Groupe d'anglais!

[Aspidistra]

The text I worked on has been published in BBC Magazine in 1992. It names : Recycling.

The autor asserts that despite the popular conviction, recycling is not that good for environnement. He bases his comments on the example of glass in Great Britain: the wine bottles in green glass are recycled, but English industry has no need of green glasses. This operation would have been interesting for environnement but it is not because if we take into account the energy, the price, and the time for recycling bottles, the assesment is hardly well-balanced. Moreover when all the glass has been recyclated we cannot find any buyer for it and it will probably be burned. Despite the work it's creating, recycling is not 100% good. But the author does not said it is a bad activity, he just wants to show that theses activities have to be well managed.

Recycling is effectivly a great issue. If you look at the stuff you purchase it is often writen "recycled product, or can be recycled". This is a selling argument. Moreover if you don't take recycling into account, you have a larger amount of dechets and it costs a lot to erase it (by burning most of the time). Some industries have created business based on recycling materials like plastics or iron. They often pay for buying those materials to the administration, and create new products they are selling. But the author is right, what is the interest in recycling stuff if nobody buy the new product?

The question is also the question of all dechets. We produce a lot of dechets: if you look at the problem of Milano (?) which have not treated dechets since months you can see large fields of dechets recovered by black plastic waiting for treatment. When you go in a supermarket mosts of the stuff you buy have a lot of packaging : for exemple little individual package in one big. This is expensive and polluting.

***

Hum hum, that's all, it is a long time since I haven't practice English, I tried to do my best in 20 minutes approximatly. The time for preparation the D day is 30 minutes isn't it?

[sandy038]

il y a pas mal de sujet sur l'académie de Lyon si je ne m'abuse !

38 sujets

http://www.crdp.ac-lyon.fr/a/ConcoursEdu/S..._CRPE_Lyon.html

[anonyme973]

il y a pas mal de sujet sur l'académie de Lyon si je ne m'abuse !

38 sujets

http://www.crdp.ac-lyon.fr/a/ConcoursEdu/S..._CRPE_Lyon.html

THANK U you're an

[HOPE4ME]

This text, entitled "recycling", is an extract from the BBC magazine, published in August 1992.

As the title points it out, it deals with environment, and more precisly with the management (?) of refuse (déchets, détritus) and consequently with ecology.

Since some times (?) we often hear that earth is in danger, numerous problems like pollution and environmental degradation, due to chemical industries, automobil exhaust ....

Our mission is to preserve our planet, and many means can be used to.

For instance, recycling. However, the author, puts forward positive but also negative points of such a practise.

He illustrates the negative points with the example of the bottles. In fact, the have to be transportated and the crushed, which emplies financial costs without mentionning environmental impact.

Another problem, is that politicians ask for more recycling to create a recycling market. But, apparently materials are stocked because they can't find any buyers, and then detroyed, because stoking is expansive.

It's my very short summary, but, it hase been a long time since i have not spoken english..;sorry

gestion des déchets en anglais c'est waste management, et environmental degradation je trouve pas cela correct, tu mets plutôt environmental damages, car exhaust

je mettrais également, which involves financial costs au lieu de emplies

The journalist shows the pros and cons (les pour et les contre) of recycling. For the cons, he hints (fait allusion) at the bottles.

[HOPE4ME]

[quote

The autor asserts that despite the popular conviction, recycling is not that good for environnement. He bases his comments on the example of glass in Great Britain: the wine bottles in green glass are recycled, but English industry has no need of green glasses. This operation would have been interesting for environnement but it is not because if we take into account the energy, the price, and the time for recycling bottles, the assesment is hardly well-balanced. Moreover when all the glass has been recyclated we cannot find any buyer for it and it will probably be burned. Despite the work it's creating, recycling is not 100% good. But the author does not said it is a bad activity, he just wants to show that theses activities have to be well managed.

Recycling is effectivly a great issue. If you look at the stuff you purchase it is often writen "recycled product, or can be recycled". This is a selling argument. Moreover if you don't take recycling into account, you have a larger amount of dechets and it costs a lot to erase it (by burning most of the time). Some industries have created business based on recycling materials like plastics or iron. They often pay for buying those materials to the administration, and create new products they are selling. But the author is right, what is the interest in recycling stuff if nobody buy the new product?

The question is also the question of all dechets. We produce a lot of dechets: if you look at the problem of Milano (?) which have not treated dechets since months you can see large fields of dechets recovered by black plastic waiting for treatment. When you go in a supermarket mosts of the stuff you buy have a lot of packaging : for exemple little individual package in one big. This is expensive and polluting.

***

Hum hum, that's all, it is a long time since I haven't practice English, I tried to do my best in 20 minutes approximatly. The time for preparation the D day is 30 minutes isn't it?

C'est pas mal; mais déchets se dit waste, traiter je le traduirais par to process, car to treat c'est généralement utilisé au sens de traiter quelqu'un. Milan pour Milano. Since jamais avec une durée il faut mettre for

[csand]

The autor asserts that despite the popular conviction, recycling is not that good for environnement. He bases his comments on the example of glass in Great Britain: the wine bottles in green glass are recycled, but English industry has no need of green glasses. This operation would have been interesting for environnement but it is not because if we take into account the energy, the price, and the time for recycling bottles, the assesment is hardly well-balanced. Moreover when all the glass has been recyclated we cannot find any buyer for it and it will probably be burned. Despite the work it's creating, recycling is not 100% good. But the author does not said it is a bad activity, he just wants to show that theses activities have to be well managed.

Recycling is effectivly a great issue. If you look at the stuff you purchase it is often writen "recycled product, or can be recycled". This is a selling argument. Moreover if you don't take recycling into account, you have a larger amount of dechets and it costs a lot to erase it (by burning most of the time). Some industries have created business based on recycling materials like plastics or iron. They often pay for buying those materials to the administration, and create new products they are selling. But the author is right, what is the interest in recycling stuff if nobody buy the new product?

The question is also the question of all dechets. We produce a lot of dechets: if you look at the problem of Milano (?) which have not treated dechets since months you can see large fields of dechets recovered by black plastic waiting for treatment. When you go in a supermarket mosts of the stuff you buy have a lot of packaging : for exemple little individual package in one big. This is expensive and polluting.

when you go to supermarkets

déchets se dit bien "waste" et pour le traitement des déchets on peut utiliser "treatment" (vu dans un article sur le sujet)

je me demande si to burn n'est ps un verbe irrégulier : to burn, burnt, burnt?

[HOPE4ME]

The autor asserts that despite the popular conviction, recycling is not that good for environnement. He bases his comments on the example of glass in Great Britain: the wine bottles in green glass are recycled, but English industry has no need of green glasses. This operation would have been interesting for environnement but it is not because if we take into account the energy, the price, and the time for recycling bottles, the assesment is hardly well-balanced. Moreover when all the glass has been recyclated we cannot find any buyer for it and it will probably be burned. Despite the work it's creating, recycling is not 100% good. But the author does not said it is a bad activity, he just wants to show that theses activities have to be well managed.

Recycling is effectivly a great issue. If you look at the stuff you purchase it is often writen "recycled product, or can be recycled". This is a selling argument. Moreover if you don't take recycling into account, you have a larger amount of dechets and it costs a lot to erase it (by burning most of the time). Some industries have created business based on recycling materials like plastics or iron. They often pay for buying those materials to the administration, and create new products they are selling. But the author is right, what is the interest in recycling stuff if nobody buy the new product?

The question is also the question of all dechets. We produce a lot of dechets: if you look at the problem of Milano (?) which have not treated dechets since months you can see large fields of dechets recovered by black plastic waiting for treatment. When you go in a supermarket mosts of the stuff you buy have a lot of packaging : for exemple little individual package in one big. This is expensive and polluting.

when you go to supermarkets

déchets se dit bien "waste" et pour le traitement des déchets on peut utiliser "treatment" (vu dans un article sur le sujet)

je me demande si to burn n'est ps un verbe irrégulier : to burn, burnt, burnt?

Oui c'est irrégulier.

[HOPE4ME]

The autor asserts that despite the popular conviction, recycling is not that good for environnement. He bases his comments on the example of glass in Great Britain: the wine bottles in green glass are recycled, but English industry has no need of green glasses. This operation would have been interesting for environnement but it is not because if we take into account the energy, the price, and the time for recycling bottles, the assesment is hardly well-balanced. Moreover when all the glass has been recyclated we cannot find any buyer for it and it will probably be burned. Despite the work it's creating, recycling is not 100% good. But the author does not said it is a bad activity, he just wants to show that theses activities have to be well managed.

Recycling is effectivly a great issue. If you look at the stuff you purchase it is often writen "recycled product, or can be recycled". This is a selling argument. Moreover if you don't take recycling into account, you have a larger amount of dechets and it costs a lot to erase it (by burning most of the time). Some industries have created business based on recycling materials like plastics or iron. They often pay for buying those materials to the administration, and create new products they are selling. But the author is right, what is the interest in recycling stuff if nobody buy the new product?

The question is also the question of all dechets. We produce a lot of dechets: if you look at the problem of Milano (?) which have not treated dechets since months you can see large fields of dechets recovered by black plastic waiting for treatment. When you go in a supermarket mosts of the stuff you buy have a lot of packaging : for exemple little individual package in one big. This is expensive and polluting.

when you go to supermarkets

déchets se dit bien "waste" et pour le traitement des déchets on peut utiliser "treatment" (vu dans un article sur le sujet)

je me demande si to burn n'est ps un verbe irrégulier : to burn, burnt, burnt?

Oui c'est irrégulier.

Là j'ai dit des conneries, c'est pas irrégulier, on dit burned!

[csand]

en fin de compte, to burn est à la fois régulier et irrégulier !!

" a few verbs have both regular and irregular forms : burn (burnt or burned) or to learn (learnt or learned)"

[HOPE4ME]

en fin de compte, to burn est à la fois régulier et irrégulier !!

" a few verbs have both regular and irregular forms : burn (burnt or burned) or to learn (learnt or learned)"

Merci pour ces éclaircissements, j'avais dit oui au début et j'ai demandé au père de mon fils qui est US et il m'a dit qu c'était burned, donc il m'a mis le doute

[csand]

Il y aurait il des personnes intéressées pour s'entrainer à résumer des textes?

Je vous propose celui-ci : http://www.crdp.ac-lyon.fr/a/ConcoursEdu/l...blic2006_56.pdf

[tiGwen]

I want to try to sum up the text :

This text is an artricle intitled "Home of Hope" published in World Report Edition on January the 28th 2005 and hte author is called Ritu U.

He deals with India where the poverty is important. So there are inequalities between poor and rich people. And the poorest class is called "untouchables", it's about lowest class, people who has the worst job, they don't have running water in their "home"(schack).

Morevoer, although laws ban dicrimiation, inequalities remain. However, a person have changed the situation.

Abraham George was born in India and came from the poorest class but nowadays he's wealthy and he wanted to help poor children.

So he invested 15M of dollars in the aim of building a school for them. This scool is called Shanti Bhavan in Hindu that means home of peace.

Indeed, it's not because their parents haven't got the best jobs, aren't rich that their children are stupid. Today, they profit on education because they are rigth as to learn. To prove it, they can speack three languages.

Then, this school is also the home of hope for poor children because of they live in well conditions.

For example, they wear clean clothes, they eat nutrition meals so they aren't under-nourrished. Besides, they are healthy and happy. Consequently, their kids can hope being astronaut, professional athletes or engineer.

In the last paragraph, the author speack about the case of a 12-old girl . She attended this school since she is 6 and she return in her family twice a year. Her family live in bad conditions but she is not ashamed of her family. Karthika hopes a better life for her family so, for instance, she teach the alphabet to her mother.

To conclude, their kids are a luck to go out the poverty thanks to this school of hope.