Passaggio 1
Ascolto cieco
Comprendi l’idea generale, il tema e le informazioni principali senza sottotitoli.
🎧 Pratica IELTS ascolto e parlato
0:00 / 0:00
Metodo di ascolto in cinque passaggi
Trasforma un contenuto di ascolto in input di inglese riutilizzabile
Non fermarti a un solo ascolto. Dividi lo stesso episodio in cinque passaggi: prima il senso generale, poi supporto linguistico, shadowing, dettato e infine un nuovo ascolto senza sottotitoli.
Passaggio 2
Sottotitoli in inglese
Chiarisci parole sconosciute e frasi difficili. Usa un dizionario e brevi appunti se necessario.
Passaggio 3
Shadowing
Ripeti frase per frase e imita pronuncia, ritmo, accento e intonazione.
Passaggio 4
Dettato
Scrivi alcune frasi chiave da ciò che senti per allenare forma e struttura.
Passaggio 5
Riascolto senza sottotitoli
Ascolta di nuovo senza supporto testuale e nota cosa ora risulta più facile e chiaro.
Dopo l’allenamento
Condividi e riformula
Condividi appunti, parole nuove o un concetto utile, poi racconta l’episodio con parole tue.
Passo successivo
Dall’intensivo all’estensivo
Riutilizza gli episodi studiati in modo intensivo come ascolto di sottofondo e aumenta il volume con materiale familiare.
Passaggio 1Passaggio 2Passaggio 3Passaggio 4Passaggio 5
📝 Trascrizione dialogo 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.
📝 📚 Domande pratica IELTS
1
What is the main topic of the passage?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
A
Spiegazione:
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?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
C
Spiegazione:
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?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
A
Spiegazione:
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?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
A
Spiegazione:
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?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
C
Spiegazione:
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'?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
A
Spiegazione:
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'?
Risposta Sbagliata
Risposta Corretta:
A
Spiegazione:
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.
Trasforma l'Ascolto in Parlato
Ottieni feedback istantaneo e pratica quotidiana nell'app LexiTalk.
Scarica l'App