Industry Pushback - Marvel Education

Loading question...

You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools

Back to Questions

Prev Next

LanguageCert Practice Listening: Part 4 (Extended Listening) ID: #55623 Easy Industry Pushback

Instructions ›

You will hear part of a University Tutorial about industry resistance. You will hear the discussion twice. Choose the correct answers. You have one minute to read through the questions.

Transcript:

R: Listening Part Four.

R: You will hear part of a University Tutorial about industry resistance.

R: You will hear the discussion twice. Choose the correct answers. You have one minute to read through the questions below.

[beep]

Host: Good afternoon, everyone. Today’s tutorial looks at industry resistance in climate policy. By that, we mean the ways businesses respond, sometimes negatively, to environmental regulation. I’m joined by James Carter and Dr. Aisha Rahman. I’d like us to explore why resistance happens, whether it is always a problem, and how policymakers might respond. James, could you start us off with your general view?
Male Expert: Thanks, Helen. I think it’s important to say from the start that industry resistance is not always about denying climate change. Often it reflects concerns about cost, timing, and competitiveness. From the business side, companies worry that rapid policy changes can disrupt supply chains or put them at a disadvantage compared to firms in countries with weaker rules.
Host: So you’re framing resistance as a practical response rather than an ideological one. Aisha, do you see it the same way?
Female Expert: To some extent, yes. I agree that cost and uncertainty matter. However, I’d be cautious about treating all resistance as reasonable. In my research, some industries actively lobby to delay policies even when long-term benefits are clear. That kind of resistance is less about adjustment and more about protecting existing business models.
Host: That is a good point. Let us move on to how this resistance shows itself in practice. James, what forms does it usually take?
Male Expert: Well, it’s not always very visible. Sometimes it’s formal lobbying, as Aisha mentioned. But it can also be quieter, like asking for exemptions, longer transition periods, or voluntary targets instead of binding ones. I’d argue that these requests are often attempts to make policy workable rather than to block it entirely.
Female Expert: Can I add something there? While those strategies can sound cooperative, they can still weaken policy outcomes. For example, voluntary targets may reduce pressure to innovate. That said, I do agree with James that not all negotiation equals obstruction. The intention behind the request really matters.
Host: So we’re hearing some agreement, but also a difference in emphasis. Let me push this a bit further. Is industry resistance always harmful to climate goals?
Male Expert: I’d say no, not always. In some cases, resistance highlights genuine design problems. If a policy ignores how an industry actually operates, feedback from firms can improve it. The risk, of course, is when resistance slows action beyond what the climate timeline allows.
Female Expert: I partly disagree. While feedback is useful, the power balance matters. Large industries often have more access to policymakers than communities affected by climate change. So even well-framed resistance can crowd out other voices. That doesn’t mean policymakers should ignore industry, but they should treat its input critically.
Host: That brings us neatly to the policy response. What can governments do to manage resistance without giving up their climate objectives?
Male Expert: From my perspective, clarity is key. If governments set clear long-term goals and timelines, firms can plan ahead. Sudden changes create fear, which increases resistance. Support measures, like retraining or investment incentives, also make compliance more acceptable.
Female Expert: I agree on the need for clarity. I’d add that transparency is just as important. Policymakers should be open about who they consult and why. This helps prevent the perception that industry interests dominate the process. In that way, resistance can be managed without undermining public trust.
Host: We’re almost out of time, so let me try to summarise. Both of you accept that industry resistance is complex. It can signal real challenges, but it can also delay necessary action. The core issue seems to be how policymakers balance engagement with firmness. Would that be a fair conclusion?

[REPEAT Part Four]

R: That is the end of Part Four.

1 How does James initially characterise industry resistance to climate policy?

A As mainly driven by practical concerns rather than rejection of climate science B As a temporary reaction that disappears once policies are introduced C As a coordinated effort to deny environmental problems

2 What is Aisha’s attitude toward industry lobbying to delay climate policies?

A She sees it as a necessary part of democratic debate B She views it cautiously, especially when it protects existing interests C She considers it largely ineffective in influencing policy

3 Who suggests that requests like longer transition periods are often meant to make policies workable?

A James Carter B Dr. Rahman C The presenter

4 On which point do James and Aisha clearly agree?

A Clear long-term policy goals can reduce unnecessary resistance B Industry voices should have priority in policy design C Voluntary targets are usually sufficient for climate action

5 What can be inferred about Aisha’s concern regarding power balance?

A She believes small firms have too much influence over policy B She worries that strong industry access may limit other perspectives C She thinks policymakers deliberately ignore public opinion

6 What overall conclusion does the presenter draw at the end of the discussion?

A Engaging industry is necessary, but governments must remain firm on goals B Industry resistance should generally be excluded from climate policymaking C Resistance proves that current climate policies are unrealistic

Result:

Explanation

{ "questions": [ { "question": 1, "correct_answer": "A", "why_correct": "This is a detail question. James says resistance is about costs, timing, and competitiveness, not denying climate change. That matches A, which says it is driven by practical concerns.", "incorrect_options": { "B": "B is wrong because denying environmental problems means rejecting climate change, but James says that is not the case. This is a context shift trap.", "C": "C is wrong because James never says resistance disappears later. This is a partial truth trap." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for James saying 'not always about denying climate change'", "Notice words like cost, timing, and competitiveness" ], "paraphrasing": "'not always about denying climate change' = 'practical concerns rather than rejection of climate science'", "tips": "For detail questions, focus on the speaker’s exact words, not your own ideas.", "transcript_reference": "...Host: Good afternoon, everyone. Today’s tutorial looks at industry resistance in climate policy. By that, we mean the ways businesses respond, sometimes negatively, to environmental regulation. Male Expert: Thanks, Helen. I think it’s important to say from the start that industry resistance is not always about denying climate change. Often it reflects concerns about cost, timing, and competitiveness. From the business side, companies worry that rapid policy changes can disrupt supply chains or put them at a disadvantage compared to firms in countries with weaker rules...." }, { "question": 2, "correct_answer": "B", "why_correct": "This is an attitude question. Aisha says she is cautious and worries when lobbying protects existing business models. That feeling matches B.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "A is wrong because she does not praise lobbying as necessary. This is a partial truth trap.", "C": "C is wrong because she says lobbying can delay policy, so it does have influence. This is a paraphrase confusion trap." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for Aisha’s cautious tone", "Notice phrases like 'protecting existing business models'" ], "paraphrasing": "'be cautious' and 'protecting existing business models' = 'views it cautiously'", "tips": "For attitude questions, listen to how the speaker feels, not just facts.", "transcript_reference": "...Female Expert: To some extent, yes. I agree that cost and uncertainty matter. However, I’d be cautious about treating all resistance as reasonable. In my research, some industries actively lobby to delay policies even when long-term benefits are clear. That kind of resistance is less about adjustment and more about protecting existing business models. Host: That is a good point. Let us move on to how this resistance shows itself in practice...." }, { "question": 3, "correct_answer": "A", "why_correct": "This is an attribution question. James says requests like longer transition periods aim to make policy workable. That idea belongs to A James Carter.", "incorrect_options": { "B": "B is wrong because the presenter is not a speaker here. This is an attribution trap.", "C": "C is wrong because Aisha warns these requests can weaken policy. This is an attribution trap." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Track who is speaking when examples are given", "Listen for James defending requests as practical" ], "paraphrasing": "'make policy workable' = 'not to block it entirely'", "tips": "For attribution questions, always match the idea to the right speaker.", "transcript_reference": "...Male Expert: Well, it’s not always very visible. Sometimes it’s formal lobbying, as Aisha mentioned. But it can also be quieter, like asking for exemptions, longer transition periods, or voluntary targets instead of binding ones. I’d argue that these requests are often attempts to make policy workable rather than to block it entirely. Female Expert: Can I add something there? While those strategies can sound cooperative, they can still weaken policy outcomes...." }, { "question": 4, "correct_answer": "A", "why_correct": "This is an agreement question. Both James and Aisha say clear long-term goals and clarity help manage resistance. That shared view matches A.", "incorrect_options": { "B": "B is wrong because Aisha says voluntary targets can weaken outcomes. This is a context shift trap.", "C": "C is wrong because Aisha worries industry voices can crowd out others. This is a partial truth trap." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for both speakers saying 'clarity' matters", "Notice similar ideas said by different speakers" ], "paraphrasing": "'clear long-term goals and timelines' = 'clear long-term policy goals'", "tips": "For agreement questions, look for ideas both speakers support.", "transcript_reference": "...Host: That brings us neatly to the policy response. What can governments do to manage resistance without giving up their climate objectives? Male Expert: From my perspective, clarity is key. If governments set clear long-term goals and timelines, firms can plan ahead. Sudden changes create fear, which increases resistance. Support measures, like retraining or investment incentives, also make compliance more acceptable...." }, { "question": 5, "correct_answer": "B", "why_correct": "This is an inference question. Aisha says large industries have more access and can crowd out other voices. This implies she worries other perspectives are limited, which matches B.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "A is wrong because she does not say policymakers ignore public opinion on purpose. This is a partial truth trap.", "C": "C is wrong because she talks about large industries, not small firms. This is a context shift trap." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for ideas about power and access", "Think about what this means, not just the words" ], "paraphrasing": "'crowd out other voices' = 'limit other perspectives'", "tips": "For inference questions, ask yourself what the speaker is suggesting.", "transcript_reference": "...Male Expert: I’d say no, not always. In some cases, resistance highlights genuine design problems. If a policy ignores how an industry actually operates, feedback from firms can improve it. Female Expert: I partly disagree. While feedback is useful, the power balance matters. Large industries often have more access to policymakers than communities affected by climate change. So even well-framed resistance can crowd out other voices. That doesn’t mean policymakers should ignore industry, but they should treat its input critically...." }, { "question": 6, "correct_answer": "A", "why_correct": "This is a conclusion question. The host says policymakers must balance engagement with firmness. That summary matches A exactly.", "incorrect_options": { "B": "B is wrong because the host never says exclude industry. This is a partial truth trap.", "C": "C is wrong because resistance is called complex, not proof policies fail. This is a paraphrase confusion trap." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen carefully to the host’s final summary", "Notice balanced language at the end" ], "paraphrasing": "'balance engagement with firmness' = 'engaging industry is necessary, but governments must remain firm'", "tips": "For conclusion questions, focus on the final summary, not earlier details.", "transcript_reference": "...Female Expert: I agree on the need for clarity. I’d add that transparency is just as important. Policymakers should be open about who they consult and why. Host: We’re almost out of time, so let me try to summarise. Both of you accept that industry resistance is complex. It can signal real challenges, but it can also delay necessary action. The core issue seems to be how policymakers balance engagement with firmness. Would that be a fair conclusion?..." } ] }

A.I. Explanation:

Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is a detail question. James says resistance is about costs, timing, and competitiveness, not denying climate change. That matches A, which says it is driven by practical concerns.
Paraphrasing: 'not always about denying climate change' = 'practical concerns rather than rejection of climate science'
Tips: For detail questions, focus on the speaker’s exact words, not your own ideas.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: B is wrong because denying environmental problems means rejecting climate change, but James says that is not the case. This is a context shift trap.
C: C is wrong because James never says resistance disappears later. This is a partial truth trap.
Correct Answer: B
Why this is correct: This is an attitude question. Aisha says she is cautious and worries when lobbying protects existing business models. That feeling matches B.
Paraphrasing: 'be cautious' and 'protecting existing business models' = 'views it cautiously'
Tips: For attitude questions, listen to how the speaker feels, not just facts.
Why the other options are wrong:
A: A is wrong because she does not praise lobbying as necessary. This is a partial truth trap.
C: C is wrong because she says lobbying can delay policy, so it does have influence. This is a paraphrase confusion trap.
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is an attribution question. James says requests like longer transition periods aim to make policy workable. That idea belongs to A James Carter.
Paraphrasing: 'make policy workable' = 'not to block it entirely'
Tips: For attribution questions, always match the idea to the right speaker.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: B is wrong because the presenter is not a speaker here. This is an attribution trap.
C: C is wrong because Aisha warns these requests can weaken policy. This is an attribution trap.
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is an agreement question. Both James and Aisha say clear long-term goals and clarity help manage resistance. That shared view matches A.
Paraphrasing: 'clear long-term goals and timelines' = 'clear long-term policy goals'
Tips: For agreement questions, look for ideas both speakers support.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: B is wrong because Aisha says voluntary targets can weaken outcomes. This is a context shift trap.
C: C is wrong because Aisha worries industry voices can crowd out others. This is a partial truth trap.
Correct Answer: B
Why this is correct: This is an inference question. Aisha says large industries have more access and can crowd out other voices. This implies she worries other perspectives are limited, which matches B.
Paraphrasing: 'crowd out other voices' = 'limit other perspectives'
Tips: For inference questions, ask yourself what the speaker is suggesting.
Why the other options are wrong:
A: A is wrong because she does not say policymakers ignore public opinion on purpose. This is a partial truth trap.
C: C is wrong because she talks about large industries, not small firms. This is a context shift trap.
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is a conclusion question. The host says policymakers must balance engagement with firmness. That summary matches A exactly.
Paraphrasing: 'balance engagement with firmness' = 'engaging industry is necessary, but governments must remain firm'
Tips: For conclusion questions, focus on the final summary, not earlier details.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: B is wrong because the host never says exclude industry. This is a partial truth trap.
C: C is wrong because resistance is called complex, not proof policies fail. This is a paraphrase confusion trap.

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.

Student #5BFC ⭐ Top a month ago 2/6

Saving...

Nice work - now see how you scoredUnlock this tool with a free account

Sign up free to get this attempt scored with detailed AI feedback on your writing. Your text is saved in this browser and will be restored as a draft right after you sign up.

Sign up free to get this attempt scored with detailed AI feedback on your speaking. You can listen to your recording on this page as many times as you like.

This feature is for members. Your free account takes one minute to create, and it unlocks scoring, word meanings, comments and progress tracking.

You may need to record your answer once more after signing up. It takes less than a minute, and one more practice run only helps.