General Paper Comprehension Question Paper & Answers (Paper 2)
GP Comprehension Question Paper – Crime & Punishment and Environment
(Note that 15 marks out of 50 will be awarded for your language, namely, for the quality and accuracy of your use of English throughout this paper)
Note: When a question asks for an answer IN YOUR OWN WORDS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE (IYOWAFAP) you must use your own words to express it, after selecting the appropriate material from the passage. Otherwise , very little credit (out of the remaining 15 marks) can be given to your answers.
Passage A
1. (From paragraph 3) Describe the practical objections Kumar has to the use of violence by protesters. Use your own words as far as possible.[2]
The opposition have far greater numbers than group. They also have better equipment.
They have been well prepared to deal with confrontations.
They have legal means available for dealing with protesters. The use of force will put people off from supporting the protest.
Lifted from the GP Passage Text
The forces you are fighting against are much more numerous … greater resources … better trained
The police, army and the courts have years of experience in the field of law and order. they are fully equipped to suppress your actions.
Potential sympathisers repulsed by the use of violence will be deterred from participation in your protests
2. (From paragraph 3) The media are described as “pillars of the polluting society” (l.22-23). In your own words, explain the meaning of the metaphor used here. [1]
Pillars support a structure. The argument is that in the end, the media will take the side of the establishment, supporting the authorities and people who ravage nature, just as pillars support a
building.
3. (From paragraph 3) “They will sensationalise your actions and present a distorted account of your case.”(l. 23-24) Explain what the author is saying about the media in this sentence. [1]
The media will exploit the activities of the protesters to shock/anger the public.
The media will misrepresent the arguments of the protesters.
4. (From paragraph 4) According to Kumar, why could the protesters leave themselves open to an accusation of hypocrisy? Use YOWAFAP. [1]
The protest is against the use of violent means to exploit nature. is violence. By resorting to violent means themselves, the protesters can be accused of using the same methods that they criticise in others. OR
They say that they object to the use of violence, but they practise it themselves.
5. (From paragraph 5) 5. The writer states, “The ends do not justify the means.” (l.31)
5a. Explain in your own words the meaning of this statement. [1]
Their goals, even if they are noble or very beneficial, should not be obtained by immoral methods.
5(b) The writer gives two examples in support of this statement. In each example, what undesirable means are being used to achieve what desirable ends? UYOWAFAP. [2]
The police and any use violence
The police and the military use for (or more specifically crowd control mechanisms like water cannon and tear gas etc).
in order to maintain peace or keep social order.
Companies in industries like mining or forestry harm mature.
in order to provide consumer products that supposedly bring advantage to mankind.
Lifted:
The police and any use violence
…because they believe that the ultimate end, social concord, is paramount
Industrial and technological society uses unecological means of extraction, production and consumption
…because they believe that, in the end, this will benefit humanity
6 (From paragraph 6) What objections does Kumar have to wars fought for seemingly moral reasons? Use your own words far as possible. [1]
Such wars seldom accomplish what they are supposed to, that is, preserve peace, stability and contribute to the general welfare of mankind.
They result in brutality and crimes against humanity
Passage B
8. ( From paragraph 1) “Nevertheless, in this imperfect democracy, we can still breach the bastions of power if we demonstrate sufficient fortitude and tenacity” (I.7-9). In this sentence, in what ways does the writer imply that democracy is imperfect? [1]
It is difficult to get through to the policy makers
It is only with great courage and persistence that change can be brought fortitude and tenacity about.
Lifted:
If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic
bulldozers (line 53)
9. (From paragraph 3) Progress is described as “that insatiable and insensate juggernaut.” (l.23-24) Explain the meaning of this phrase.UYOWAFAP. [2]
Progress is a huge unstoppable force. This all-consuming force has an appetite that cannot be satisfied.
It lacks any understanding of humane feeling.
10. (From Paragraph 3) The writer states: “Swords do not weep as they are turned info ploughshares.” (l.20)
Explain fully how this statement contributes to his argument. [2]
Objects cannot suffer. This exemplifies his contention that violence should defined in terms of inflicting pain on living things. (1 mark)
There is an additional layer of meaning. Swords are instruments of war while ploughshares are implements of agricultural production. The writer is implying that the protesters are involved in a process of changing instruments of aggression into something more beneficial to mankind. (1 mark)
H1 JC GP Passages – Article Sources for Crime & Punishment and Environment:
JC H1 GP Tuition (Syllabus Code: 8807)
Source of GP Passage Texts:
Satish Kumar (Peace Activist), The Ecologist Nov 2000
Jake Bowers, Earth First , The Ecologist vol 30/8, N’00
Q. Vocabulary Question (5 marks)
From passage A only:
| Word | 1 Mark | 1/2 Mark |
| nonplussed (1.18) | perplexed, baffled, bewildered, at a loss as to how to react | confused No mark: helpless
|
| lofty (1.35) | high, noble | grandiose, grand No mark: ambitious
|
precedents (1.46) | earlier cases which serve as a guide to present or future actions, past examples | tempt, ask for, pursue No mark: examples, predecessors, |
| court (1.56) | invite, risk, seek
| |
| profound (1. 57) | deep, having great depth of thought, deeply meaningful, deep in meaning, deep meaning | deeper meaning No mark: thoughtful, complex, difficult understand, abstract |
Reminder: Credit is awarded to the first word, and the rest are disregarded, if they is a list of answers.
Q11. Summary Question (SQ) (8 marks)
From paragraphs 4 to 7,
In no more than 120 words, summarise why the writer believes that violence is acceptable. Use your own words as far as possible. [8]
| Lifted from the GP Text | Re-Expressions |
As an unashamed meat eater (l.28) On a political level…… it (non-violence) has limitations (l.28-29). There are people in this world whose humanity is buried so deep it would take a millennium for it to come to the surface(l.32-33). | Violence can be justified against animals if they are used as a food source. Non-violence as a policy has shortcomings OR …especially against opponents to change who are so hardened that non-violent action will not move them.
|
I retain my right to defend myself (l.33-34). Nature itself, for all its symbiosis and beauty, is ofien a very violent thing (l. 42-43) Predators eat prey…. We, too, are part of that world, not above or below it (l.43-45)
| When an individual is attacked, be is entitled to defend himself. As animals, we are a part of nature and therefore subject to natural laws and instincts. |
Indigenous peoples whose lands and way of life are being clawed from them, must become resisters to the attack (l.48-49).
| Violent response from native peoples tribal groups aboriginals against threat to their heritage and culture is justified.
|
I believe that the struggle for ethnic diversity is intimately linked to the fight for biological diversity (l.52-53). …when you…are the object of annihilation… non violence is a luxury that cannot be afforded (I.59 61)
| Human races are part of the rich variety found in nature which need to be preserved. There is no choice but violence when a person) ra community is targeted for extermination.
|
Q12. Application Question
The writers of passages A and B differ on the question of whether violent protest is acceptable in a democratic society. Which side of the debate do you support? Justify your decision by considering the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments and drawing from your own relevant ideas and examples. [8]
Requirements:
Students must state which view they support – the view against violent protest (Passage A), or the view that violent protest is acceptable (Passage B). They have to put forward arguments to justify their stand. These arguments must be selected from both passages and should include their own relevant ideas and examples.
Arguments may include the following:
In a democracy, people should bring about change through peaceful means- discussion, compromise and the use of the ballot: violence is not acceptable.
The law does not allow violence, hence the authorities would fight forcefully against those who use it.
In particular, those who preach against it should not use violence.
Violence often claims innocent victims and may bring about social instability.
Or on the opposing side
Non-violence is ineffective – such protests in the past have made no impact.
In a modern society, those who support material goals are powerful and uncompromising, Mild protest will not move them.
Self Defense is a right if one is attacked or if one’s existence is threatened.
(Students should make references to the action of various green groups to support their point.)
Explanation (EX):
|The overall viewpoints of the writers must be clearly expressed. Students must also show they understand the supporting arguments of the writers. These are some of the main points:
Satish Kumar Violent protest cannot be justified
Violent protests can easily be made to look like a radical fringe and as law breakers they can be discredited.
Media attention does more harm than good, because it will focus on the violence rather than the jut c and the persuasive arguments of the protesters.
Through its violent actions, the group will lose support of moderate people.
Because the protesters use violence, the authorities will feel justified in using violence against them.
The ultimate aim is to achieve a peaceful, respectful relationship between mankind and the environment. Logic suggests that peaceful means should be used to achieve this.
Protest will be taken more seriously and therefore will be more effective if it is non-violent.
Non violent process will be especially effective if coupled with an education programme.
Violence directed against machines is still violence and will not change the minds of those in power.
Jake Bowers: Violent protest is justified
Active resistance against governments and companies can be justified if the cause is justified, as long as people are not injured or killed by the protesters. Earth First! has never injured anyone in its protests.
Violence must sometimes be countered with violence.
Even great peaceful campaigns like Gandhi and Martin Luther King failed to achieve long-term success.
Humans are by nature-violent. Protesters must use force in some cases in order to be taken seriously.
In desperate situations, people must fight for their existence against brutal oppressors.
Evaluation:
Students have to go beyond listing arguments. They must point out the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. For example:
Strength: The writer is justified in saying that people have a night to defend themselves, particularly when survival is at stake. Even if non-violence can work, it takes too long to be of use to those whose existence is under threat. The destructive changes that are taking place are irreversible: a forest once destroyed cannot regenerate, extinct species cannot be brought back to life, a road through the Amazon cannot be dismantled.
Weakness: The idea that non-violence can stop irresponsible acts of pollution and the ruthless exploitation of the earth’s resources is too idealistic. Industrialists are bent on earning profits, even governments, at least some of them, regard raising revenue as far more important than environmental issues. Gandhi and King’s non-violent movements succeeded because they had widespread support. But people are divided over environmental issues Too many stand to gain from “progress”.
Weakness: Kumar argues that media attention will only do damage to the protesters’ cause. This is not necessarily the case. In democratic countries, the media are independent. They may tend to focus on the sensational, but responsible groups like the BBC also provide unbiased background analysis and give protesters an opportunity to express their concerns in interviews. Media coverage can focus public attention on the issues and help to exert pressure on those in power.
Or
It is a fallacy to argue that destruction of property is not violence. It violates the right of owners and causes them emotional hurt and financial setback.
Coherence:
Good answers should have distinct paragraphs and linked arguments leading to a logical conclusion. The stand must be clearly justified. Students should not do a general critique, making a list of strengths and violence and non-violence in turn.