Passagem 1
Escuta às cegas
Entenda a ideia geral, o tema e as informações principais sem legendas.
🎧 Prática IELTS escuta e fala
0:00 / 0:00
Método de escuta em cinco passagens
Transforme um conteudo de escuta em input de inglês reutilizável
Não pare em uma única reprodução. Divida o mesmo episódio em cinco passagens: primeiro a ideia geral, depois apoio linguístico, shadowing, ditado e uma escuta final sem legendas.
Passagem 2
Legendas em inglês
Resolva palavras desconhecidas e frases difíceis. Use dicionário e notas curtas se necessário.
Passagem 3
Shadowing
Repita linha por linha e imite pronúncia, ritmo, acentuação e entonação.
Passagem 4
Ditado
Escreva algumas frases-chave a partir do que você ouve para treinar forma e estrutura.
Passagem 5
Reescuta sem legendas
Ouça novamente sem apoio de texto e perceba o que agora está mais fácil e claro.
Após o treino
Compartilhar e recontar
Compartilhe anotações, palavras novas ou um conceito útil e depois reconte o episódio com suas próprias palavras.
Próximo passo
Do intensivo ao extensivo
Reaproveite episódios estudados intensivamente como escuta de fundo e aumente o volume com material familiar.
Passagem 1Passagem 2Passagem 3Passagem 4Passagem 5
📝 Transcrição 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.
📝 📚 Perguntas de prática IELTS
1
What is the main topic of the passage?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
A
Explicação:
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?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
C
Explicação:
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?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
A
Explicação:
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?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
A
Explicação:
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?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
C
Explicação:
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'?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
A
Explicação:
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'?
Resposta Incorreta
Resposta Correta:
A
Explicação:
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.
Transformar Escuta em Fala
Obtenha feedback instantâneo e prática diária no app LexiTalk.
Baixar o App