ASSORTED TEST 1

PART I. LISTENING (50 points)

I. (10 points)
1.C 2.A 3.D 4.A 5.B

II. (10 points)

6.T 7.F 8.F 9.F 10.T

III. (10 points)

11. (the) introductory stage
12. colo(u)r, movement, texture
13. (the) brainstorming (sessions)
14. amend (them)/(some parts)
15. a rationale

IV. (20 points)

16. long-running sitcom 21. set-up and punchline
17. collective climate action 22. much less glib
18. “very special episodes” 23. perceived obnoxiousness
19. scam artists 24. comeuppance
20. benign 25. character archetype

PART II. LEXICO – GRAMMAR (30 points)

I. (20 points)
1.A 2.D 3.B 4.C 5.D
6.B 7.A 8.A 9.B 10.B
11.B 12.A 13.B 14.B 15.B
16.B 17.C 18.A 19.D 20.A

II. (10 points)

21.all-pervasive/all- 22. assonance 23.superannuated 24.go-getting 25. versimilitude
pervading
26. amoral 27. victorious 28. falsehood 29. aberrant 30. downcast

PART III. READING (60 points)

I. (7 points)
1.D 2.G 3.B 4.A 5.H 6.E 7.C

II. (15 points)

1.at 2.stuff 3.despite 4.paying 5.only/just
6.whole 7.nor 8.way 9.more 10.either
III. (10 points)
1.D 2.C 3.A 4.C 5.D
6.A 7.B 8.C 9.A 10.B

IV. (13 points)

1.F 2.F 3.NG 4.T 5.T
6.F 7.T 8.violent 9.tool 10.meat
11.photographer 12.game 13.frustration

V. (15 points)
1.E 2.B 3.B 4.C 5.D

1
6.D 7.E 8.A 9.E 10.D

D. WRITING (60 pts)

Part 1. Summary (15 pts)
Contents (10 points):
- The summary MUST cover the main points
- The summary MUST NOT contain personal opinions.
Language use (5 points)
The summary:
- should show attempts to convey the main ideas of the original text by means of paraphrasing (structural and lexical use),
- should demonstrate correct use of grammatical structures, vocabulary, and mechanics (spelling, punctuations,....),
- should maintain coherence, cohesion, and unity throughout (by means of linkers and transitional devices).
Penalties:
- A penalty of 1 point to 2 points will be given to personal opinions found in the summary.
- A penalty of 1 point to 2 points will be given to any summary with more than 20% of words copied from the original.
- A penalty of 1 point to 2 points will be given to any summary longer than 130 words or shorter than 90 words.

Part 2. Chart description.(15pts)

Contents (10 points):
- The report MUST have at least 2 paragraphs covering the following points:
 Introduce the charts (2 points) and state the overall trends & striking features (2 points)
 Describe main features with relevant data from the charts and make relevant comparisons
(6 points)
- The report MUST NOT contain personal opinions. (A penalty of 1 point to 2 points will be given to personal opinions found in the answer.)
Language use (5 points)
The report:
- should demonstrate a wide variety of lexical and grammatical structures,
- should have correct use of words (verb tenses, word forms, voice,…); and mechanics (spelling, punctuations,....).

Part 3: Essay (30 pts)

The mark given to part 3 is based on the following criteria:
1. Task achievement: (10 points)
a. ALL requirements of the task are sufficiently addressed.
b. Ideas are adequately supported and elaborated with relevant and reliable explanations, examples, evidence, personal experience, etc.
2. Organization: (10 points)
a. Ideas are well organized and presented with coherence, cohesion, and unity.
b. The essay is well-structured:
 Introduction is presented with clear thesis statement.
 Body paragraphs are written with unity, coherence, and cohesion. Each body paragraph must have a topic sentence and supporting
details and examples when necessary.
 Conclusion summarises the main points and offers personal opinions (prediction, recommendation, consideration,…) on the issue.
3. Language use: (5 points)
a. Demonstration of a variety of topic-related vocabulary
b. Excellent use and control of grammatical structures
4. Punctuation, spelling, and handwriting (5 points)
a. Correct punctuation and no spelling mistakes
b. Legible handwriting

Transcript:
Part 1:
You will hear an interview with someone whose work is concerned with the design and marketing of products. For questions 16-20, choose the answer (A, B,
C or D) which fits best according to what you hear. interviewer: Welcome to the world of visual planning.
I’m in the offices of a London design firm, where design consultant David Muir has just finished conducting a session with a group of women on the subject
of cleaning products. David, tell me exactly what it is that you’ve been doing.
David: Yes, well, visual planning usually unites a designer with a manufacturer to construct an appropriate image for a product. But in the age of the focus
group, when garnering opinions from members of the public at sessions with small groups is almost an industry in itself, the process has been short-circuited.
Today, shoppers are being asked to design the perfect product themselves.

2
In the three-hour brainstorming session I’ve just done, a dozen housewives and working mothers were asked to unleash their cleaning foibles, hates and woes,
and possibly change the way such products are packaged and sold.
Interviewer: Is there anything about cleaning products that poses particular problems when it comes to selling them?
David: Research has exposed the world of soaps, bleaches and powders to be a confusing mass, a 'many- headed monster’, so cluttered with scientific jargon
and swathed in lurid packaging as to be often unintelligible. Despite enormous annual advertising budgets, the congested market is failing to bloom as
healthily as manufacturers might wish. To arrest the crisis, my firm has been called in. Firstly, we filmed shoppers dithering in supermarkets over washing
powders. Stage two was the focus group I’ve just run.
Interviewer: Tell me about what kind of things you did in this session.
David: Well, for example, at the back of the room, scores of products were on display. The women were asked to put them into groups - what we call a 'brand-
mapping’ exercise - and select any favourites. Many of the brands elicited complaints that they are ugly and confusing.
I noted comments like: ‘The products don’t say clearly what they do’, and T don’t want all this science’, and T spend quite some time down that aisle’. Then
T just grab what I know’, and ‘I don’t understand the difference between concentrated and non-concentrated products, or biological and non-biological.’
Interviewer: So, having got their views, what was the
David: Then I asked them to imagine how they would want a cleaning product to make them feel. I split the women into three groups and got them to tear up
magazines and fabric samples, forming giant collages on boards to represent the colours, textures and images of their ideal cleaning goods. And the finished
boards - a mass of soft lilacs and mauves, fruit and flowers and images of homely comfort - represented a dramatic shift from the way these goods are
normally presented. There are no ‘germ-busting’ explosions.
Interviewer: So what have you concluded?
David: I’ve concluded that, as I suspected, the missing ingredient when it comes to the marketing of cleaning goods is emotion. Research already shows that it
is not an enjoyable sector for shoppers. The accepted belief is that when people buy detergents, there is low emotional involvement, that they are on automatic
pilot. But our research shows they want to have more fun, they want products to be about their lifestyle. It’s my belief that the visual dimension is vital.
Research shows that 73% of purchase decisions are made in the store. But no one is really considering the consumer’s emotional needs. That’s why in this
session, I asked them to express what they feel in a visual sense and create three perfect brands. There’s an opportunity for genuine innovation here, to
respond to consumers' emotional side. People don’t want all this industrial language any more. What we’re doing here is extremely radical.
Interviewer: So, a successful session then?
David: Very much so.
Interviewer: OK, now I’d like to move on to another aspect of your work. When it comes to ...
Part 2:
Interviewer: So, Paul, you run your own IT consultancy business now. How did your career start?
Paul: Well, after graduating in computer science, I got a job in the technical support team of the university where I'd studied. I really enjoyed both the
company of my colleagues and the technically challenging and interesting tasks I had to deal with, but after a few years, I began to see the same issues coming
up again and again. Several members of the team left, as it was all getting much less stimulating.
Interviewer: So what made you actually decide to set up your own consultancy?
Paul: Well, it seemed to me that there was going to be a trend among many organizations towards taking on short - term external consultants for IT rather than
employing a permanent in-house team. And I thought that would be an interesting way for me to go. I'm friends with a couple of guys who have a small start-
up and they'd been operating for a few years. I wasn't sure I could do it, but they helped me get started. They gave me much more sensible advice than I've
ever seen in any book or article for would-be entrepreneurs.
Interviewer: How do you get new clients?
Paul: Well, work is certainly erratic. For months, I might only have recurring clients, and then suddenly could get four new ones in the same week. There's no
one reliable source of work, so I diversify. I get a fair amount of work from recruitment agents, but some of the jobs they provide are not terribly challenging.
And I get some work from people I was at uni with. I suppose about half of my work is repeat business from people I've helped before, and I like that. You
start out from a position of knowing and trusting each other. Also, I go to conferences to meet people and to promote myself and my business. I've been told
that there's at least a two- to three-year lag between presenting at conferences and getting work from them, so I'm not yet sure how much business is going to
come to me that way.
Interviewer: What is the hardest part of running your business?
Paul: At first, I found it extremely difficult to know what to charge clients. I ended up drastically undercharging on a number of occasions before I realized I
needed to get some financial advice from an expert. That helped me enormously. It's often said that the first week in business is the hardest. In my case, as I'm
always moving on to provide support in a different company nearly every week is in the sense the first week. I often have just that week to make a difference
to that team, and that's a challenge but, fortunately, I like challenges!
Interviewer: Would you say you have a business mentor?
Paul: Sure. My business mentor is an old friend of mine. He recently finished a Master's in Business Administration and we talk every week about how I
might develop my company. I wouldn't say I have a clear idea about how other people use a business mentor - and it's quite possible they do things very
differently - but I have found our conversations very useful. It's great to have someone experienced to sound ideas off. I have great faith in his instincts.
Interviewer: What are your plans for this year?
Paul: Well, we've just moved to a great new office in the center of town, so we'll enjoy being based there. I'm considering taking on a couple of new staff to
keep things ticking over there while I deal with clients. I've got some very different new projects lined up over the next 12 months, so I am looking forward to
getting my teeth into those. I'm looking forward to having the chance to use some technical skills that I haven’t had to call on for a while, in fact, so that will
be good.
Interviewer: Well, I wish you all the very best with that.
Part 3:
jess: How are you getting on with your art project, Tom?
tom: OK. Like, they gave us the theme of birds to base our project on, and I’m not
really all that interested in wildlife. But I’m starting to get into it. I’ve pretty well finished the introductory stage.
jess: So have I. When they gave us all those handouts with details of books and
3
websites to look at. I was really put off, but the more I read, the more interested Loot.
tom: Me too. I found I could research so many different aspects of birds in art - colour,
movement, texture. So I was looking forward to the Bird Park visit.
jess: What a letdown! It poured with rain and we hardly saw a single bird. Much less
use than the trip to the Natural History Museum.
tom: Yeah. I liked all the stuff about evolution there. The workshop sessions with
Dr Fletcher were good too, especially the brainstorming sessions.
jess: I missed those because I was ill. I wish we could’ve seen the projects last year’s
students did.
tom: Mm. I suppose they want us to do our own thing, not copy.
jess: Have you drafted your proposal yet?
tom: Yes, but I haven’t handed it in. I need to amend some parts. I’ve realised the
notes from my research are almost all just descriptions, I haven't actually evaluated anything. So I'll have to fix that.
jess: Oh, I didn’t know we had to do that. I’ll have to look at that too. Did you do a
timeline for the project?
tom: Yes, and a mind map.
jess: Yeah, so did I. I quite enjoyed that. But it was hard having to explain the basis for
my decisions in my action plan.
tom: What?
jess: You know, give a rationale.
tom: I didn’t realise we had to do that. OK, I can add it now. And I’ve done the video
diary presentation, and worked out what I want my outcome to be in the project. jess: Someone told me it's best not to be too precise about vour actual
outcome at this
stage, so you have more scope to explore your ideas later on. So I’m going to go back to mv proposal to make it a bit more vague. tom: Really? OK,
I’ll change that too then.
Part 4:
“Mr Plow” from the Simpsons’ 4th season is easily one of the best episodes of the long running sitcom. For the uninitiated, this 1992 episode involves Homer
starting a successful snow plow business that is ultimately spoiled, first by friendly rivalry then by an unseasonably warm winter day. It also includes one of
the earliest mentions of the greenhouse effect in scripted media; and is one the first, but hardly the last, to undercut the seriousness of the phenomenon. It
might not seem like much, but if you are watching this video, then you must care - at least a little- about climate change. It probably puts you among the 59%
of people in the US who see climate change as a major threat1. The time for collective climate action is upon us, which means we must try to reach the 41%
of people who don’t seek out information about climate change. And those people watch TV. On any given day, 80% of Americans will watch - or stream-
TV3, making it one of the largest platforms to communicate points of view. From product placement to “very special episodes”, scripted media can be
powerful in raising awareness and changing minds. When it comes to general environmental issues, television, particularly children’s media, has devoted
countless hours to covering pollution, endangered species and the importance of recycling. Collectively, these efforts have contributed to highly successful
community-based environmental programs all across the country4. However, of all the environmental issues covered,climate change has gotten comparatively
tiny amounts of screen time. When it is discussed, we found that it is usually framed in a way that casts doubt on its existence, treats activists as scam artists,
and discourages action. For this video, graduate students studying science communication through the National Center for Science Education went through
the past 30 years of television comedy to find and analyze how climate change is framed. You can find out more about our methods in the description here,
but a quick note: We only looked at scripted, narrative comedy that had a point-of-view about climate change. That means no Daily Show segments or climate
disaster movies- their impact has been well-studied by others. However, we’ve still probably missed some examples, so feel free to leave a comment and help
us expand our list. Comedy has to take a point of view, and understanding what a writer thinks is funny about climate change can be suggestive of how they -
and the audience they are writing for - think about the issue. [Dharma and Greg clip]. This approach relies on the humor of violating the norm of “global
warming is bad” by highlighting a positive side, almost always something to do with warm weather. Of course, this approach only works when the vast
majority of viewers see this violation as, well, benign. In the 90s, when this framing was popular, climate change seemed distant enough to make this appear
harmless. That’s why comedies from the Simpsons to Frasier used this framing, often with the same set-up and punchline, over and over. As we became more
aware of the true impact of climate change, this framing gradually became less popular, dying out altogether in the 2010s. While television comedies have
become much less glib about climate change, writers still struggled to frame climate change in a way that made people want to learn more. Moving into the
2000s, a lot of humor centered on the perceived obnoxiousness of characters that cared about the environment. The humor here came from the outlandish and
extreme environmental views expressed by these characters, from not owning a car, to making their own clothes to the perennial favorite - drinking their own
urine. 30 Rock, My Name is Earl, and Modern Family all had episodes where the main cast was subjected to mental and physical torture at the hands of these
annoying characters. While the exact scenarios differ, these occurrences have three broad similarities. First, the environmentalist character is an “outsider” to
the main cast, and often low status, suggesting that their perspective is less valid than the main characters’. Second, the character receives a comeuppance by
the end of the episode that suggests that they are either lying about their environmental passion or equally as imperfect as the main character. Finally, the take-
home message for the audience is often “we know that you - like the main character- are doing your best and that’s fine.” While viewers may find this positive
message reassuring, it ultimately frames taking even minimal action as extreme and negative. Viewing episode after episode with this character archetype can
lead to skepticism about motives and general disinterest in learning more. Though thankfully this type of humor has become rarer, one only needs to watch an
episode of “The Politician” on Netflix to see the Obnoxious Environmentalist onscreen today.