Pasada 1
Escucha a ciegas
Comprende la idea general, el tema y la información principal sin subtítulos.
🎧 Práctica IELTS escucha y habla
0:00 / 0:00
Método de escucha en cinco pasadas
Convierte un contenido de escucha en input de inglés reutilizable
No te quedes en una sola reproducción. Divide el mismo episodio en cinco pasadas: primero la idea general, luego apoyo lingüístico, shadowing, dictado y una última escucha sin subtítulos.
Pasada 2
Subtítulos en inglés
Aclara palabras desconocidas y frases difíciles. Usa diccionario y notas breves si hace falta.
Pasada 3
Shadowing
Repite línea por línea e imita pronunciación, ritmo, acento y entonación.
Pasada 4
Dictado
Escribe algunas frases clave de lo que oyes para entrenar forma y estructura.
Pasada 5
Reescucha sin subtítulos
Escucha otra vez sin apoyo textual y observa qué ahora resulta más claro.
Después del entrenamiento
Compartir y reformular
Comparte notas, palabras nuevas o una idea útil, y luego vuelve a contar el episodio con tus propias palabras.
Siguiente paso
De escucha intensiva a extensiva
Reutiliza episodios estudiados a fondo como escucha de fondo y aumenta el volumen con material familiar.
Pasada 1Pasada 2Pasada 3Pasada 4Pasada 5
📝 Transcripción diálogo IELTS Speaking
I want to talk about whether universities should rescind honorary degrees and awards. Recently, students and alumni have called for institutions to rescind honours awarded to controversial figures. Some commentators argue that revoking an honour repairs a university's reputation. I am more cautious. I will give three reasons why institutions should think twice before they take back an award. First, fairness. People change over time and judging past behaviour is complicated. Second, precedent. Rescinding one award can set a precedent that invites constant review. Third, practical difficulty. Records are messy and legal fights can follow. I mention a couple of high-profile cases from around 2015 that grabbed headlines and prompted demands. That detail is interesting but not decisive. We should be wary of a chilling effect, where future decisions are made to avoid criticism rather than for academic merit. In short, I favour careful, case-by-case consideration. I do not suggest never rescinding. Nor do I suggest a rush to revoke honours to satisfy immediate public pressure. Institutions should weigh fairness, precedent, and practical consequences before they rescind an award.
📝 📚 Preguntas de práctica IELTS
1
What is the main topic of the passage?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
A
Explicación:
Correct: The speaker explicitly discusses whether universities should rescind honorary degrees. B is related but too general—the passage focuses on rescinding, not improving reputation generally. C is incorrect because the passage addresses taking awards back, not how they are granted. D is wrong; student protests are mentioned but legal procedures for protests are not discussed.
2
How many reasons does the speaker give for being cautious about rescinding awards?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
C
Explicación:
Correct: The speaker lists three reasons: fairness, precedent, and practical difficulty. A and B are wrong because more than one reason is given. D is incorrect because the speaker does not list four reasons.
3
Who does the speaker say often calls for institutions to rescind honours?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
A
Explicación:
Correct: The passage states that 'students and alumni have called' for rescinding honours. B, C, and D are plausible groups but are not mentioned as the ones calling for rescinding in the passage.
4
Which negative outcome does the speaker warn about if institutions rush to rescind awards?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
A
Explicación:
Correct: The speaker warns of a 'chilling effect' where future decisions avoid criticism rather than focus on merit. B is incorrect and not mentioned; financial gain is not discussed. C is wrong; the speaker does not claim rescinding improves standards. D is incorrect because the speaker actually mentions legal fights as a potential problem, not legal immunity.
5
What can be inferred about the speaker's overall position?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
C
Explicación:
Correct: The speaker explicitly favours careful, case-by-case consideration and rejects both a rush to revoke and an absolute ban. A is wrong because the speaker is cautious, not absolutist. B is incorrect because the speaker says 'I do not suggest never rescinding.' D is wrong; the speaker criticizes decisions made to satisfy public pressure, not to gain publicity.
6
Why does the speaker mention the idea of 'precedent'?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
A
Explicación:
Correct: The passage explains that rescinding one award can set a precedent that invites constant review. B is incorrect because the speaker treats precedent as a reason for caution, not an automatic improvement. C is wrong; the speaker does not claim legal binding. D is incorrect and contradicts the speaker's call for case-by-case consideration.
7
In this passage, what is the closest meaning of the word 'rescind'?
Respuesta Incorrecta
Respuesta Correcta:
A
Explicación:
Correct: 'Rescind' is used to mean taking back or revoking an honorary degree. B is the opposite of rescind. C (postpone) is incorrect because rescind implies cancellation, not delay. D (strengthen) is unrelated to the meaning in context.
Convertir la Escucha en Habla
Obtén retroalimentación instantánea y práctica diaria en la app LexiTalk.
Descargar la App