ChungChengHigh Engllish P2 Prelim06

8/8/2019 ChungChengHigh Engllish P2 Prelim06

1/8

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION 2006

SECONDARY 4 EXPRESS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1127/02Comprehension Paper 2

Date : 27 September 2006 Max. mark : 50

Duration: 1h 40 minName: _________________________ ( )

Class: Secondary 4 ( )

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. Read the passages carefully before you attempt any questions.

2. Answer all questions. You are recommended to answer them in the orderset.

3. Number your questions fully in the left hand margin e.g. 1 (a).

4. Leave a space of 2 lines between your answers to each part of the questione.g. between 1 (a) and 1 (b) and a space of 3 lines after your completedanswer to each whole question.

5. Mistakes in spelling, punctuation and grammar may be penalised in any partof the paper.

6. Hand in your question paper (including the Insert) and answer sheetsseparately. Remember to write your name on all your answer sheets.

7. Start the Summary Question on a fresh sheet of paper.

8. Submit the Comprehension Section and Summary SectionSEPARATELY.

The Question Paper consists of_8_printed pages, INCLUDING the cover page,.

Setters: Ms Teng M H & Ms Wendy Ang 1

CHcCHUNG CHENG HIGH SCHOOLYISHUN


2/8

[ Turn over

Passage A

(1

)

(2)

(3

)

(4

)

(5

)

I have always believed that agriculture should proceed in harmony with nature,

recognizing that there are natural limits to our ambitions. That is why, some

twelve years ago, I decided to farm organically without artificial pesticides or

fertilisers. From my own experience I am clear that the organic system can be

economically viable, that it provides a wide range of environmental and social

benefits, and, most important, that it enables consumers to make a choice about

the food they eat.

But at a time when sales of organic food are soaring, a development in

intensive agriculture is actually removing a fundamental choice about the foodwe eat, and raising crucial questions about the future of our food and of our

environment which are still to be answered. This development is called

genetically modified plant breeding. The fundamental difference between

traditional and genetically modified plant breeding is that, in the latter, genetic

material from one species of plant, bacteria, virus, animal or fish is literally

inserted into another species, with which they could never naturally breed. The

use of these techniques raises, it seems to me, crucial ethical and practical

considerations. Genetically modified crops are presented as an essentially

straightforward development that will increase yields through techniques which

are merely an extension of traditional methods of plant breeding. I am afraid I

cannot accept this.

I happen to believe that this kind of genetic modification takes mankind into

realms that belong to God, and to God alone. Apart from certain highly

beneficial and specific medical applications, do we have the right to experiment

with, and commercialise, the building blocks of life? We live in an age of

rights it seems to me that it is time our Creator had some rights, too.

We simply do not know the long-term consequences for human health and the

wider environment of releasing plants bred in this way. We are assured that

these new plants are rigorously tested and regulated, but the evaluation

procedure seems to presume that unless a genetically modified crop can be

shown to be unsafe, there is no reason to stop its use. The lesson of BSE 1 and

other entirely man-made disasters in the cause of cheap food is surely that it

is the unforeseen consequences which present the greatest cause for concern.

We are told that genetically modified crops will require less use of agro-

chemicals. Even if this is true, it is certainly not the whole story. What it fails

to take into account is the total ecological and social impact of the farming

system.

Genetically modified crop plants are also being developed to produce their ownpesticide. This is predicted to cause the rapid appearance of resistant insects.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



3/8

(6

)

(7

)

Worse still, such pesticide-producing plants have already been shown to kill

some beneficial predator insects as well as pests. For example, inserting a gene

from a snowdrop into a potato made the potato resistant to greenfly but also

killed the ladybirds feeding on the greenfly. Similarly, lacewings, a natural

predator of the corn borer and food for farmland birds, died when they fed on

pest insects raised on genetically modified maize.

We are also told that genetic modification techniques will help to 'feed the

world.' This is a fundamental concern to all of us. But will the companies

controlling these techniques ever be able to achieve what they regard as a

sufficient return from selling their products to the world's poorest people? Nor

do I believe that the basic problem is always so simple. Where the problem is

lack of food, rather than lack of money to buy food, there may be better ways

of achieving the same ends. Recent research has shown, for example, that

yields from some traditional farming systems can be doubled, and even trebled,

through techniques that conserve natural resources while making the best use of

labour and management skills.

1 Mad Cow Disease

40

45

50

Adapted from Seeds of Disaster by HRH the Prince of Wales.



4/8

Passage B

(1

)

(2

)

(3

)

(4

)

(5

The myths of industrial agriculture share one underlying and interwoven

concept. They demand that we accept that technology always equals progress.

This belief has often blinded us to the consequences of many farming

technologies. Now, however, many people are asking some very logical

questions. A given technology may be progress, but progress towards what?

What future will that technology bring us?

As a growing portion of society realises that pesticides, fertilisers,

monoculturing and factory farming are little more than a fatal harvest, even

the major agribusiness corporations are starting to admit that some problems

exist. Yet their solution to the damage caused by the previous generation of

agricultural technologies is more technology. Better technology,

biotechnology, a technology that will fix the problems caused by chemically

intensive agriculture. In short, the myth makers are back at work. But acareful examination of their arguments shows their claims to be untrue:

biotechnology will not ease the situation but will merely aggravate it.

The biotechnology industry has relentlessly pushed the myth that it will

conquer world hunger. This claim rests on the fallacy that genetic engineering

increases food productivity. Independent research shows that genetically

engineered types of seed do not actually increase overall crop yields. Far

from being an answer to world hunger, genetic engineering could be a major

contributor to starvation. There are currently more than a dozen patents on

genetically engineered terminator technology. These seeds are engineered

by biotechnology companies to produce a sterile seed after a single growingseason. This ensures that farmers cannot save their seed and that they will

have to buy from corporations every season instead. Imagine the mass

starvation that would result should the sterility genes escape from the

engineered crops and contaminate non-genetically engineered local crops,

unintentionally sterilising them.

Another myth of biotechnology is that it is beneficial to the environment. It

claims that it will reduce pesticide use by creating plants resistant to insects

and other pests. Research by the U.S. government has already disproved this

claim. Even as it does nothing to alleviate the chemical pollution crisis,

biotechnological food brings its own very different pollution hazard:biological and genetic pollution. Genetically engineered crops are notoriously

difficult to control. They can migrate, mutate and cross-pollinate with other

plants. If a pest or herbicide-resistant strain were to spread from crops to

weeds a super-weed could result. Overall, the environmental threat of

biotechnology caused 100 top scientists to warn that its careless use could

lead to irreversible, devastating damage to the environment.

The biotechnology industry claims that it is bringing a whole new generation

of healthier and safer foods to the market. Yet scientists say that genetically

engineered foods may contain allergens that could create serious reactions in

millions of customers. Biotechnological foods can also have lower nutritional

values. What makes these risks all the more alarming is that the U.S.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



5/8

)

(6

)

government requires no mandatory safety testing or labelling of any

genetically engineered foods. As a result we have no assurance on the safety

of these foods and no way to trace adverse reactions. Far from improving the

safety of our food supply, biotechnology is creating new, unique health risks.

The biotechnology industry continues to promote itself as the ultimatepanacea for all the problems of industrial agriculture. A review of its real

impact reveals that it is not an antidote to modern agriculture but rather simply

a continuation and exacerbation of todays food production crisis.

Biotechnology increases environmental degradation, causes new food safety

risks and threatens to increase world hunger. It is not the solution, but a major

part of the problem.

45

50

55

Adapted fromEngineering Hungerby Andrew Kimbrell.



6/8

Read Passage A and Passage B in the Insertand then answerall the questions.NOTE: When a question asks you to answer in your own words, YOU MUST NOT

COPY THE WORDS IN THE PASSAGE IN YOUR ANSWER.

FROM PASSAGE A

From Paragraph 1:

1 (a) What is a distinctive feature of organic farming? [1]

(b

)

Explain in your own words two advantages given by the writer in

support of organic farming.

[2]

From Paragraphs 2 & 3

2 (a) In your own words as far as possible explain the fundamental

difference between traditional and genetically modified plantbreeding.

[1]

(b

)

What is the 'ethical' reason given by the writer against genetically

modified plant breeding?

[1]

From Paragraph 4

3 Quote an expression of five consecutive words which reinforces the

idea that the consequences of genetically modified plant breeding are

'unforeseen'.

[1]

From Paragraphs 5 & 6

4 According to the writer, ' genetically modified crops will require less

use of agro-chemicals'. Give an example of an agro-chemical and

explain fully why there will be less use of it in genetically modified

farming.

[2]

From Paragraph 7

5 Suggest a technique in a traditional farming system that can increaseyields and explain how it can 'conserve natural resources while

making the best use of labour and management skills'.

[2]

FROM PASSAGE B:

From Paragraphs 1& 2

6 (a) What does the word 'myths' suggest about the concept that

'technology always equals progress' and write down the word in

Paragraph 3 which carries the same idea.

[2]



7/8

(b

)

According to the writer, biotechnology 'will not ease the situation but

will merely aggravate it.' Show your understanding of this statement

by replacing each underlined word with a word of a similar meaning.

[2]

From Paragraph 3

7 Explain, in your own words as far as possible, how genetically

engineered 'terminator' technology could be a major contributor to

starvation.

[2]

From Paragraph 4

8 Genetically engineered crops can 'migrate, mutate and cross-pollinate

with other plants'. Quote a word from Paragraph 3 which describes

the process by which this is done.

[1]

9 Explain the difference between an ordinary weed and a 'super-weed'. [1]

From Paragraph 6

10 Show your understanding of the text by filling each of the following

blanks with a word of your own.

A review of the real impact of biotechnology reveals that it is not a

__________ for all the problems of industrial agriculture; rather, it

is a continuation and _____________ of today's food production

crisis.

[2]

From both Passage A and Passage B

11 For each of the following words, give ONE word or a phrase (of not

more than SEVEN words) which has the same meaning that the word

has in the passage.

[5]

From Passage A

(a) viable (line 5)

(b

)

fundamental (line 12)

(c) rigorously (line 28)

From Passage B

(d

)

irreversible (line 39)

(e) mandatory (line 45)



8/8

12 From Passage B:

START ON A FRESH SHEET OF PAPER AND HAND IN YOUR

SUMMARY SEPARATELY.

Using your own words as far as possible, summarise the myths related to

biotechnology and the writer's arguments against relying on the technology

to solve food production problems.

USE THE MATERIAL IN PASSAGE B FROM LINE 16 TO LINE

55.

Your summary which must be in continuous writing (not note form), must

not be longer than 150 words (not counting the words given to help you

begin).

Begin your summary as follows:

One of the myths of the biotechnology industry is that......

[25]

********** END OF PAPER**********


Documents

ChungChengHigh Engllish P2 Prelim06