering and weeding. This not hard work, but it takes some time.

The quotation mentioned in the text that we must cultivate our garden probably is probably kind of a metaphor insofar as it could be transferredrefer to nature in general. I think that people who have a garden on of their own, treat nature more respectfully because they know about the hard work a garden requires.

I do not know Voltaire´ s book “Candide,” but I assume that it deals with a similar topic. A garden only seems to be a simple thing, but it is more than just a garden. It is a place of calmness and also happiness if one likes to see things growing. A garden shows that even little things can bring joy. But a garden also needs to be kept in a good condition. This is the same for nature. Nature is a present, and we have to work hard in order to keep it. The nature we have is the only one, ; we won´ t get a second one/chance.

Essay e

Re: Candidi’s "Candide’s Advice" by Verlyn Klinkenborg, New York Times, June 18, 2004

 

Dear Editor,

 

I would like to comment on the article mentioned above. [mdm1] Klinkenborg said says that although the garden needed needs weeding and watering, she thought thinks of other “important” things to do, like: making calls or following the news.

 

Have you ever experienced the feeling that you hadve really important things to do (like preparing things for your job or learning studying for an examination), but you couldn’t can't really concentrate on them main points? And iInstead, really unimportant things came come to your mind (for example, that your flowers needed watering, the carpet hoovering or the windows cleaning)?

This is one (probably out of several) strategy (probably of several) of for pushing aside your anxiety of about an “important” examination and replacing it with “unimportant” things[mdm2] .

 

I have experienced this feeling when I failed an oral examination in the other subject I study. Failing this exam was such a bad experience for me that I feared doing it again. As I only had one chance of to passing it without doing the whole course again, it took me one year until I had the courage and the motivation to fix make an appointment for the repetitiontest. Waiting for more than a year was not an advantage at all, because I had to learn all the subject matter from the beginning on again.

 

Another example of pushing asideputting off an really important task that has to be done for school or university: but you didn’t have the time to finish is when you wait it until the evening before it was is due to start working on it. That is not a good way of  to  working work, wither on a written paper or an oral topicreport. Finishing this task just at the last minute is not relaxing. Thus This way you can’t be creative any more. Moreover, you are not rich in ideasYou can't come up with good ideas under such time pressure. Consequently, you are only fulfilling your task on a basic and average levelcannot do a good job.

 

But sometimes you need a little bit of stress and pressure for your work,. But just a bit in order to get your brain going. But having too much stress or pressure prevents you from concentrating, on the main points. Aand instead makes you much more nervous than is good for you in such a situation facing soon an examination.

 

Admittedly, you sometimes can’t avoid doing your work at the last minute because during the semester you are pretty just too busy and with loads of work to do. But you have to keep in mind that last-minute work is not relaxing and no fun at all. Instead, you should plan your schedule carefully in order to have time for working wellto do your work properly.

 

Essay g

 

We all should have our garden and we should cultivate itthem. We all have different gardens. Verlyn Klinkenborg, author of the article "Candide's Advice" in the New York Times, takes it this literally. Her garden is a vegetable garden which she cultivates by weeding, planting, and watching it "taking on substance". She also cultivates the feeling[mdm3] , that nothing seems is more important for her[mdm4] . All the "grand chaos of earthly events" does not matter. Her garden puts her into emotional balance. It is her way to cope with the real world. She describes her feeling and the great experience[mdm5] . Her garden fills her, it grows in her imagination and seems to be a part of her, makes her completely happy and lets her forget the world around her.

 

Other readers of the articlemay find their balance in painting, others in taking care of friends, needy people and much more[mdm6] . But why do we need to be balanced? We are living in a world, a reality which is fragmented. Many people do not feel as "whole persons" any longer. For example, people can not see the outcome of their productwork. It is a specialised and busy world, changes happen a lot. Minds and bodies loose their balance. [mdm7] However, we can cope with it. As philosopher Pangloss said: "We live in the of all the best of all possible worlds, no matter what disaster befalls us." since the article reminds of Candide who said: " We must cultivate our garden". The author doesn't want to be overwhelmed by daily events.[mdm8] 

 

According an article of in the latest Newsweek edition, many people around the world suffer from severe depressions. Their "garden" seems to be a talk therapy. The lLife reportedly improved for those taking part to be cured. The afflicted people always believed that they had to bear their lot fate and were not alloweddid not allow themselves? to complain. Psychological worries were kept a secret. Even close relatives were not informed about a family member seeking for professional help. [mdm9] According to this article, talking does not help to prevent poverty, death, and other depressing events. However, it enabled enables people to cope with the situation and find their enough strength? balance to tackle their problems[mdm10] . These examples show that more and more people - even illiterate ones - who were are not able to read "Candide", are getting nearer their garden and they are learning to cultivate it[mdm11] .

 

Essay h

 

“Work keeps us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need[mdm12] .”

 

Even though work is one important aspect of our lives, we should always try to combine it with our social life.

 

Work and ambition are issues that can already be observed at an early stage of our lives. We spend almost one third of our lives in school or at college. Some of us study hard in order to get leading positions and well-paid jobs. Others just try to get passing grades in school and get a job that offers enough money to pay the rent and buy an old car. No matter what kind of profession we choose, we all feel proud when we first earn our first own money. This is an experience students already make have when working as baby sitters or paper boys during their holidays. You can literally see the pride in their eyes when they buy their first compact disc with their own money. The same kind of pride can be observed when adults can afford a car for a first time. These examples show how important work is. I think it is great feeling to be financially independent

 

As long as people have a financial aim, they will be motivated to keep on working. In this case, motivation keeps them from getting bored. Getting up in the morning, knowing that you are needed at work and that there is a task waiting for you, creates a feeling of contentment,. While while lying in bed, not knowing how to spend the day, makes most people unhappy or even depressed. Think of the long summer holidays during school time. Many students get bored after four weeks, because there is nothing challenging to do. Boredom leads to a feeling of uselessness. That is why a lot of unemployed people suffer from depressions.

 

I do not deny that it is important to have the feeling of being needed at work. However, I believe that nobody is happy when only focusing on work. Since the need for social contacts is a human feeling, living for work only leads to social isolation. Thinking about a problem in with your job even after work, will not solve it at all. Rather, It it is rather important to get all the/your problems out of your mind for a while. A lot of people do sports in order to clear their thoughts. Others prefer to sit in their garden and read a book. It is also advisable to talk to friends and go out with them.

 

If someone has a poor social life, a job can easily become boring. I think people should always have something to look forward to after work. This can be a visit of a friend or a going to the cinema or theatre. Not only sSuccess at work is not the only thing that creates a feeling of success, caring Caring for other people, for example, for your little niece or for your grandmother, can even also make you happierhappy. Planning a holiday trip keeps you motivated as well. People even work harder and more effectively knowing that they will be lying in the sun on an Italian beach in two weeks' time.

 

To sum up, people should always find a combination ofcompromise between their work and their social lives. This will make them feel more relaxed and balanced in all parts of their lives.

Text 2:

Sex and the Single Voter

BELLA M. DePAULO, New York Times, June 18, 2004

SUMMERLAND, Calif.

 

Want to attract single voters? Drop the underpants.

 

This should be my moment. I'm a single woman, and at last, the political world has discovered me. People in my demographic, it has been reported, stayed away from the 2000 presidential election in droves, and wow, could we have made a difference if we had shown up. The single women who did make it to the polls supported Al Gore overwhelmingly — about two-thirds voted for him, while a little less than one-third voted for George W. Bush, according to surveys.

 

In contrast, married women split their votes about evenly for Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore. But pollsters indicate that 68 percent of them showed up to vote, compared to just 52 percent of the women who were divorced, widowed, or had always been single.

 

In theory, I like where this is going. I have strong opinions about human health and well-being and about the place of America in the world, and I'm ready to voice them.

 

To appeal to me, though, the Democratic Party is offering me underwear. The panties sport slogans like "Kiss Bush Goodbye." I can pick them up at nightclubs or PantyWare parties.

 

Not to be outdone, CNN did a cute segment on "lipstick liberals." A reporter took to the streets to try out her guess about why single women do not vote more often. "Is it scary to think about politics?" she asked a young, successful, single woman.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

A pollster, Kellyanne Conway, offered her own explanation: "Women who have what we call the four magic M's — marriage, munchkins, mortgages, and mutual funds — are much more likely to vote than their unmarried, non-stake-holding, non-ownership counterparts." Ms. Conway also had a tip for single women to help them get to the polls: "Pretend it's a hair appointment we would not miss."

 

I get the message. The political players are not out to engage me in a serious discussion of the issues. As a single woman, I'm too preoccupied with lipstick, hair and underwear. They need to find a way to get me to the polls only this one time. Then, by the next presidential election, perhaps I'll be married and have a mortgage.

 

I have a different view about 2000. I don't think singles were cowering in fear of politics, or too dazzled by the whirl of their social lives, to get to the polls. I think they were singled out of a system that ignored them. In one of the debates in the 2000 election, a woman from the audience tried to focus the candidates on her demographic. "How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 24-year-old single person with no dependents?" she asked. Neither candidate acknowledged that she was one of millions of single voters. Neither promised to fight for the votes of single people. Mr. Bush had the facts on his side; the questioner would keep more of her money under his plan rather than under Mr. Gore's. But Mr. Bush did not mention that. He did, though, describe the great prescription drug plan she would get under Medicare.

 

Singles are getting another message this year. No matter how many thousands of lives you may have saved with your lifelong, relentless advocacy for safer cars and workplaces, and purer food and water; no matter how doggedly you have pursued the causes of government and corporate accountability, and inspired countless others to do the same, you can still be dismissed as immature and irresponsible if you are not married.

 

Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC program "Hardball," captured that sentiment when he said this to Ralph Nader about the current president: "He's raised two daughters; he's had a happy marriage. You've never been married. Isn't he more mature in his lifestyle than you are?" The unmarried Mr. Nader, Mr. Matthews said, lives "a life that's about as responsible as what's on the movies tonight."

 

So what's a candidate to do? Here are four suggestions.

 

1. Hit the books. Learn about the real place of singles in contemporary American society. Singles account for more than 40 percent of the electorate and work force. Households consisting of two parents and their children are slightly outnumbered by households comprised of a single person living alone. And most singles do not live alone. About nine million households are single-parent homes. Singles are also homeowners. Last year, they accounted for 46.7 percent of house sales. Singles are not predominantly youthful; only a third are aged 18 to 29. Singlehood is no longer a way station on the road to marriage. Women on average now spend more years of their adult lives single than married, and men are not far behind.

 

2. Learn the actual voting patterns. Despite the hype, it was not single women who had the lowest rate of voting in 2000, but single men. In their candidate preferences, the men stood out in their support of Ralph Nader (7 percent, compared to 4 percent for single women, and 2 percent for married men and women).

 

3. Master the issues of concern to singles. You will find, for example, that singles would like to make a decent living, have affordable health care and enjoy retirement. Their values are not antifamily — they are human values. The language of singles is the language of inclusiveness. Here is an example: "If you are willing to work hard and play by the rules, you are part of our family, and we're proud to be with you." It is from Bill Clinton's 1996 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.

 

4. Oh, and about those panties? Kiss them goodbye.

 

Bella M. DePaulo is a visiting professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

 

Essay a

 

I will now comment on the article “Sex and the Single Voter” by BELLA M. DePAULO, published in the New York Times on June 18^th 2004.

It really irritates me what Chris Mathews from MSNBC said [mdm13] to Ralph Nader. Somebody that his life is not responsible[mdm14]  does not seem correct to me just because he has chosen another a different lifestyle than some conservative people suggest being thethink is right one.

 

Everybody has the right to live his or her life however he or she wants to, of course with the limitation[mdm15]  that this lifestyle does not harm anybody else.

 

So what does Mr. Mathews criticize? He criticizes the fact that Mr. Nader is not married. He does not say that Nader has no children, only that he is not married[mdm16] , and so his life is not responsible. Ralf Nader is a politician who tries to become president year by after year, but he never really has a chance. By reason[mdm17] , because what I have read that he is a difficult person, he likes to make trouble and often takes other politicians or even the state to court. These things may be criticized, but not the way he has chosen to live.

 

As the author of the articleDePaulo says, the number of the single households increases on and onsteadily. People seem to like it to being independent. The do not have to care for [mdm18] their partner and can decide everything on their own. But that that does not support Mathew’s argument that singles can not be responsible. I guess in politics [mdm19] these people are as good as married people, . why Why not. ? They do not have to care about anybody who is waiting at home; they can live for their voters. Just look at the free market ship[mdm20] . I guess think most of the top managers executives are singles. Why? Because they can live for their work and can sleep in their bureauoffice. And But these people have to be responsible. For them, for the money they are dealing with and for the people whose job is connected with their success. [mdm21] 

 

I wonder about Mathews’s argumentation. [mdm22] Nader’s lifestyle is bad because he is not married. Bush is responsible because he is married and raised two children. I respect George Bush for raising his children. Every father, every mother has to be respected for raising their children.

But maybe we should have a look at some of George W. Bush’s actions since his election to see if Mr. Mathew’s Mathews' responsibility thesis is correct.

 

Mr. Bush is responsible for national security, which means the lives of millions of people. At On 9./11 he and his secret servicesgovernment failed. Thousands of people died. Right after the attacks, he knew who was guilty. Osama Bin Laden did it, and where else could he be if not in Afghanistan.? So Mr. Bush gave the order to attack this country, not only to get Bin Laden but also to free the land from the Taliban, who especially repressed the women there, especially. I do not know how many soldiers died there; I do not know how much better the life is now for the people in Afghanistan. But I know that Bin Laden was not caught. Later on Mr. Bush had the idea to attackof attacking Iraq, to and freeing the people from the that regime as well, to catching Saddam and to save saving the world from his nuclear weapons (And maybe to get some oil…?). Saddam is caught, these weapons have never been found and I do not want to know how many soldiers still die in Iraq day by day.

 

So I guess lifestyle is lifestyle, and responsibility is responsibility. Married people can be as irresponsible as singles can be responsible.

 

Essay c

 

Does being single mean to not carenot caring about politics and therefore to not votenot about voting? Not only single voters, but also single presidential candidates have to struggle under prejudices like “singles are irresponsible”, “singles are too preoccupied with superficialities like looks and status symbols”, “singles are selfish”, and “singles want to have fun and are promiscuous”. I personally do not believe in these stereotypes, or that the decreasing willingness to vote is a predominantly “single-problem” and or that it is a result of “typically single” character traits. A general dissatisfaction with politics has caused a lot of people to stay away from elections. Frustration, caused by the feeling of being underrepresented, has also been driving away married citizens. People who feel their vote will not result in an improvement of their situation are prone to not vote. The number of singles has been increasing over the past several years. If no politician notices the needs of this growing group, politics will lose voterseven more people will not vote. As long as the American government concentrates on its married citizens, the amount of non-voters, who happen to be single, will increase.

 

It is a shame that less and lessfewer and fewer people go to electionsthe polls. “An unused vote is a vote for the wrong side.” This statement came hurtfully disastrously? true in the 2000 elections. Needless to say, the elections were was anything but legal. Single women predominantly voted for Al Gore. Had more single women gone to vote, the present disgrace [mdm23] at the top head of such a beautiful country might have been prevented. Only 52% of the single female voters actually went to vote, and even less fewer single men made their way to the electionspolling booths. Politicians have to work on their image and win back those single voters. Apparently, the new strategy is giving out panties with shady slogans. They had better not underestimate the intellect and influence of the single electoral force. I agree with DePaulo in that singles do have the same needs as their married counterparts. And they have the right to be heard. On the other hand, these singles should take their opportunities and goexercise their right? to vote.

 

There is a conflict of between tradition and the steadily evolving modern society. Decades ago, marriage was much more highly valued and considered rather untouchable. Nowadays, marriage has lost some of its importance and is not the goal of every single that is just “passing through” on his or her way to marriage. Some people do not understand that one can choose to be single, be comfortable with this status, and still be a responsible and caring member of society. Every politician knows the importance of a wife or husband at his or her side and you will not find one American President president in history without his first lady. The public expects their most important representative to be married.[mdm24] 

 

The growing number of singles becomes an issue when singles constitute the majority of citizens who do not vote. They do not seem to not care. On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of married couples go to vote only because it has become part of their routine and not because they care about politics. They probably do not even read the programs of the presidential candidates or follow their campaigns. They most likely vote for the one party they have been voting for their whole life, and they will vote for them until this party cuts their pension. How responsible is this kind of behavior? I [mdm25] do not believe that a married president who cheats on his wife is more responsible than an unmarried single president .

 

Essay d

 

Everybody knows that survey institutions like to do statistics. Of course, it is interesting that married women or those who were divorced or widowed vote more often than single women. It is also interesting that single women mostly voted for Al Gore whereas married women voted for Bush and Gore to an equal extent[mdm26] .

 

Therefore, the questions are, why do married women take use their right to vote more often, and why do did single women voters prefer Al Gore?

 

The suggestion of the writer could be one answer. It might be they don't feel the contents of political issues that do not referare relevant to their themlives. Maybe the election campaign did not give answers to their questions they have as a single personpeople. But what distinguishes married women from single ones? In the article it is nothing is said about children and family. This would be differences which lead themcould cause single and married people to have different interests. Is it only the fact of having a man and mortgages on one`s side?[mdm27]  I remember a discussion about the relative physical attractiveness of the two candidates Bush and Al Gore. Maybe singles are more interested in a good-looking president, and obviously Al Gore was the man to be[mdm28] . This is the only explanation I have for this result.

 

For myself,I think it would be more interesting to ask which what role children do play in an election. Do parents vote more often because they feel responsible for the future of their children? Or do they even vote what their children say[mdm29] ? It This isn`t as strange as it sounds like. In advertising, children´s opinion is used considered for havingto have an effect on their parents' decision, for instance, in buying cars[mdm30] . Why shouldn´t it work with election campaigns?

 

After all, candidates and parties should have their opinions and directions. It shouldn´t be thought that singles are busied busy with their beautifying themselves?y and buying clothes and therefore can only be attractable attracted with underpants and stuff like that[mdm31] . Maybe politicians need to ask the people, also marrid and singlessingle people alike, what they want and what they are worrying about. Probably than an election campaign is more suitable for single women and the number of them voting will increase. [mdm32] Furthermore, I think that sometimes politicians, or the one people who are involved in the electionrun their campaigns, prefer voters who do not ask questions. Probably it It is probably easier to attract people with lovely slogans like ´Kiss Bush Goodbye` than with real arguments. Sometimes policy seems so complicated that being a voter it isn´t able to go throughunderstand it that easyeasily. The danger of playing putting more stress on superficialities than on real arguments is higher[mdm33] . 

 

To sum it up, however whatever the interests of voters are, candidates and parties should listen to them and take them seriously. Even singles Singles will also have their ideas and opinions – and not only about the attractiveness of the candidates.

 

Essay f

 

Regarding the article “Sex and the Single Voter,” I wonder how politicians seriously could suggest or even assert that singles are immature and irresponsible because they do not go to the polls as much as married citizens. Do the politicians really think that singles are irresponsible because they have no need to care about anything than themselves, and therefore also have also no need to vote? This argument cannot is not be logical at all. The other argument concerning the sex of the non-voters, which says that single women are too so preoccupied with their efforts of to be good good-looking that they therefore are not interested in serious political issues, is in my point of view simply absurd and superficial. For this reason, I will not respond to that argument, but I will deal with the single-problem in general, no matter of the singles sexonly to the first one.

 

Obviously, it is true that singles do not have not soas much responsibility in a special wayas married couples. They do not have the need to make up their mindsworry about the possible future of their families. That means, for instance, they must do not have to be frightened afraidif their children will not get a job later on or not, or that one of them will lose their [mdm34] job.  if the job of her husband/his wife is save so that they will not lose it in the next time. And they must not be frightened about their own job because nNobody depends on the money they earn…or.   iIsn’t that true? No, that cannot be true, because losing her/hisone's job brings trouble to the affected person in any case. Therefore the argument of irresponsibility cannot be true because on the one hand everybody is responsible for someone, and singles are responsible for their own lifethemselves. And on the other hand political Political issues have an effect on everyone person and on every persons life, and there is no difference ifwhether the person is married and has got children or not. Therefore, also unmarried people also have a need for beingto be interested in political issues[mdm35] .

 

For this reason, I do agree with Ms DePaulo´s opinion that the poor weak interest in politics by among singles could be explained with by the fact that the whole system simply ignores them and their needs. I’d like to prove support this thesis with a banal example which does not havehas not much to do with political issues, but nevertheless shows how singles are ignored in our society. Just have a look to at the products offered in supermarkets with its offered products. You are only findingcan find there XXL cornflakes packetsboxes, jumbo sized ice-crème boxes cartons, and family-size bottlessoft drinks. Of course tThere are even also products only produced for singles, but the injustice lays lies in the price. The products for singles are not even only smaller, they are more expensive, too. That means fFor instance, as a single you have to pay for 200g peanut butter the same or just a higher pricemore for 200 grams of peanut butter than a mothersomeone who buys an 800-gram family-size jar box. Of course, as a single you are also free to buy the cheaper big packjar, but where is the advantage if half of it goes off because you do not really need itbefore you can eat it all. ?

 

As I mentioned, before this example might be a bad one because it does not deal with actual political issues, but nevertheless it demonstrates that singles are often ignored in our every day life. Maybe that is the reason for their political lack of interest, because they get resigned.

But that means for politicians that they have no right to make the people, especially the singles, responsible for the poor polling. [mdm36] Firstly they have to check their own influence on the turnouts to make clear that every kind of voter gets consideration by their politics. [mdm37]