ELF – Engelsk läsförståelse (HPHOST2020P4)

In the following text there are gaps which indicate that something has been left out. Look at the four alternatives that correspond to each gap and decide which one best fits the gap. Then mark your choice on your answer sheet.

Two Drinks a Day?

 A couple of drinks a day reduce the risk of the most common type of stroke by about a tenth. However, any more than that    31    the risk of the most deadly strokes, according to a summary of 27 studies involving more than 20,000 patients.

Researchers believe that alcohol could hamper the formation of dangerous blood clots. But they caution against drinking to protect the brain, saying that a rise in blood pressure could offset any benefit. The study adds to the    32    around the health benefits of light drinking. A recent investigation, by researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, suggests a benefit in protecting against ischemic strokes, which make up the bulk of cases, resulting from a blockage in the blood    33    to the brain. People were 8 per cent less likely to suffer an ischemic stroke if they had one or two drinks a day.

Susanna Larsson, lead author of the paper, says: “Previous research has found an association between alcohol consumption and lower levels of fibrinogen – a protein in the body which helps the formation of blood clots. While this may explain the connection between light to moderate alcohol consumption and lower ischemic stroke risk, the    34    effect of alcohol consumption on blood pressure – a major risk factor for stroke – may increase the risk of another type of stroke.”

About 15 per cent of strokes are the result of blood vessels bursting within the brain. This type, known as haemorrhagic, tends to be fatal. No    35    has so far been found between light drinking and haemorrhagic stroke. However, people who had more than four drinks a day were 67–82 per cent more likely to suffer one. Shamim Quadir, of the Stroke Association, says: “This research suggests that there is much more to understand about the effects of alcohol consumption on the different types of stroke.”

Chris Smyth, The Times

Schools in Britain

British grammar schools are state-supported secondary schools that select their pupils through an exam taken at age 11, known as the 11-plus. Once a center-piece of Britain’s education system, they have largely been phased out over recent decades.

The history of grammar schools goes back to the Middle Ages, but the modern version emerged out of the 1944 Education Act, one of a series of laws that shaped social policy in postwar Britain. It introduced free education up to the age of 15, and set up three kinds of schools: grammar, technical and secondary moderns.

Few technical schools were ever built, so children came to be divided between grammar schools, which focused on academic studies and whose pupils were destined for universities and more qualified professions, and secondary moderns, which were intended for children deemed suitable only for less skilled jobs.

Over time, it became clear that what separated pupils in the two types of schools was not ability, but class. A vast majority of children in grammar schools were from middle-class backgrounds; a vast majority of poor children were condemned to secondary moderns. In 1965, the Labour government began replacing grammar schools and secondary moderns with a nonselective “comprehensive” system, under which all children went to a single type of state school.

The debate about grammar schools has become a proxy for a discussion of class. For many on the left, grammar schools institutionalize class inequality, shutting out the poor and catering to the wealthy. For many on the right, opposition to grammar schools is an expression of class envy and a misguided egalitarian plan to “level down” rather than “level up.” In recent years, however, even the Conservative Party has rowed back on its traditional support for grammar schools, as part of an attempt to “modernize” itself and shed its old image of elitism. The evidence that grammar schools hinder rather than enable social mobility is even stronger now than it was half a century ago. In areas that retain grammar schools, fewer than 3 percent of their pupils are eligible for free school meals (a proxy measure of social deprivation), compared with 18 percent in non-grammar schools. High-achieving children from poor backgrounds are less likely to be selected for grammar schools than those from prosperous areas with similar abilities.

If there is evidence that grammar schools help entrench inequality, there is, however, little evidence that phasing them out has helped improve social mobility. A landmark 2005 study from the London School of Economics, which described social mobility in Britain as “low and falling,” showed that two children born, respectively, into poor and prosperous families in 1958 were more equal as adults than two similar children born in 1970. More recently, a 2010 report from the OECD found that on social mobility Britain came near the bottom of the class among rich nations.

The geography of social mobility has also changed. A recent government report observed that the key division now is between London, where even children from disadvantaged backgrounds do relatively well, and coastal and old industrial towns in the north and east of England, where most of what the report terms “social mobility coldspots” are to be found. This division maps onto a larger, deepening political fault line.

The fact that neither selective nor nonselective school systems have improved social mobility in Britain might suggest that the problem lies in the very idea of using schools to engineer a more equal society. A decent education system can help a few individuals progress beyond the circumstances of their birth, but is unlikely to change fundamentally the social and economic structures that entrench inequality and restrain social mobility. In focusing on social mobility, what has gone missing is the idea of education as a good in itself. One of the reasons people regard grammar schools with nostalgia is that they seem to represent a standard of good education. But they do so for only a few.

At the heart of selective schooling is the assumption that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are better off getting “vocational” training rather than being intellectually challenged. The trouble is, that sentiment has persisted in the nonselective schools, too. The result is that Britain has ended up with a state system in which every child receives an equally mediocre education.

Kenan Malik, International New York Times