Download UCL Centre for Languages: Preparatory Certificate - Boris Johnson's Speech Analysis and more Slides Humanities in PDF only on Docsity!
UCL CENTRE FOR LANGUAGES
& INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
Undergraduate Preparatory Certificate for the Humanities
CRITICAL THINKING SAMPLE ENTRANCE TEST
EXAMPLES OF ANSWERS AND FURTHER GUIDANCE
****you should look at these answers AFTER you have tried the sample test online ****
Instructions The test is comprised of one text followed by a number of questions. You should answer as many questions as possible. Marks are not deducted for incorrect answers. The test is in 1 hour. You must complete the test in blue or black INK (no pencil). You may use a dictionary to help you complete the test.
- You may not use the help of any other person or refer to any other book, manual or online resource to complete the test.
Read the following passage and answer the questions using your own words as far
as possible.
Recently, London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson defended the merit of an open market economy and praised greed as an essential aspect of economic growth: “Some measure of inequality,” he argued, “is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses^1 that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity.” After the financial crisis of 2007, this suggests a healthy return to proper capitalism which triumphed in the 1980s. This success was famously symbolised by Gordon Gekko, a character in Oliver Stone’s 1987 movie Wall Street and whom Johnson refers to in his speech.
Played by Michael Douglas, Gordon Gekko came to represent the powerful, invincible corporate financier. In a famous scene Gekko advocates: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind (…)”. This attitude was criticised in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. All of a sudden, Gekko-like bankers and financiers were blamed for the crisis and portrayed as villains. Their greed, it was argued, had plunged the world into recession.
As the world recovers from the crisis, it is reassuring to see politicians and leaders of major financial cities such as London acknowledging that greed, far from being a negative factor actually remains a powerful, positive force and an indispensable human quality in an open market economy. In his speech, Johnson actually compared modern day financiers to Gekkos: although noting that greed is a ‘valid motivator’ for economic progress, he hopes “that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed (…) [but also] for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years.”
Despite this attention to the less fortunate in society, critics greeted Johnson’s speech with sarcasm and contempt. But the gist of such criticism lies in an ideological hatred towards money and an idealistic view that greed and ambition are bad things that ought to be eradicated. On the contrary, Johnson reminds us that the motivation to make profit has been and remains a natural instinct and a driving force for progress.
(^1) Keeping up with one’s neighbors in terms of wealth, success and status.
Alternative explanation 2 (1 mark): If there is no real recovery or recovery only for some, then the argument that defends greed as good for the economy / society would be undermined by the danger that greed represents
Alternative assumption 3 (1 mark): Modern-day Gekkos contribute to society and the economy in general. Alternative explanation 3 (1 mark): If indeed the modern-day Gekkos are selfish and don’t do/give, then there is no social / economic value to greed.
Alternative assumption 4 (1 mark): Anyone opposing Johnson’s view is idealistic / motivated by hatred of money. Alternative explanation 4 (1 mark): they could have valid arguments that the passage chooses to ignore and dismiss, thus showing a biased, invalid view.
7. Both Johnson and the passage itself refer to the fictional character Gordon Gekko. The movie’s director, Oliver Stone, famously explained he portrayed an evil character that the audience should hate. However, Gekko became an icon of popular culture, and is referred to with admiration. How do you explain this contradiction? Use elements from the passage and explain what Gekko symbolises to answer the question. (3 marks) 1 mark for the analysis of what the character represents: powerful, successful, incarnation of corporate finance. He also unapologetically defends greed as a motor of progress and ‘natural’ selection. If the financial sector is a jungle, he dominates it. 2 marks for the paradox. Greed is opposed morally, but the outcome that Gekko represents (success, money, domination) remains attractive. 8. If you had to present an argument against Johnson’s position as reported in the passage, what would it be? Defend the argument with relevant examples. (3 marks) You can further develop the paradox presented in Q 4 or develop a similar line even if you failed to see a paradox. I.e. contesting that greed is good for the general economy and can bring wealth to society in general. Alternatively, you can also allude to the economic crisis of 2007 and consider the greed of some (banking / finance sectors) as a risk for the many 9. Do you agree with the last sentence of the passage that states that greed is a ‘natural instinct’? Justify your answer with a valid argument (2 marks) Yes. Greed starts with animal appetite and the need to survive… No. Human societies also show generosity and solidarity, which balances individual appetite. 10. Johnson argues that inequality is inevitable and even positive for a healthy economy. Should governments intervene to reduce inequality (e.g. through taxation and redistribution)? Or is inequality natural and therefore governments should not intervene? Choose a position in this debate and defend it with relevant arguments and specific examples. (4 marks) 2 marks for clear position relevant to the question at stake; 1 mark per argument and 1 mark per example used.
END OF TEST
