This test has two separate sections, A and B. In this test, we are focusing on Section A and in particular looking at questions on the theme of Ethics and Education

 

Section A : Multiple Choice

This section is divided into 12 subsections; each subsection has between 3 and 4 questions.

You should answer all 14 multiple choice questions in section A, selecting one of the possible answers listed for each question.

Once you have completed all 14 questions, you will be presented with an Item Review Screen giving you the opportunity to review your responses. Once you are happy with your responses you should select ‘End Review’ and move to the next review screen.

Time allowed: 32 minutes

 

Solution Feedback Review

This screen shows all questions and your response as correct or incorrect. You may not change your response.

You may view solutions to each question by selecting the ‘Explain Answer’ button in the top left corner of the question.

Surrender your freedom, avoid daylight, live to work, and you too could join a toxic, paranoid elite

Perhaps because the alternative is too hideous to contemplate, we persuade ourselves that those who wield power know what they are doing. The belief in a guiding intelligence is hard to shake.

We know that our conditions of life are deteriorating. Most young people have little prospect of owning a home, or even of renting a decent one. Interesting jobs are sliced up, through digital Taylorism, into portions of meaningless drudgery. The natural world, whose wonders enhance our lives, and upon which our survival depends, is being rubbed out with horrible speed. Those to whom we look for guardianship, in government and among the economic elite, do not arrest this decline, they accelerate it.

The political system that delivers these outcomes is sustained by aspiration: the faith that if we try hard enough we could join the elite, even as living standards decline and social immobility becomes set almost in stone. But to what are we aspiring? A life that is better than our own, or worse?

Last week a note from an analyst at Barclays’ Global Power and Utilities group in New York was leaked. It addressed students about to begin a summer internship, and offered a glimpse of the toxic culture into which they are inducted.

“I wanted to introduce you to the 10 Power Commandments … For nine weeks you will live and die by these … We expect you to be the last ones to leave every night, no matter what … I recommend bringing a pillow to the office. It makes sleeping under your desk a lot more comfortable … the internship really is a nine-week commitment at the desk … an intern asked our staffer for a weekend off for a family reunion – he was told he could go. He was also asked to hand in his BlackBerry and pack up his desk … Play time is over and it’s time to buckle up.”

Play time is over, but did it ever begin? If these students have the kind of parents featured in the Financial Times last month, perhaps not. The article marked a new form of employment: the nursery consultant. These people, who charge from £290 an hour, must find a nursery that will put their clients’ toddlers on the right track to an elite university.

Mental health beds for children increased by 50%, but still failed to meet demand

They spoke of parents who had already decided that their six-month-old son would go to Cambridge then Deutsche Bank, or whose two-year-old daughter “had a tutor for two afternoons a week (to keep on top of maths and literacy) as well as weekly phonics and reading classes, drama, piano, beginner French and swimming. They were considering adding Mandarin and Spanish. ‘The little girl was so exhausted and on edge she was terrified of opening her mouth.’”

In New York, playdate coaches charging $450 an hour train small children in the social skills that might help secure their admission to the most prestigious private schools. They are taught to hide traits that could suggest they’re on the autistic spectrum, which might reduce their chances of selection.

From infancy to employment, this is a life-denying, love-denying mindset, informed not by joy or contentment, but by an ambition that is both desperate and pointless, for it cannot compensate for what it displaces: childhood, family life, the joys of summer, meaningful and productive work, a sense of arrival, living in the moment. For the sake of this toxic culture, the economy is repurposed, the social contract is rewritten, the elite is released from tax, regulation and the other restraints imposed by democracy.

Where the elite goes, we are induced to follow. As if the assessment regimes were too lax in UK primary schools, last year the education secretary announced a new test for four-year-olds. A primary school in Cambridge has just taken the obvious next step: it is now streaming four-year-olds into classes according to perceived ability. The education and adoption bill, announced in the Queen’s speech, will turn the screw even tighter. Will this help children, or hurt them?

Who knows? Governments used to survey the prevalence of children’s mental health issues every five years, but this ended in 2004. Imagine publishing no figures since 2004 on, say, childhood cancer, and you begin to understand the extent to which successive governments have chosen to avoid this issue. If aspirational pressure is not enhancing our wellbeing but damaging it, those in power don’t want to know.

But there are hints. Mental health beds for children in England increased by 50% between 1999 and 2014, but still failed to meet demand. Children suffering mental health crises are being dumped in adult wards or even left in police cells because of the lack of provision (put yourself in their position and imagine the impact).

The number of children admitted to hospital because of self-harm has risen by 68% in 10 years, while the number of young patients with eating disorders has almost doubled in three years. Without good data, we don’t have a clear picture of what the causes might be, but it’s worth noting that in the past year, according to the charity YoungMinds, the number of children receiving counselling for exam stress has tripled.

An international survey of children’s wellbeing found that the UK, where such pressures are peculiarly intense, ranked 13th out of 15 countries for children’s life satisfaction, 13th for agreement with the statement “I like going to school”, 14th for children’s satisfaction with their bodies and 15th for self-confidence. So all that pressure and cramming and exhortation – that worked, didn’t it?

In the cause of self-advancement, we are urged to sacrifice our leisure, our pleasures and our time with partners and children, to climb over the bodies of our rivals and to set ourselves against the common interests of humankind. And then? We discover that we have achieved no greater satisfaction than that with which we began.

In 1653, Izaak Walton described in the Compleat Angler the fate of “poor-rich men”, who “spend all their time first in getting, and next in anxious care to keep it; men that are condemned to be rich, and then always busy or discontented”. Today this fate is confused with salvation.

Finish your homework, pass your exams, spend your 20s avoiding daylight, and you too could live like the elite. But who in their right mind would want to?

(Edited from an article in the guardian by George Monbiot)

43. What is the most likely title to this piece?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is A.

    The author makes an important point about the dichotomy between parents intentions (to aspire great things for their children) and the real life consequences of placing such an emphasis on academics. Hence, A is the correct answer. D and E are the opposite of the author’s points whilst B and C are irrelevant.

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    Surrender your freedom, avoid daylight, live to work, and you too could join a toxic, paranoid elite

    Perhaps because the alternative is too hideous to contemplate, we persuade ourselves that those who wield power know what they are doing. The belief in a guiding intelligence is hard to shake.

    We know that our conditions of life are deteriorating. Most young people have little prospect of owning a home, or even of renting a decent one. Interesting jobs are sliced up, through digital Taylorism, into portions of meaningless drudgery. The natural world, whose wonders enhance our lives, and upon which our survival depends, is being rubbed out with horrible speed. Those to whom we look for guardianship, in government and among the economic elite, do not arrest this decline, they accelerate it.

    The political system that delivers these outcomes is sustained by aspiration: the faith that if we try hard enough we could join the elite, even as living standards decline and social immobility becomes set almost in stone. But to what are we aspiring? A life that is better than our own, or worse?

    Last week a note from an analyst at Barclays’ Global Power and Utilities group in New York was leaked. It addressed students about to begin a summer internship, and offered a glimpse of the toxic culture into which they are inducted.

    “I wanted to introduce you to the 10 Power Commandments … For nine weeks you will live and die by these … We expect you to be the last ones to leave every night, no matter what … I recommend bringing a pillow to the office. It makes sleeping under your desk a lot more comfortable … the internship really is a nine-week commitment at the desk … an intern asked our staffer for a weekend off for a family reunion – he was told he could go. He was also asked to hand in his BlackBerry and pack up his desk … Play time is over and it’s time to buckle up.”

    Play time is over, but did it ever begin? If these students have the kind of parents featured in the Financial Times last month, perhaps not. The article marked a new form of employment: the nursery consultant. These people, who charge from £290 an hour, must find a nursery that will put their clients’ toddlers on the right track to an elite university.

    Mental health beds for children increased by 50%, but still failed to meet demand

    They spoke of parents who had already decided that their six-month-old son would go to Cambridge then Deutsche Bank, or whose two-year-old daughter “had a tutor for two afternoons a week (to keep on top of maths and literacy) as well as weekly phonics and reading classes, drama, piano, beginner French and swimming. They were considering adding Mandarin and Spanish. ‘The little girl was so exhausted and on edge she was terrified of opening her mouth.’”

    In New York, playdate coaches charging $450 an hour train small children in the social skills that might help secure their admission to the most prestigious private schools. They are taught to hide traits that could suggest they’re on the autistic spectrum, which might reduce their chances of selection.

    From infancy to employment, this is a life-denying, love-denying mindset, informed not by joy or contentment, but by an ambition that is both desperate and pointless, for it cannot compensate for what it displaces: childhood, family life, the joys of summer, meaningful and productive work, a sense of arrival, living in the moment. For the sake of this toxic culture, the economy is repurposed, the social contract is rewritten, the elite is released from tax, regulation and the other restraints imposed by democracy.

    Where the elite goes, we are induced to follow. As if the assessment regimes were too lax in UK primary schools, last year the education secretary announced a new test for four-year-olds. A primary school in Cambridge has just taken the obvious next step: it is now streaming four-year-olds into classes according to perceived ability. The education and adoption bill, announced in the Queen’s speech, will turn the screw even tighter. Will this help children, or hurt them?

    Who knows? Governments used to survey the prevalence of children’s mental health issues every five years, but this ended in 2004. Imagine publishing no figures since 2004 on, say, childhood cancer, and you begin to understand the extent to which successive governments have chosen to avoid this issue. If aspirational pressure is not enhancing our wellbeing but damaging it, those in power don’t want to know.

    But there are hints. Mental health beds for children in England increased by 50% between 1999 and 2014, but still failed to meet demand. Children suffering mental health crises are being dumped in adult wards or even left in police cells because of the lack of provision (put yourself in their position and imagine the impact).

    The number of children admitted to hospital because of self-harm has risen by 68% in 10 years, while the number of young patients with eating disorders has almost doubled in three years. Without good data, we don’t have a clear picture of what the causes might be, but it’s worth noting that in the past year, according to the charity YoungMinds, the number of children receiving counselling for exam stress has tripled.

    An international survey of children’s wellbeing found that the UK, where such pressures are peculiarly intense, ranked 13th out of 15 countries for children’s life satisfaction, 13th for agreement with the statement “I like going to school”, 14th for children’s satisfaction with their bodies and 15th for self-confidence. So all that pressure and cramming and exhortation – that worked, didn’t it?

    In the cause of self-advancement, we are urged to sacrifice our leisure, our pleasures and our time with partners and children, to climb over the bodies of our rivals and to set ourselves against the common interests of humankind. And then? We discover that we have achieved no greater satisfaction than that with which we began.

    In 1653, Izaak Walton described in the Compleat Angler the fate of “poor-rich men”, who “spend all their time first in getting, and next in anxious care to keep it; men that are condemned to be rich, and then always busy or discontented”. Today this fate is confused with salvation.

    Finish your homework, pass your exams, spend your 20s avoiding daylight, and you too could live like the elite. But who in their right mind would want to?

    (Edited from an article in the guardian by George Monbiot)

    44. The author uses a rhetorical question to
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is A.

    The author says ‘who knows?’ this is a rhetorical question used with the purpose of criticising the government. The author’s point is that the government should know the answer to this question, but have failed to find out by removing the survey.

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    Surrender your freedom, avoid daylight, live to work, and you too could join a toxic, paranoid elite

    Perhaps because the alternative is too hideous to contemplate, we persuade ourselves that those who wield power know what they are doing. The belief in a guiding intelligence is hard to shake.

    We know that our conditions of life are deteriorating. Most young people have little prospect of owning a home, or even of renting a decent one. Interesting jobs are sliced up, through digital Taylorism, into portions of meaningless drudgery. The natural world, whose wonders enhance our lives, and upon which our survival depends, is being rubbed out with horrible speed. Those to whom we look for guardianship, in government and among the economic elite, do not arrest this decline, they accelerate it.

    The political system that delivers these outcomes is sustained by aspiration: the faith that if we try hard enough we could join the elite, even as living standards decline and social immobility becomes set almost in stone. But to what are we aspiring? A life that is better than our own, or worse?

    Last week a note from an analyst at Barclays’ Global Power and Utilities group in New York was leaked. It addressed students about to begin a summer internship, and offered a glimpse of the toxic culture into which they are inducted.

    “I wanted to introduce you to the 10 Power Commandments … For nine weeks you will live and die by these … We expect you to be the last ones to leave every night, no matter what … I recommend bringing a pillow to the office. It makes sleeping under your desk a lot more comfortable … the internship really is a nine-week commitment at the desk … an intern asked our staffer for a weekend off for a family reunion – he was told he could go. He was also asked to hand in his BlackBerry and pack up his desk … Play time is over and it’s time to buckle up.”

    Play time is over, but did it ever begin? If these students have the kind of parents featured in the Financial Times last month, perhaps not. The article marked a new form of employment: the nursery consultant. These people, who charge from £290 an hour, must find a nursery that will put their clients’ toddlers on the right track to an elite university.

    Mental health beds for children increased by 50%, but still failed to meet demand

    They spoke of parents who had already decided that their six-month-old son would go to Cambridge then Deutsche Bank, or whose two-year-old daughter “had a tutor for two afternoons a week (to keep on top of maths and literacy) as well as weekly phonics and reading classes, drama, piano, beginner French and swimming. They were considering adding Mandarin and Spanish. ‘The little girl was so exhausted and on edge she was terrified of opening her mouth.’”

    In New York, playdate coaches charging $450 an hour train small children in the social skills that might help secure their admission to the most prestigious private schools. They are taught to hide traits that could suggest they’re on the autistic spectrum, which might reduce their chances of selection.

    From infancy to employment, this is a life-denying, love-denying mindset, informed not by joy or contentment, but by an ambition that is both desperate and pointless, for it cannot compensate for what it displaces: childhood, family life, the joys of summer, meaningful and productive work, a sense of arrival, living in the moment. For the sake of this toxic culture, the economy is repurposed, the social contract is rewritten, the elite is released from tax, regulation and the other restraints imposed by democracy.

    Where the elite goes, we are induced to follow. As if the assessment regimes were too lax in UK primary schools, last year the education secretary announced a new test for four-year-olds. A primary school in Cambridge has just taken the obvious next step: it is now streaming four-year-olds into classes according to perceived ability. The education and adoption bill, announced in the Queen’s speech, will turn the screw even tighter. Will this help children, or hurt them?

    Who knows? Governments used to survey the prevalence of children’s mental health issues every five years, but this ended in 2004. Imagine publishing no figures since 2004 on, say, childhood cancer, and you begin to understand the extent to which successive governments have chosen to avoid this issue. If aspirational pressure is not enhancing our wellbeing but damaging it, those in power don’t want to know.

    But there are hints. Mental health beds for children in England increased by 50% between 1999 and 2014, but still failed to meet demand. Children suffering mental health crises are being dumped in adult wards or even left in police cells because of the lack of provision (put yourself in their position and imagine the impact).

    The number of children admitted to hospital because of self-harm has risen by 68% in 10 years, while the number of young patients with eating disorders has almost doubled in three years. Without good data, we don’t have a clear picture of what the causes might be, but it’s worth noting that in the past year, according to the charity YoungMinds, the number of children receiving counselling for exam stress has tripled.

    An international survey of children’s wellbeing found that the UK, where such pressures are peculiarly intense, ranked 13th out of 15 countries for children’s life satisfaction, 13th for agreement with the statement “I like going to school”, 14th for children’s satisfaction with their bodies and 15th for self-confidence. So all that pressure and cramming and exhortation – that worked, didn’t it?

    In the cause of self-advancement, we are urged to sacrifice our leisure, our pleasures and our time with partners and children, to climb over the bodies of our rivals and to set ourselves against the common interests of humankind. And then? We discover that we have achieved no greater satisfaction than that with which we began.

    In 1653, Izaak Walton described in the Compleat Angler the fate of “poor-rich men”, who “spend all their time first in getting, and next in anxious care to keep it; men that are condemned to be rich, and then always busy or discontented”. Today this fate is confused with salvation.

    Finish your homework, pass your exams, spend your 20s avoiding daylight, and you too could live like the elite. But who in their right mind would want to?

    (Edited from an article in the guardian by George Monbiot)

    45. If there were 22,000 mental health beds for children in 1999, how many were there in 2014
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is E.

    The text says that beds increased by 50% between 1999 and 2014. This means we must multiply by 1.5 (accounting for the fact it is an increase). If you put A then you have multiplied by 50% rather than 150%.

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    Surrender your freedom, avoid daylight, live to work, and you too could join a toxic, paranoid elite

    Perhaps because the alternative is too hideous to contemplate, we persuade ourselves that those who wield power know what they are doing. The belief in a guiding intelligence is hard to shake.

    We know that our conditions of life are deteriorating. Most young people have little prospect of owning a home, or even of renting a decent one. Interesting jobs are sliced up, through digital Taylorism, into portions of meaningless drudgery. The natural world, whose wonders enhance our lives, and upon which our survival depends, is being rubbed out with horrible speed. Those to whom we look for guardianship, in government and among the economic elite, do not arrest this decline, they accelerate it.

    The political system that delivers these outcomes is sustained by aspiration: the faith that if we try hard enough we could join the elite, even as living standards decline and social immobility becomes set almost in stone. But to what are we aspiring? A life that is better than our own, or worse?

    Last week a note from an analyst at Barclays’ Global Power and Utilities group in New York was leaked. It addressed students about to begin a summer internship, and offered a glimpse of the toxic culture into which they are inducted.

    “I wanted to introduce you to the 10 Power Commandments … For nine weeks you will live and die by these … We expect you to be the last ones to leave every night, no matter what … I recommend bringing a pillow to the office. It makes sleeping under your desk a lot more comfortable … the internship really is a nine-week commitment at the desk … an intern asked our staffer for a weekend off for a family reunion – he was told he could go. He was also asked to hand in his BlackBerry and pack up his desk … Play time is over and it’s time to buckle up.”

    Play time is over, but did it ever begin? If these students have the kind of parents featured in the Financial Times last month, perhaps not. The article marked a new form of employment: the nursery consultant. These people, who charge from £290 an hour, must find a nursery that will put their clients’ toddlers on the right track to an elite university.

    Mental health beds for children increased by 50%, but still failed to meet demand

    They spoke of parents who had already decided that their six-month-old son would go to Cambridge then Deutsche Bank, or whose two-year-old daughter “had a tutor for two afternoons a week (to keep on top of maths and literacy) as well as weekly phonics and reading classes, drama, piano, beginner French and swimming. They were considering adding Mandarin and Spanish. ‘The little girl was so exhausted and on edge she was terrified of opening her mouth.’”

    In New York, playdate coaches charging $450 an hour train small children in the social skills that might help secure their admission to the most prestigious private schools. They are taught to hide traits that could suggest they’re on the autistic spectrum, which might reduce their chances of selection.

    From infancy to employment, this is a life-denying, love-denying mindset, informed not by joy or contentment, but by an ambition that is both desperate and pointless, for it cannot compensate for what it displaces: childhood, family life, the joys of summer, meaningful and productive work, a sense of arrival, living in the moment. For the sake of this toxic culture, the economy is repurposed, the social contract is rewritten, the elite is released from tax, regulation and the other restraints imposed by democracy.

    Where the elite goes, we are induced to follow. As if the assessment regimes were too lax in UK primary schools, last year the education secretary announced a new test for four-year-olds. A primary school in Cambridge has just taken the obvious next step: it is now streaming four-year-olds into classes according to perceived ability. The education and adoption bill, announced in the Queen’s speech, will turn the screw even tighter. Will this help children, or hurt them?

    Who knows? Governments used to survey the prevalence of children’s mental health issues every five years, but this ended in 2004. Imagine publishing no figures since 2004 on, say, childhood cancer, and you begin to understand the extent to which successive governments have chosen to avoid this issue. If aspirational pressure is not enhancing our wellbeing but damaging it, those in power don’t want to know.

    But there are hints. Mental health beds for children in England increased by 50% between 1999 and 2014, but still failed to meet demand. Children suffering mental health crises are being dumped in adult wards or even left in police cells because of the lack of provision (put yourself in their position and imagine the impact).

    The number of children admitted to hospital because of self-harm has risen by 68% in 10 years, while the number of young patients with eating disorders has almost doubled in three years. Without good data, we don’t have a clear picture of what the causes might be, but it’s worth noting that in the past year, according to the charity YoungMinds, the number of children receiving counselling for exam stress has tripled.

    An international survey of children’s wellbeing found that the UK, where such pressures are peculiarly intense, ranked 13th out of 15 countries for children’s life satisfaction, 13th for agreement with the statement “I like going to school”, 14th for children’s satisfaction with their bodies and 15th for self-confidence. So all that pressure and cramming and exhortation – that worked, didn’t it?

    In the cause of self-advancement, we are urged to sacrifice our leisure, our pleasures and our time with partners and children, to climb over the bodies of our rivals and to set ourselves against the common interests of humankind. And then? We discover that we have achieved no greater satisfaction than that with which we began.

    In 1653, Izaak Walton described in the Compleat Angler the fate of “poor-rich men”, who “spend all their time first in getting, and next in anxious care to keep it; men that are condemned to be rich, and then always busy or discontented”. Today this fate is confused with salvation.

    Finish your homework, pass your exams, spend your 20s avoiding daylight, and you too could live like the elite. But who in their right mind would want to?

    (Edited from an article in the guardian by George Monbiot)

    46. The author’s main point is
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is C.

    The author draws together lots of evidence to suggest that too much of a focus on academics has social consequences. But, his main point is not merely that that is the case (A) but that parents ought to be (and evidently are not) aware of that truth.

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    How Did a Young, Unknown Lawyer Change the World?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg took on the obstacles to women’s equality incrementally, but she was powered by a larger vision.

    I’ve been asked repeatedly in recent days to explain Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s accomplishment: How did she, a young unknown lawyer, starting basically from scratch, persuade the nine men of the Supreme Court to join her in constructing a new jurisprudence of sex equality?

    I replied that she had a project, a goal from which she never deviated during her long career. It was to have not only the Constitution but also society itself understand men and women as equal.

    Fair enough, as far as that explanation goes. But I think it misses something deeper about Justice Ginsburg, who died last Friday at 87. What she had, in addition to passion, skill and a field marshal’s sense of strategy, was imagination.

    She envisioned a world different from the one she had grown up in, a better world in which gender was no obstacle to women’s achievement, to their ability to dream big and to realize their aspirations. Then she set out to use the law to usher that world into existence.

    What fired her imagination? Yes, there was her eye-opening time spent in the startlingly egalitarian Sweden of the 1950s. Yes, there was her inability to get a top-ranked job, or clerkship, or teaching position despite graduating from law school at the top of her class. Yes, her mother, Celia Bader, transferred her own thwarted ambitions to her brilliant daughter. All this is true, yet somehow reductive.

    The best answer may be simply that Ruth Ginsburg saw things that others didn’t. She understood that the law could be harnessed in service to fundamental transformation. That’s the difference between imagination and goals. We all have goals, big or small, and we all encounter obstacles to accomplishing some of them. But only a few have the turn of mind to confront head-on the structural obstacles that stand in their way.

    Some do it with the gift of an outsize personality that can inspire others and galvanize them to action. Think of Representative John Lewis, his bravery in the face of physical violence and his ability to move a crowd to tears and bring people to their feet.

    That wasn’t Ruth Ginsburg. As a lawyer appearing before the Supreme Court, she presented herself as a modest incrementalist. She had to. If she had come before the court as a social revolutionary, the justices — never having viewed the Constitution as having anything to say about women — would have recoiled. Instead, they swallowed the bite-size portions she served to them, and assumptions about the respective roles of men and women — primary wage earner, primary caretaker — that had been baked into the law for eons disappeared, one case at a time.

    (Edited from a piece in the New York Times by Linda Greenhouse)

    47. Which of the following can be inferred from paragraph 6?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is B.

    In the context of the passage we can infer from the line ‘Yes, there was her inability to get a top-ranked job, or clerkship, or teaching position despite graduating from law school at the top of her class’ that Ruth’s gender lead to employment discrimination

    a. The author mentions many reasons there is no suggestion her time in sweden was the main reason

    b. This is the correct answer

    c. This is true but it is stated and therefore is not an inference

    d. This is true but it is not found in paragraph 6

    e. This is true but it is not found in paragraph 6

    QUESTION TIP! If the question says ‘infer’ you should not put something that comes up explicitly in the text

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    How Did a Young, Unknown Lawyer Change the World?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg took on the obstacles to women’s equality incrementally, but she was powered by a larger vision.

    I’ve been asked repeatedly in recent days to explain Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s accomplishment: How did she, a young unknown lawyer, starting basically from scratch, persuade the nine men of the Supreme Court to join her in constructing a new jurisprudence of sex equality?

    I replied that she had a project, a goal from which she never deviated during her long career. It was to have not only the Constitution but also society itself understand men and women as equal.

    Fair enough, as far as that explanation goes. But I think it misses something deeper about Justice Ginsburg, who died last Friday at 87. What she had, in addition to passion, skill and a field marshal’s sense of strategy, was imagination.

    She envisioned a world different from the one she had grown up in, a better world in which gender was no obstacle to women’s achievement, to their ability to dream big and to realize their aspirations. Then she set out to use the law to usher that world into existence.

    What fired her imagination? Yes, there was her eye-opening time spent in the startlingly egalitarian Sweden of the 1950s. Yes, there was her inability to get a top-ranked job, or clerkship, or teaching position despite graduating from law school at the top of her class. Yes, her mother, Celia Bader, transferred her own thwarted ambitions to her brilliant daughter. All this is true, yet somehow reductive.

    The best answer may be simply that Ruth Ginsburg saw things that others didn’t. She understood that the law could be harnessed in service to fundamental transformation. That’s the difference between imagination and goals. We all have goals, big or small, and we all encounter obstacles to accomplishing some of them. But only a few have the turn of mind to confront head-on the structural obstacles that stand in their way.

    Some do it with the gift of an outsize personality that can inspire others and galvanize them to action. Think of Representative John Lewis, his bravery in the face of physical violence and his ability to move a crowd to tears and bring people to their feet.

    That wasn’t Ruth Ginsburg. As a lawyer appearing before the Supreme Court, she presented herself as a modest incrementalist. She had to. If she had come before the court as a social revolutionary, the justices — never having viewed the Constitution as having anything to say about women — would have recoiled. Instead, they swallowed the bite-size portions she served to them, and assumptions about the respective roles of men and women — primary wage earner, primary caretaker — that had been baked into the law for eons disappeared, one case at a time.

    (Edited from a piece in the New York Times by Linda Greenhouse)

    48. What is the meaning of a ‘modest incrementalist’ in the context of the passage?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is B.

    If you don’t understand the word, you can spot that the term is later referred to in the words ‘bite-size portions’ which tells us the answer is b

    a. The author says that she could not be a social revolutionary

    b. Correct

    c. This does not capture the essence of the term

    d. This is the same as option a

    e. Ruth does this, but it does not explain or relate to the term

    TOP TIP! Always look around the words for clues as to their meaning

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    How Did a Young, Unknown Lawyer Change the World?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg took on the obstacles to women’s equality incrementally, but she was powered by a larger vision.

    I’ve been asked repeatedly in recent days to explain Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s accomplishment: How did she, a young unknown lawyer, starting basically from scratch, persuade the nine men of the Supreme Court to join her in constructing a new jurisprudence of sex equality?

    I replied that she had a project, a goal from which she never deviated during her long career. It was to have not only the Constitution but also society itself understand men and women as equal.

    Fair enough, as far as that explanation goes. But I think it misses something deeper about Justice Ginsburg, who died last Friday at 87. What she had, in addition to passion, skill and a field marshal’s sense of strategy, was imagination.

    She envisioned a world different from the one she had grown up in, a better world in which gender was no obstacle to women’s achievement, to their ability to dream big and to realize their aspirations. Then she set out to use the law to usher that world into existence.

    What fired her imagination? Yes, there was her eye-opening time spent in the startlingly egalitarian Sweden of the 1950s. Yes, there was her inability to get a top-ranked job, or clerkship, or teaching position despite graduating from law school at the top of her class. Yes, her mother, Celia Bader, transferred her own thwarted ambitions to her brilliant daughter. All this is true, yet somehow reductive.

    The best answer may be simply that Ruth Ginsburg saw things that others didn’t. She understood that the law could be harnessed in service to fundamental transformation. That’s the difference between imagination and goals. We all have goals, big or small, and we all encounter obstacles to accomplishing some of them. But only a few have the turn of mind to confront head-on the structural obstacles that stand in their way.

    Some do it with the gift of an outsize personality that can inspire others and galvanize them to action. Think of Representative John Lewis, his bravery in the face of physical violence and his ability to move a crowd to tears and bring people to their feet.

    That wasn’t Ruth Ginsburg. As a lawyer appearing before the Supreme Court, she presented herself as a modest incrementalist. She had to. If she had come before the court as a social revolutionary, the justices — never having viewed the Constitution as having anything to say about women — would have recoiled. Instead, they swallowed the bite-size portions she served to them, and assumptions about the respective roles of men and women — primary wage earner, primary caretaker — that had been baked into the law for eons disappeared, one case at a time.

    (Edited from a piece in the New York Times by Linda Greenhouse)

    49. What according to the author was the main reason why Ruth as opposed to somebody else was successful?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is C.

    The author discusses why Ruth was different in these lines ‘We all have goals, big or small, and we all encounter obstacles to accomplishing some of them. But only a few have the turn of mind to confront head-on the structural obstacles that stand in their way.’ C best captures the essence of these lines.

    a. This is a fact but it is not suggested as a reason for her particular success

    b. This is true but it does not explain how Ruth turned her imagination into change

    c. Correct

    d. This is not true

    e. This is correct and was important for the change caused, but it does not explain why ruth and not someone else could make change

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    How Did a Young, Unknown Lawyer Change the World?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg took on the obstacles to women’s equality incrementally, but she was powered by a larger vision.

    I’ve been asked repeatedly in recent days to explain Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s accomplishment: How did she, a young unknown lawyer, starting basically from scratch, persuade the nine men of the Supreme Court to join her in constructing a new jurisprudence of sex equality?

    I replied that she had a project, a goal from which she never deviated during her long career. It was to have not only the Constitution but also society itself understand men and women as equal.

    Fair enough, as far as that explanation goes. But I think it misses something deeper about Justice Ginsburg, who died last Friday at 87. What she had, in addition to passion, skill and a field marshal’s sense of strategy, was imagination.

    She envisioned a world different from the one she had grown up in, a better world in which gender was no obstacle to women’s achievement, to their ability to dream big and to realize their aspirations. Then she set out to use the law to usher that world into existence.

    What fired her imagination? Yes, there was her eye-opening time spent in the startlingly egalitarian Sweden of the 1950s. Yes, there was her inability to get a top-ranked job, or clerkship, or teaching position despite graduating from law school at the top of her class. Yes, her mother, Celia Bader, transferred her own thwarted ambitions to her brilliant daughter. All this is true, yet somehow reductive.

    The best answer may be simply that Ruth Ginsburg saw things that others didn’t. She understood that the law could be harnessed in service to fundamental transformation. That’s the difference between imagination and goals. We all have goals, big or small, and we all encounter obstacles to accomplishing some of them. But only a few have the turn of mind to confront head-on the structural obstacles that stand in their way.

    Some do it with the gift of an outsize personality that can inspire others and galvanize them to action. Think of Representative John Lewis, his bravery in the face of physical violence and his ability to move a crowd to tears and bring people to their feet.

    That wasn’t Ruth Ginsburg. As a lawyer appearing before the Supreme Court, she presented herself as a modest incrementalist. She had to. If she had come before the court as a social revolutionary, the justices — never having viewed the Constitution as having anything to say about women — would have recoiled. Instead, they swallowed the bite-size portions she served to them, and assumptions about the respective roles of men and women — primary wage earner, primary caretaker — that had been baked into the law for eons disappeared, one case at a time.

    (Edited from a piece in the New York Times by Linda Greenhouse)

    50. Which of the following lines best represents Ruth’s goal?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is A.

    Ruth’s overarching main goal is best expressed in option A.

    a. This is correct

    b. This is a way that Ruth met her goal not the goal in itself

    c. This is a goal, but A is a slightly broader expression of her overall goal

    d. This is a way that Ruth met her goal not the goal in itself

    e. This is not a goal

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    How Did a Young, Unknown Lawyer Change the World?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg took on the obstacles to women’s equality incrementally, but she was powered by a larger vision.

    I’ve been asked repeatedly in recent days to explain Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s accomplishment: How did she, a young unknown lawyer, starting basically from scratch, persuade the nine men of the Supreme Court to join her in constructing a new jurisprudence of sex equality?

    I replied that she had a project, a goal from which she never deviated during her long career. It was to have not only the Constitution but also society itself understand men and women as equal.

    Fair enough, as far as that explanation goes. But I think it misses something deeper about Justice Ginsburg, who died last Friday at 87. What she had, in addition to passion, skill and a field marshal’s sense of strategy, was imagination.

    She envisioned a world different from the one she had grown up in, a better world in which gender was no obstacle to women’s achievement, to their ability to dream big and to realize their aspirations. Then she set out to use the law to usher that world into existence.

    What fired her imagination? Yes, there was her eye-opening time spent in the startlingly egalitarian Sweden of the 1950s. Yes, there was her inability to get a top-ranked job, or clerkship, or teaching position despite graduating from law school at the top of her class. Yes, her mother, Celia Bader, transferred her own thwarted ambitions to her brilliant daughter. All this is true, yet somehow reductive.

    The best answer may be simply that Ruth Ginsburg saw things that others didn’t. She understood that the law could be harnessed in service to fundamental transformation. That’s the difference between imagination and goals. We all have goals, big or small, and we all encounter obstacles to accomplishing some of them. But only a few have the turn of mind to confront head-on the structural obstacles that stand in their way.

    Some do it with the gift of an outsize personality that can inspire others and galvanize them to action. Think of Representative John Lewis, his bravery in the face of physical violence and his ability to move a crowd to tears and bring people to their feet.

    That wasn’t Ruth Ginsburg. As a lawyer appearing before the Supreme Court, she presented herself as a modest incrementalist. She had to. If she had come before the court as a social revolutionary, the justices — never having viewed the Constitution as having anything to say about women — would have recoiled. Instead, they swallowed the bite-size portions she served to them, and assumptions about the respective roles of men and women — primary wage earner, primary caretaker — that had been baked into the law for eons disappeared, one case at a time.

    (Edited from a piece in the New York Times by Linda Greenhouse)

    51. What is the main purpose of the text?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is B.

    B summarizes the author’s purpose which is to commemorate Ruth’s life but also to explain her life her ambition and the way she caused change

    a. This is too narrow

    b. This is correct

    c. This is a very small part of the text

    d. This is a purpose but it fails to acknowledge that the author wanted to commemorate Ruth in particular

    e. This is part of the purpose but it does not capture the whole purpose of the text

    TOP TIP! Before reading the answer options write down what you felt the main purpose of the text was and pick the most similar answer option

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    The Guardian view on adult education: Bring Back Evening Classes

    Something important has been lost in Britain: between 2009 and 2017, the number of part-time students in higher education fell by 53%. Where once there was a thriving culture of colleges, courses and evening classes, now the number of adults who study in later life is far lower than in other countries, including Germany. In the lowest socioeconomic groups, 49% have had no training since leaving school. Of the £20bn that the government spends annually on post-19 education, 93% goes on those who already have qualifications up to level 3 (A-levels).

    The decline predates austerity policies, although these made it worse. One of the contributors to a new report by the Centenary Commission on Adult Education launched earlier this month describes a “complete change” that took place under New Labour. Starting in the 19th century, a whole system grew up around working men’s colleges, workers’ educational associations and universities. By the early 21st century, the intrinsic value of such institutions, and the myriad opportunities they represented, had largely been discarded in favour of a much more instrumental view of “skills” as an asset to be traded.

    That is not to say that the labour market is not a crucial reference point in any discussion about what ought to be taught and how. The failure to invest in a skilled workforce is part of a much bigger deficit in long-term, strategic thinking – which the modern Conservative party appears to have abandoned in favour of a blind and dangerous faith in laissez-faire economics. With as many as nine in 10 jobs expected to be automated within the next decade, and businesses being laid waste by the pandemic, the CBI has thrown its weight behind what it calls a “national reskilling effort”.

    But new resources for vocational training for teenagers, and adults seeking to retrain in later life, are not the only issue. At the launch of the commission’s report, Alison Wolf, the economist and non-affiliated peer who advises the government on further education, recalled flicking through a “great thick book of evening classes” as a young woman. The report rightly highlights the climate emergency as one reason why it is essential to deepen people’s understanding of the world around them; because lifestyles need to adapt, but also because we have to find new outlets for our imagination and curiosity. Around 9 million adults in Britain have low levels of numeracy and literacy, which is a waste of talent. Investing in community-led adult learning in towns such as Rochdale has led to wider savings in health and policing

    (The Guardian Newspapers – editorial)

    52. Which of the following statements is definitely false?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is B.

    The decline in higher education cannot have been caused by austerity policies because the decline ‘predates’ austerity policies, the author hence says that austerity policies worsen the decline rather than caused it.

    a. The is likely true, spending on education can lead to ‘wider savings in health and policy’

    b. This is the correct answer

    c. This can be inferred from the fact that ‘49% have had no training since leaving school’

    d. This could be true, the author states that climate change is definitely one reason. It may not be the most important reason, we do not have enough information to tell from the text. But, it is not the correct answer because it is not ‘definitely’ false

    e. This is true, automation of jobs was a reason given for increased education

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    The Guardian view on adult education: Bring Back Evening Classes

    Something important has been lost in Britain: between 2009 and 2017, the number of part-time students in higher education fell by 53%. Where once there was a thriving culture of colleges, courses and evening classes, now the number of adults who study in later life is far lower than in other countries, including Germany. In the lowest socioeconomic groups, 49% have had no training since leaving school. Of the £20bn that the government spends annually on post-19 education, 93% goes on those who already have qualifications up to level 3 (A-levels).

    The decline predates austerity policies, although these made it worse. One of the contributors to a new report by the Centenary Commission on Adult Education launched earlier this month describes a “complete change” that took place under New Labour. Starting in the 19th century, a whole system grew up around working men’s colleges, workers’ educational associations and universities. By the early 21st century, the intrinsic value of such institutions, and the myriad opportunities they represented, had largely been discarded in favour of a much more instrumental view of “skills” as an asset to be traded.

    That is not to say that the labour market is not a crucial reference point in any discussion about what ought to be taught and how. The failure to invest in a skilled workforce is part of a much bigger deficit in long-term, strategic thinking – which the modern Conservative party appears to have abandoned in favour of a blind and dangerous faith in laissez-faire economics. With as many as nine in 10 jobs expected to be automated within the next decade, and businesses being laid waste by the pandemic, the CBI has thrown its weight behind what it calls a “national reskilling effort”.

    But new resources for vocational training for teenagers, and adults seeking to retrain in later life, are not the only issue. At the launch of the commission’s report, Alison Wolf, the economist and non-affiliated peer who advises the government on further education, recalled flicking through a “great thick book of evening classes” as a young woman. The report rightly highlights the climate emergency as one reason why it is essential to deepen people’s understanding of the world around them; because lifestyles need to adapt, but also because we have to find new outlets for our imagination and curiosity. Around 9 million adults in Britain have low levels of numeracy and literacy, which is a waste of talent. Investing in community-led adult learning in towns such as Rochdale has led to wider savings in health and policing

    (The Guardian Newspapers – editorial)

    53. Which of the following is not a reason for further education for the individual suggested by the author?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is D.

    The question asks for benefits ‘to the individual’, D is a benefit to the government (investing in education leads to savings in health and policing) but not to the individual

    a. This is found in the final paragraph

    b. This is found in the third paragraph

    c. This is found in the final paragraph

    d. This is the correct answer

    e. This is found in the final paragraph

    TOP TIP! – Pay attention to small elements of the question, ‘to the individual’

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    The Guardian view on adult education: Bring Back Evening Classes

    Something important has been lost in Britain: between 2009 and 2017, the number of part-time students in higher education fell by 53%. Where once there was a thriving culture of colleges, courses and evening classes, now the number of adults who study in later life is far lower than in other countries, including Germany. In the lowest socioeconomic groups, 49% have had no training since leaving school. Of the £20bn that the government spends annually on post-19 education, 93% goes on those who already have qualifications up to level 3 (A-levels).

    The decline predates austerity policies, although these made it worse. One of the contributors to a new report by the Centenary Commission on Adult Education launched earlier this month describes a “complete change” that took place under New Labour. Starting in the 19th century, a whole system grew up around working men’s colleges, workers’ educational associations and universities. By the early 21st century, the intrinsic value of such institutions, and the myriad opportunities they represented, had largely been discarded in favour of a much more instrumental view of “skills” as an asset to be traded.

    That is not to say that the labour market is not a crucial reference point in any discussion about what ought to be taught and how. The failure to invest in a skilled workforce is part of a much bigger deficit in long-term, strategic thinking – which the modern Conservative party appears to have abandoned in favour of a blind and dangerous faith in laissez-faire economics. With as many as nine in 10 jobs expected to be automated within the next decade, and businesses being laid waste by the pandemic, the CBI has thrown its weight behind what it calls a “national reskilling effort”.

    But new resources for vocational training for teenagers, and adults seeking to retrain in later life, are not the only issue. At the launch of the commission’s report, Alison Wolf, the economist and non-affiliated peer who advises the government on further education, recalled flicking through a “great thick book of evening classes” as a young woman. The report rightly highlights the climate emergency as one reason why it is essential to deepen people’s understanding of the world around them; because lifestyles need to adapt, but also because we have to find new outlets for our imagination and curiosity. Around 9 million adults in Britain have low levels of numeracy and literacy, which is a waste of talent. Investing in community-led adult learning in towns such as Rochdale has led to wider savings in health and policing

    (The Guardian Newspapers – editorial)

    54. Which of the following is not a reason for adults having low levels of higher education which we can find in the text?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is D.

    The low number of students in higher education is evidence that adults have low levels of higher education rather than being a reason for it

    a. This is found in the last line of the first paragraph

    b. Austerity policies have worsened adult education

    c. The author speaks about the lack of spending by the conservative government

    d. This is the correct answer

    e. This is similar to c, and can be inferred from the fact that the author criticises the government for not spending on adult education

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    The Guardian view on adult education: Bring Back Evening Classes

    Something important has been lost in Britain: between 2009 and 2017, the number of part-time students in higher education fell by 53%. Where once there was a thriving culture of colleges, courses and evening classes, now the number of adults who study in later life is far lower than in other countries, including Germany. In the lowest socioeconomic groups, 49% have had no training since leaving school. Of the £20bn that the government spends annually on post-19 education, 93% goes on those who already have qualifications up to level 3 (A-levels).

    The decline predates austerity policies, although these made it worse. One of the contributors to a new report by the Centenary Commission on Adult Education launched earlier this month describes a “complete change” that took place under New Labour. Starting in the 19th century, a whole system grew up around working men’s colleges, workers’ educational associations and universities. By the early 21st century, the intrinsic value of such institutions, and the myriad opportunities they represented, had largely been discarded in favour of a much more instrumental view of “skills” as an asset to be traded.

    That is not to say that the labour market is not a crucial reference point in any discussion about what ought to be taught and how. The failure to invest in a skilled workforce is part of a much bigger deficit in long-term, strategic thinking – which the modern Conservative party appears to have abandoned in favour of a blind and dangerous faith in laissez-faire economics. With as many as nine in 10 jobs expected to be automated within the next decade, and businesses being laid waste by the pandemic, the CBI has thrown its weight behind what it calls a “national reskilling effort”.

    But new resources for vocational training for teenagers, and adults seeking to retrain in later life, are not the only issue. At the launch of the commission’s report, Alison Wolf, the economist and non-affiliated peer who advises the government on further education, recalled flicking through a “great thick book of evening classes” as a young woman. The report rightly highlights the climate emergency as one reason why it is essential to deepen people’s understanding of the world around them; because lifestyles need to adapt, but also because we have to find new outlets for our imagination and curiosity. Around 9 million adults in Britain have low levels of numeracy and literacy, which is a waste of talent. Investing in community-led adult learning in towns such as Rochdale has led to wider savings in health and policing

    (The Guardian Newspapers – editorial)

    55. If there were 83,000 students in part time education in 2009, how many were there in 2017?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is B.

    The text says that the number fell by 53%, so we need to do 0.47 x 83,000 which is 39,010 (You could alternatively work out 53% and subtract this from 83,000)

    a. A is incorrect. If you got A you probably did 0.53 x 83000, that is 53% of 83000, you need to subtract that number from 83000

    b. This is correct

    c. C is incorrect. If you put C you probably guessed, the number is familiar because the question said it decreased by 53%, it did not say it decreased to 53000

    d. D is incorrect. The question says that the number fell so we know it is not 83000

    e. We can tell using the information in the last line of the first paragraph of the passage

    TOP TIP! – Maths questions will always involve manipulation of information from the text so go straight to the text and look for instructions

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    The Guardian view on adult education: Bring Back Evening Classes

    Something important has been lost in Britain: between 2009 and 2017, the number of part-time students in higher education fell by 53%. Where once there was a thriving culture of colleges, courses and evening classes, now the number of adults who study in later life is far lower than in other countries, including Germany. In the lowest socioeconomic groups, 49% have had no training since leaving school. Of the £20bn that the government spends annually on post-19 education, 93% goes on those who already have qualifications up to level 3 (A-levels).

    The decline predates austerity policies, although these made it worse. One of the contributors to a new report by the Centenary Commission on Adult Education launched earlier this month describes a “complete change” that took place under New Labour. Starting in the 19th century, a whole system grew up around working men’s colleges, workers’ educational associations and universities. By the early 21st century, the intrinsic value of such institutions, and the myriad opportunities they represented, had largely been discarded in favour of a much more instrumental view of “skills” as an asset to be traded.

    That is not to say that the labour market is not a crucial reference point in any discussion about what ought to be taught and how. The failure to invest in a skilled workforce is part of a much bigger deficit in long-term, strategic thinking – which the modern Conservative party appears to have abandoned in favour of a blind and dangerous faith in laissez-faire economics. With as many as nine in 10 jobs expected to be automated within the next decade, and businesses being laid waste by the pandemic, the CBI has thrown its weight behind what it calls a “national reskilling effort”.

    But new resources for vocational training for teenagers, and adults seeking to retrain in later life, are not the only issue. At the launch of the commission’s report, Alison Wolf, the economist and non-affiliated peer who advises the government on further education, recalled flicking through a “great thick book of evening classes” as a young woman. The report rightly highlights the climate emergency as one reason why it is essential to deepen people’s understanding of the world around them; because lifestyles need to adapt, but also because we have to find new outlets for our imagination and curiosity. Around 9 million adults in Britain have low levels of numeracy and literacy, which is a waste of talent. Investing in community-led adult learning in towns such as Rochdale has led to wider savings in health and policing

    (The Guardian Newspapers – editorial)

    56. What does ‘laissez-faire economics’ mean in the context of the text?
  • 0
    0

    Explanation

    The correct answer is A.

    You are not expected to know what ‘laissez faire economics’ means, you can work it out from the text. The text says ‘The failure to invest in a skilled workforce’, suggesting that laissez fair economics means the government does not interfere with economics by investing.

    a. This is the correct answer

    b. This is not suggested by the text

    c. There is nothing in the text which mentions importance of economics

    d. This is the opposite meaning

    e. There is no suggestion that economics is unimportant

    TOP TIP! – Don’t panic if you don’t know the meaning of the word, use the sentences around it to work out what it means

    Post Comment

    Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 670

    Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/customer/www/law-mind.co.uk/public_html/wp-content/themes/medicmind/single-cpt_tests.php on line 671

    Ethics & Education Review Screen

    Instructions

    Below is a summary of your answers. You can review your questions in three (3) different ways.

    The buttons in the lower right-hand corner correspond to these choices:

    1. Review all of your questions and answers.
    2. Review questions that are incomplete.
    3. Review questions that are flagged for review. (Click the 'flag' icon to change the flag for review status.)

    You may also click on a question number to link directly to its location in the exam.

    Ethics & Education Section

    Final Answer Review Screen

    Instructions

    This review section allows you to view the answers you made and see whether they were correct or not. Each question accessed from this screen has an 'Explain Answer' button in the top left hand side. By clicking on this you will obtain an explanation as to the correct answer.

    At the bottom of this screen you can choose to 'Review All' answers, 'Review Incorrect' answers or 'Review Flagged' answers. Alternatively you can go to specific questions by opening up any of the sub-tests below.

    Ethics & Education Section

    x

    +/-
    %
    MRC
    M-
    M+
    7
    8
    9
    4
    5
    6
    1
    2
    3
    ON/C
    0
    .
    ÷
    ×
    -
    +
    =