OTRA FORMA DE APRENDER INGLÉS ES POSIBLE, ¡HAZ CLICK ABAJO!
ejercicios de listening ISE III C1 para aprobar el examen de Trinity
Ya tenemos aquí los ejercicios de listening ISE III C1 para certificar tu nivel de Inglés aprobando el examen ISE III de Trinity.
Conseguir aprobar el examen de ISE III no es sencillo. Sin embargo, si trabajas duro y te acostumbras a escuchar el idioma, es cuestión de tiempo que des el nivel. Aquí tienes 20 ejercicios de listening ISE III C1 para que puedas practicar todo lo que quieras.
Consejos para arrasar en los ejercicios de listening
- Usa técnicas de comprensión auditiva, como anticipar el contenido de lo que vas a escuchar a partir del título o del contexto, hacer predicciones sobre lo que se va a decir, y buscar pistas verbales y no verbales en el discurso del hablante.
- Repasa el vocabulario y las estructuras gramaticales que necesites para comprender los mensajes.
- Practica resumiendo lo que has escuchado en tus propias palabras.
- Si te encuentras con palabras o frases que no entiendes, no te preocupes. Trata de adivinar su significado a partir del contexto y de las pistas que te ofrezca el hablante.
- No te rindas si no entiendes algo a la primera. Escucha el mensaje varias veces y trabaja en tu comprensión progresivamente.
Ejercicios de listening ISE III C1
Lista de Listenings
LISTENING 1 – INDEPENDENCE
You’re going to hear part of a talk about independence. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
The speaker is discussing the concept of independence and its effects on personal growth and development, particularly among young people.
What does the speaker say about the benefits and challenges of independence? and does the speaker think it is important for young people to have a certain degree of independence?
What does the speaker say about the benefits and challenges of independence? | The speaker highlights the benefits of independence, such as increased autonomy and control over one’s own life, as well as the challenges, such as the difficulty of learning to be independent and making decisions without support. |
Does the speaker think it is important for young people to have a certain degree of independence? | Yes, the speaker believes that having a certain degree of independence is crucial for young people’s growth and development as individuals. |
In my recent book, I delve into the topic of independence and its effects on our lives. I hold the belief that independence is a crucial component of personal growth and development, particularly for young individuals.
One of the key advantages of independence is the sense of autonomy and control it provides us over our own lives. When we are independent, we are able to make our own decisions and take charge of our own destinies. This can be incredibly empowering and can lead to enhanced confidence and self-esteem.
However, independence also comes with its challenges. It can be difficult to learn how to be independent, and it can be daunting to take risks and make decisions without the support of others. It is important for young people to be equipped with the tools and support they need to overcome these challenges and become independent adults.
Overall, I believe that having a certain degree of independence is essential for young people. It can help them to grow and develop as individuals, and to become confident and capable adults.
LISTENING 2 – STEREOTYPES
You are about to listen to a lecture on stereotypes. As you listen, pay attention to the speaker’s perspective on the effects of stereotypes on individuals and society. After the first listening, you will be asked to summarize the main points discussed in the lecture. Are you ready?
The speaker is talking about the role of stereotypes in society.
Now tell me what the speaker says about the positive and negative aspects of stereotypes and their opinion on the role of stereotypes in shaping our views and behaviors. You have one minute to talk.
What does the speaker say about the benefits and challenges of independence? | The speaker highlights the benefits of independence, such as increased autonomy and control over one’s own life, as well as the challenges, such as the difficulty of learning to be independent and making decisions without support. |
Does the speaker think it is important for young people to have a certain degree of independence? | Yes, the speaker believes that having a certain degree of independence is crucial for young people’s growth and development as individuals. |
Stereotypes are an important part of our society. They allow us to categorize people and things based on their perceived characteristics, making it easier for us to understand and interact with the world around us.
However, stereotypes can also have negative effects. They can be limiting and can prevent us from seeing people and things as individuals, leading to prejudice and discrimination. Stereotypes can also create a distorted view of reality, causing us to make incorrect assumptions and judgments.
In my research, I have focused on the topic of stereotypes and their impact on individuals and society. I believe that stereotypes are a natural part of our cognitive process, but they can also be harmful if not used carefully. It is important to be aware of the potential consequences of stereotypes and to strive to see people and things as individuals, rather than relying on preconceived notions.
LISTENING 3 – SOCIAL MEDIA ON SOCIETY
You’re about to hear a talk about the impact of social media on society. Listen carefully to the speaker and then I’ll ask you to tell me what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
The speaker is talking about the impact of social media on society.
Now listen to the talk again and make some notes if you want to. After I’ll ask you to tell me what the speaker suggests are the disadvantages of using social media and whether they think it has a positive or negative impact on society.
The speaker suggests that the disadvantages of using social media include feelings of anxiety, stress, and FOMO, the prevalence of fake news and misinformation, and the pressure to present a perfect online persona. The speaker suggests that social media has both positive and negative impacts on society.
The proliferation of social media in recent years has had a significant impact on society.
On the one hand, proponents argue that social media has had a largely positive impact, providing individuals with a platform to connect with each other, share information, and engage in political and social discussions. In addition, social media has enabled the emergence of new artists, writers, and entrepreneurs who may have otherwise been unable to gain exposure.
However, critics argue that the constant stream of information provided by social media can be overwhelming, leading to feelings of anxiety, stress, and FOMO which is the fear of missing out.
Furthermore, the prevalence of fake news and misinformation on social media can make it difficult for individuals to separate fact from fiction, leading to confusion and mistrust.
Additionally, the pressure to present a perfect online persona can create unrealistic expectations and cause individuals to compare themselves unfavorably to others, leading to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem.
Despite these drawbacks, it is clear that social media has become an integral part of modern society, and its impact will continue to be a topic of significant interest and debate.
While it is important to recognize the potential negative effects of social media, it is equally important to consider the ways in which it can be used positively to connect individuals, share information, and foster creativity and innovation.
LISTENING 4 – ANGER MANAGEMENT
You’re going to hear a talk about anger management. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about how to stay calm. The speaker says anger is normal but should be dealt with in a positive way.
Now listen to the talk again and make some notes if you want to. After I’ll ask you to tell me what the speaker suggests are the disadvantages of using social media and whether they think it has a positive or negative impact on society.
The speaker suggests that the disadvantages of using social media include feelings of anxiety, stress, and FOMO, the prevalence of fake news and misinformation, and the pressure to present a perfect online persona. The speaker suggests that social media has both positive and negative impacts on society.
The proliferation of social media in recent years has had a significant impact on society.
On the one hand, proponents argue that social media has had a largely positive impact, providing individuals with a platform to connect with each other, share information, and engage in political and social discussions. In addition, social media has enabled the emergence of new artists, writers, and entrepreneurs who may have otherwise been unable to gain exposure.
However, critics argue that the constant stream of information provided by social media can be overwhelming, leading to feelings of anxiety, stress, and FOMO which is the fear of missing out.
Furthermore, the prevalence of fake news and misinformation on social media can make it difficult for individuals to separate fact from fiction, leading to confusion and mistrust.
Additionally, the pressure to present a perfect online persona can create unrealistic expectations and cause individuals to compare themselves unfavorably to others, leading to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem.
Despite these drawbacks, it is clear that social media has become an integral part of modern society, and its impact will continue to be a topic of significant interest and debate.
While it is important to recognize the potential negative effects of social media, it is equally important to consider the ways in which it can be used positively to connect individuals, share information, and foster creativity and innovation.
LISTENING 5 – EQUAL PRIZE IN SPORTS
You’re going to hear a talk about money in sport. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about the arguments for and against equal prize money in sports. The speaker says we should have equal prize money as it is fairer.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what arguments the speaker makes for and against equal prize money in sports, and whether he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what arguments the speaker makes for and against equal prize money in sports, and whether he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points:
- Despite rising gender equality, there is still a big gender gap in prize money in sports
- It seems morally right to pay men and women the same
- But, demand drives prize money, and there is less demand for women’s sports
- If there was more prize money, women’s sports would be more popular
- More prize money = more girls taking up sport, better level
- Men have a biological advantage, men’s sport is better
- But, sport isn’t just about physicality, tactics/excitement are important
- Unequal prize money sends a bad message to society
- Most sports have ensured equal prize money, eg athletics
- The speaker says big, popular sports should do the same
The gender pay gap is slowly being closed across the world. Almost every country has laws to prevent discrimination in salaries based only on gender. But enormous disparities remain in the prize money offered to men and women in many sports, especially the most popular ones.
Paying women the same as men for the same work (kicking, throwing, hitting a ball for 90 minutes) seems morally right. If we want fairness and equality, then we surely have to push things in that direction.
But I can see why there is still a lot of resistance to the idea. We live in a capitalist society in which demand drives prices. And it’s clear that more people go through the turnstiles for men’s events.
This brings us to the chicken and egg nature of the problem. Proponents of equal prize money say that interest in women’s sport won’t improve until prize money is increased to raise the level.
There is some logic to this. If a sporting career were more lucrative, more young girls would take up the sport, especially those in developing countries, and we could expect the level of play to go up too.
Of course, some would say men’s and women’s sports will never be on the same level. Men’s bone density and muscle mass gives them an undeniable advantage in many of the skills required in most sports: running, jumping, throwing and so on.
But football, and indeed almost all team sports, aren’t about running fast and jumping high. They are about the beauty of the game, the elegance of a well-executed move, the edge-of-your-seat excitement of a last-minute comeback… None of these things are exclusive to men’s sports.
There is also a wider principle at stake. We can’t send the message that women are worth less than men. Most areas of society are addressing this, as women take up more equal roles in business, politics, the media and most professions. Sport should be no different.
Studies have shown that a majority of sporting organisations do now ensure equal prize money. Men and women can expect the same rewards in sports from athletics to skiing and horse-racing to judo.
The final step to what I consider a much fairer and healthier system, would be for the governing bodies of the most popular sports, such as football, golf and tennis, to take similar steps themselves.
LISTENING 6 – GUILTY PLEASURES
You’re going to hear a talk about guilty pleasures. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about what guilty pleasures are and whether it’s a useful concept or not. The speaker says it is a useful concept for society.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker evaluates the concept of “guilty pleasures” and whether he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker evaluates the concept of “guilty pleasures”, and whether he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points:
- Examples of guilty pleasure: wearing pyjamas all day etc
- They are looked down on
- It creates a conflict between short-term and long-term desires
- Real guilty pleasure = ashamed to admit, eg Pokémon Go
- Nerd culture has led to less guilty pleasures as niche interests are accepted
- Not a useful concept because you are insulting someone’s work
- Not useful because you are lying to yourself to suit society
- Some guilty pleasures can be unhealthy, eg Facebook stalking
- They are also unproductive, eg too much reality TV
- The speaker says it is a useful concept for society as we can distinguish between what is respected and what is not
Wearing pyjamas all day, having a second helping of ice cream or cake and watching series that you’ve seen ten times before, have been voted among the UK’s top guilty pleasures in a recent study.
We know these things are looked down on by most people. We’re supposed to appear respectable – which both the pyjamas and the ice cream (in the long term) might prevent.
This creates a conflict within us, where our pleasure-seeking reptile brain comes to blows with our more socially oriented human brain. The reptile often wins.
A real guilty pleasure is something you’re ashamed to admit doing afterwards. There’s not much music that’s too embarrassing for me to share with others, but I might not admit to the number of hours I spent playing Pokémon Go as an adult.
Bu recently, it seems that the rise of nerd culture has led to a demise in guilty pleasures, as people are now sure to find others who share their niche interest, and are therefore less likely to feel different. Reading comics can’t be described as a guilty pleasure anymore.
Indeed many people take issue with the whole concept. When you label something a guilty pleasure, you are saying something that you enjoy, and that someone probably put a lot of work into making or designing or writing, that that something is shameful. It’s not a nice message.
Moreover, conforming to social pressure and expectations about what is cool is maybe not the healthiest attitude. Maybe it is “cool” to just like what you like, without worrying about its street cred.
There are some behaviours though, that I think deserve to fall into the category of guilty pleasures. In moderation, there is no problem, but too much Facebook stalking of exes, to cite one example of a common guilty pleasure, is not conducive to a healthy mindset.
So many guilty pleasures are also unproductive, and should probably be limited. You only get one life; how much of it do you want to spend watching annoying reality TV?
It’s complicated, but I do think the idea of guilty pleasures has some value. In many cases, it is useful to distinguish between what is respected by society and what is not. I might prefer one or the other depending on my mood.
LISTENING 7 – SUGAR TAX
You’re going to hear a talk about a type of tax. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about the arguments for and against the sugar tax. The speaker is in favour of sugar taxes due to health and financial benefits.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what arguments the speaker makes for and against the sugar tax and whether he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what arguments the speaker makes for and against the sugar tax and whether he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Half of EU countries have a sugar tax
- Arguments for: similar to alcohol/cigarettes, cost to society
- Health service is inundated with sugar-related illnesses
- Sugar leads to mood swings, less is better
- Money from sugar taxes could help society, eg pay for sports in primary school
- It encourages manufacturers to reduce sugar content
- But, against: advertising, education could be a better way
- Not the government’s place to decide what we eat and drink
- It’s a regressive tax, affects the poor more, proportionally
- Overall, the speaker says he is in favour of sugar taxes due to health and financial benefits.
A famous expression goes that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. And new forms of taxes appear almost as frequently as new ways of making money.
About half of all EU countries have implemented some form of tax on sugar, especially soft drinks, in an attempt to combat the effects of sugar. The jury is still out on whether it is making a difference.
Sugar taxes could be compared to taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Sugary drinks inflict high external costs on society, mainly in the form of diabetes and heart disease caused by obesity.
Effectively, the social cost of sugar is greater than the private cost we buy and sell it at. We all end up paying a lot more because we pay for the health service that is plagued by sugar-induced illnesses.
In addition, sugar can play havoc with our bodies, leading to mood swings and dips in energy when over-consumed, which we almost all do. A tax to curb consumption can only encourage healthier diets.
In the UK, revenues from the sugar tax go to funding sporting equipment and activities in primary schools, a clear step forward for society.
Another beneficial side-effect is that many soft-drink manufacturers have reduced the sugar content of their drinks to avoid paying the tax. Healthy alternatives to sugar are also popping up.
But not everyone is convinced taxing sugar is the answer. Another famous expression states that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If we want to change people’s diets, shouldn’t we persuade them in a less hard-hitting manner? Advertising, education, campaigns, could be more convincing.
There is also the argument that it is not the government’s place to decide what is good and bad for us. Clearly, people want to consume sugar, and are probably old enough to understand the risks and costs.
And finally, a sugar tax is a regressive tax. It takes the same percentage from the poor and the rich, meaning it disproportionally affects the poor.
These concerns are understandable, but don’t really stand up for me. If the government has the responsibility of healthcare, it also has the right to encourage healthy lifestyles, saving money and lives.
LISTENING 8 – SHAKESPEARE IN SCHOOLS
You’re going to hear a talk about Shakespeare. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about whether Shakespeare should be required reading in high school. The speaker says he should be due to the language, story and themes of his work.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what arguments the speaker offers about studying Shakespeare in high school and whether he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what arguments the speaker offers about studying Shakespeare in high school and whether he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Lots of students remember studying Shakespeare
- Argument for: learn about origins of language and imagery/poetry of language
- Argument against: difficult to understand for teenagers due to style
- Argument for: Intriguing stories, eg Macbeth
- Argument against: more relevant, modern stories could be used
- Argument for: eternal themes, eg Romeo and Juliet, forbidden love
- Argument for: you study everything related to Shakespeare, films etc
- Argument for: gives insight into history
- The speaker says Shakespeare should be required reading due to the language, story and themes.
Ask any student what they most remember from their high school English classes, and, with good or bad memories, they’ll most likely say Shakespeare. But some educators question the ubiquity of a man who lived over 400 years ago in high school English curriculums.
Those who advocate for the presence of Shakespeare point to his role in the foundations of modern English. It is estimated he coined around 2,000 words or phrases still widely in use today. His language is also full of imagery and poetry which pushes students to think more deeply about the text.
Some students, however, can struggle with this. Teenagers might not have the mental facilities and concentration required to understand the text written in a style far removed from modern English.
What they can get their heads around, normally, are the great dramatic plots in the most commonly studied works of Shakespeare. I remember the audible gasp that went around my classroom as a 15 year old when we finished Macbeth and the prophecies came true.
Maybe there are alternatives that offer more relevant stories? I must admit it can be difficult for kids to empathise with Hamlet, prince of Denmark and his struggles to avenge his father’s death.
The beauty of Shakespeare, though, is in the eternal themes explored in his plays. Romeo and Juliet as star-crossed lovers is always relevant in modern societies struggling with class and identity.
What’s more, Shakespeare hasn’t just been popular today, but throughout the entire 400 plus years since he was alive. There is a huge amount of hype around Shakespeare, an industry based on his work, novels, plays, songs, even films that reference him. To study Shakespeare is to be a part of all this.
The plays do offer us a connection to the past as well, which is educationally valuable for students. Understanding how people in the past lived and thought expands their horizons.
As a lover of literature there are many authors I would include in a high school English syllabus before Shakespeare, but I do think the Bard has to be studied at some point in every serious English class.
The reasons for his enduring popularity – namely the richness of the language, the gripping stories and the universal themes – these reasons make Shakespeare required reading in my opinion
LISTENING 9 – NFTs
You’re going to hear a talk about technology. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about NFTs and how they work. The speaker says they are just as valid as traditional ways of assigning value.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker evaluates NFTs and whether he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker evaluates NFTs and whether he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- NFT is a certificate of digital ownership
- Normal works of art valuable due to uniqueness, eg Van Gogh
- Digital art can be copied, so difficult to give value
- Blockchain solves this by creating a record of who owns original
- No one can change this as the blockchain consists of many computers
- Analogy – signed photo – one copy is signed and more valuable
- Lots of NFTs selling for millions, eg Beeple’s “The First 5000 days”
- Some criticism – no real thing to hold in your hand
- Environment cost of block chain also criticised
- But, it will get more efficient
- It is the future, as it is a good way of assigning value to digital things in a digital world
2021 will maybe go down in history as the year of the covid vaccine, but another notable event of the year was the spectacular rise of NFTs, non-fungible tokens. The basic idea is that an NFT is a certificate confirming ownership of a digital asset. But there’s a bit more to it than that.
What we consider normal works of art are valuable because they are unique. Van Gogh only painted his Sunflowers once, which is why the piece sold in 1987 for nearly $100 million, adjusting for inflation.
The problem is that a jpeg of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers can be perfectly copied millions of times. And the same is true of any digital art.
The technological leap that has taken place this year is using blockchain to make an uncopiable certificate stating someone owns the original piece of digital art. A record of ownership is saved on the blockchain, which cannot be changed by any single computer, as it consists of thousands or even millions of computers working together.
A good analogy might be to consider a signed photo. Anyone can copy the photo, and it would be physically identical, but the signature means you know yours was the original.
Many digital artworks have sold for millions of dollars this year, and a new story pops up every week about something turning into an NFT.
When Beeple’s digital art entitled “The First 5000 Days” sold for $70 million, heads were raised and critics of NFTs became quite vocal.
Traditional auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s questioned the value of something that they said doesn’t really exist, you can’t hold in your hands.
The energy requirements, and resulting environmental consequences, of carrying out the mathematical operations to run the blockchain have also been a source of comment from those not convinced by NFTs.
But this is a young technology and will become more efficient.
There’s no doubt to me that NFTs are the future. To compare it to a traditional work of art: Van Gogh’s work is just canvas and paint, it only has the value we assign to it. Similarly, NFTs are a clever and useful way of ensuring we can put a price on the digital things we consider valuable. In a digital world, it makes sense.
LISTENING 10 – REWILDING IRELAND
You’re going to hear a talk about nature in Ireland. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about the pros and cons of making Ireland wild again. The speaker says it should be done as much as possible.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what arguments the speaker gives on the topic of making Ireland wild again, and if he comes to a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what arguments the speaker gives on the topic of making Ireland wild again, and if he comes to a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Ireland is now modern and a haven for tech companies
- It used to be wild – 80% forest. Now 1%.
- Plans to make it wilder are called rewilding
- Eg Patrick Murphy, manages native woodland, no invasive species
- Native trees are planted, not commercial invasive trees like pine
- BUT, unclear about what “natural” Ireland is
- And Ireland cannot be wild due to human presence
- They want to reintroduce wolves to control invasive species and help ecosystem
- But this could be dangerous for farms and people
- The speaker says it should be done as much as possible
Ireland is now home to the European headquarters of Google, Facebook and many other big multinationals, as its low tax rates have made it a haven for profit-hungry corporations. But it used to be a haven of a different kind.
Before widespread human settlement, Ireland was 80% forest. Now it is 1%. This is the lowest forest coverage of any European country. The average across Europe is 40%.
But the tide is turning, and many schemes to return Ireland to a more natural state are springing up. This concept is known as “rewilding”.
Patrick Murphy, for example, gave up his life as a banker in the city to move to the coastal town of Galway, where he manages a 15-hectare area of native woodland. He has eliminated invasive species and blocked access to sheep, so the forest can grow like it would have done 10,000 years ago.
Instead of commercial trees, such as pine, which is grown in high density, and offer low biodiversity, native trees such as oak and willow are being planted more and more.
For some though, the aim is a bit unclear. Taking Ireland back to pre-industrial days (say, 200 years ago) is very different to taking it back to pre-agricultural days (2,000 years ago). Who is to say what the “natural” state of Ireland is?
Furthermore, rewilding has its limits, as nobody is suggesting humans abandon Ireland, so the country will still have cities, factories, farms, retail parks, roads… all rather unnatural.
One aim of rewilding is the reintroduction of large predators to Ireland, namely wolves and lynxes. They argue that this could help control invasive species such as deer, contributing to a more balanced ecosystem, and even fight climate change by allowing more plant growth due to the decrease in deer.
Of course, some farmers and people who live in rural areas are not so enamoured of the idea. Wolves are dangerous for livestock, and Ireland no longer has vast expanses of wilderness where they can roam free.
There are many challenges in such an ambitious project, but the way I see it, we have to strike a new balance with nature. Rewilding Ireland, where it is possible to do so without too much disruption to local people, is a noble and worthwhile goal. Working alongside nature, not against it.
LISTENING 11 – ESCAPISM
You’re going to hear a talk about watching series. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about whether we want series to reflect reality or let us escape from it. The speaker says we want a bit of both.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker evaluates our TV watching habits, and if he comes to a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker evaluates our TV watching habits, and if he comes to a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Contagion, a film about a pandemic was popular in March 2020
- This is surprising as we often think TV shows are escapist
- TV lets us escape our daily worries
- It can be active escape – we feel involved in good shows
- They offer us experiences we couldn’t otherwise have
- But we like reality-based shows as they are relatable
- Eg post-apocalyptic shows in Cold War
- It gives us a sense of control/agency over our lives
- The speaker says we want a bit of both, a mix of realistic and escapist shows
March 2020, the first coronavirus lockdowns in many countries, people stuck in their houses all day, desperately wanting something to take their minds off the doom and gloom surrounding them.
Or did they? It turns out one of the most watched films in March 2020 on most streaming platforms was 2011’s Contagion, a film about a worldwide pandemic.
So, do we prefer TV that puts up a mirror to our current situation, or do we long for a distraction from it?
As most of us probably know, getting lost in a book or a series, and forgetting all those everyday worries is a nice feeling. The immersion allows us to seek refuge from our stressful lives.
More than that, a great series can be an active escape rather than passive. A complex plot, nuanced characters and good writing mean that the viewer has to really think to keep up and can feel genuinely involved in the story. Something like Game of Thrones would be a good example here.
Escapist shows are also appealing as they expand our horizons and show us experiences we could never have in real life, especially in the age of travel restrictions.
Having said that, it seems we sometimes like a hard-hitting dose of reality. One of the reasons for this is that we often look for relatability in the media we consume. Watching things similar to what we’re going through can help us deal with the issues. Like listening to sad music after breaking up with a partner.
Another illustrative example is the popularity of the post-apocalyptic genre in the Cold War. As the threat of nuclear bombs hung over the world, people watched shows to get an idea about what could happen the next day if someone pressed the big red button.
Like with the pandemic, psychologists suggest we enjoy watching these shows that mirror our reality to give us a small sense of control and agency. We tell ourselves we accept and even embrace the situation by engaging with it even in our free time.
Looking at the big picture, both approaches; escapist and realist, have their merits. What entertains us is unsurprisingly a mix of the real and the fantastic. Luckily there are enough series to keep everyone happy.
LISTENING 12 – CEO PAY
You’re going to hear a talk about money. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about the arguments for and against giving CEOs large salaries. The speaker says the situation is out of control and should be changed.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what arguments the speaker makes for and against large CEO salaries and if he comes to a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what arguments the speaker makes for and against large CEO salaries and if he comes to a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Stats about CEO salaries, should be 20 times more than average worker, is 300 times more
- Argument for – it’s the market rate
- Argument for – company’s own shareholders decide it
- Argument for – bonus is a reward when company is doing well, it’s deserved
- Argument against – performance not related to CEO
- Argument against – a good CEO should do more than just raise profits
- Argument against – bad for morale of lower-paid employees
- Solution – measure more than just profits
- Solution – transparency in pay structures
- Solution – redistribute performance related pay to all workers
A famous economist in the 1970s suggested that company directors should have their pay capped at 20 times the amount of the average salary of their employees. This may seem like a generous amount, but most CEOs now actually earn about 300 times more than their workers. How can this be justified?
Some of the lucky recipients of these gigantic pay checks might contend that they are only getting the market rate. If demand is so great for these hot-shot executives, then the price will reflect that.
And it’s not like CEOs are stealing the money – it is normally the company’s own shareholders who vote to pay out such huge sums. It’s their company, surely they can run it as they see fit.
What this normally means is paying CEOs bonuses when the company is doing well. It is estimated about 60% of a CEO’s pay comes in the form of performance-related bonuses. A fair reward for a job well done.
The problem with this logic is that we don’t really know how a big company’s performance is related to its CEO. When a company does well, it’s often more down to the global political situation than whoever the boss is.
Furthermore, a CEO’s role should be about more than just raising the share price of the company. Shouldn’t a CEO also be rewarded for making the company more environmentally friendly, or investing in staff-training programmes?
Then we might take into account the effect on the morale of employees. Those at the bottom of the ladder, lucky to get a raise that beats inflation, don’t look kindly on multi-million dollar bonuses.
This is one of the worst excesses of capitalism. For a more ethical approach to salary distribution, companies should, firstly, measure more than just profits when deciding how well executives have performed.
They also have to ensure that pay structures are transparent and open to scrutiny so that everybody in the organisation is aware of who is being paid what, and why they deserve it.
Finally, and most importantly, performance related pay bonuses should be redistributed so that all employees benefit when a company is doing well. CEOs will still make a lot more than the average employee, but the difference might not be so insulting.
LISTENING 13 – IMPOSTOR SYNDROME
You’re going to hear a talk about a psychological syndrome. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about impostor syndrome, which is a feeling that your success is underserved, and you don’t belong in your role. The speaker gives recommendations for coping with it.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker describes impostor syndrome and what recommendations he gives for coping with it. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker describes impostor syndrome and what recommendations he gives for coping with it. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Example of impostor syndrome: a teacher who doubts why the students obey him
- Definition of imposter syndrome: a feeling that success is undeserved and you are a fraud in your role etc
- It affects a lot of people, 7 out of 10, especially high achievers, eg executives
- Originally associated with woman in times of greater gender inequality, now everyone
- Possible cause – anxiety in personality
- Possible cause – childhood trauma of demanding parents or siblings leading to inferiority complex
- Possible cause – institutional factors – eg ethnic minorities feel like they don’t belong
- Recommendation – change thought patterns, separate fact from feeling, remember you are worthy
- Recommendation – keep physical reminders of your success
- Recommendation – talk to a friend
As a teacher, I’ve sometimes found myself in front of a class of teenagers, asking myself why they are listening to me and even obeying me, when they don’t really want to. I’m just some guy, I don’t actually have any power over them.
This is an example of impostor syndrome, a common feeling that your success is undeserved, and you are an impostor in your role. It affects people from all walks of life, but disproportionally, high achievers, such as executives. One study estimated that 7 out of 10 people have felt it at some point.
Impostor syndrome was originally identified by two psychologists who suggested women were prime candidates due to the pronounced gender inequalities of the 1970s, which left women doubting their success. The original publishers of the research have since admitted it affects everyone.
There are many possible, disputed, factors behind the syndrome. It could be down to personality traits such as anxiety manifesting themselves. Some experts suggest it starts in childhood, when demanding parents, or siblings who leave others under a shadow, plant the seeds of an inferiority complex.
Institutional factors can also play a role. Ethnic minorities are more likely to feel like impostors for the simple reason that they look slightly different from everyone else, so may lack a sense of belonging.
Since impostor syndrome if more a pattern of negative thoughts than a diagnosis, changing the way we think is the key to overcoming it.
Psychologists recommend separating fact from feeling. When you have doubts about your ability to perform the role you are paid for, just remember that you were hired for a reason, you can do it.
Tangible prompts for this can help, such as displaying your qualifications or saving a thank you card from when you did a good job.
One thing we all do that is probably counter-productive in these circumstances is compare ourselves to others. There will always be annoyingly beautiful, rich, and young people doing better than us, but that doesn’t mean we can’t also do the job well.
Another useful remedy, given the frequency of the syndrome, is to reach out to a friend. A problem shared is a problem halved, and they may help put everything in perspective for you.
That’s the key point: perspective. Some level of self-doubt is natural, the alternative would be unthinking arrogance, but we shouldn’t let it hinder our personal or professional lives.
LISTENING 14 – NANOTECHNOLOGY
You’re going to hear a talk about future technology. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about the ethical debate around nanotechnology, the risks and potential it brings. The speaker says it will probably be adopted as it has a lot of potentia
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what risks and potential uses of nanotechnology the speaker identifies, and if he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what risks and potential uses of nanotechnology the speaker identifies, and if he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Define nanotechnology – tiny programmable robots that can perform different functions
- This does not exist, but there is debate about ethics of it
- Risk – nanobots could be hacked, this is dangerous
- Risk – nanobots could crash, not reliable
- Risk – military application is worrying
- Risk – no privacy as nanobots are like cameras
- Risk – people using nanobots to make weapons
- Potential – smart material, eg house that reacts to climate, changes
- Potential – good for environment, self-fuelling, reusing not buying more products
- Potential – use in medicine to eradicate diseases
- Conclusion – it will be adopted as the uses are almost limitless
One area of science that could change the world in the decades to come is nanotechnology. The idea is to make tiny robots that can be programmed to perform different functions, such as assembling into a specific shape (say, a tool), or emitting light, or killing viruses – the possibilities are endless, they could make almost anything.
Of course, we are many years from this happening, but already scientists are debating the risks that nanotechnology could bring.
What if my nanobots were hacked, for example? Suddenly somebody else is controlling the potentially dangerous tiny robots in my house. No thanks.
In addition, just how much could we trust nanobots even when they are working? Electronic devices have a nasty habit of unexpectedly crashing, which limits their usage. Build a drone out of nanobots, for example, and the crash could be quite damaging.
There are also concerns about their potential military application. They say all’s fair in love and war; but using a swarm of invisible and deadly robots would be a particularly unpleasant way of fighting a battle.
Nanobots could also spell the end of privacy, as they could be used as videos and microphones that can access almost anywhere due to their small size, and perhaps be virtually undetectable.
And if everyone had access to nanobots, that means everyone has access to weapons, since they could be assembled into any sort of firearm. Do we trust each other with this power?
In the face of these worries is the incredible potential that such technology could offer. Imagine having a house made of smart material that could adapt to hot and cold weather, that could change from office to kitchen to bedroom at the push of a button.
And doing so could be energy neutral as nanobots could self-fuel through solar power. Instead of buying hundreds of products, we would only need to reuse nanobots. It would be an environmental revolution.
The benefits wouldn’t just be macroscopic either. Nanobots could be programmed to detect virus or cancer cells in our body and hunt them down. Diseases could become a thing of the past.
New technology inevitably leads to debates about its implementation, but if the technology proves useful, we normally end up finding a way of fitting it into our lives. I suspect the same will happen with nanotechnology, as the potential applications more than make up for the risks they also bring.
LISTENING 15 – SOCIAL MEDIA FILTERS
You’re going to hear a talk about social media. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about filters on social media, and why they have been banned. The speaker agrees with the ban.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what reasons the speaker gives for banning social media filters, and if he reaches a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what reasons the speaker gives for banning social media filters, and if he reaches a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Filters on social media are popular due to insecurity over body images…
- …especially with teenagers
- Many have been banned
- Reason to ban – people are beautiful without filters
- Reason to ban – they affect mental health by creating unrealistic expectations
- Suggestion – image editing apps for over 18s only
- Reason to ban – teens use them to mimic plastic surgery
- Reason to ban – not just teens, all plastic surgery increases due to social media
- Reason to ban – inherent racism of lighter skin, smaller nose, in filters
- Suggestion – block people who use such filters
- Suggestion – workshops in schools promoting positive body image, eg Dove
- Conclusion – banning is a good idea, looking at fake, perfect pictures is damaging
It can take us a long time to get comfortable with our body image, and some people never do. As teenagers, though, it is fair to say very few are perfectly confident in their skin, which is why filters on social media apps such as Instagram are so popular.
However, many people believe that these filters have a harmful effect on teenagers, and some that were available on the apps have been banned in recent years.
One influencer, Faye Dickinson, started a campaign to encourage posting without filters. She said her goal was to let people know they are beautiful with their normal skin texture, scars, and imperfections.
“The idea was to highlight how unrealistic filters can affect our mental health by creating impossible beauty standards that no one can meet”, said Dickinson.
She also pointed out the increase in third-party apps that allow you to edit images and pass them off as natural. She suggests they should be age restricted to over 18s only.
Even celebrities such as Jameela Jamil have added their voices. She wrote on Instagram, in a post with over 140,000 likes, about the impact of filters that mimic cosmetic surgery.
These have been banned by Instagram, but are still accessible elsewhere. Apparently, many teens visit plastic surgeons with a filtered image and ask them to make them look like it.
Unfortunately, this is not limited to teens, either. Plastic surgery operations have increased by over 50% in the US in the last five years, and surveys show that those who spend more time on social media are significantly more likely to go under the knife.
Jamil also raises questions about the inherent racism of these apps, since they often lighten skin and make noses smaller and more European.
She goes as far as to implore her followers to block people who use them, if you look at their photos and it makes you feel negatively about your own body image.
The cosmetic brand Dove carried out a survey that showed 80% of 13 year-olds had used body distorting filters online. They now host workshops in schools to promote what they call a positive body image.
It’s pretty clear we’re never going to stop teenagers worrying about how they look, but at least when I was a kid I didn’t have to look at perfect, fake, pictures of my peers every day. I’m completely on board with outlawing these filters.
LISTENING 16 – A HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP
You’re going to hear a talk about relationships. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about tips for a healthy relationship, such as vocalising your emotions and trusting each other. The speaker says this will help a couple have a successful relationship.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what tips the speaker gives for a healthy relationship. Are you ready? Now tell me what tips the speaker gives for a healthy relationship. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- All relationships are different but some advice is useful for all
- Tip – focus on what you can change, not blaming partner
- Tip – HALT – don’t argue when hungry, anxious, lonely, tired
- Tip – cheerleader effect – cheer each other on
- Tip – have clear boundaries about what you expect
- Tip – vocalise your emotions before to avoid arguments
- Tip – identify love language (gifts, touch, words etc) and speak in this language
- Tip – trust each other and each other’s intentions
- Conclusion – no perfect relationship, but these tips can help
I’ve worked as a couples counsellor for almost two decades now, and while every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy said, I believe there is some perennial guidance that often rings true.
The first thing I tell clients (I prefer not to call them patients as they’re not sick), anyway, the first thing is that they can only change what they can control. It’s so common to blame a partner, when change can only come from within ourselves. Focus on internal reflection, not external blame.
A more practical but no less important tip is to HALT – H.A.L.T. This means avoid getting into an argument if you are H, hungry, A, anxious, L, lonely, or T, tired. It’s better to wait until your emotional resources are fully stocked up before continuing the discussion.
The next point is a silly one, but I find it does make a difference. I call it the cheerleader effect. I tell couples they should be each other’s cheerleaders, and remember what they love about each other in the difficult moments. Laugh at each other’s jokes, bring them chicken soup when they’re ill and so on.
Having said that, it should come as no surprise that I think boundaries are crucial. It may seem perfectly reasonable to one person that they go out late with friends, while their partner sees this as a betrayal of their intimacy. Clear expectations are necessary to prevent this.
It’s a bit of a cop-out to say communication is important, so I try to be much more specific with my clients. I tell them to vocalise their emotions. A good example is if you’ve had a bad day at work, tell your partner about it, rather than suffering in silence with your contagious misery prone to explode into an argument.
Another useful thing I encourage clients to do is identify their love language. In theory, there are five: people who appreciate spending time together, getting gifts, acts of service, physical touch and words of affection. You should talk to your partner in their love language.
Last but by no means not least, a couple has to trust each other. It’s the foundation of a strong relationship. You have to believe that your partner’s intentions are pure and they want the best from the endeavour, just like you.
There’s no easy recipe for success in love, but following these steps should give a couple a good chance.
LISTENING 17 – DEPLATFORMING
You’re going to hear a talk about freedom of speech. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about deplatforming – removing a platform from people with unacceptable views. The speaker gives some arguments for and against and says he is in generally in favour.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker defines and evaluates deplatforming. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker defines and evaluates deplatforming. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Define deplatforming – remove a platform from people with unacceptable views
- Eg Trump inciting violence in the Capitol, banned from Twitter etc
- Eg lecturers at university – communists in the 1950s or preachers of religious hatred
- Argument against deplatforming – right to freedom of speech
- Argument for deplatforming – the law says private companies can decide
- Argument against – big tech companies could be too powerful
- Argument for – if people incite violence, banning them could save lives
- Argument against – it’s not easy to police all users
- Argument against – could lead to people being radicalised on other sites
- Argument against – better to expose hateful speech to reason and debate
- Argument for – this doesn’t work with fake news
- Argument for – studies show it leads to a reduction of hate speech, eg Reddit
- Conclusion – if we agree a line is crossed, deplatforming is reasonable
The 6th of January will go down in American history as a shameful day for the nation, as in 2021, rioters entered the Capitol building to dispute the counting of the Presidential election votes.
In the aftermath, outgoing President Trump failed to condemn the rioters and posted ambiguous messages on social media, resulting in his being banned by Twitter, then Facebook and Instagram.
This is one of the most famous cases of deplatforming seen to date. This term has existed for a while, as it started rather literally, meaning taking a speaking platform away from invited lecturers at universities who were deemed to hold unacceptable views. Examples include communists in 1950s America and preachers of religious hatred. The idea of deplatforming has now spread to social media.
How does this affect free speech? Well, some silenced users have taken social media companies to court, citing their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression.
They all lost, because the first amendment does not guarantee freedom of speech in a space created and owned by a private company. The company has the right to decide what is posted there. That’s the law.
Understandably, this has led to some worries that big tech companies wield too much power and can control the political discourse.
But almost everyone agrees that it is right to silence some people – those who incite violence against other races, for example. Banning them from sites where they spread their vile views could save lives.
Unfortunately it’s neither cheap nor easy for web hosts to effectively police what is posted on their sites. AI detection can easily be fooled by codewords, and human detection is slow and requires training.
There is also the possibility that driving people with abhorrent views off of mainstream platforms will only lead them to congregate elsewhere and become more radicalised.
The argument goes that these views should be exposed to the light, where they will be beaten in fair and reasoned debate.
Which is fine in theory, but let’s be honest, Trump and his ilk were hardly renowned for the fairness or rationality of their arguments. In the age of fake news, exposing hateful views is a dangerous game.
The key for me is that statistics prove deplatforming works. One study focused on forums that were deleted from Reddit for hate speech. It showed that most users migrated to other forums and dramatically decreased their hate speech usage.
Most of us know when a line has been crossed, and I think deplatforming has a role to play when this happens.
LISTENING 18 – BASIC EMOTIONS
You’re going to hear a talk about emotions. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about a theory of basic emotions which suggests we all evolved the same types of emotions. The speaker describes the six basic emotions and how they manifest, as identified by psychologist Paul Ekman.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker describes the theory of basic emotions. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker describes the theory of basic emotions. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- No scientific agreement on definition of emotions
- Darwin first suggested emotions evolved
- Others said they were culturally learned
- Ekman found similarities in emotions in many cultures, suggesting universality
- Basic emotion – joy – smiling, relaxed posture, upbeat speech
- Basic emotion – sadness – crying, withdrawal, quietness
- Basic emotion – fear – evolutionary advantage – wide eyes, rapid breathing
- Basic emotion – disgust – varies more across cultures – wrinkling nose, turning away
- Basic emotion – anger – frowning, aggressive stance, yelling
- Basic emotion – surprise – brief response, raised eyebrows, gasping
- Other emotions are combination or variation of these
- Other emotions later added to list of basic emotions
How are you? A simple question to which the answer is normally “fine”. But it can go a lot deeper.
There’s no clear scientific agreement on what emotions are, beyond vague ideas about psychological states that are caused by internal and external stimuli.
Attempts to explain emotions began in earnest with the father of biology, Darwin. He suggested that every human had evolved the ability to experience the same basic emotions as a survival tool.
Others argued that emotions and their manifestation through facial expressions etc were learned through cultural transmission, and thus not universal.
The psychologist Paul Ekman picked up the baton from Darwin in the 1970s and proposed six basic human emotions that we all experience in a similar way. He studied many cultures and found great similarities in how these emotions were expressed, suggesting they are perhaps universal.
In prime position was joy, conveyed through smiling, a relaxed posture and an upbeat speech pattern; features that were homogenous in every corner of the world Ekman visited.
On the opposite end of the spectrum came sadness, which involves crying, withdrawal from others and quietness. Again, Ekman found these to be near-universal traits.
Unsurprisingly from an evolutionary point of view, fear is also considered a basic emotion, given its role in escaping predators and general danger throughout history. Wide eyes and rapid breathing give it away.
Disgust is a slightly more complicated emotion, but the broad strokes are similar, as taboos against incest and death exist in many societies. However, cultural factors matter, as what we consider disgusting can vary greatly depending on our beliefs. Faced with disgust, we often wrinkle our noses and turn away.
One emotion that we’d all certainly recognise as universal is anger. Frowning, taking an aggressive stance, and yelling are the tell-tale signs that are found the world over.
The last of Ekman’s six basic emotions may come as a bit of a surprise, because that’s it: surprise. A brief emotional response to an unexpected event can be manifested in raising one’s eyebrows and gasping.
Ekman suggests that the many other emotions we experience – contempt, embarrassment, pride, relief, love and so on – are combinations and variations in intensity of these six basic emotions.
He later added more emotions to this list of six after further research highlighted more similarities in how we all react to the world around us.
LISTENING 19 – FITNESS FADS
You’re going to hear a talk about fitness. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about different fitness fads, some that work and some that don’t. The speaker says for a workout to be effective; it should make you tired and sore.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker evaluates different fitness fads and if he comes to a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker evaluates different fitness fads and if he comes to a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Fitness fads are trends in workouts which get popular around the world.
- They can be sublime or ridiculous (good or bad)
- Example of a fad that doesn’t work – shake weight…
- …too light to be effective
- Example of a fad that works – HIIT…
- …intense exercise to exhaustion – effective calorie-burner
- Doesn’t work – power plate…
- …just vibrates your muscles
- Works – Couch to 5K programme…
- …lets people run, endorsed by NHS
- Doesn’t work – 8-minute abs…
- …too short and unrealistic
- Works – Body Pump…
- …works out all major muscles, good motivation
- Conclusion – an effective workout should make you tired and sore
Every so often a new fitness craze sweeps the globe, with influencers often promising incredible results for little effort. These fads have ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous, with few standing the test of time.
Take for instance the shake weight. It was basically a very light dumbbell, around one kilo, with springs inside, which the user could shake while lifting, rotating etc. The gesture involved was quite suggestive, and it was parodied by many TV shows. The health benefits of lifting a 1kg weight are dubious.
On the other hand, the latest trend to take the fitness world by storm is HIIT (hit), or High Intensity Interval Training, which involves short periods of intense exercise with recovery times until exhaustion. Zoom classes of HIIT during the pandemic really took off. And it’s a very effective calorie-burner.
The same cannot be said for a device that you may have seen in gyms, the power plate. This consists of a raised platform which the user stands on while it vibrates. The theory is that the vibrations in the plate cause your muscles to oscillate and strengthen – without any effort. If only getting fit were so easy.
The real solution for couch potatoes is something like the couch to 5K programme, which was developed in 1996 and is now a popular app. It gives realistic goals that supposedly allow anyone to go from sitting on their couch to running 5K in just six weeks. It is even endorsed by the National Health Service in the UK.
A similar programme with very different results was the 8-minute abs craze from the 1990s. The makers of the video, which was to be sold via mail for home workouts, promised incredible results with just eight minutes exercise a day. Unrealistic, to say the least. To get visible abs, a full workout and diet is needed.
Another more modern trend is Body Pump, a programme designed by New Zealand athlete Les Mills in 1991. It focuses on traditional weight-lifting exercises, but set to music, in a group, with weights adapted to each person’s level. It’s an effective way to maintain motivation and work out all major muscles.
A bit of common sense comes in handy when evaluating these workouts. Exercise should be hard work and make you tired and sore if you want to burn calories. Many fads actually manage this, but, as a rule, if you’re not sweating and breathing hard, you’re wasting your time.
LISTENING 20 – RECYCLING AIRPLANES
You’re going to hear a talk about recycling. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about how aeroplanes are recycled, and the advantages and difficulties of doing it. The speaker says we should reuse and recycle as much as possible in an aeroplane.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me how the speaker evaluates the recycling of aeroplanes and if he comes to a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me how the speaker evaluates the recycling of aeroplanes and if he comes to a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Covid lockdown = planes grounded
- Scenario one for grounded plane – check-up and flying again
- Scenario two – long term storage, engine removed
- Scenario three – disassemble and reuse, recycle parts
- Many owners did this in the lockdown as it was cheaper
- Climate catastrophe = importance of sustainability in building planes
- Air Salvage International – group of business that facilitates reusing plane parts
- Difficulty – older planes have less usable components
- Lots can be reused – engine, landing gear, cabin
- Interior is more difficult to reuse…
At the height of the coronavirus pandemic in April 2020, two-thirds of the world’s aeroplanes were grounded. This means expensive storage and upkeep fees.
There are three scenarios for planes in this situation. Firstly, planes that have been well maintained can go through a simple check-up and be considered airworthy again.
For more long-term storage, the engine is often removed from the plane so that it can be left safely unsupervised for extended periods.
And the most drastic situation, which is what people turned to in the pandemic, is the dismantling of the plane into its constituent parts to be resold, recycled, or simply thrown away.
For many owners of these aircraft, it became more profitable to disassemble the planes and reuse the parts, since if they are not running, they become a financial liability.
As we progress further into climate catastrophe, the aviation industry has some serious reflection to carry out. Leaving aside the debate about how ethical flying is in itself, the least they could do is ensure the planes are made as sustainably and efficiently as possible.
Attempts are being made to do this; Air Salvage International is a group of businesses that facilitate the buying and selling of second hard aircraft components, a trade which is growing every year.
Unfortunately, rapid changes in technology mean that older planes have few reusable parts, up to five times less than newer models.
Much of the hardware can be reused – the engines, of course, the landing gear, and some material from the cockpit. Once it is certified safe by a recognised workshop, it can be installed on a new plane.
Most of the interior, the part we actually see as passengers, is very difficult to reuse because it is custom made for the model of the plane and cannot be made to fit others.
Some of the interior, which is mostly plastic, can be recycled by conventional methods. But a lot of it cannot, as it is made of mixed plastics, which are too tricky to recycle at the moment.
Furthermore, modern aeroplanes are using even more complex lightweight materials, such as carbon fibre, which is currently not recyclable.
These materials do save fuel by being lighter over the lifetime of the aircraft, though.
There’s no simple solution, but we should definitely consider the environmental impact of our planes from construction to disassembly. The more we can reuse and recycle, the better.
LISTENING 21 – SHIPPING CONTAINER HOUSES
You’re going to hear a talk about housing. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about a man who bought a shipping container house. He gives some pros and cons of them and says it’s a viable alternative to traditional housing.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what pros and cons of living in shipping container houses the man gives and if he comes to a conclusion. Are you ready? Now tell me what pros and cons of living in shipping container houses the man gives and if he comes to a conclusion. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- Define shipping container house – big metal box used in transport of goods.
- Pro – cost – cheaper than bricks and mortar
- Pro – easy to transport as they are designed for this
- Pro – recycling, living more sustainably
- Con – not so efficient, as it uses more steel than is necessary for a house
- Con – not strong enough on the roof, needs more material
- Pro – a living roof is possible – plants: good insulation, pretty
- Con – small house means less insulation, high-density foam is not so green
- Pro/con – small size can be seen as cosy or cramped, he likes it
- Con – metal may rust over the years
- Con – many shipping container houses are new containers, not really recycling
- Conclusion – not as cheap or eco-friendly as expected, but still a good option
After a couple of years with my partner, both of us in stable jobs, we decided it was time to get on the property ladder. We’d seen videos on Youtube of shipping container houses, made of the big metal boxes used to take goods on ships, and the idea suited us.
I’d be lying if I said cost wasn’t a big factor in our choice. Since we didn’t need a huge house, it worked out a lot cheaper putting three old containers together than buying something in brick and mortar.
Part of this comes from the ease of transport. The supplier we used said there were millions of second-hand containers all over the world, and they all fit on the back of lorries, since they were designed for it.
We also appreciated giving another use to something that would have just rusted away somewhere. We try to live fairly sustainably.
I have heard that there are concerns about this – because the containers are 100% steel, which is much more than is actually needed to build a house, for example.
And they need reinforcement on the roof because they are not structurally sound if it snows or rains heavily. So these are all added costs in material and in environmental impact.
Luckily, we managed to get a living roof, with soil and plants, which is strong and provides excellent insulation, as well as being visually appealing.
The walls were a bit more difficult. Because the containers are fairly small, we didn’t want to lose space by putting in lots of insulation, so we chose a high-density foam insulation, which was not so green.
The size is a real love or hate thing, I think. I’m over six feet tall, so the house is cosy for me. Other people might say it’s cramped, but it depends how you see it.
What’s more, as it’s effectively metal, it might rust over the years, so we have to keep an eye out for that.
In fact, that’s especially true as we bought a fairly old and beat-up container. Apparently, most houses use newer ones, that have only been on a few trips, but we said to ourselves, that’s not really recycling.
On the whole, we’re delighted with the house. It’s probably not as cheap or as environmentally friendly as we first expected, I mean, it’s still a house, it needs to be comfortable and provide us with little luxuries, which costs money and uses energy – but it’s a viable alternative to traditional housing.
LISTENING 22 – NOISE POLLUTION
You’re going to hear a talk about a type of pollution. You will hear the talk twice. The first time, just listen. Then I’ll ask you to tell me generally what the speaker is talking about. Are you ready?
It’s about the problem of noise pollution, which is bad for people and wildlife, and some suggestions for how to avoid this problem. The speaker says not enough importance is given to this issue.
Now listen to the talk again. This time make some notes as you listen, if you want to. Then I’ll ask you to tell me what problems of and solutions to noise pollution the speaker identifies. Are you ready? Now tell me what problems of and solutions to noise pollution the speaker identifies. You have one minute to talk.
Suggested points
- There is more background noise than we realise, eg cars, birds
- This is dangerous because we ignore it, and it stresses us out
- Problem – excessive noise is bad for health:
- …hearing damage, high blood pressure, sleep problems
- Problem – it also affects animals that use sound, eg birds and bats
- Problem – road traffic is 80 decibels, near harmful levels
- Solution – reforest/plant trees around roads
- Problem – the above is not possible in city centres
- Solution – Laws to prevent noise, confiscate stereos, fine loud people
- Solution – “honk more, wait more” experiment in India
- Solution – new roads with recycled plastic make less noise
- Solution – electric cars make less noise
- Conclusion – not enough importance is given to this issue…
- …cities and transport systems should be designed to reduce noise pollution.
I have to be slightly careful about when to record these little talks, because if my neighbours start cranking out tunes in their backyard, well, it’s not going to work.
Indeed, we often don’t realise just how much noise pollution there is in our everyday lives until we actively listen to the surroundings: birdsong, insects, passing cars, chatter on the street. It’s endless.
This is actually why background noise is dangerous – because we get used to it and ignore it, so it stresses us out without our being able to put our fingers on exactly why we feel like that.
There’s still plenty of debate about how exactly noise affects us, but the literature is clear that excessive noise should be avoided. It can lead to hearing damage, high blood pressure and sleep disturbance.
Sadly, it’s not just us that it affects, as many animals interact with sound more than sight. Birds and bats are prime examples, as they use sound to communicate, find mates and even navigate the air. Pollution interferes with all of this.
The biggest source of noise pollution the world over is road traffic. 15 metres from a busy road, it can reach 80 decibels, while 85 decibels is considered harmful with over eight hours exposure.
Governments have known this for a long time and tried to take measures to alleviate the impact. The areas around motorways are often reforested for example. Obviously this is not possible in the city centre.Legislation against excessive noise at certain times of the day is common, and the police in many countries can confiscate stereos and issue fines to noisy neighbours.
A novel experiment in India had the traffic lights programmed to remain on red for longer when drivers made too much noise honking their horns. Will they realise that it is in their interest to quieten down? The results of the “honk more, wait more” trial are not yet clear.
New roads, made from recycled plastic and fine grain materials, also tend to be quieter, as less air is trapped between the tyres and the road surface.
Maybe the biggest leap in reducing noise pollution will come when electric vehicles make up the majority of road transport, and combustion engines are not so ubiquitous.
I’d suggest that the importance of sound pollution is currently underestimated and it’s high time we thought more carefully about how we design transport systems and cities in audio terms.
