Læse min eksamensopgave

Hej. Tænkte på om i lige var søde at læse min engelsk eksamen igennem, og kommentere den? På forhånd tak.


Outline of the different positions on the smoking ban:
The text “Benefits of smoke ban will be felt at once” by Robin McKie has a positive attitude towards the new smoking ban in England. His arguments for this point of view are based on a lot of statistics such as how much the hospital admissions fell in different states of America after bans were imposed, and in a study of a six month temporary smoking ban in Helena, Montana, the number of heart attacks fell by 40 per cent compared with other years. Robin McKie is also talking about 46 per cent are actively trying to stop and even more wants to give up. But it is not only smokers who will benefit from the ban: non-smokers who breathe in second-hand smoke currently increased risks of about 25 per cent of getting lung cancer or heart disease. These rates should improve during the ban, but of course; there will still be smokers and many people will still die early.
A. N. Wilson, who has written the text “Is this the end of English literature?”, is against the smoking ban. Personally, he does not care whether anyone smokes or not, and sometimes he smokes in phases. He thinks that the smoking ban has coursed a change in the atmosphere in the pubs. Before the ban he loved pubs, but now they are either empty, or filled with middle-class eight-year-olds, drinking soft drinks. But this is not his main point of view against the smoking ban: all the great poets and novelists from the 17th, 18th, 19th and the 20th centuries smoked. He can simply not find any great writer who did not smoke cigar, cigarette or pipe, except for maybe Keats who had to quit smoking because he developed tuberculosis. He sees the smoking ban as an attack on basic liberty, which is allowed through without any significant protest, as well as a mark for the end of literature.
Simon Jenkins, who has written the text “Another victory for Britain’s insufferable paternalists”, is against the smoking ban and the best way to explain his main point of view is actually said by Simon Jenkins himself in the opening: “The vote to ban smoking in public places reflects the government’s preference for central control over local option”. He thinks that the British government interferes too much in the population’s life. Simon himself is not a smoker which is why he actually could be indifferent, but he is looking at a bigger perspective; the members of the Parliament are supposed to be consciences and listen to their voters, but the voters was not heard in this case. What will be the next if Britain has an undemocratic government like this?


Comment on the use of exaggeration and irony in text 3:
In the third text “Another victory for Britain’s insufferable paternalists” the writer, Simon Jenkins, uses a lot of exaggeration and irony to state his point of view. Already in the first section he uses these rhetorical conceptions: “They had been “allowed”, as the BBC put it, to do something called “vote with their consciences”… The vote had nothing to do with conscience, only with the cabinet being unable to make up its mind”. He is using this exaggeration to make the British government look ludicrous. He is also using exaggeration in line 22-24: “Smoking is unpleasant but reasonably avoidable. Unpleasant too is fuming traffic, noisy neighbours, swearing youths and cruel parents. All may lead to death. We do not ban them, yet.” This exaggeration is used to show how this ban just is a foretaste of what may come in the future. Of course there will never come a ban against noisy neighbours or swearing youths but Simon Jenkins is just using these exaggerated examples to state his point of view.
Simon Jenkins also uses irony in his text. In line 40-43 he says: “Workplace smoking bans (achieved without government order) have done wonders for the social life of British cities’ doorways, backstreets and alleys”. This quotation contains as well irony as exaggeration. He is dealing with the issue of the smokers not visiting the pubs anymore because it is no longer allowed to smoke there.
The exaggeration and irony in this text makes Simon Jenkins seem supercilious at some points because of him being omniscient, but at the same time these rhetorical conceptions makes the text funnier to read and it helps stating his point of view.

Discuss whether society has a responsibility to prevent people from smoking or whether it is up the individual to decide:
You can compare this smoking ban and the whole debate about the issue with the obesity problem. In Denmark obesity costs the Danish society between 44-52 billion crowns and because obesity is a growing problem, these expenses will keep on increasing. Smoking is not a growing problem, actually fewer people smoke in Denmark than they did just 10 years ago because people have become aware of the dangers about smoking. If it was not society who had the responsibility, but instead the individual who could decide whether or not to smoke in pubs, clubs and so on, it would not only be the smokers who got ill, but also the non-smokers. This means that more people would get sick and therefore would it cost society a big amount of money. Of course the smoking ban is annoying for the smokers, but if the smokers could smoke wherever they wanted to, the non-smokers would be forced to breathe the smoke in.