The reasoning implied in the sentence “By having music take the place of speeches and peace talks, the hope is that it will succeed where diplomacy has failed” is that:
(A) musicians may deliver peace talks at United Nation conferences;
(B) diplomats may help musicians convey effective messages of peace;
(C) diplomatic speeches need not succeed in promoting peace between the nations;
(D) music should have the power to supplant diplomatic efforts when these do not work;
(E) musicologists should help diplomats write their speeches when peace is threatened.
The function of the second photograph in Text I is to:
(A) exemplify how politicians have many skills other than diplomacy;
(B) support the argument that music may work beyond entertainment;
(C) inform the readers that there was a bomb at a UN office in Baghdad;
(D) illustrate how Gilberto Gil and Kofi Annan could do an impromptu show;
(E) demonstrate that politicians can also be skilled enough to perform in public.
The word that is closer in meaning to “stunt” in the question “Publicity stunt or political act?” is:
The underlined word in “until quite recently they were more interested in analysing musical scores than the actual context in which these were produced and how they were received” is a synonym of:
. In the sentence “Gilberto Gil sings while then UN secretary general Kofi Annan plays”, the word “then” means:
“All words belong to categories called word classes (or parts of speech) according to the part they play in a sentence” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/word-classes-orparts-of-speech). The underlined word in the sentence “history has long been dominated by interpretations that stress economic, social and political factors” belongs to the same class as the underlined word in:
(A) “at the foot of a crumbling wall”;
(B) “In the 1990s came a cultural shift”;
(C) “There is no point in preaching security”;
(D) “China promotes opera in neighbouring states”;
(E) “political issues are resolved by mutual support”.
The underlined part of the sentence “He was involved in France’s Year of Brazil” is an answer to the question:
(A) Whose year was it?
(B) How was he involved?
(C) When was he involved?
(D) Where was he involved?
(E) What was he involved in?
The expression “rather than” in “political issues are resolved by mutual support rather than force” can be replaced without change in meaning by:
(A) in spite of;
(B) instead of;
(C) regardless of;
(D) in defiance of;
(E) irrespective of.
The correct form of reporting the sentence “‘…musicians create a dialogue and arrive at common policies,’ says analyst Frédéric Ramel” is:
(A) Analyst Frédéric Ramel said that musicians created a dialogue and arrived at common policies;
(B) Analyst Frédéric Ramel says that musicians created a dialogue and would arrive at common policies;
(C) Analyst Frédéric Ramel would say that musicians created a dialogue and would arrive at common policies;
(D) Analyst Frédéric Ramel had said that musicians had created a dialogue and arrived at common policies;
(E) Analyst Frédéric Ramel has said that musicians are creating a dialogue and arriving at common policies
QUESTIONS 10 TO 14: TEXT III
Use of language in diplomacy What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn to be more successful in his profession? The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-andsuch a country spoke of the given subject in totally nondiplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands. All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots. Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a serious difference between the same language used in one country and another. There are several ways to overcome the problem of communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect. […] Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene. So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not simple at all […]. Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and particularly when using a language which he does not master perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished. (adapted from http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/language_and_ diplomacy/texts/pdf/nick.PDF
In the second paragraph of Text III the author refers to different meanings the term “language” can carry. When he argues that “sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands”, he means that:
(A) threatening language should not be used in diplomatic exchanges;
(B) people understand the sentence because it is written in plain English;
(C) the language of diplomacy is rather complex so it is better to act first;
(D) one does not need to understand the language because this action speaks for itself;
(E) one must learn how to speak many languages to avoid misunderstandings and war.
Mark the statements below as TRUE (T) or FALSE (F) according to points raised in Text III.
( ) Diplomats are often in situations where a common language is spoken.
( ) Using an interpreter as mediator is a flawless alternative for diplomatic meetings.
( ) Despite the efforts to do away with problems in communication, the ideal solution has not been found yet.
The correct sequence is:
(A) F – T – T;
(B) T – F – F;
(C) T – T – F;
(D) F – T – F;
(E) F – F – T.
The sentence that offers a suggestion is:
(A) “Each sentence should be a wound-up thought”;
(B) “One may leave the impression of being a little confused”;
(C) “A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used”;
(D) “The term ‘language in diplomacy’ obviously can be interpreted in several ways”;
(E) “it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect”.
The word that forms the plural in the same way as “fora” in “The United States and Brazil are also advancing human rights issues in bilateral and multilateral fora” is:
In the passage “Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-and-such a country spoke…” the expression “in this way” can be replaced, without change in meaning by: