Yellow 2 - 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: #60345 Medium Yellow 2

Instructions ›

You hear part of a podcast discussion about broadcast interview on the topic of true crime. You will hear the discussion twice. Choose the correct answers. You have one minute to read through the questions.

Transcript:

Listening Part 4 You will hear a broadcast interview on the topic of true crime. You will hear the discussion twice. Choose the correct answers. You have one minute to read through the questions below. Today I'm discussing true crime shows with my guests Dave Jenkins, professor in criminology at Central University, and Tilly Renton, social media expert. Hi. Well, it seems that the true crime genre is currently enjoying unprecedented popularity. Streaming networks are awash with investigative documentaries covering real-life crimes. Isn't this just another form of entertainment? Dave, what's your opinion? I think many producers of investigative TV programmes and documentaries might challenge the description of their productions as mere entertainment, even though to all intents and purposes that's what they are. Blue Sky TV even goes as far as blatantly promising viewers a stream of, I'll just quote from my notes here, Addictive, emotionally charged accounts of true crimes. So, Tilly, what do you think is the appeal of true crime shows? Viewers see themselves as armchair detectives. They're not just watching TV for entertainment. They actually convince themselves that they may solve a murder by tuning in. And it's not always just wishful thinking on the part of the audience. Let's not forget that back in the 80s and 90s, the UK weekly TV show Crimewatch had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases, a few of which I'd like to add had left the police baffled for years, if not decades. Many viewers of true crime are women. Tilly, have you any idea why this might be? On the face of it, seems surprising. I mean, true crime reporting often includes violent images and upsetting stories, which you'd think might deter a female audience. But the appeal, I think, lies in the fact that women can much better relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals, since they may have had a similar experience themselves. And what's it like for the actual victims portrayed in today's true crime shows? I wish I could say they were treated with compassion and understanding. But nowadays producers don't think twice about using sensitive footage of victims and their families if it suits them. More's the pity. Yes, producers really have lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes of those impacted by crime. On the whole, would you say that in true crime, the facts are reported accurately? I think it's fair to say that producers either consciously or unconsciously often shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right about a suspect. And they may manipulate evidence by omission of facts or even by under-analysing them. By doing so, they can easily convince viewers of their conclusion. And in your opinion, Dave, could true crime documentaries and stories affect the outcome of a murder trial? Certainly that's not beyond the bounds of possibility if members of a jury surf the net prior to attending a court trial. By and large though, the traditional media, whether it's newspapers or broadcasting, plays by the rules. The same can't be said for the internet, where information can be accessed 24-7. Online reporting is, as you say, very accessible. It's also got the most up-to-date information so it pulls in the curious reader. But there is a growing view among lawyers and journalists that jury members can put media reports to one side when they're asked to deliver a verdict. Well, it's an interesting topic that merits more discussion than we've got time for today, unfortunately. Today I'm discussing true crime shows with my guests Dave Jenkins, professor in criminology at Central University, and Tilly Renton, social media expert. Hi. Well, it seems that the true crime genre is currently enjoying unprecedented popularity. Streaming networks are awash with investigative documentaries covering real-life crimes. Isn't this just another form of entertainment? Dave, what's your opinion? I think many producers of investigative TV programmes and documentaries might challenge the description of their productions as mere entertainment, even though to all intents and purposes that's what they are. Blue Sky TV even goes as far as blatantly promising viewers a stream of, I'll just quote from my notes here, Addictive, emotionally charged accounts of true crimes. So, Tilly, what do you think is the appeal of true crime shows? Viewers see themselves as armchair detectives. They're not just watching TV for entertainment. They actually convince themselves that they may solve a murder by tuning in. And it's not always just wishful thinking on the part of the audience. Let's not forget that back in the 80s and 90s, the UK weekly TV show Crimewatch had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases, a few of which I'd like to add had left the police baffled for years, if not decades. Many viewers of true crime are women. Tilly, have you any idea why this might be? On the face of it, seems surprising. I mean, true crime reporting often includes violent images and upsetting stories, which you'd think might deter a female audience. But the appeal, I think, lies in the fact that women can much better relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals, since they may have had a similar experience themselves. And what's it like for the actual victims portrayed in today's true crime shows? I wish I could say they were treated with compassion and understanding. But nowadays producers don't think twice about using sensitive footage of victims and their families if it suits them. More's the pity. Yes, producers really have lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes of those impacted by crime. On the whole, would you say that in true crime the facts are reported accurately? I think it's fair to say that producers either consciously or unconsciously often shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right about a suspect. And they may manipulate evidence by omission of facts or even by under-analysing them. By doing so, they can easily convince viewers of their conclusion. And in your opinion, Dave, could true crime documentaries and stories affect the outcome of a murder trial? Certainly that's not beyond the bounds of possibility if members of a jury surf the net prior to attending a court trial. By and large, though, the traditional media, whether it's newspapers or broadcasting, plays by the rules. The same can't be said for the internet, where information can be accessed 24-7. Online reporting is, as you say, very accessible. It's also got the most up-to-date information, so it pulls in the curious reader. But there is a growing view among lawyers and journalists that jury members can put media reports to one side when they're asked to deliver a verdict. Well, it's an interesting topic that merits more discussion than we've got time for today, unfortunately. That is the end of Part 4.

1 In response to the presenter's suggestion that true-crime documentaries are a form of entertainment, Dave

A states that while this may be the case, producers generally wouldn't admit it. B shows his disapproval of producers who create such programmes. C doubts if this applies to all crime programmes and documentaries.

2 Dave refers to the UK TV programme, Crimewatch, to show

A that viewers have a valid contribution to make in solving crime. B how audiences were better at solving crimes in the past. C the way true crime reporting has changed over the years.

3 Why does Tilly think women make up the majority of the true-crime audience?

A They are fascinated by solving complex crime stories. B They find crime stories very exciting and captivating to watch. C They strongly identify with those who are victims of crime.

4 When discussing modern true-crime shows, what do Dave and Tilly say about the victims portrayed?

A They are not given the respect they deserve. B They are happy to cooperate with producers. C They are unaware of how they come across on TV.

5 When presenting facts within true-crime shows, Dave agrees with Tilly that producers

A may be highly subjective in their approach. B have to do extensive research for each programme. C can focus too much on unimportant details.

6 When referring to media coverage of criminal trials, Tilly

A thinks that the laws protecting jury members are not adequately enforced. B is highly critical of the way most newspapers cover trials. C questions how influential unofficial reporting is on those involved in a trial.

Result:

Explanation

{ "questions": [ { "question": 1, "correct_answer": "B", "why_correct": "This is an inference question. Dave says many producers 'might challenge the description of their productions as mere entertainment', even though to all intents and purposes that's what they are. So it is entertainment, but producers would not admit it - which is B.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "Option A is a context shift trap. Dave actually treats them all as entertainment, so he does not doubt that it applies to all such programmes.", "C": "Option C is a partial truth trap. Dave does criticise producers later about victims, but here his point is that they would deny it is entertainment." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for 'to all intents and purposes that's what they are'", "Notice the gap between what producers claim and what Dave thinks is true" ], "paraphrasing": "'might challenge the description... even though... that's what they are' = 'producers generally wouldn't admit it'", "tips": "For inference questions, read between the lines - here, Dave hints producers deny an obvious truth.", "transcript_reference": "I think many producers of investigative TV programmes and documentaries might challenge the description of their productions as mere entertainment, even though to all intents and purposes that's what they are." }, { "question": 2, "correct_answer": "B", "why_correct": "This is a purpose question. Dave uses Crimewatch to prove viewers really can help: the show had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases that had left the police baffled for years. This shows viewers make a real contribution, which is B.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "Option A is a context shift trap. The 80s and 90s are named for the example, not to show how reporting has changed over time.", "C": "Option C is a paraphrase confusion trap. Dave says viewers CAN contribute, not that past audiences were BETTER at solving crimes than today's." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for 'viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases'", "Notice the point is about viewers' real value, not about the past being better" ], "paraphrasing": "'had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases' = 'viewers have a valid contribution to make in solving crime'", "tips": "For purpose questions, ask why a speaker gives an example - here, to prove a point about viewers.", "transcript_reference": "Let's not forget that back in the 80s and 90s, the UK weekly TV show Crimewatch had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases, a few of which... had left the police baffled for years, if not decades." }, { "question": 3, "correct_answer": "C", "why_correct": "This is a detail question. Tilly explains that women can much better relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals, since they may have had a similar experience themselves. This strong connection with victims is exactly C.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "Option A is a context shift trap. The 'armchair detective' appeal is general, but Tilly's reason for WOMEN is that they identify with victims.", "B": "Option B is the opposite of Tilly's point. She notes the violent, upsetting content might put women off, not draw them in for excitement." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for 'relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals'", "Notice 'similar experience themselves', linking women to victims" ], "paraphrasing": "'relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals' = 'strongly identify with those who are victims of crime'", "tips": "For detail questions, match the exact reason a speaker gives, not a general appeal mentioned earlier.", "transcript_reference": "the appeal, I think, lies in the fact that women can much better relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals, since they may have had a similar experience themselves." }, { "question": 4, "correct_answer": "A", "why_correct": "This is an agreement question. One speaker says producers 'don't think twice about using sensitive footage of victims and their families', and Dave agrees they 'have lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes' of those hurt by crime. Victims are not respected, which is A.", "incorrect_options": { "B": "Option B is the opposite of what is said. There is no sign victims are happy to cooperate; producers use footage whether it suits victims or not.", "C": "Option C is not mentioned. Nobody says victims are unaware of how they look on TV." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for 'lost their moral compass' about respecting victims", "Notice both speakers agree victims are treated badly" ], "paraphrasing": "'lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes of those impacted by crime' = 'not given the respect they deserve'", "tips": "For agreement questions, look for both speakers describing the same failing in the same way.", "transcript_reference": "producers don't think twice about using sensitive footage of victims and their families if it suits them... producers really have lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes of those impacted by crime." }, { "question": 5, "correct_answer": "B", "why_correct": "This is an agreement question. Dave agrees that producers shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right about a suspect and 'manipulate evidence by omission'. Bending the story to fit their view is being subjective, which is B.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "Option A is the opposite. Dave says they 'under-analyse' evidence, not that they do extensive research.", "C": "Option C is a paraphrase confusion trap. He mentions leaving out or under-analysing facts, which is not the same as focusing on unimportant details." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for 'shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right'", "Notice 'manipulate evidence by omission' showing a one-sided approach" ], "paraphrasing": "'shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right' = 'may be highly subjective in their approach'", "tips": "For agreement questions, turn the speaker's example into a general idea - here, twisting the story means being subjective.", "transcript_reference": "producers either consciously or unconsciously often shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right about a suspect. And they may manipulate evidence by omission of facts or even by under-analysing them." }, { "question": 6, "correct_answer": "C", "why_correct": "This is an attitude question. Tilly casts doubt on how much online reporting really sways a trial. She points to a growing view... that jury members can put media reports to one side when they're asked to deliver a verdict. She questions its influence, which is C.", "incorrect_options": { "A": "Option A is an attribution trap. Dave, not Tilly, talks about traditional newspapers, and he says they 'play by the rules', so she is not attacking them.", "B": "Option B is not mentioned. Tilly never discusses laws protecting jurors or how well they are enforced." }, "key_listening_points": [ "Listen for 'jury members can put media reports to one side'", "Notice Tilly doubting the real power of online reporting" ], "paraphrasing": "'jury members can put media reports to one side' = 'questions how influential unofficial reporting is'", "tips": "For attitude questions, listen for a speaker offering doubt about how strong an effect really is.", "transcript_reference": "there is a growing view among lawyers and journalists that jury members can put media reports to one side when they're asked to deliver a verdict." } ] }

A.I. Explanation:

Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is an inference question. Dave says many producers 'might challenge the description of their productions as mere entertainment', even though to all intents and purposes that's what they are. So it is entertainment, but producers would not admit it - which is B.
Paraphrasing: 'might challenge the description... even though... that's what they are' = 'producers generally wouldn't admit it'
Tips: For inference questions, read between the lines - here, Dave hints producers deny an obvious truth.
Why the other options are wrong:
C: Option C is a context shift trap. Dave actually treats them all as entertainment, so he does not doubt that it applies to all such programmes.
B: Option B is a partial truth trap. Dave does criticise producers later about victims, but here his point is that they would deny it is entertainment.
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is a purpose question. Dave uses Crimewatch to prove viewers really can help: the show had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases that had left the police baffled for years. This shows viewers make a real contribution, which is B.
Paraphrasing: 'had viewers to thank for helping solve many high-profile cases' = 'viewers have a valid contribution to make in solving crime'
Tips: For purpose questions, ask why a speaker gives an example - here, to prove a point about viewers.
Why the other options are wrong:
C: Option C is a context shift trap. The 80s and 90s are named for the example, not to show how reporting has changed over time.
B: Option B is a paraphrase confusion trap. Dave says viewers CAN contribute, not that past audiences were BETTER at solving crimes than today's.
Correct Answer: C
Why this is correct: This is a detail question. Tilly explains that women can much better relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals, since they may have had a similar experience themselves. This strong connection with victims is exactly C.
Paraphrasing: 'relate to those who have suffered at the hands of criminals' = 'strongly identify with those who are victims of crime'
Tips: For detail questions, match the exact reason a speaker gives, not a general appeal mentioned earlier.
Why the other options are wrong:
A: Option A is a context shift trap. The 'armchair detective' appeal is general, but Tilly's reason for WOMEN is that they identify with victims.
B: Option B is the opposite of Tilly's point. She notes the violent, upsetting content might put women off, not draw them in for excitement.
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is an agreement question. One speaker says producers 'don't think twice about using sensitive footage of victims and their families', and Dave agrees they 'have lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes' of those hurt by crime. Victims are not respected, which is A.
Paraphrasing: 'lost their moral compass when it comes to respecting the wishes of those impacted by crime' = 'not given the respect they deserve'
Tips: For agreement questions, look for both speakers describing the same failing in the same way.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: Option B is the opposite of what is said. There is no sign victims are happy to cooperate; producers use footage whether it suits victims or not.
C: Option C is not mentioned. Nobody says victims are unaware of how they look on TV.
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: This is an agreement question. Dave agrees that producers shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right about a suspect and 'manipulate evidence by omission'. Bending the story to fit their view is being subjective, which is B.
Paraphrasing: 'shape their entire narrative around proving themselves right' = 'may be highly subjective in their approach'
Tips: For agreement questions, turn the speaker's example into a general idea - here, twisting the story means being subjective.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: Option B is the opposite. Dave says they 'under-analyse' evidence, not that they do extensive research.
C: Option C is a paraphrase confusion trap. He mentions leaving out or under-analysing facts, which is not the same as focusing on unimportant details.
Correct Answer: C
Why this is correct: This is an attitude question. Tilly casts doubt on how much online reporting really sways a trial. She points to a growing view... that jury members can put media reports to one side when they're asked to deliver a verdict. She questions its influence, which is C.
Paraphrasing: 'jury members can put media reports to one side' = 'questions how influential unofficial reporting is'
Tips: For attitude questions, listen for a speaker offering doubt about how strong an effect really is.
Why the other options are wrong:
B: Option B is an attribution trap. Dave, not Tilly, talks about traditional newspapers, and he says they 'play by the rules', so she is not attacking them.
A: Option A is not mentioned. Tilly never discusses laws protecting jurors or how well they are enforced.

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.

Student #5BFC ⭐ Top a month ago 3/6

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.