🎯 Master IELTS with Real Computer-Based Practice!
Prepare smarter with ieltsonestopcbt.com — India’s most trusted platform for IELTS Computer-Based Tests.
✅ Practice Reading and Listening in real exam format
✅ Instant results with detailed feedback
✅ Authentic test interface just like the official CBT exam
🚀 Start your free practice now at ieltsonestopcbt.com and experience the real IELTS test environment before your exam day
Reading Practice
The
fluoridation controversy
The long-standing debate about
whether to fluoridate our drinking water continues
Fluoridation is the addition of
fluorine to public water supplies with the aim of reducing tooth
decay. The fluorine, when mixed with
water, becomes fluoride and the desired
concentration of fluoride in public water is approximately
one part per million, depending on the regional temperature and hence the
amount of water people are likely to drink. Many studies, such as those by
McClure in 1970 through to Burt in 1983, have shown that when children drink
fluoridated water, their average rate of tooth decay seems greatly reduced. A
typical figure claimed is 50 percent reduction. This apparently enormous
benefit for children's teeth is the major argument in favor of fluoridation.
Three main grounds for opposition to fluoridation have been
expressed. First, opponents claim the benefits are exaggerated or not
established. Second, there are claims of health risks to pans of the
population, for example, allergic reactions. It is also accepted that high
levels of fluoride can cause discoloration of otherwise healthy teeth.
Proponents do not consider this to be a problem in such small concentrations,
whereas opponents disagree especially because some people drink more water and
obtain much more than the standard 1 milligram of fluoride per day. Third,
fluoridation is thought to be an infringement on individual rights because it
is compulsory medication of all members of a community.
An understanding of the fluoridation issue has important
implications. If, according to the experts, fluoridation is unquestionably a
beneficial and non-hazardous measure, then the wisdom of allowing the public to
vote on, and reject it must be questioned.
Almost all studies that have been done have assumed that
the scientific aspects of the controversy are unproblematic, and they have
excluded science from sociological examination. The traditional view is that
science is a special kind of knowledge, which is established through scientific
methods and objectively applied by members of a scientific community. However,
in recent years there has been a major challenge to this picture by a sociology
of science that shows how scientific knowledge is socially negotiated, and
inevitably linked to the values of the relevant parties, both scientists and
nonscientists. These challengers do not see scientific knowledge as exempt from
social inquiry.
Kuhn (1970) argued that scientific knowledge does not
always develop as an orderly process, but is characterized by periodic
revolutions. in which the methods of study and the assessment criteria change
in a fragmented way. According to Kuhn, the shift from one scientific way of
thinking to another is not made solely on the basis of clear rules of formal
scientific practice, but can include social factors, though Kuhn has never
developed a full analysis of what these might be. Collins (1975) took this
concept further when he asserted that the outcome of experiments was not
something whose meaning could be immediately comprehended, but rather something
for interpretation, discussion between scientists, and reinterpretation in the
light of other experiments.
One interpretation of this analysis of science is that
traditional distinctions between facts and theories, and between scientific
knowledge and values, can no longer be justified. Because social processes are
involved at all stages of the creation, evaluation, and establishing of
scientific knowledge, social values may also be involved.
In the same way as many scientists who study fluoridation
have overlooked social values, sociologists have also downplayed an important
part of the debate by ignoring the number of eminent scientists who have
questioned aspects of fluoridation. An example is the study by Sutton in 1960,
which analyzed the classic North American studies of the effect of fluoridation
on tooth decay, and found that each showed significant methodological
shortcomings. Sutton's detailed study throws doubt as to the extent of
reductions in tooth decay from fluoridation. Yet Sutton's book is not cited in
a single analysis of the fluoridation issue by any sociologist. In a situation
of some scientific uncertainty, differences in values are highlighted. A
supporter of fluoridation might argue. The evidence for the benefits of
fluoridation is quite substantial, while the evidence for harm is limited and
dubious. I think the likely benefits outweigh the possible dangers; hence I
support fluoridation because it is the cheapest and easiest way to make sure
every child reaps the benefits. An opponent might argue, 'Though the evidence
for the benefits of fluoridation is substantial, there is some doubt about it.
Since fluoridation is not necessary for good teeth, we should forego the
benefits if there is some slight chance of harm. Some scientists claim that a
small percentage of the population could be harmed by fluoride. Therefore I
oppose fluoridation of water supplies and favor the voluntary use of fluoride
tablets by those who want to take them.'
Both arguments consider the scientific evidence concerning
fluoridation, but differ in their assessments of the social benefits and costs.
This difference is not between rationality and irrationality but is a legitimate
difference in values, for example, the positive value placed on good teeth, the
negative value placed on possible health risks, and the social benefits or
costs of compulsory or voluntary intake of fluorides.
From the sociological point of view, opposition to
fluoridation is not necessarily irrational. Rather, claims to rationality and
to scientific authority are better seen as part of a strategy to promote
fluoridation than as incontrovertible statements of fact. Second, social values
are likely to be bound up in any decision about fluoridation, so this is not an
issue on which declarations by scientific experts ought to be considered the
final word.
Questions 1-5
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D
Write the correct letter in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet
1. The optimum amount of fluorine in fluoridated water is
calculated partly according to
A how
hot the area is.
B how
warm the water is.
C how
many dental problems there are in the community.
D how
much fluorine the community chooses to have in its water.
2. One reason given by the writer for opposing fluoridation
is that
A it
may contribute to tooth decay
B it
will be unacceptably expensive for the public.
C obligatory
fluoridation takes away personal freedom.
D excessive
fluoride could be added to the water by mistake.
3. The writer
mentions Kuhn in order to A provide a contrast with the view of Collins.
B support
the rational nature of scientific inquiry.
C demonstrate
that Kuhn did not argue his case adequately.
D
show that science can be influenced by
non-scientific considerations4. What did Sutton's research discover about
earlier studies in North America?
A There
were failings in the way they were carried out.
B The
scientists involved had achieved unique results.
C Proponents
of fluoridation had not understood its long-term effects.
D Fluoridation
had a greater effect on tooth decay than previously believed.
5. In the last paragraph, what does the writer say about
scientists?
A They
should reveal their true motivations.
B They
should not decide the fluoridation policy.
C They
are solely concerned with scientific truths.
D They
cannot reach agreement on the fluoridation issue.
Questions 6-9
Do the following statements agree with the views of the
writer in Reading Passage?
In boxes 6-9 on your answer sheet, write
YES if
the statement agrees with the views of the writer
NO if
the statement contradicts the views of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks
about this
6.....................
Scientific knowledge should be kept separate from social values.
7.....................
Many sociologists have disregarded the doubts that some scientists have concerning
fluoridation.
8..................... Sutton's findings have been given
insufficient attention by scientists outside of North America.
9.....................
There are valid arguments on both sides of the fluoridation debate.
Questions 10-14
Complete each sentence with the correct ending. A-G. below.
Write the correct letter. A-G, in boxes 10-14 on your answer sheet.
10. The
traditional view of science is that 10.....................
11. A
sociological view of science argues that 11.....................
12. Collins
is of the opinion that 12.....................
13. The
writer suggests that a supporter of fluoridation may conclude that 13.....................
14. The
writer suggests that an opponent of fluoridation may conclude that 14.....................
A the
results of scientific research are not always understood at first
B if
it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
C people
should be able to choose whether they want fluoride.
D there
is insufficient proof to support a cautious approach.
E the
serious damage fluoride causes far outweighs any positive effects.
F children
are not the only ones who benefit from fluoridation.
G scientific
knowledge is affected by the beliefs of everyone concerned.
Solution:
|
1. A |
8. NOT GIVEN |
|
2. C |
9. YES |
|
3. C |
10. B |
|
4. A |
11. G |
|
5. B |
12. A |
|
6. NO |
13. D |
|
7. YES |
14. E |
No comments:
Post a Comment