Notes

Writing 10/10/2022
Part 1. Read the following extract and use your own words to summarize it. Your summary should be between 100 and 120 words long. You MUST NOT copy the original.

The passage elucidates on the roles of TV in the society. First, however inncuous most of the programmes seem to be, there still exist ones which either stimulate a rethink of issues related to politic and society or earn a laugh from people. Second, it reflects public sentiments. It is by measuring the preferences to certain shows that the disclosure of these opinions is made possible. It encourages views to identify with celebrities. A case in point is the TV programme Through the Keyhole, where the revealation of some rather private details of renowned figures is available , such as their music collection, bookselves, etc., fostering a sense of intimacy among the viewers with the well-known. Finally, it promotes a substitute for social interaction by surrogating acquaintances which only good-mixers have the courage to meet.

Part 2. The graph below shows the alcohol-related deaths in 7 different countries and the average beer consumption in 2005.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the description of the correlation of the table that follows.
The table presents the alcohol-related mortality recorded in seven different nations and the average amount of beer drunk per capita.
Overall, male’s demise caused by alcohol outnumbered that of their counterpart. It is also clear that the higher the beer consumption, the greater the number of deaths.
As can be seen from the table, the number of death in Czech Republic was by far the highest among the seven countries (1,369,000 people in total), with the figure for men accounting for exactly 900,000 cases higher than that of the other countries with the exception of Germany (986,000 people). Austria recorded 913,000 people died from alcohol compared to 1,185,000 those of Germany.
Mortality rates in Ireland and Canada were comparable, at 582,000 and 580,000 respectively. The lowest figure for death rate was registered in Lithuania which was three times less than that of Estonia (125,000 people







Part 3.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of immigration.
Public concern about immigration has fallen sharply and attitudes towards its effects are more positive than for many years.





Immigrants don’t take our jobs, nor do they have much impact on wages. Just look at the UK, where sustained high levels of immigration have coincided with unemployment falling to its lowest level in 40 years.
More importantly, immigration makes economies more dynamic and is generally positive for productivity and prosperity. Even legitimate concerns about “brain drain” from developing countries turn out to be exaggerated, with such countries often gaining from remittances and new economic connections.
The economic and political forces driving immigration are only likely to intensify, in both Europe and the rest of the developed world. They will be powered by “demand” – demographic pressures, with every single country in Europe having a fertility rate below replacement level – and “supply” – population growth in developing countries, especially in Africa, and perhaps climate change. So the number of people seeking to move countries, whether through economic migration, refugee flows or a mix, will continue to grow. At the same time, we will need migration; even Japan, long resistant, has recently begun to liberalise policy.

But while anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment are common themes, the circumstances of individual countries are very different. In the US, Trump’s focus is on irregular migration from Mexico and Central America and its supposed impact on crime and security, although there is little or no evidence, in the US or elsewhere, to substantiate his claims. In the UK, the ostensible focus of the Brexit campaign was on EU free movement, predominantly by white eastern Europeans, although future migration from Turkey and points farther east was also a strong theme. In western European countries such as Sweden, Germany, France and Italy, rightwing populists were boosted by public reaction to refugee and migrant flows from Syria and Africa. And in Poland and Hungary, while immigrant flows are extremely small, parties in power have successfully appealed to nationalist sentiments by focusing on the threat of Muslim immigration overrunning “Christian” Europe.

Politicians could make the case for liberal policy not just on economic grounds but much more broadly, defending the rights of immigrants, eg EU citizens resident in the UK, UK-born children of immigrants who are denied British citizenship, UK citizens who marry people from abroad, and so on. This would also include a more positive approach to the impacts of immigration on communities and services at a local level – by promoting integration and channelling funding to areas where there are pressures resulting from population growth. There is a chance for a “reset moment” not just in policy but in our wider public and political attitudes to immigration and immigrants: we should not let it slip away.

Migration, whether from disaster to safety, or for a new land of opportunity, is deeply interwoven with cooperation – it is only through our extensive collaborations that we are able to migrate, and it’s our migrations that forged today’s global society. Migration made us. It is our national identities and borders that are the anomaly.


The case highlights a central absurdity around today’s attitude to migration. Immigration controls are regarded as essential – but for people, not stuff. Huge effort goes into enabling the cross-border migration of goods, services and money. Every year more than 11bn tonnes of stuff is shipped around the world – the equivalent of 1.5 tonnes per person a year – whereas humans, who are key to all this economic activity, are unable to move freely. Industrialised nations with big demographic challenges and important labour shortages are blocked from employing migrants who are desperate for jobs.

We are witnessing the highest levels of human displacement on record, and it will only increase. In 2020, refugees around the world exceeded 100 million, tripling since 2010, and half were children. This means one in every 78 people on earth has been forced to flee. Registered refugees represent only a fraction of those forced to leave their homes due to war or disaster.