day-65-ielts-listening-practice

IELTS Booster Lab Listening

Day 65 IELTS Listening Practice - Essay Feedback Meeting

Section 3 feedback practice with three fresh voices, essay strengths, corrections, accepted suggestions, revision responsibilities, deadlines, and room details.

Practice Instructions

1. Listen once without pausing.
2. Answer all 10 questions.
3. Check the answer key.
4. Replay the mistakes only.
5. Read the transcript after trying.
6. Write one weak point for tomorrow.

Questions 1-5

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What does Professor Grant consider the strongest part of the essay?
   A. the academic vocabulary
   B. the case studies
   C. the conclusion
2. What is the main problem with the introduction?
   A. The research question is unclear.
   B. It contains no definition.
   C. It is too short.
3. Why must the first web source be removed?
   A. It is behind a payment system.
   B. It was published too long ago.
   C. It has no named author.
4. What addition do they agree to include?
   A. a historical timeline
   B. a comparison table
   C. a productivity graph
5. Who will check the reference list?
   A. Professor Grant
   B. Elena
   C. Jacob

Questions 6-10

Complete the revision plan. Write ONE WORD AND/OR A NUMBER for each answer.

6. The section about the __________ of remote work should be shortened.
7. More evidence is needed about employee __________.
8. The conclusion should acknowledge the study's __________.
9. The revised draft is due on __________.
10. The next feedback meeting will be in Room __________.

Answer Key

1. B
2. A
3. C
4. B
5. C
6. history
7. wellbeing
8. limitations
9. Wednesday
10. 27

Distractor Explanations

• Vocabulary and the conclusion are satisfactory, but the case studies are the strongest part.
• The introduction has a definition and its length is acceptable. The research question is unclear.
• An older report remains credible. The first web source is removed because it has no named author.
• A timeline and graph are suggested before the comparison table is accepted.
• Elena offers to check references, but Jacob takes responsibility.
• Statistics, productivity, future research, Friday, and Room 72 are discussed before the final requirements are confirmed.

Transcript

Professor Grant: Elena and Jacob, I have read your joint essay on remote work and productivity. The academic vocabulary is generally accurate, and the conclusion is organised, but the strongest part is your use of contrasting case studies.

Elena: We spent a long time choosing companies from different industries, so I am glad that section works.

Jacob: We were less confident about the introduction. Elena thought it might be too long.

Elena: Yes, and perhaps we should shorten the opening definition of remote work.

Professor Grant: The length is acceptable, and you do include a definition. The main problem is that the research question is not stated clearly enough.

Jacob: We can rewrite the final sentence of the introduction so the question is explicit.

Professor Grant: Good. Now, let us check the evidence. Your first web source discusses employee productivity, but I cannot find a named author.

Elena: I thought the problem was its publication date.

Professor Grant: No. Another report in your list is older, but it comes from a recognised research institute. Remove the web source because readers cannot identify its author.

Jacob: We will replace it with a journal article from the university database.

Elena: The case studies contain a lot of separate figures. Should we add a historical timeline to show when each company changed its policy?

Jacob: A productivity graph might be more useful than a timeline.

Professor Grant: Both could add unnecessary detail. A comparison table would let readers see the differences between the two companies quickly.

Elena: A comparison table is clearer. We can include working hours, productivity, and staff turnover.

Professor Grant: Agreed. Add one compact comparison table after the second case study.

Elena: I can also check the reference list while I revise the introduction.

Jacob: I already use the required referencing software, so I can check the formatting and missing publication details.

Professor Grant: That is more efficient. Jacob will check the reference list, and Elena will revise the introduction.

Jacob: Which body section needs the most editing? I wondered whether the statistics section was too detailed.

Professor Grant: Keep the statistics because they support your argument. The section about the history of remote work is much longer than necessary, so shorten the history section.

Elena: We can reduce it to one paragraph and keep only the changes that relate to the case studies.

Professor Grant: Exactly. You also discuss productivity and business costs in detail, but employee wellbeing receives only two sentences.

Jacob: We found a recent survey about stress and isolation. We can add that evidence.

Professor Grant: Please do. The essay needs stronger evidence about employee wellbeing to balance the business perspective.

Elena: For the conclusion, should we recommend future research into hybrid working?

Professor Grant: You may mention future research briefly, but first acknowledge the limitations of your own study, especially the small number of case studies.

Jacob: So the conclusion will state the limitations before giving recommendations.

Elena: When is the revised draft due? I wrote Friday in my calendar.

Professor Grant: Friday is the final submission date. Send me the revised draft by Wednesday so I have time to comment.

Jacob: Can we meet again after you read it? The old email says Room 72.

Professor Grant: That room is no longer available. Our next feedback meeting will be in Room 27 at two o'clock.

Elena: Wednesday for the revised draft and Room 27 for the next meeting. I will update our shared plan.

Jacob: I will begin checking the references and create the comparison table today.

Mistake-Review Point

Distinguish between a problem that is merely discussed and the specific revision that the tutor finally requires.