ENGLISH
ESSAYS
How to replace “good/bad”: tasty or disgus ng, plain food / pleasant or foul smell / thrilling, entertaining or boring lm / a page-turner / a well-
grounded, convincing or groundless excuse / a sound or worthless advice / a harmless or detrimental consequence / outstanding or poor results.
How to replace “important”: a key event / an in uen al poli cian / a sweeping change / a signi cant (always works) progress / a vast quan ty /
heavy damage / an acute problem / a landmark decision / a relentless growth / a deep crisis.
How to say an “important issue”: thorny issue / a touchy issue / a tough issue / a disturbing issue / a shocking issue / a li le-known issue / a
challenging issue / a crucial issue / a sensi ve issue.
How to replace “as a conclusion”: all in all / the bo om line is / ul mately / to sum it up.
How to replace “Poor working condi ons make the situa on worse”: Poor working condi ons compound the situa on.
1 sur 44
ti titi fl tt ti ti ti ti ti fi ti fi tt ti
, I. POLITICS, DEMOCRACY AND MODERN POPULISM
Expressions:
A die-hard conserva ve / the discovery of a vaccine against AIDS would be a remarkable boon.
They want schools for retarded people but not in their hometown: it is a perfect case of nimbyism (“Not In My Backyard” mentality).
Whatever your analysis of the situa on, the bo om-line is the same: we need more funds.
The media play a signi cant role when it comes to shaping public opinion.
Without the free ow of informa on, democracy is endangered.
Gone are the days when the world was dominated by tyrannical regimes.
It is o en assumed / taken for granted that the media are truthful and don’t distort facts.
Does policing language only prevent us from badly needed discourse?
PC – a shorthand way for poli cal correctness – has been the bu of many jokes and it is undeniably easy to nd far-fetched
examples in the news. It is but another form of censorship OR does it indicate a shi in authority over language?
PC is rst and foremost concerned with social jus ce and acknowledges the fact that society has evolved – so should language. Who
could deem acceptable to call a mute person “dumb” (which also means stupid)? But one also ought to pay a en on to
connota ons. MLK himself rightly emphasized racism in the implicit associa ons involved in such terms as “black” and “white”. PC is
therefore no sani sed “newspeak” but a prerequisite to any discourse bent on avoiding inherent bias and stereotypes.
But is the problem really with words or with the ones who use them? Nobel Prize laureate Toni Morrison interes ngly rephrased the
ques on: “the PC debate is about the power to be able to de ne. The de ners want the power to name. And the de ned are now
taking that power away from them” (NYT 1994). That is why derogatory words such as “nigger”, “queer” or “chick” can be reclaimed
by certain groups to de ne themselves. What ma ers is not some commitment to any par cular names but a challenge to the
unthinking use of old discriminatory ones.
Poli cal correctness is therefore a way to draw a en on on language and prompt a conscious and re exive use of words. Ul mately
it is a form of empowerment encouraging to take responsibility when it comes to oneself and others, but it may lead to censorship
and thus threaten freedom of speech. That’s why PC should be used sparingly.
Without the freedom to o end, free speech, as author Salman Rushdie once wrote, “ceases to exist”.
According to the article, why is free speech under threat ?
According to the ar cle, President Trump and campus radicals are both jeopardizing free speech in America.
President Trump o en cri cizes journalists’ and the printed media. Indeed, thanks to free speech they can express what they think
without cosying up to the president (sans le carresser dans le sens du poil). But President Trump o en disagrees with journalists and
denies non-glorifying informa on. The danger is that Trump wants to use his power to put the detractors in jail. Nevertheless, this is
impossible, according to the Cons tu on.
Campus radicals present another threat for free speech. But the author disagrees with what they promote. Some of campus radicals
would not hesitate to deprive detractors of free speech or even tolerate the use of violence to counter radical speeches. For them,
the balance of usefulness on violence would jus fy such an ac on.
Nonetheless, free speech is also threatened by the evolu on of society. We live in society where people fear to express their opinion
because of the impact it can have. For example, in University, what is said must be neutral in order to o ence no opinion groups.
University lecturers fear to lose their job by voicing controversial ideas. Free speech also has a social impact. For instance, when
someone hears something hur ng, it can a ect them them for a long me. But for the author, on the contrary, free speech and
hearing unpleasant things can be construc ve, and it is a pity that campus radicals jeopardize free speech.
However, despite its threat, free speech stands the test of me thanks to jus ce.
Should the pursuit of happiness be a policy goal?
The pursuit of happiness stands as a credo of American values, which put the emphasis on the respect of freedom and is tellingly
linked to wealth. It is legi mate for policymakers to rule about the pursuit of one’s happiness?
First the State has undoubtedly a role to play in the pursuit of happiness as it must ensure the safety of its ci zens and de ne the
extent of one’s freedom in accordance with the lemma “freedom ends where others’ begin”. It seems to me that policymakers must
create a welcoming environment for the pursuit of everyone’s happiness but as B. Franklin reminded his people, “the Cons tu on
only guarantees you the right to pursue happiness, you have to catch it yourself”.
In addi on to that, equal opportunity underpins the pursuit of happiness, as an environment cannot be favourable to those lagging
behind and underachieving under the weight of too many inequali es. That’s why Johnson’s a rma ve ac on in 1964 aimed at
giving preferen al treatments to some people; to ensure minori es were also given a shot. Yet, happiness varies according to
individuals, me and expecta ons so it can seem di cult for policymakers to enforce laws, which will t everybody, but not doing
anything is tantamount to giving up.
All in all, the pursuit of happiness should be a policy goal as policymakers pledge to guarantee everyone the right to pursue
happiness; they have the tools to do so. What I think is that the poten al pi alls are too numerous to embrace the idea with open
arms.
2 sur 44
titiftfi titi ti tifltitifttifi fititiff titi titi ti ti titt ff tittti ttffi
ti titi tifi ti ttti titi fitititf ft ti ffift fl tifi ff tititi fi fi tt tifiti ti
, A/ BRITISH POLITICS
Do you think that UK is a true politically and socially democratic nation ?
The Bri sh Parliament is the “mother of all Parliaments”, as the United Kingdom was the rst country in modern mes to set up a
parliamentary system based on democra c government in the wake of the 1688 Glorious Revolu on. But the Bri sh poli cal system,
for all its undeniably democra c features, also presents elements that seem to run counter to this rst assump on.
On the one hand, there is no ques on that the Bri sh poli cal system is deeply democra c, as Parliament, where the popula on is
represented, is o cially sovereign: the monarch’s powers are merely symbolical, and the execu ve itself is but the expression of
Westminster since the PM is by conven on the leader of the majority party. That means in par cular that the Cabinet cannot go
against the House of Commons without risking a backbench rebellion that may topple it. The collegial dimension of the Cabinet’s
decision-making process also favors democra c debates through the existence of a shadow-cabinet, which ensures that compe ng
voices weigh in on the decisions ul mately taken by the PM.
But for all those trailblazing cons tu onal measures, the United Kingdom is o en considered as one of the least democra c
countries among Western na ons, which is due in par cular to the prominent part played by the Establishment in poli cal and social
life. Members of the Establishment, that is of that part of the upper class whose wealth was mainly inherited, s ll keep a strong hand
on many high-ranking posi ons in poli cs or nance and make sure that social reproduc on is not challenged: they send their
children to posh public schools (Eton or Harrow for example) where they can take their supposedly deserved places within the
network they ght tooth and nails to protect. Lower-class people, but also ethnic minority members, are thus excluded from
economic and poli cal power. But the most important issue is that the Establishment is propped up by ins tu ons, which ensure
that their grip on Bri sh society will remain unshakeable: the monarchy, the Church of England and the House of Lords. The la er is
the symbol of the lack of democracy in government as peerages are either hereditary or granted on a non-elec ve basis by the PM
and the Queen. Finally, various controversies have a ected Westminster in recent mes, from the ‘’Cash for Honors’’ scandals
rela ve to peerages that were granted by the PM based on candidates’ money dona ons, to the 2009 ‘’parliamentary expenses
scandal’’ that shed light on some MPs’ misuse of public money for personal expenses. Those have tended to prove that the o cial
representa ves of the Bri sh na on primarily defend their own interests rather than the popula on’s, as should be the norm in a
fully democra c system.
What are Seuma’s Milne’s main arguments to criticise the British monarchy in this article ?
In this extract published on July 23, 2013 in the Guardian on the occasion of the birth of the royal baby, columnist Seumas Milne
launches a scathing a ack on the Bri sh monarchy, which he deems a public embarrassment when the UK is compared to an all but
monarch-free Western world. The journalist rst lays out the main reasons why he thinks this undemocra c ins tu on, where heads
of state are not elected but randomly selected based on birth, is a blemish on the na on’s face. Milne, who claims to echo millions of
Britons, depicts the monarchy as illegi mate and an o ense to a Bri sh popula on that does not have any electoral say in the
ma er. Moreover, the abiding presence of the monarch fosters the an -meritocra c concep on that hereditary privilege and
inequality at birth stand at the heart of Bri sh society; and indeed, the journalist adds, the monarchy, which purports to be
poli cally neutral, actually embodies and implicitly advocates for a supposedly consensual conserva sm on the na on’s scale. Finally,
Milne wonders how Britain may preach for democracy abroad, when it maintains such undemocra c ins tu ons as the monarchy
and the House of Lords at home. But, in a second part, the columnist actually goes further and also cri cizes those who insist the
role of the Queen is limited to symbolic gestures. He men ons some of the monarch’s main conven onal powers -- appoin ng the
PM, dissolving Parliament -- and, though he admits such preroga ves have never been wielded to oppose decisions made by
Parliament or the PM in recent mes, he wonders what would happen in case of a serious crisis. He reminds readers that judges,
police and military forces do not pledge allegiance so much to Parliament as to the Queen, and that the monarch undeniably holds
some in uence on policy-makers through her weekly audiences with the PM, or more overtly as tes ed by Prince Charles’ recent
upbraiding of Cabinet ministers. Milne thus concludes, saying that the monarchy represents a dangerous alterna ve to party poli cs,
which may actually thrive on the decline of poli cal par es, a phenomenon recent world events have but been con rming.
In your opinion, why can British democracy still be considered as a model despite the presence of a
hereditary monarch as its head ?
Though republicans such as Seumas Milne will regularly lambast the Bri sh poli cal system for allegedly being thrall to the
Establishment due to the prominent place given to the non-elected monarch and House of Lords, Britain remains, as John Bright said
in the second half of the 19th c., the “mother of Parliaments”, and may s ll be considered as a model for democracies around the
world. Indeed, at a me when the compromise-based US Congress has fallen prey to divisions that have gridlocked it en rely, one is
en tled to admire a system where the “parliamentary execu ve” is the direct expression of the poli cal majority in Parliament,
which makes the policy-making process all the smoother, and where stable majori es are usually the rule due to the First Past the
Post electoral system, contrary for example to Italy, where propor onal representa on makes it almost impossible to build reliable
coali ons. Moreover, the principle of “parliamentary sovereignty” ensures that the ins tu on that embodies the Bri sh popula on
may keep the upper hand on poten ally authoritarian dri s on the part of the execu ve. As for the House of Lords, however archaic
it may seem, it can s ll delay the passing of most bills for a year, and may therefore act as a “cooling chamber” in order to put a
brake on the government’s reforming zeal that the system otherwise naturally fosters. Secondly, an un-codi ed Bri sh Cons tu on
can actually be seen as a decisive asset since it helps maintain strong tradi on-based principles such as “parliamentary sovereignty”
or Britain as a “unitary state”, and thus ensures stability for the na on, even as it simultaneously allows for actual adapta ons to the
contemporary situa on (prac cally, the PM o en rules over Parliament, and centraliza on has now given place to devolu on and
power-sharing among the na ons). Finally, Bri sh democracy is also reinforced by the in uence of the Fourth Power, the press,
which, though somewhat connected with the poli cal establishment as proved by the News of the World scandal, has s ll shown
3 sur 44
titttiti tifl ti tifi ffitititititt ti tititi ti tititititi titititi fitifttitifiti ti tifftifffttiti ti titi ti ti titi ti tifttititititititititi titififlti tititifitititititifitititi fititititititititifititititi titi tititititittffiti ti
, enough independence to break stories such as the “Cash for Ques ons” (in the Guardian in 1994) or parliamentary expenses
scandals (in the Daily Telegraph in 2009), which have both helped further public accountability and thus bolstered a Bri sh
democracy that can s ll be seen as a model, the same as it was a er the cons tu onally de ning Glorious Revolu on in 1688.
In the article, what are Michael Berkeley’s main proposals to make of House of Lords “a house that
commands respect” ?
In this piece extracted from a September 2013 issue of The Guardian, Michael Berkeley, an apoli cal crossbencher Lord, suggests
that three main measures should be taken to enhance the image of the Bri sh Upper House in the wake of the recent scandal that
broke out a er D. Cameron, N Clegg and E. Miliband proposed the appointment of some of their party donors as new life peers.
Berkeley rst insists that the role of the new independent appointments commission that was set up to bring non-poli cal experts to
the fold, should be expanded to cover and review all candidates, rather than limited to a few as is currently the case, in par cular
since D. Cameron came to power. Such a measure would curtail the power of patronage held by party leaders and boost public
con dence in the system. Second, Berkeley considers that poli cal and non-poli cal candidates alike should be submi ed to the
same grueling ve ng process that is currently reserved only for experts, so the commission might check the added value each of
them would bring to the House. Candidates would therefore compete in a fair eld, even though poli cal support could s ll be used
as a weighty criterion to make sure general elec on results are partly translated into the House of Lords. This change would help
convince Britons that Lords seats are not for sale but granted based on candidates’ creden als. Berkeley’s last proposal consists, on
the one hand, in limi ng the number of seats in the House of Lords to make it less crowded and put the brakes on Lords in a on,
and on the other, on the possibility for the appointments commission to evict such Lords as but rarely show up in the House.
In your opinion, what are the main advantages and drawbacks of the British House of Lords ?
Last year, the Coali on government’s decision to scrap the Lords’ reform they had originally scheduled was seen as addi onal
evidence that Bri sh governments were not ready to overhaul an ins tu on whose usefulness however seems dubious at best. The
Upper House indeed, though partly valuable, presents a number of serious, undeniable drawbacks. As pointed out in the ar cle
under study, it is true that the Lords boast more professional variety than the Commons, in par cular due to a higher number of
experts within their ranks, as Michael Berkeley underlines. Such Lords are o en apoli cal crossbenchers who will not vote along
party lines, which gives the House a broader perspec ve on the issues it has to tackle. Moreover, in an ins tu onal context where
the Cabinet is but the expression of the majority in the Commons, the Lords can act as a “cooling chamber” against the possible
reforming zeal of government and thus use its delaying power to balance the almost boundless sovereignty of the Lower House.
However, it is hard to deny that the non-elected House of Lords, which harks back to the Middle Ages, is archaic and non-
democra c, even though most hereditary Lords have been gradually phased out. Besides, the House is in no way representa ve of
the popula on, as more than 50% of its members come from London and the South and most of them are old white males who hold
conserva ve Establishment values embodied in the very existence of the House. The situa on is moreover compounded by the
growing tendency among Prime Ministers to “pack the Lords” by appoin ng poli cal cronies or party donors as men oned in the
ar cle, which makes of the Lords’ supposed poli cal neutrality a sham, yet another argument that explains the necessity to nally
turn the ins tu on into a mostly elected Senate as Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been advoca ng for years.
To what extent do you think both Conservative and Labour policy-makers have “let unfairness thrive”
since the Blair years ?
In this column excerpted from The Economist, the journalist claims that both Conserva ve and Labour policy-makers have “let
unfairness thrive” since the end of the 1990s. And indeed, with a poverty rate that has never dropped below 20% over the period
and a situa on where the top 10% incomes have soared to represent more than 100 mes what the bo om 10% bracket earns,
Bri sh society seems more class-ridden than ever. Even though the economic crisis, which has a ected the country since 2007, is
partly to blame, poli cal choices also account for this new social divide, a blatant sign of “unfairness”. Though more socially-inclined
than the Tory Party, New Labour has shi ed the emphasis towards the middle-class and sacri ced, to some extent at least, the well-
being of the poorer part of the popula on by encouraging the development of part- me and short-term employment in service
industries, a policy which explains the in a on in the number of “working poor” who now make up 20% of the working popula on.
Fiscal prudence has also cost this popula on dearly, in par cular when G. Brown, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided to
scrap the 10% income tax rate for the lowest earners to move it up to 20% while the 22% rate for middle-income earners was
ratcheted down to 20%. The new freedom granted to nancial services in order to boost a key sector in the Bri sh economy (12% of
the GDP) has also ushered in a new era of easy specula on-based pro t and huge bonuses for the City of London and Canary Wharf.
As for the new coali on government, even though PM Cameron had campaigned on the necessity to heal “Broken Britain”, the
economic context le him no choice but to sacri ce his “compassionate conserva sm” on the altar of de cit reduc on. Though he
ring-fenced the NHS and capped family allowances only for high-income taxpayers, across the board spending cuts, a 2.5% rise in the
VAT (a tax which is known to hit low-earning households primarily), a salary freeze for public-sector sta and a staunch belief in the
necessity to put an end to a “culture of dependency” have clearly taken their toll, making the predicament of many Britons even
worse. For all their talk about trying to heal the social divide and an undeniable commitment, on both sides, to develop educa on
and professional inser on through the development of academies or appren ceship schemes, it seems di cult to deny that Labour
policy-makers as well as Conserva ves have indeed let “unfairness thrive” over the last 15 years.
According to the journalist, what are the main signs that point to a revival of liberalism among Britain’s
youth and how does he account for it ?
In this Bagehot column taken from a June 2013 issue of The Economist, the journalist expounds on and explains what he/she deems
to be a revival of “classical” liberalism among under-35 Britons, with regards both to their social and economic posi ons. He/she rst
4 sur 44
titifi
tifi titift ti titti titifttiti ti fttiflti ti tifi tifiti ti tift tifiti titi titiftfi ti ti tititi fiti fiti tiffti ti tiff ffi
fittti tititi ti titi ti ttti fltifitititifiti
