C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English
Part 8 — Multiple matching
Read the accounts by four delegates in specialised Model
United Nations committees. For questions 47–56, choose from accounts A–D.
You may use a letter more than once.
When the first proposal had to change
A — Italy, fashion industry committee
Our committee was asked to design a disclosure rule for
fashion brands that use subcontractors. I came in with a proposal to publish a
map of every supplier. The brands could meet the requirement fairly easily,
which initially struck me as a strength. Then a factory manager in the
simulation explained that she would spend several hours a week verifying
changes, even though her company had little influence over which orders it
received. We rewrote the clause so that the brands had to fund the verification
work. Another delegate showed me that our definition of a supplier excluded
workshops hired to fill unusually large orders. These were often the very
places we meant to cover. We amended the definition before the vote. I had
invested considerable time in designing the map and felt reluctant to withdraw
it. We eventually adopted a simpler public list and a confidential register for
inspectors.
B — Ireland, international press committee
I edited a bulletin during a simulated emergency meeting.
Two delegates gave me the same account of a breakdown in negotiations. I
reported it as independently confirmed and then discovered that both had heard
it from the same adviser. We issued a correction. By then, some participants
had forwarded the original bulletin and never saw our update. I placed a notice
at the top of every subsequent edition directing readers to the corrected
account. A colleague suggested that we stop using anonymous sources. That would
have simplified our work, but it would also have cut off people whose positions
made public comment difficult. We kept the option and revised our procedures.
Reporters had to explain to an editor how a source knew what they were
claiming. The editor could then judge whether a second interview would add
independent evidence.
C — Colombia, child protection committee
We debated whether children who had crossed a border should
receive temporary identification cards. The first proposal required a document
from each child’s place of origin. An adviser asked what would happen if a
child had fled the people who held that document. Our safeguard against false
registration could have excluded the children most in need of protection. We
proposed provisional registration, after which several kinds of evidence could
be considered. A separate difficulty arose when a delegate presented a single
application form translated into three languages. I had expected the choice of
languages to be the hardest part. Then we discovered that the form asked
applicants to enter a fixed address. What we needed was a form based on
information a child could reasonably provide at first contact. We also agreed
to review cases after three months to find out who was still waiting for
documentation and why.
D — Bangladesh, public health and climate resilience
committee
I proposed that municipalities keep emergency stocks of
essential medicines before the flood season. Several delegates questioned the
cost of year-round storage. A public health adviser then described a district
whose clinics had run short even though its regional warehouse was well
stocked. Floodwater had cut the road between them. We revised the proposal to
include agreements with local pharmacies as well as funding for a central
stockpile. At first I circulated the compromise only within my bloc because it
had taken us a morning to reach it. A delegate from outside the bloc asked to
see the distribution plan and spotted that an entire district was missing.
After that, I shared each revision more widely. We also agreed that a rise in
the number of unfilled prescriptions could trigger a review even if the total
quantity of medicine in storage remained stable.
Questions 47–56
Which delegate mentions …
47. taking action to reach people who might continue
to rely on inaccurate information?
48. a safeguard that risked denying support to some
of its intended beneficiaries?
49. an omission discovered after a proposal was
circulated beyond its original group?
50. a proposal that initially placed administrative
work on an organisation with limited influence?
51. an indicator that could prompt action while the
overall stock level remained unchanged?
52. keeping a practice because abandoning it would
limit access to certain contributors?
53. discovering that the difficulty lay in the
information requested on a form?
54. hesitating to withdraw an element because of the
work they had put into it?
55. mistaking two accounts from a common source for
independent confirmation?
56. discovering that the availability of supplies had
failed to guarantee local access?
