Achievement Test

Imagine that you are writing an article for the newspaper you are working in. Study the following information and write a complete news story. You are offered materials for several stories. Choose any you like. Follow the structure of the article, think about the language of your story, analyze the key discourse categories and represent them in the content of the article. Remember about the punctuation marks. You may change the category of space in the story if you like.

Don’t forget about the title for the story.

STORY 1

The announcement is a major one. It was made at a press conference this morning in the office of Enrico Lowdes, director of the Regional Medical Center. The announcement is that the hospital is one of 10 medical facilities located throughout the entire United States selected to participate in an important new study the purpose of which is to determine whether or not a new technique will be successful in helping smokers to stop smoking. The hospital will not accept volunteers to participate in the experiment. Rather, Lowdes said, doctors in the city will be asked to refer a total of 800 of their patients who smoke and want to stop smoking to the hospital for participation in the experiment. Lowdes noted that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine or heroin. That may explain why 28% of adult Americans smoke. Experts estimate that as many as 90% of those who now smoke say they would like to quit. Many have tried to kick the habit many times but failed. The most difficult part of kicking the habit, Lowdes said, is acute withdrawal symptoms ranging from physical cravings, nervousness, irritation, difficulty concentrating, difficulty sleeping, and changes in appetite. That is why the Regional Medical Center sought to be one of 10 medical facilities in the United States to test a new nicotine patch that may help smokers who want to discontinue the habit ease the pain of withdrawal. Lowdes explained that the smokers asked to participate in the study will be prescribed adhesive patches. They will be instructed that, as soon as they get up in the morning, they are to apply one of the patches to their upper body. The patch releases a steady level of nicotine throughout the day. It is less nicotine, however, than that provided by cigarettes – but is thought to be enough to alleviate withdrawal symptoms. Nicotine gum is designed to work in much the same way, but some evidence indicates that the patch may be more effective because some people find the gum hard to chew, chew it improperly, or don't use it in sufficient quantity. The 800 patients will be monitored monthly for an entire year in an attempt to determine how many are helped by the patches: how many succeed in stopping smoking over a period of 1 year. Lowdes added finally that the patch may also help smokers quit smoking without gaining as much weight as sometimes happens to smokers who quit the habit.

STORY 2

A new law that goes into effect next fall will affect elementary, junior high and high school students throughout the state. The state Legislature enacted the law, and the governor signed it today. Basically, the law prohibits the sale of so-called junk food at public schools. So, as a result of the law's passage, the content of all school vending machines will undergo a drastic change. The machines no longer will contain any candy bars, gum, soda or other foods with high sugar content. Instead, they will be replaced by foods which are considered by many to be more healthy, foods such as canned soups and juices, jerky, toasted soy beans, sunflower seeds, yogurt, nuts, cheese, popcorn, pretzels, ice cream and milk. The law was supported by physicians, dentists and educators, who testified in legislative hearings that many students bought snacks and soft drinks from machines instead of eating the more nutritious meals served in school cafeterias. Other persons, primarily food manufacturers and vending-machine operators, opposed the law. Students, too, generally opposed it, claiming that their rights were being violated and that they were old enough to make their own decisions about what they want to eat. Some school principals also opposed the law, pointing out the fact that the law will be costly since they receive a percentage of the receipts of the vending machines located in their buildings. Some big high schools earn up to $20,000 a year from machines and use the money to buy materials that would not otherwise be available, such as supplemental textbooks, library materials, calculators for their mathematics laboratories, television cameras for their communications classes, and athletic equipment. School bands and athletic programs will be hurt most severely by the loss of revenue. The practice of showing free movies at some schools may also come to a quick end, since many were financed by vending machine revenues. Critics said it was inconsistent for schools to teach good nutrition in classes and then make food with high sugar content easily available. The ban will be in effect only during school hours, so the junk food will still be able to be sold after school hours, such as during school dances and sports events, so schools can continue to earn a limited amount of money from their sale. One opponent added, "There's simply no sense in talking to kids about dental care and good nutrition and selling them junk food at the same time." Opponents responded that students will buy candy anyway, simply going off campus to buy it.

STORY 3

FACTS: Marlene Ostreicher is a county judge. At 9 o'clock this morning she announced her decision in a divorce case involving Marilyn R. and Bruce C. Aparico. Bruce Aparico, a medical doctor, sued his wife, Marilyn, for divorce. In a countersuit, Mrs. Aparico sued her husband for a share of all his future earnings on the grounds that she had worked and sacrificed to help put him through medical school. In her decision today, Judge Ostreicher ruled: "Because the husband's degree was earned to a large extent by the contributions of the wife, the wife is entitled to an equitable distribution of an interest in the fruits of the husband's medical career. Therefore, I am awarding her 25 percent of her former husband's future income, to continue for the remainder of their lives, or until she remarries."

ONE SIDE: Roger Swidell was the attorney representing Mrs. Aparico. After the judge's decision was announced, Swidell said: "It's only fair. She contributed financially and domestically to the creation of an asset, and she deserves her fair share of that asset. I think it is an extremely enlightened decision." Mrs. Aparico herself added: "The ruling was fair, but I would have preferred staying married. You both struggle. You sacrifice, "living with a student and counting every penny. You give the best years of yourself. Then you're not good enough anymore. You're 30 years old, with two kids and no career. The only reason I did this was to secure my children's future; I have to think about them. I'm sorry that everything had to turn out this way. But I was attending college myself when we got married, studying to be a teacher. To help my husband get his medical degree, I dropped out and started working odd jobs and raised our children for six years while he was finishing his undergraduate work and then getting his medical degree. I always earned at least $10,000 a year, and sometimes more, so I contributed more than §60,000 or $70,000, plus all my time to support and nurture our family and help pay his school expenses."

THE OTHER SIDE: James Carlisle, an attorney representing Dr. Aparico, said: "It's the first time in the history of this state that a judge has awarded one spouse a portion of the other's future income in a divorce case such as this one. The ruling is unjust and oppressive. It puts my client in a position of involuntary servitude. Certainly we acknowledge that Mrs. Aparico is possibly entitled to something, but not this kind of money, and we intend to appeal." Dr. Aparico added: "The judge didn't understand, she fast didn't understand the facts. She couldn't have considered the evidence. It's true we got married in college and my wife worked, but most of my expenses were paid by my parents and by student loans. On the day I graduated, I owed almost $25,000 in loans, and I still haven't started to pay them back. My parents gave me another $20,000-$25,000. That's how I got through medical school, not by depending on my former wife.

SUPPLEMENTARY READING

Text 1

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14