Passe 1
Écoute à l’aveugle
Comprenez l’idée générale, le thème et les informations principales sans sous-titres.
🎧 Pratique IELTS écoute et expression
0:00 / 0:00
Méthode d’écoute en cinq passes
Transformer un contenu d’écoute en input d’anglais réutilisable
Ne vous arrêtez pas à une seule écoute. Découpez le même épisode en cinq passes : idée générale, aide linguistique, shadowing, dictée, puis une dernière écoute sans sous-titres.
Passe 2
Sous-titres anglais
Clarifiez les mots inconnus et les phrases difficiles. Utilisez un dictionnaire et de courtes notes si besoin.
Passe 3
Shadowing
Répétez phrase par phrase et imitez la prononciation, le rythme, l’accentuation et l’intonation.
Passe 4
Dictée
Écrivez quelques phrases clés à partir de ce que vous entendez pour travailler la forme et la structure.
Passe 5
Réécoute sans sous-titres
Réécoutez sans support textuel et observez ce qui est maintenant plus simple et plus clair.
Après l’entraînement
Partager et reformuler
Partagez vos notes, de nouveaux mots ou une idée utile, puis racontez l’épisode avec vos propres mots.
Étape suivante
De l’intensif à l’extensif
Réutilisez les épisodes étudiés en profondeur comme écoute de fond et augmentez votre volume avec du contenu familier.
Passe 1Passe 2Passe 3Passe 4Passe 5
📝 Transcription dialogue 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.
📝 📚 Questions de pratique IELTS
1
What is the main topic of the passage?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
A
Explication:
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?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
C
Explication:
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?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
A
Explication:
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?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
A
Explication:
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?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
C
Explication:
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'?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
A
Explication:
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'?
Réponse incorrecte
Réponse correcte:
A
Explication:
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.
Transformer l'Écoute en Parole
Obtenez des commentaires instantanés et une pratique quotidienne dans l'app LexiTalk.
Télécharger l'App