This paper is designed firstly to give a brief review of the Scheme of Assessment and Examination Regulations concerning the English examination common to the Concours. Thirdly it will offer students a Set of Guidelines to help them tackle a news article and prepare a presentation of the main topic of this article. Finally it will conclude with some advice on revision and training. This paper is the result of my experience as an examiner at this examination.
Scheme of Assessment. Both exams consist essentially in deciphering an article and showing an ability to understand, analyse, summarise, discuss it and to formulate an opinion on the main subjectmatter within the allotted time of 15 to 20 minutes. On the face of it the subject of the texts may differ only slightly, but I would not be surprised if at Paris XII most test papers had a business or economic flavour as well. Assessment Criteria. Examiners may have their own approach to assessment and the criteria may be weighted differently. Set of Guidelines to tackle the oral test successfully.
One : Note the source of the article. It is important first to recognise the source of the article in order to infer for what. This impacts on the style, the technicality of the language and the point of view. The choice of subjects and the slant should interest the readers. Here is a simplified presentation:. Another point to note is the fact that each newspaper or magazine has its own recognizable approach to news reporting and to constructing an article.
It is important for you to familiarise yourself with these approaches. Two : Skim the article. So as to get a general impression of the article a Look at the headline first: when leafing through a newspaper or magazine, readers will select the article they want to read by reading the headlines, subheadlines. Do the same. However it should also sum up the subject of the article and, because space is precious, it has to be short, while remaining meaningful and relevant to the topic.
There is almost a specialised vocabulary. Verbs v in particular have to be known. US and EC in fresh move to end farm subsidy row. The names of UK companies are referred to by their initials, e. In the Financial Times for example, the abbreviation is fortunately always explained in the lead fr: chapeau :. Report urges reforms of ESOPs to help growth.
Sujet national, juin 2015, séries ES, S, L, LV1
EBRD decides on strategy for Russia. Notice the omission of definite or indefinite articles. The present simple tense refers to a past event:. PepsiCo, General Mills to merge Europe snack foods. Paribas to buy rest of Swiss subsidiary. Paribas, the French investment banking group, has agreed to buy out the remaining minority shareholding in its subsidiary in Switzerland…. Most headlines are written in a straightforward and informative style, telling the facts and describing the event, as we have seen above.
However at times the journalist changes style and uses humour:. It is important to notice the information link or network between 1 the headline,. In the FT, the first paragraph, like every lead, is the summary of the whole article. It provides the readers with an overview. There they will find the answer to the five.
Ws of journalism: who, what, when, where and why. You should also add how. Three : Read in depth and select relevant information. You are now ready for a more thorough, detailed reading. Try to recognise the internal pattern or skeleton of the article. This helps to elicit the information.
Journalists apply what they call the inverted pyramid structure: the important information comes first, the rest of the article explains, comments, supports or questions it. The pattern may differ according to the papers studied:. Note carefully the first and last sentences of each paragraph which, if well written, usually contain the key points and show the articulation of the reasoning. Underline key words. Spot the argumentative expressions and linking words: however, therefore, hence, whereas, although, due to, as a result, with a view to, caused by, lead to, result in….
Select the relevant information from the article on a rough and find supportive ideas. Brainstorm the main ideas for extension. The purpose is to generate as many ideas as possible, then edit them according to their relevance, keeping the most interesting ones, leaving the others as subpoints. Brainstorm for vocabulary extension as well. Four : Plan your presentation.
La documentation officielle
You are often advised not to change the order of ideas of the source text in a summary. This advice holds good for written work. However, when making an oral presentation, it is important to organise and sequence ideas according to a simple plan, so that. It gives coherence, clarity and logic. You may distance yourself from the original. Find the best angle to convey the information on and around this issue.
Lastly, he alleges that he was moved from minimum to high-medium security upon issuance of his application for habeas corpus. The availability of judicial review, and not of habeas corpus, for certain grounds raised by the author is discriminatory against prison inmates, in additional breach of article Lastly, the habeas corpus procedure is urgent and summary, and does not provide for pre-trial discovery of evidential material held by opposing parties, said to be required by article 9, paragraph 4.
The State party argues, as a general matter, that the author is detained under a sentence of imprisonment following his recall from conditional release. His initial recall to prison was made on the basis that he was eligible for recall and posed an immediate risk to the safety of others. The final recall decision was made following an oral hearing of the Parole Board, at which the author appeared and was legally represented. His continuing detention has been reviewed by the Parole Board every six to twelve months up to his release on conditions in November on the basis of constantly updated information on his conduct and psychological state, as well as submissions by his legal representatives.
Both the Board and the Corrections Department have made substantial efforts to provide the author with rehabilitative programmes. The State party observes that apart from an application for summary release under the Habeas Corpus Act, the author has not challenged any decision under which he was detained, in particular, reconsideration or judicial review of the successive decisions of the Parole Board under which the detention continues.
FN8 The claim that he is discriminatorily denied fair trial rights available to persons charged with criminal offences is nowhere detailed and is in any event justified by the distinction between determinations of a criminal charge and determination of eligibility for parole. These claims are therefore inadmissible for insufficient substantiation.
On the issue of the ex parte nature of the interim order, the State party notes that there are good reasons for dealing within interim recall applications on this basis, as a parolee whose conduct has given rise to sufficient concern to warrant a recall application is likely to go into hiding if served with an application for recall. A recall order does not impose a new sentence, but revokes conditional release and requires a person to continue to serve an existing sentence, on the basis that the person is considered to pose a sufficiently serious risk to others.
The recalled individual's interests are protected by the provision of counsel and the holding of a hearing at short order. On the issue of the absence of a separately documented recall order alongside the warrant, the statute does not so require, and the domestic courts so confirmed. Nor does article 14, paragraph 3, apply to the interim or final recall order, as there is not a determination of a criminal charge, but a recall of a parolee to prison to continue serving sentence.
As the author was not arrested or detained on a criminal charge, the applicable provision is article 9, paragraph 4, concerning the right to contest before a court the lawfulness of detention. In this respect, on 19 March the author appeared before the Parole Board, legally aided by counsel to whom he had access prior to hearing. He had access to judicial review in court at all times, even though he only sought to exercise that right in March The Committee has confirmed that this right is engaged, not ex officio by the State, but by the instigation of the author or his representatives.
The author has had, and continues to have, access to the right to seek habeas corpus at all stages. The State party also argues that there is no entitlement under this article of the Covenant for a person to be advised of the right to instruct a lawyer; in this respect, section 23 1 b of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act goes further than article 9 of the Covenant. In any event, the State party does not accept that the author was not notified of his right to instruct a lawyer when arrested on the interim warrant, but argues that it has not had the opportunity to test this in court because of the way in which the author mounted his legal challenge.
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that such applications involve a resumption of sentence, rather than a new charge. Nor has he sought judicial review offering also interim relief in the High Court of the Board's final recall decision. Nor has he exercised his right to apply to the Parole Board for reconsideration of his continued detention under s. Specifically, there are claims of breach of the Criminal Justice Act, reliance on assessments of reoffending, insufficient severity of offending while on parole, apparent or actual partiality of the Board and disproportionality of recall could have been raised on appeal under s.
The claims of breach of the Criminal Justice Act, reliance on assessments of reoffending, disproportionality of recall, apparent or actual Parole Board bias, failure to consider rehabilitation, breach of presumption of innocence and double jeopardy could be raised in judicial review. The claims of incorrect assessment of risk, insufficient severity of offending and the disproportionality of recall could have been put to the Board on application for reconsideration.
Presumption of innocence, double jeopardy and retrospectivity could also, in a sufficiently straightforward case, be dealt with under the urgent habeas corpus procedure. The State party notes that, in contrast to Rameka, that the author is serving a punitive sentence of life imprisonment, from which he was paroled and recalled. The assessment of risk was made at the point of recall, rather than only at sentencing, and has been continually reviewed since recall.
The independence of the Parole Board to carry out such reviews was accepted by the Committee in Rameka. The author did not appeal or seek review of the Parole Board's decisions, but the High Court, on hearing the habeas corpus application, specifically found as a matter of fact that it was open to the Parole Board to conclude that the author posed a serious risk of harm to others. This finding was not challenged in the Court of Appeal.
The State party notes that unlike Stafford, the author was recalled on the basis of violent offences and a risk of further violence. Instead, to the extent the European Court's approach is appropriate for the Committee, the case more resembles Spence v United Kingdom, [FN12] where relatively minor instances of violence and factors indicating a risk to public safety precluded a finding of arbitrariness.
It is within their competence to regard criminal offending by parolees within the term of their sentences as a factor, among others, that may warrant recall. On the argument that the participation of a sitting judge called the impartiality of other Board members into question, the State party refers to varying State practice ensuring actual independence. Apart from the author's failure to raise this issue in the domestic courts, which have never addressed the issue, the State party argues that within its constitutional system the appointment of a High Court judge to the Parole Board compromises the independence of neither.
On the claim that the Department of Corrections' provision of administrative support to the Parole Board compromises its impartiality, the State party submits that the support provided is entirely practical in nature and, under no reasonable assessment, could it provide a tenable basis for concern. On the final argument that the Board does not follow the procedures of a criminal court, the State party notes that it is a specialist tribunal with more flexibility, often advantageous to inmates, whose fairness is subject to judicial review.
The Court of Appeal also noted the issue could be further pursued in judicial review proceedings, more apt than the summary habeas corpus procedure to test disputed allegations of fact, but the author did not do so.
- Plagiat Detecteur en Ligne pour les Canadiens - PaperLeaf?
- Evidence-Centered Design.
Accordingly, the written consent and adjournment should be accepted at face value. On the presumption issue deriving from the fact that the Parole Board's final recall decision was based, in part, on the fact that at that point he was awaiting trial on a charge of male assault on a female on which he was later acquitted , the State party argues that the Board was not considering his guilt or otherwise on this charge.
Instead, it found that his conduct had met the statutory criteria s. The Board noted that there was an outstanding charge for trial but did not express any view on his criminal responsibility. There was no increase in penalty, as the author's detention was within the term of sentence. Neither did his release mean that he had finished the sentence, or, within the Rameka sense, the punitive component thereof. On access to counsel, the State party, while accepting that the author did not see counsel until the day of the hearing, understands that there was earlier telephone contact.
It was also open to him to seek an adjournment if he felt disadvantaged, which he did not do. The communication also alleges factual aspects not placed before the courts. With one exception a specific complaint of methodological error in a psychological assessment, which has not been raised in court , there is no substantiation at all on why these decisions were incorrect and arbitrary, and these claims are therefore inadmissible.
The claim under article 10, paragraph 3, is again similarly inadmissible. On each case, release has been declined following, as the record makes clear, careful consideration; at the same time, the Board has made recommendations aimed at assisting the author to address the factors putting him at risk of further offending.
- Jessica, The Untold Story:Yesterday’s Montreal News.
- Halloween Night on Shivermore Street!
- Cours de français en ligne (par B. MIRGAIN).
These have generally been pursued, but the author has frequently frustrated rehabilitative programmes by disobeying programme rules and other misconduct, including an attempted escape. The author's counsel sought an adjournment in order that he could run a properly defended hearing in respect of the author's application. The Board noted that there had been a number of adjournments for counsel to obtain expert advice on risk assessment, and was concerned that the matter be dealt with as soon as possible.
It granted adjournment on the basis that there would be a hearing as soon as counsel was ready, noting that his release would require a careful release plan and careful and sustained management, which should be the focus of the hearing. The Board's decision would again be subject to reconsideration by a differently constituted Board or review in the High Court. As to the alleged methodological error in the psychological assessment which would have allegedly resulted in a lower assessment of risk of re-offending resisted by the State party , the State party notes that this complex factual and methodological matter was not put to the domestic courts.
The State party notes that there is no allegation that placement was undertaken to sanction him or for other improper purpose. The State party clarifies that habeas corpus proceedings are available to all detained persons, including inmates. On the argument that judicial review remedies are insufficient in terms of article 9, paragraph 4, as they are discretionary, the State party notes the Court of Appeal's statement that it was inconceivable that a judge would refuse relief on discretionary grounds to a person illegally detained.
The State party also rejects the contention that judicial review proceedings are slower than habeas corpus applications, noting domestic jurisprudence that a hearing for interim relief on judicial review can be arranged as speedily as a habeas corpus application. In terms of the argument that judicial review is "not wide enough", in the sense of the judgment of the European Court in Weeks, to satisfy the European equivalent of article 9, paragraph 4, the State party notes that Weeks arose from a parole system under which the Parole Board unlike the present case did not have mandatory powers, and unlike the present case afforded limited participation rights for the detained person.
Détecteur de plagiat gratuit en ligne au Canada - avijihybihyl.ga
Judicial review today in New Zealand is also substantially more advanced than the largely procedural English remedy in when Weeks was decided; the modern remedy can consider consistency with human rights, and order release where detention is found to be arbitrary. To the extent disclosure is required, this is available in judicial review proceedings which can be dealt with urgently; it is anyway disclosed as part of the Parole Board process; and it can be obtained under the Official Information Act within four weeks or more urgently if necessary.
By letter of 23 December , the author responded disputing all aspects of the State party's response. On the interim order, the author argues that there was no reason for urgency, and an ex parte hearing was not necessary as he had spent the preceding two months in prison, being recalled the day after he left prison. He also argues that the absence of a documented interim order is unfair and arbitrary.
The author also argues that rehabilitative programs were not sufficiently tailored to him, and that the remedies available to him were not effective. As to the issue of notification of reasons for arrest, as required by article 9, paragraph 2, the author seeks to distinguish the Committee's Views in Stephens on the basis that, in that death penalty case, the author was cautioned as soon as possible. These claims, which were limited to the interim and final orders for recall, were: i that the author's recall was disproportionate to his actual conduct, ii that unlawfulness of the interim order voided the final order pursuant to which the author remained detained, iii there was bias arising from the Chairperson who made the interim order also being on the Board making the final order, iv that at the time he was arrested pursuant to the interim recall, he was not advised at the point of detention of the reason therefor and of his right to counsel, v the interim recall order was of ex parte nature; vi that the interim warrant was not accompanied by an interim order in a separate document, and vii that he had not consented to a short adjournment of the final hearing.
The Committee is not satisfied that variations of procedure or timing under the latter procedures are such as to disqualify these avenues as appropriate, available remedies in terms of the issues raised to the Committee. It follows accordingly that the remaining issues not set out in paragraph 6. As to the issue of bias arising from the Chairperson who made the interim order also being on the Board making the final order, the Committee notes that it is common, and in principle unobjectionable, for judicial officers to take interim decisions in respect of proceedings the merits of which will later be before them.
301 Prompts for Argumentative Writing
The author has not shown any elements to displace this presumption in the present case. Similarly, ex parte proceedings can, in principle, be necessary in order to act sufficiently promptly and avoid risk of serious harm, of which the author's conduct gave rise to reasonable belief, provided that the affected party has opportunity to state his or her case at an early opportunity. Such an opportunity was afforded in this case by the final recall hearing. On the issue of consent to adjournment, the Committee notes that the domestic courts found, as a matter of fact, that the author had consented, a finding which, absent manifest arbitrariness or a denial of justice, the Committee will not disturb.
In light of these elements, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated a claim in respect of these issues under articles 9, 14 or 26 of the Covenant.