2015 DSE English Past Paper

• (A) In from the cold among warm-hearted Koreans

  
  

• (B1) Witness Statement

  
  

• (B2)  Young Minds in Critical Condition

交互式數碼科技

免費的英文文法學習系統

https://www.makewithinterest.com/

In from the cold among warm-hearted Koreans- 2015 A  

在溫暖的韓國人中走出寒冷

[1] Ten years ago, Oxford University graduate Daniel Tudor moved to Seoul, preferring the warmth of Korean society to “cold” Britain. The 31-year-old has since authored two books on his adopted home and has several other volumes in the pipeline. He speaks to Charmaine Chan about his latest title, A Geek in Korea, due out in June 2014.

You started, like so many other Westerners in Korea, teaching English. When did you begin writing about Korea and why? 

[2] When I joined The Economist [2010-2013] I thought, “Eventually I’d like to write a book about Korea because nobody else is really doing it.”

Why weren’t they? 

[3] Korea is a bit off the radar for most people in Western countries. In the 1980s Japan was the big story and people pay attention to China now because of its huge population and market. Korea has fallen in between these two countries.

In your book, you write about jeong the invisible hug. Is that something exclusive to Korea? 

[4] A lot of Koreans say jeong —the warmth between people and mutual sacrifice —is uniquely Korean, as is han . It’s nonsense, but Korea has words to describe these things, which shows they are important. Han is a burden, oppression or an injustice you can’t correct. Its cause never goes away but you can temporarily forget about it by pursuing all-out, manic fun. This is where heung comes in. Heung is pure joy. The word isn’t as famous as han, but I think that it should be. Even traditional Korean funerals used to feature extreme alcohol consumption, raucous singing, and the like.

[5] Often when Westerners think of East Asians, the stereotypes of stoicism and self control —the so called “inscrutable oriental” —come to mind. But Koreans in fact tend to be very expressive and open with their feelings. Somehow, sadness and happiness both seem to be magnified in Korea.

How is A Geek different from your first book? 

[6]. It’s still about South Korea, but it’s aimed at a younger audience. Consider it a gateway for those who like K-pop or TV shows from Korea, but don’t know anything about the country.

A few chapters are about K-pop. Are you into K-pop? 

[7] Generally K-pop is for teenagers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. It’s a good business. But I like music played by people who mean what they’re writing. Some people think all Korean music is K-pop, but there’s really good music in Korea that’s not superficial or played on the radio or on TV and doesn’t go outside of Korea. One of my favourite bands is 3rd Line Butterfly: these guys are not rich and famous; they’re ordinary guys you can be friends with. I am friends with them. There’s an interview with [Gangnam Style singer] Psy [in Geek]. He’s funny and cheeky, in a Robbie Williams kind of way, and making fun of Gangnam [an affluent district of Seoul], which is superficial and flashy.

How about Korean soaps? 

[8] I don’t like the drama stuff. They’re trying to play with your emotions with Cinderella stories: beautiful girl from poor family marries rich guy. Korea’s probably not the best country in which to be a woman. If you’re a young woman in Korea, what’s the best way to become wealthy or to achieve status? Sadly, it’s to marry somebody.

You also write about how Koreans are obsessed with success and education.

[9] You find these mothers in Gangnam and they’re scary. When I taught English I’d meet kids who, materially, led awesome lives and they’d show up in these big Mercedes with bags as big as they were. But if they didn’t get an A grade in something, their parents would get mad and the next time you saw them they’d be crying. Wealthy families are obsessed with education. It’s a status thing: preserve your status and show the rest of the world that you’re preserving your status and your kids are doing well.

Why do you continue to live in Korea? 

[10] This jeong stuff —that’s the thing that keeps me in Korea. Korea made me a better friend to my friends. England’s a cold society and, growing up, I suppose I always wanted this feeling of being connected to people. I thought English people were a bit too cynical and cold. Korea is a place where you say, “I like you. I love you. This is great.” I really like that.

Tudor’s Book Covers Implausible, Impossible Korea

October 15, 2012 

By Evan Ramstad

[1] Daniel Tudor is one of the most influential foreign correspondents in South Korea —and one of the least known. As the reporter for the Economist, which doesn’t use bylines, most of his work is published anonymously. But Mr. Tudor’s profile is about to take a sharp rise with the publication of his new book, “Korea: The Impossible Country”.

[2] It’s the first English-language book to cover the whole waterfront of South Korean society —historical, cultural, economic, social, political —since one by another influential British expat, Michael Breen, with “The Koreans,” which was originally published in 1998 and revised in 2004. [Mr. Breen provided a recommendation on Mr. Tudor’s book jacket.] “Korea: The Impossible Country” is also likely to get added to the list of must-read books for anyone from outside of South Korea who wants to do business or live in the country.

[3] That’s a small canon, unfortunately. In addition to Mr. Breen’s book, the other indispensables are “Diamond Dilemma” by Tariq Hussain, “Korean Dynasty” by Donald Kirk, Tom Coyner’s guide to doing business in Korea and Robert Koehler’s Seoul Selection guidebooks for places and sightseeing. Indeed, the list of must-read books about North Korea is far longer.

[4] Mr. Tudor pushes into new social and economic territory with his book, including the rising role of immigrants, multicultural families and even gay people in South Korea. He lays out some of the contradictory behavior one finds in South Korea, such as the unending desire for new and trendy gadgets and fashion and yet the tunnel-like view of what constitutes a successful life. At the end, he asks the question that nearly every visitor has after spending some time in South Korea: why aren’t people happier with what they’ ve done?

Witness Statement -  B1

證人陳述

I, Anna Rossi, of 3 Arthur Street, Yau Ma Tei, housewife, state: 

On 1 December 2014 at about 3:30pm, I was about to get into my car in the car park next to the shops on Wood Road, Wan Chai. 

I noticed that a silver car was driving down the aisle behind me. 

I saw a green sports car reverse out of a car space and collide with the silver car. The silver car was moving at the time of the collision. 

My car was parked opposite where the accident happened. 

Both the drivers got out of their cars. Neither of them seemed to be hurt and I went over to them to see how they were. 

The driver of the green car said “Did you see the accident?” I said words to the effect “I saw it”. He then said “Can you give me your contact details, just in case I need a statement from you?” I replied “Yes”. I then gave him my contact details. 

It was a sunny day. 

The speed limit in the car park was 20km per hour. The silver car was travelling at about 40km per hour. 

I noticed damage to the back left side of the green sports car. 

I believe that the contents of this statement are true and correct. 

Signed: A. Rossi 

Dated: 7 December 2014

Will cars with no drivers catch on?

[1] Some day in the near future, cars will drive themselves. Traffic jams and deadly accidents will become a thing of the past. Driving to work will be less stressful, as riders can sit back with their coffee and let computers handle the trip. 

[2] That’s the dream of many, at least. And it’s not totally unrealistic. Google is developing “autonomous vehicles” that are improving rapidly each year. A future of completely self-driving vehicles doesn’t seem too far off. 

[3] And yet, according to a new report by the Eno Center for Transportation, there are still many obstacles to overcome before self-driving cars take over our highways. 

[4] “Self-driving cars have the potential to transform transport as we know it,” explained report co-author Daniel Fagnant — and bring billions of dollars’ worth of benefits. But getting to that point won’t be easy. 

The benefits of self-driving cars

[5] It’s easy to list the benefits of a world with self-driving vehicles. Safety is the biggest. Right now, more than 30,000 people die each year in the United States from automobile crashes. And roughly 40 percent of fatal accidents are caused by alcohol, distraction, drugs or fatigue. Letting robots take the wheel would save lives.

[6] Or take congestion. Cars driven by robots could travel closer together at steadier speeds. They wouldn’t bunch up in traffic jams caused by a ripple of brake lights. More cars could squeeze onto the road and move more quickly, and a lot of time and fuel would be saved.

[7] If just 10 percent of the vehicles on the road were self-driving cars, the authors estimate, the country could save more than $37 billion a year —fewer deaths, less fuel, more free time. If we reached a point where 90 percent of the cars on the road were self-driving vehicles, the benefits would rise to around $450 billion a year.

[8] Now, as Fagnant pointed out in a presentation, these are “ballpark, rough estimates...guesses, really.” So don’t get too fixated on the numbers. They’re meant to be illustrative, not definitive.

[9] The authors also didn’t try to quantify any of the costs of self-driving vehicles. What’s the price tag on these gadgets? How does that compare to the benefits?

[10] And what about unforeseen consequences? Researchers can’t predict how, exactly, self-driving cars might reshape society. Maybe the vehicles will induce even more travel and congestion will get worse. Or maybe they will lead to an increase in air pollution. It’s impossible to know at this point. Still, the advantages are tantalizing.

The problems of self-driving car

[11] Even if the benefits are many, self-driving vehicles have a lot of hoops to leap through. First, the technology is still very pricey. By one estimate, the first wave of autonomous vehicles could cost over $100,000 —five times the cost of the average new vehicle. Even that might be an underestimate: the 3-D sensors alone on Google’s autonomous car cost about $70,000.

[12] Those costs would presumably come down over time, but no one knows how rapidly. And that’s a big hurdle. One survey found that only 20 percent of Americans would “definitely” or “probably”buy a car with self-driving capabilities even if the price dropped to $30,000.

[13] What’s more, while the technology is rapidly improving, it’s far from perfect. Google’s self-driving cars have now traveled more than 435,000 miles in California, but the cars have yet to be fully tested in urban environments.

[14] Most likely, self-driving technology will emerge gradually, piece by piece. But even intermediate features pose unique challenges.

[15] Early autonomous cars will likely require their human drivers to take the wheel during especially complicated situations. But as one car maker is discovering, it’s difficult to get people to drift in and out of attention while driving — and the process of switching back and forth between robot and human could well make these cars less safe, at first.

[16] The Eno report also notes that there’s still a ton of research yet to be done about the prospect of self-driving cars. “As long as crucial questions go unanswered,”the report concludes, “the nation will be hampered in its ability to successfully plan for and introduce [autonomous vehicles] into the transportation system.

Young Minds in Critical Condition -  B2

年輕心靈的危機

[1] It happens every semester. A student triumphantly points out that Jean-Jacques Rousseau’ is undermining himself when he claims “the man who reflects is a depraved animal,” or that Ralph Waldo Emerson’s’ call for self-reliance is in effect a call for reliance on Emerson himself. Trying not to sound too weary, I ask the student to imagine that the authors had already considered these issues.

[2] Instead of trying to find mistakes in the texts, I suggest we take the point of view that our authors created these apparent “contradictions” in order to get readers like us to ponder more interesting questions. How do we think about inequality and learning, for example, or how can we stand on our own feet while being open to inspiration from the world around us? Yes, there’s a certain satisfaction in being critical of our authors, but isn’t it more interesting to put ourselves in a frame of mind to find inspiration in them?

[3] Our best college students are very good at being critical. In fact being smart, for many, means being critical. Having strong critical skills shows that you will not be easily fooled. It is a sign of sophistication, especially when coupled with an acknowledgment of one’s own “privilege”.

[4] The combination of resistance to influence and deflection of responsibility by confessing to one’s advantages is a sure sign of one’s ability to negotiate the politics of learning on campus. But this ability will not take you very far beyond the university. Taking things apart, or taking people down, can provide the satisfactions of cynicism. But this is thin gruel.

[5] The skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not totally without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of self-satisfied debunkers — or, to use a currently fashionable word on campus, people who like to “trouble” ideas. In overdeveloping the capacity to show how texts, institutions or people fail to accomplish what they set out to do, we may be depriving students of the chance to learn as much as possible from what they study.

[6] In campus cultures where being smart means being a critical unmasker, students may become too good at showing how things can’t possibly make sense. They may close themselves off from their potential to find or create meaning and direction from the books, music and experiments they encounter in the classroom.

[7] Once outside the university, these students may try to score points by displaying the critical prowess for which they were rewarded in school, but those points often come at their own expense. As debunkers, they contribute to a cultural climate that has little tolerance for finding or making meaning — a culture whose intellectuals and cultural commentators get “liked” by showing that somebody else just can’t be believed. But this cynicism is no achievement.

[8] Liberal education in America has long been characterized by the intertwining of two traditions: of critical inquiry in pursuit of truth and exuberant performance in pursuit of excellence. In the last half century, though, emphasis on inquiry has become dominant, and it has often been reduced to the ability to expose error and undermine belief. The inquirer has taken the guise of the sophisticated (often ironic) spectator, rather than the messy participant in continuing experiments or even the reverent beholder of great cultural achievements.

[9] Of course critical reflection is fundamental to teaching and scholarship, but fetishizing disbelief as assign of intelligence has contributed to depleting our cultural resources. Creative work, in whatever field,depends upon commitment, the energy of participation and the ability to become absorbed in works of literature, art and science. That type of absorption is becoming an endangered species of cultural life, a sour nonstop, increasingly fractured technological existence wears down our receptive capacities.

[10] In my film and philosophy class, for example, I have to insist that students put their devices away while watching movies that don’t immediately engage their senses with explosions, sex or gag lines. At first they see this as some old guy’s failure to grasp their skill at multitasking, but eventually most relearn how to give themselves to an emotional and intellectual experience, one that is deeply engaging partly because it does not pander to their most superficial habits of attention. I usually watch the movies with them (though I’ve seen them more than a dozen times), and together we share an experience that becomes the subject of reflection, interpretation and analysis. We even forget our phones and tablets when we encounter these unexpected sources of inspiration.

[11] Liberal learning depends on absorption in compelling work. It is a way to open ourselves to the various forms of life in which we might actively participate. When we learn to read or look or listen intensively, we are, at least temporarily, overcoming our own blindness by trying to understand an experience from another’s point of view. We are not just developing techniques of problem solving; we are learning to activate potential, and often to instigate new possibilities.

[12] Yes, hard-nosed critical thinking is a useful tool, but it also may become a defense against the risky insight that absorption can offer. As students and as teachers we sometimes crave that protection; without it we risk changing who we are. We risk seeing a different way of living not as something alien, but as a possibility we might be able to explore, and even embrace

[13] Liberal education must not limit itself to critical thinking and problem solving; it must also foster openness, participation and opportunity. It should be designed to take us beyond the campus to a life of ongoing, pragmatic learning that finds inspiration in unexpected sources, and increases our capacity to understand and contribute to the world — and reshape it, and ourselves, in the process.  

Comments

Tom

6/5/2014 2:47 AM GMT+0800 

Are you serious? $60,000 taken out in student loans for tuition, room and board and no prospect for a job. Better to stick to any STEM program in college (science, technology, engineering, math). You can get the type of education discussed in the article, and even more, from your local library, with maybe $1.50 in late fines when you are finished, if you really want to explore what it means to be human. PUH-LEEZE. Clearly this article was written for the American higher education “rip-off machine”.

Laura

6/5/2014 8:00 PM GMT+0800

It takes months or years to design and build a structure, and most are incapable of doing this; however, it takes hours and less skill to wreck it.