There is much evidence to suggest that cannabis has therapeutic uses for people suffering from conditions such as multiple sclerosis. Given this, the prescription of cannabis should be made legal. If doctors were legally allowed to prescribe cannabis, multiple sclerosis sufferers and others might be spared much pain. Moreover, if cannabis could be legally prescribed, it would be possible to conduct large-scale surveys to establish whether cannabis really is of benefit in such cases.

 

1.    Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?

 

A.   There is no justification for existing laws against cannabis.

B.   Cannabis can relieve the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis.

C.    Doctors are opposed to existing laws on cannabis.

D.   It should be legal for doctors to prescribe cannabis.

E.    Large-scale surveys are needed to establish whether cannabis really is beneficial.

----------------------

In the twenty-first century, many people aged over 65 are perfectly capable of working, and also are likely to live longer than individuals did in previous times. If people work after age 65, there is more chance that they will be financially self-sufficient when they do retire. Compulsory retirement ages have long been banned in the USA, and we should get rid of them in the UK also. This would be good for individuals and for the country. We should ignore those employers who complain that they would be unable to get rid of older and inefficient employees. After all, those who are really incompetent to do a job can be dismissed on the grounds of merit, rather than of age.

2.    Which of the following expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?

 

A.   It is unfair to prevent people working after age 65.

B.   People who are incompetent to do a job can be dismissed.

C.    Raising the retirement age would be good for the country.

D.   The UK should abolish compulsory retirement ages.

E.    Those who work beyond age 65 can be financially self-sufficient.

----------------------

Sometimes poverty is defined in relation to average income. For example, people may be said to be poor if their income is less than 60 per cent of the average income for the population. This is not a legitimate definition, because it is a measure of inequality rather than poverty. This is obvious if we consider the consequences of using the definition. It means that a huge pay rise for middle managers automatically throws some people into poverty, even though their income has not changed. On the other hand, the definition implies that in a society where almost everyone is starving, no one is poor.

 

3.    Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?

 

A.   Having a relatively low income is not the same as being poor.

B.   It is impossible to find an appropriate definition of poverty.

C.    It is wrong to define poverty in relation to average income.

D.   A huge pay rise for middle managers makes other people poor.

E.    There is no inequality in a society where most people are starving