Read the prompt below. In 25 seconds, you must reply in your own words, as naturally and clearly as possible. You have 30 seconds to record your response. Your response will be sent together with your score report to the institutions selected by you. Please introduce yourself. For example, you could talk about one or more of the following:
You will hear some sentences. Please repeat each sentence exactly as you hear it. You will hear each sentence only once.
A You will hear a lecture. After listening to the lecture, please retell what you have just heard from the lecture in your own words. You will have 40 seconds to give your response.
Alexis de Tocquevilie, as we have noted, appears to have had some appeal to both ends of the political spectrum - left and right - or rather, both have found him to be useful for their purposes in certain circumstances. His rational acceptance of the new forces of democracy brought about by the American and French revolutions made him an icon of left-wing liberals. However, during the Cold War - that is, from the end of World War II until the collapse of communism - lie was adopted by some leading thinkers on the right. So, there are two sides to his political philosophy, and the man himself, that we need to look at. Now, I would suggest that de Tocqueville's biography is important here. You must always bear in mind when reading him that he was an aristocrat, and one whose family had suffered in the French Revolution. He wasn't your typical aristocrat because his politics differed from others of his family and social rank. He abandoned the Catholic church and married beneath his class. Yet he never quite threw off the prejudices of that class. However, and what is important, he did recognize and believe that the tendency of history, which in those days could be traced back to the Middle Ages, was towards the leveling of social ranks, and more equal and democratic conditions. The French Revolution had in the end brought Napoleon, whom he hated, but democracy would inevitably come to France. His trip to America was to see democracy in practice, make note of its shortcomings and errors, and then find safeguards against them.
B You will hear a lecture. After listening to the lecture, please retell what you have just heard from the lecture in your own words. You will have 40 seconds to give your response.
What I want to look at today is the question of how much technology - if, um, a pen can indeed be called technology ... perhaps I should say the instrument of writing - affects a writer's style and level of production. 1 also want to consider other factors that may have an effect on prose style, such as personality, educational background, and so on. Now, production levels aren't so hard to measure in relation to the writing instrument used. The quill pen, for instance, would need continual re-filling and re-sharpening, which led to a leisurely, balanced style of prose full of simple sentences. Writing took a lot longer than now and the great novelists of the 18th century - fielding, Smollett, Richardson - had a relatively small output, though some of their books ran to enormous length. By the middle of the 19th century, the fountain pen had been invented. It didn’t need such constant refilling, which can account for the more flowing, discursive style of, say, Dickens and Thackeray, as well as their tremendous output. Then came the typewriter, whose purpose, once you got the hang of it, was to speed up the writing process and was therefore much favored by journalists. This, it seems to me, gave rise to a short- winded style characterized by short sentences. A short prose style, if you like. Dictating machines and tape recorders led, as one novelist complained, to writers becoming too conversational, rambling and long- winded. Henry James, although he didn’t use these machines, dictated his later novels and, well, some might agree with this accusation.
You will hear some questions. Please give a simple and short Answer to each one. Often just one or a few words is enough.