Would it be advantageous if all the people throughout the world could speak one common language?

According to an eleventh century Arab writer, Ibn-eHazm, in the beginning there existed a single language given by God, thanks to which Adam was able to understand the quiddity of things. Over the chequered history of mankind, the fragmentation of this unique tongue that existed abinitio gave rise to a multitude of diverse languages. An integration of all these, or a reversion to a single language would have several repercussions. The fundamental benefits of a single world language are pragmatic. A common language would dissolve all communication barriers and increase mutual understanding between people and the world over. Such an environment would be conducive to world peace and the end of conflicts. Economic prosperity would be facilitated as business partners are able to communicate freely, leading to a growth of international trade. Xenophobia and other related human fears would be eliminated as people are united under one language. This would undermine at least some racism or ethnocentrism as societies become more egalitarian in their outlook on foreign individuals. On the cultural front, a unique tongue would make redundant the need to translate works of literature or to subtitle/dub movies. The dissemination of knowledge and information could be done freely and in all parts of the globe, as the world's comprehension of different cultures rises. However, there are some drawbacks of a single world language. The convenience of a single language with its resulting blandness would not make for a full life. Language is more than just a communication of needs, it is a reflection of the social, historical and cultural milieu of society and is therefore a sacred institution. By restricting the modes of human expression to a single

CIE Comments
The introductory paragraph provides a divine background. A clear, historical background makes for a cogent introduction. The paragraph gives the benefits in a succinct manner, without giving the impression of a list which would have been all too easy. Development of some of the points from the previous paragraph occurs with an expansion towards cultural benefits. This is the key paragraph in terms of expression and eloquence. What a shame that the quotation could not be attributed. The long term political implications in the last sentence could have been developed perhaps offering a less developed country where education is poor. It would have been easy for this question to suggest to candidates that English was the common language by implication. This candidate avoids that potential trap, yet uses English in Canada/USA to compare with the UK. A disappointing conclusion. The essay merited a more expansive

language we would be stultifying, repressing and suffocating man's desire to be creative. 'The limits of my language are the limits of my world', as someone once aptly noted. Also, in a manner similar to the situation depicted in George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-four', a single language is a dangerous situation as it may put disproportionate power into the few hands controlling the medium. Although the implementation of a single language is an achievable target, the situation is bound to be transient and impossible to maintain in the long run. Cultural differences between societies transcend language. This is proven by the distinct cultures of the countries speaking the same language. Hence, although the same language, English, as spoken in Canada for instance, is dissimilar to that spoken in the United Kingdom, the United States of Australia. Also, the culture of a country may be composed of several sub-cultures each with its own language. The home of the Queen's English - the UK - is where English, Gaelic, Welsh, Punjabi, Bengali and Urdu, all coexist. Another obstacle in achieving this target of common language is political pride, which could create conflict between nations, when the choice of a dominant language is being made. In the light of the above discussion, I would suggest that if we are to succeed economically, socially, culturally and politically, then the world must embrace plurilinguism. The future is a multi-lingual one.

conclusion than the one offered.

Conclusion from the above comments

The overall use of language is sophisticated and mature. The tone of the essay disguises the fact that there could have been a little more development on the political effects. However, the essay does provide a balance of both sides of the argument. Points which could have been included to widen the scope of the answer include an improvement in the case of travel, the loss of dialect and a loss of jobs as translators. Surely the conclusion could have made more of the individual nature of language and its importance in cultural terms.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of banning smoking in public places?
Medical studies suggest that smoking can lead to serious health problems for both the person smoking and the person sitting next to him. Keeping these statistics in mind, governments all over the world have implemented bans on smoking tobacco in public places, to the joy of non-smokers and the dismay of those for whom a

CIE Comments
A straight forward introduction that firmly sets a context primarily associated with health. Factually correct scientific information provided with a good

cigarette is a permanent extension of the lips. Tobacco smoke contains carbon monoxide, a gas which - if inhaled - can severely reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. It does so by combining with the blood pigment haemoglobin and preventing it from carrying the oxygen it was supposed to. This action of carbon monoxide displays one great advantage of the ban on smoking in public places. People standing next to the smoker will, against their wishes, be inhaling the tobacco smoke emanating from the tip of the cigar or cigarette as well as that exhaled by the smoker. Thus, large quantities of carbon monoxide will be entering the "victim's" blood stream, wreaking havoc with his red blood cells. Tobacco smoke has also been shown to contain certain carcinogenic compounds which have the ability to mutate the DNA of anyone who inhales them, leading to probable cancers of the lungs, mouth and throats, and also secondary cancers at other sites in the body. These effects present another case in favour of the ban on smoking in public. Un-enlightened people standing next to the smoker will be increasing their risk of getting cancer tenfold. Tobacco smoke also contains nicotine, a chemical which produces the same effects as adrenaline in the body. Nicotine increases the breathing rate, heart beat and blood pressure of the person who consumes it. Increased blood pressure may lead to hardening of the arteries, a condition called arthero sclerosis. Thus another advantage of the ban comes to light. Nonsmokers who unwittingly inhale "second-hand" smoke are exposed to nicotine and its harmful effects. Apart from the evident medical and health advantages of the ban on smoking in the public, certain social advantages also come to mind. It is a well known fact that children, having impressionable minds, emulate

deal of sophisticated vocabulary. Also a use of phraseology that makes the information immediately understandable, without lapsing into slang. Introduces clear scientific understanding coupled with clear explanation. The last part of the health/science issues. The argument against smoking is strengthened with the social implications, particularly for youth. At this point it would have been useful to include a definition of 'public places' to qualify the last sentence. The economic considerations rightly identify the costs to the health budget. But it would have been a suitable point to include as a disadvantage that the Government would lose valuable revenue - tax, etc., and unemployment is unlikely. Civil liberty is addressed. It could have been followed up with a consideration of the 'nanny state' perhaps. But the candidate weighs up the costs of such a civil liberty infringement and concludes that the rights of so few cannot be allowed to rule over the majority. A weaker conclusion than the essay merits. Some minor points

almost everything they see their elders doing. The negative impact of seeing an adult smoking could ultimately lead these children to becoming smokers themselves. And the chances of such sightings increase manifold in public places where smoking is allowed. Countries which provide free medical aid for their citizens have an added advantage, a monetary one. Respiratory illnesses caused by inhaling tobacco smoke are on the rise, resulting in an increase in the amount of money spent on medical care by these countries. Most of the people suffering from these illnesses are nonsmokers exposed to 'second-hand' smoke. By banning the smoking of any form of tobacco in public, the incidence of these illnesses is greatly decreased, thus saving millions which may be directed towards other projects. The only disadvantage of the ban that comes to mind is that the smoker finds himself unable to exercise his right to choose, his freedom as a democratic citizen, fully. It is certainly an infringement on the rights of the smoker, rights which are guaranteed to any and all citizens of a democratic country. But one feels it is unjustified. The smoker cannot and should not force his smoking upon anyone, he should care for the rights of others as well. The rights of so few cannot be given preference over the rights of so many. All in all, the ban on smoking in public is a step in the right direction, towards a better future for us and the generations to come. All steps possible should be taken to discourage tobacco smoking, a potentially hazardous habit which may lead to death. We owe it to ourselves to do so.

could have been brought in - the smells, litter and also the way of enforcing a ban. Equally some examples of countries banning smoking would have been pertinent.

Conclusion from the above comments

This is a well informed essay that is aided by concise scientific language and mature assessment of that information. The vocabulary beyond the scientific is also sophisticated. Although it appears that there is a lot of time spent on the health issue, there is a balance here. Various opportunities to expand points and include a definition have been missed. A more substantial conclusion would have been preferable to what is otherwise a thoughtful and objectively written essay.

Should society punish criminals more harshly?

The world today has taken on a form in which guillotines and public hangings are a thing of the past. The modern

CIE Comments
An excellent introduction which

man has sought to sugarcoat handing out of punishment to criminals. However, as the barbarian of yesterday is replaced by the civilised man of today, delivering of punishment becomes subtler than ever but does not lose its essential sadistic touch. In America today, the gas chamber has been replaced by lethal injection as a means of inflicting capital punishment. Steps are being taken to make easier the misery of criminals. However, for the person in question who is to undergo death by lethal injection or an infinite number of years in solitary confinement, is any method better than the other? People argue in favour of harsher forms of punishment by saying that there are certain crimes that have to be dealt with very strictly. The very enormity of crimes like murder, rape etc requires them to be punishable by severe means. Their argument holds a lot of weight. How can society treat serious criminals with a lenient hand? However, against it one can argue that there can be infinitely better methods of deterring people to commit crimes than following the ancient dictates "eye for an eye." The role of harsher forms of punishment as deterrents is debatable. Instead of making people scared to commit violent crimes, strict punishment can also lead people on by indirectly challenging them to outwit the law. The thrill of escaping the harsh snares of justice may indeed motivate certain people to commit crimes. Yet the greatest argument against infliction of harsh forms of punishment to criminals is that they cannot be retracted if made in error. By punishing people through the death penalty or amputation of hands etc., the decision cannot be reversed if made erroneously. In 1956, capital punishment was abolished in Britain after Timothy Evans who was awarded the death penalty for killing his wife turned out to be innocent. A serial killer

considers a global overview setting the tone for the paragraphs to follow. It demonstrates that humankind uses a veil of civilisation to hide more basic behaviour. Such behaviour is both cruel and fundamental. A philosophical and mature opening. Highlights the apparent compassion of the changes in the USA. Yet perceives that death or infinite imprisonment are equally ghastly, implying that changes are only superficial. Looks at the argument maintained by those who want harsher punishment. Retribution is as bad as the crime. Leads to an assertion that retribution may be counterproductive, by issuing a challenge. Again a mature argument and effective assessment of the criminal mind is suggested, without being laboured. Points out the weighty argument that certain punishments of a retributive nature are irrevocable, with a pertinent example. Introduces the notion of a divine, creative purpose behind humankind. Looks at the motivation of the law maker, questioning a

confessed to the crime ten years later. As human beings we cannot make mistakes of this magnitude. We cannot play God. Another issue that we need to examine is that are we inflicting harsher forms of punishment upon criminals to uphold the law, or is it a legal channel through which the human desire of revenge is being satisfied? By coming up with subtle, sadistic forms of punishment for criminals, are we not fanning the primitive urge for retaliation by taking identical action or worse? In countries where the system of justice is not as transparent as it ought to be, harsh punishment meted out to convicts can be used as means to serve personal interests. Adversaries and enemies can be eliminated by indicting them in false cases. This is especially true of third world politics. The all-important question raises its head again: what rights do human beings, being a tiny part of Nature's system, have to decide whose time has come to die, and who can be allowed to live a little longer? In these ways then it is clear that harsh methods of punishment should not be made harsher. Their place is not in today's society but in history books where they can serve to make us learn from our mistakes. Fourteen states of America have outlawed the death penalty. The trend is positive, to say the least. By satisfying the baser of human feelings by punishing criminals harshly, we should not detract from our already thin vestiges of civilisation.

fundamental desire for revenge which puts society on an equal footing with the criminal. Third World use of severe punishment can be political. A valid point which is juxtaposed with the question of who has the right to impose capital punishment. A conclusion that draws together the threads of the essay with another relevant example used.

Conclusion from the above comments

This essay shows a consistently mature approach to the topic. It is written in a persuasive way, with a wide range of vocabulary and an effective use of questions. It shows a global awareness and a liberal attitude that is supported by sound argument. Whilst the question does not ask for 'capital punishment' this essay emphasises that as the severe punishment, whilst not doing so with distraction. Retribution, revenge, divine creation, political manipulation are all covered well. What the candidate could have included to make the essay more embracing would have been a consideration of other forms of punishment (community service, fines, etc); the financial burden of

a prison system; rehabilitation; the need to tackle the causes of crime; and education

What are the consequences of the break-up of family life in many countries today?
In recent years, almost all countries have witnessed a gradual disintegration of the family unit. The concept of the nuclear family, often living together and sharing resources, has been given up in favour of a single-unit household. Since large, extended families often served only to contribute to agrarian earnings, they dissolved to cater to the needs of the urban-industrial era. Today, small families, (often with a single parent) are common. The divorce rate and the number of illegitimate children are also in the rise. Senior citizens are no longer a part of their families, and are left at the mercy of private and public "old person's homes". Children, too, leave home at an early age, for independence or income. To meet the needs of the so called "rat race", often both parents have to work. Therefore children often spend their formative years without the care and guidance offered by parents. "Latch-key" children have independence thrust upon them when they most need care. They are often resentful of their parents, to a degree that they tend to do the same to their own children. Children without supervision or children left wanting care and nurturing, tend to behave in ways that are socially and morally repugnant. It has been shown in studies worldwide that at least 85% of children under the age of eighteen dabbling in drugs such as marijuana and opium, come from "broken homes" or are "latch key" children, in households where both parents work. Crime is increasing dramatically. Juvenile crime has probably shown the greatest rise. This is because, left unsupervised, children have the freedom to watch

CIE Comments
An excellent introduction to the topic, which combines a definition and an explanation. The level of vocabulary and phrasing is very high and is sustained throughout subsequent paragraphs. Broadens the topic by the inclusion of senior citizens and their plight. Could perhaps have made the point that there is an economic burden on the state. The economic necessity of both parents working is well expressed. The effects of not nurturing children leads to drug abuse this could have been extended towards the increasing focus of rebellion and crime in juveniles. Crime increase is here, but the link could have been more effectively made. We cannot blame the media solely, whilst a lack of supervision is very dangerous. Rather a sweeping generalization about the West: but a viable comparison could have been made.

uncensored media, which is often violent or pornographic. Homicide, rape, vandalism or robbery by teenagers is no longer shocking. In the East, a "joint family system" is still the norm. Values are imbibed through the experience of "elders", instead of personal experimentation. Skills and morals alike are drilled into impressionable young minds. The result of this is that Eastern society is perhaps not as rank with evil as the degenerate West. Because of the stifling pressures of modern living in the West, people do not have time for one another. Social and cultural values are not instilled into the individual by parental force, so each generation emerges the more immoral. It is a vicious circle. Studies in the United States have shown that children given up for adoption, despite the pain and betrayal they feel, as grownups with children of their own, tend to give them up for adoption, too. Similarly, a child who has not known the affection and security afforded by a parents care, will not know how to provide his own children with the same. Promiscuity and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are on the increase all over the world, but especially so in countries where the collapse of family life is most significant. Lax moral values are often bred by a lack of adult concern. This in turn ironically perpetuates the same insecurity in the children resulting from such liaisons. More often than not, religion is "born into" and not acquired. As a result of this, religious values are breaking down. With this have inevitably emerged various other "isms" to quench mans need to worship an institution higher than him. Money, Power, Prestige: these are the gods of today, creating in modern man a lust unmatched by ancient religious deities. People will stoop to any nadir of degradation to amass what they crave most.

A valid point here about security and parental care. An excellent paragraph succinct and beautifully expressed. This paragraph is not so skillfully woven into the general content as the others. It is more a commentary on materialism than family breakdown. Once more a beautifully written section, particularly the last two sentences. Considering the essay to this point, the conclusion is a little disappointing. It fails to summarise the points that have been so eloquently expressed.

Conclusion from the above comments

The levels of spelling, phrasing and vocabulary, overall expression and maturity of thought are all high. A thoughtful and wide ranging essay that omits only one key point economic implications for individual family members and state. Paragraph 8 shows excellent use of English and is a mature commentary on lax moral values.

The breakdown of family life is largely the result of each person serving his personal altar of selfaggrandisement. However, if it is not checked in the future, it may create disastrous consequences which are often irredeemable.

Discuss the arguments for and against vegetarianism.

Vegetarianism may be defined as a dietary style which completely excludes meat. Eating vegetable sans meat may be the result of personal preference or religious injunction. Jainism and Buddhism, religions which contain the belief in reincarnation, argue that since each human is reborn (often as a lower animal) eating any animal or insect would be tantamount to cannibalism. However, most vegetarians have no such profound theory besides their individual liking of vegetables. Scientific studies have shown that vegetable fats do not contain ingredients which promote heart disease. Nutritionists and dieticians advise people with heart problems to steer clear of meat, especially red meat. However, is it not necessary to supplement the diet with some meat? Proteins are made up of several essential units called "amino acids" lysine, valine, cystine, etc several of which are missing from vegetable protein. Most vegetables do not contain lysine and valine. However, with increased research, beans have been found to contain almost all the necessary amino acids. Vegetarians respect other animals right to live. If there were a species larger and more advanced than us, would it justify our being consumed by them? "Edible" animals such as cows, goats and hens are decreasing daily, as large numbers are consumed. This has resulted in "battery farming" and with the advent of advanced technology, cloning. Whether the animals resulting from

CIE Comments
A definition that is adequate, (although defined as a diet would have been preferable). Introduces the religious objections to meat eating with clear explanation and example. But what is the basis for the statement made on the last sentence? an over generalization. The health risks of meat eating for those with coronary disease. Scientific detail about protein, etc The dangers of battery farming and cloning could have been extended. More scientific information which could have been better placed with paragraph 4. Presumably the pollution referred to here is from the smells and any burning of waste products by incineration. Paragraph 8 and 9 could have been linked together as one paragraph. Paragraphs 10 and 11 equally linked.

these unnatural methods are as safe to eat as the ones "naturally" born, is left to be seen. Eating vegetables (and fruits) ensures that all the necessary vitamins required by the body are supplied in sufficient quantities. Only three or four servings of fruit per day are enough to satisfy the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamins essential to the body. Slaughtering animals is aesthetically repugnant. Even with advances in machine-run slaughterhouses, the gore and pollution so caused remains undimmed. Vegetarianism is a safe and healthy alternative. However, the proponents of vegetarianism often do not pause to consider the cons. Vegetables today are not grown in purely natural conditions. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers may seep through the vegetable, making it unfit for human consumption. Genetic engineering has worked to create "hybrid" (i.e. high yielding) varieties of vegetables and fruits, often creating enormously inflated yields, which look succulent and fresh, but are almost tasteless. Gene crossovers over several years have also resulted in strange mutations and less vitamins in the vegetables. Vegetable protein needs to be restructured in the human body so that it can be employed to be of some use and in that too, several essential amino acids are found lacking. Certain vegetables contain oxalic acid, which creates deposits in the kidneys or gall-bladder, usually called "stones", which are dangerous and very painful. Also, if everyone were to turn vegetarian, where would all the excess farm animals go? Man tends to think in terms of two opposite extremes, "Either-ors", neither of which may be acceptable. A good alternative to vegetarianism may be a diet containing a healthy mix of meat and vegetables. Meat may be used to provide the necessary proteins and vegetables the

A single sentence like this can have an impact. A compromise conclusion, following a wealth of scientific information.

Conclusion from the above comments

This is very well written with no real errors of spelling or grammar. It deals with the scientific information in an articulate way.

vitamin. Vegetables do not need to be cooked as much as meat, so the oil intake reduction may well lead to the reduction or even the prevention of the incidence of heart disease. Regular exercise would of course be an added security. Meat and vegetables both have their merits and demerits, excepting religious considerations and if given a choice, neither should be excluded from the diet in order to promote healthy living.