0:04

Welcome to My IELTS Classroom,

0:06

the podcast where two English experts

0:08

talk all things IELTS. I'm

0:11

Shelley Cornick.

0:11

And I'm Nick Long. And today

0:13

we are continuing last week's episodes

0:17

about opposites. We

0:19

will review how IELTS tries to

0:21

confuse you by using opposites,

0:24

then we will talk about unreal

0:27

conditionals, and then we will

0:29

see those in action

0:30

in the listening

0:32

test. Good

0:40

evening, Nick. How are you? Good evening.

0:42

I'm all right, thank you. Nice relaxing

0:44

Monday evening. Are you as

0:47

hot as I am? Yes, it's extremely

0:49

warm here, to be honest. I am

0:52

sweltering in a balmy 26 degrees,

0:55

which in Australia would be a cool,

0:57

pleasant afternoon. In

0:59

England, everybody's

1:01

just sat in their pants staring

1:03

because it's too hot. It's the humidity

1:05

that gets you. It's the humidity

1:08

and the lack of air conditioning. That is the difference,

1:10

I think. So yes, I am

1:13

looking forward to my lake

1:16

swim tomorrow

1:16

more than usual. And I'm feeling quite

1:19

smug, Nick, because I knew it was going to be hot this week.

1:21

So I booked my swim at the end of last week,

1:23

and now they are sold out. All

1:25

the places are taken for tomorrow. And

1:28

I'll be there feeling smug. Good.

1:31

So

1:33

last week, I enjoyed last week's

1:35

episode. It was a good one, wasn't it? It was a

1:37

good one. We were talking about

1:39

the IELTS listening trick of using

1:42

opposites. So

1:44

if I was talking in IELTS about

1:46

how hot it is today, I wouldn't

1:48

be saying, oh, it's very hot. I would be saying,

1:50

well, it's not cold today,

1:53

is it? So Nick, do you want to sort

1:56

of... I mean, that was... If you listened to last

1:58

week's episode, that would make...

1:59

sense. But do you want to just give us a little quick

2:02

recap about these opposites

2:05

and how they're using them in the test? So

2:07

we looked at some examples from the listening

2:10

test where usually

2:12

we have a list of words that

2:14

we have to choose as the answers and as we

2:16

know whenever it's something like box matching

2:19

or multiple choice questions synonyms

2:22

paraphrasing is going to be used but

2:24

rather than using standard

2:26

paraphrasing like if

2:29

the question says hot they might use warm

2:31

or very warm they would use as

2:34

you did the opposite as the answer

2:36

so they would say something like it's really not

2:38

cold at all or something like that.

2:40

Exactly so I think the way we looked at

2:43

particularly in terms of number

2:46

so you might have what was the one last

2:48

week it was like

2:49

less and more. Less and more.

2:52

Yep so they might change less and more so it would

2:54

be like less cold

2:58

is the same as no less hot

3:01

is the same as more cold I guess.

3:03

I get confused with the examples the one we looked

3:05

at that was really confusing was least

3:08

to most so the least

3:10

environmentally friendly

3:12

was the most damaging to

3:14

the environment. Exactly right so

3:17

all of the examples

3:19

that we gave you last week were

3:21

basically playing with

3:24

Lexus to create these opposites

3:27

right so it would be hot cold most

3:30

least things like that what we're gonna look at

3:32

today is almost exactly the

3:34

same right so it's IELTS playing

3:37

with positives and negatives but rather

3:39

than doing it through the choice of words

3:41

so using opposites so opposite

3:43

adjectives or opposite quantifiers

3:47

they are playing with the

3:49

grammar and in particular they are

3:51

playing with conditional

3:53

sentences all right so

3:56

I thought what we might do before

3:58

we

3:59

look at these conditional sentences

4:03

because we're going to be looking now we've already actually

4:05

had an episode about conditional sentences didn't

4:07

we

4:07

ages ago which you

4:10

led right so a lot of these unreal

4:13

conditionals that we're going to be looking at use the

4:15

word would so I thought

4:17

it'd be really important before we look at our

4:19

conditionals that we just think about the word

4:22

would W O U

4:24

L D not would like a forest

4:28

just to make it really clear how we

4:30

use this word in English right so now

4:33

I would say that before we start looking

4:35

at difficult conditionals the

4:37

first time we teach the word

4:39

would is in the past

4:41

form of will

4:44

so very simply today I might

4:46

say oh I think I will go

4:48

for a walk but if I'm talking

4:51

about that thing yesterday I would

4:53

say yesterday I thought I

4:56

would go for a walk

4:59

now I have to be honest I find it interesting

5:01

that we teach this you know

5:03

the first time we introduce students to would

5:06

is is the past of will don't actually

5:08

use would

5:11

as the past of will very often do we don't

5:14

I would say I mean the main I guess when we

5:16

do use it in everyday conversation

5:18

would be part of reported

5:20

speech so that's where

5:22

you know somebody says

5:25

something and I you know so person

5:28

a

5:28

says a sentence I will go for a walk

5:31

for example exactly and then I will

5:33

then tell said person be what

5:35

that person said Nick said he

5:38

would go for a walk exactly so

5:40

what we do in reported speech is we move

5:42

everything back intense don't

5:44

we so the present simple becomes a past

5:46

simple should

5:48

becomes had to can becomes

5:51

could and will becomes words

5:53

so Nick's just done it but if I said

5:56

to you Nick hey

5:59

John says that

5:59

he will take you to the station

6:03

and you then go and tell somebody

6:05

else, how would you report what I told you?

6:07

I would say, Shelley said. That

6:11

John said. He

6:13

would take me to the station. Exactly.

6:16

So not he will take you, but he

6:19

would take me. So all

6:22

the pronouns change. That is how

6:25

we introduce students to WOOD. And

6:28

so as purely

6:30

the past of will, and I was thinking

6:32

about this, I was thinking, well, do they ever use

6:35

WOOD

6:36

as the past of will in

6:39

the listening exam? So that is its most basic

6:41

form. And actually, I

6:44

realised that they do use this quite often, basically

6:46

when we're talking about expectations.

6:50

So when I also, you know, you often get students

6:52

who are talking about what they thought the course

6:55

would be like compared

6:58

to what it was like. So

7:00

if you imagine, you know, it's the beginning of

7:03

your first year and it's the beginning of

7:05

the first year and Nick and I are thinking,

7:08

oh, this course looks difficult. We're

7:10

going to be using will, aren't we, to

7:13

make a prediction. Oh,

7:14

this course looks difficult. I think it will

7:17

focus a lot on maths

7:19

or I think it will do something.

7:22

We're making predictions. At

7:24

the time we're going to use will, but

7:26

then later when we think back,

7:28

we might say, well, I thought

7:30

it would be difficult, but

7:33

actually it was quite easy. Or I

7:35

thought it would focus more on,

7:39

I don't know, I thought we would be

7:41

given the opportunity to

7:43

do more practical things, but actually

7:45

it was quite theoretical. So

7:48

I think IELTS does use this WOOD as the

7:50

past of will. So I thought

7:52

we might just start with a nice simple

7:55

question that focuses

7:58

on this use of WOOD. Now,

8:00

Nick, I'm not sure if we've done

8:03

this listening before or we've spoken about

8:06

a similar listening recently, but basically we've

8:08

got two students who are studying

8:10

to become a vet. It's

8:13

a box matching, right? So we have to understand

8:16

they're going to discuss four different modules

8:18

and they're going to discuss,

8:20

give their opinion. Now what's interesting

8:23

is the instruction

8:27

says what opinion do the students

8:29

give about each of the following modules.

8:32

Now that's

8:32

kind of unusual because normally what it says

8:35

is what do the students agree about

8:38

each of the following modules or what surprised

8:40

them about the modules. There'll

8:43

be some sort of agreement or an emotion to

8:45

listen for and then it's

8:48

what they both agree, right? So they both

8:50

thought this or they thought this. What's unusual

8:52

about this listening is that

8:55

we are asked what opinion do the students

8:57

give. Some of the answers are what

8:59

Tim thinks, so that's the boy.

9:02

Some of the answers are what Diana thinks, which

9:04

is the woman. And some of the answers

9:07

are what they both think,

9:09

which is a bit different. So there's the

9:11

agreement basically if they both think something. So

9:14

they are ones that they agree exactly. So

9:16

what I thought we'd do is we'll just listen to a couple of

9:18

these, all right? So the first module they are

9:20

going to discuss is medical

9:23

terminology, all

9:25

right? So I just

9:27

want you, you know, while we're listening, let's

9:30

for maximum practice, why don't we write down

9:33

what Diana thinks and

9:36

what was the guy called Tim? What

9:38

does Tim think? They may think the same

9:41

things,

9:42

they may think different things, okay? So

9:44

that'll be kind of interesting for us to write down as

9:47

well. So why don't we start by just playing that short

9:49

extract?

9:54

Short

10:00

comments apparently. Shall we do

10:02

that now? OK. So medical

10:05

terminology. Well, my heart

10:07

sank when I saw that. Especially

10:10

right at the beginning of the course. And

10:13

I did struggle with it.

10:15

I thought it would be hard, but actually

10:18

I found it all quite straightforward.

10:20

What did you think about diet and nutrition?

10:23

OK. Right.

10:28

So

10:28

Nick, do Diana and

10:30

Tim have the same opinion about

10:33

medical terminology or do they have different feelings?

10:35

They have

10:36

different feelings about this one. They

10:39

do. So what was Diana's opinion? So

10:42

they were talking about medical terminology. She

10:45

said, my heart sank when

10:47

I saw that, as mine would as well. Especially

10:51

right at the beginning of the course. And I did struggle

10:53

with it. So she found it difficult.

10:55

So she found it tricky.

10:58

Now, if we look in the box, we've

11:00

got the only one option

11:02

for Diana. Right. Which is Diana

11:04

may do some further study on this. It's definitely

11:07

not that one, though. No, she struggled. But

11:09

what did Tim say?

11:10

Tim said, I thought it would be hard,

11:13

but actually I found it quite straightforward.

11:18

So what I like about this is showing

11:20

this would.

11:22

I thought now, but he didn't say would, did

11:24

he? He said, I thought it.

11:26

Yeah. So that's the

11:28

things with would is that we often contract

11:30

it. Don't we? So he didn't say, I thought

11:33

it would be hard.

11:34

Say it for me, Nick. I thought it. I

11:37

thought it'd be hard. It'd

11:40

be hard means it would be hard.

11:42

So that means that was what he was expecting.

11:46

And then he said, but actually I found

11:48

it all quite straightforward. So let's

11:51

see what the options are for Tim because they've

11:54

got different opinions. A, Tim

11:56

found this easier than expected.

11:57

Well, there we go. That's it. That's the answer.

12:00

Ding, ding, ding. Thank you very much. So

12:02

this is a word being used, you

12:05

know, in its pure sense,

12:07

as the past of will, right? Should

12:09

we do one more from this question?

12:11

Let's do one more. So the third

12:14

module they discuss is animal

12:16

disease. I

12:19

tell you. Again,

12:22

why don't we write down what did Diana think?

12:24

What did Tim think? You know, do they think

12:26

the same thing or do they have different

12:28

things? Plus,

12:31

can you hear how wood is used?

12:37

I think the module that really impressed

12:39

me was the animal disease one. When

12:42

we looked at domesticated animals

12:44

in different parts of the world, like

12:47

camels and water buffalo and alpaca,

12:50

the economies of so many countries

12:52

depend on these, but scientists

12:55

don't know much about the diseases that affect

12:57

them. Yes,

12:59

I thought they'd know a lot about ways of controlling

13:01

and eradicating those diseases, but

13:03

that's not the case at all. I loved the

13:06

wildlife medication unit.

13:12

Right, so listeners and Nick, this

13:14

time, did Diana and Tim have the same

13:16

opinion or a different opinion? They

13:19

had the same opinion this time. They

13:22

did. So if you had to summarise,

13:24

what was their opinion

13:27

about

13:28

animal disease? That

13:31

they don't know a lot about it

13:34

and they can't really control it. Exactly.

13:38

So that's exactly it. Diana says, I think

13:40

something like scientists don't

13:42

know much about the diseases that affect

13:45

them and Tim agrees. Yes,

13:48

and then he uses our word

13:50

by saying, I thought they'd

13:53

know. So that's

13:55

the problem with the contraction of wood.

13:58

It's this apostrophe D.

13:59

But we also contract what other word

14:02

with apostrophe D neck had Had

14:05

you have to know could that dude

14:09

be had in that sentence? I thought they'd

14:11

know

14:11

Well, no because it would be they had known

14:14

Exactly, right. So you should know if it

14:17

was going to be the past perfect with

14:19

had you need the present participle

14:22

But we always follow would with an infinitive.

14:24

So I thought they'd know a lot about

14:27

controlling and eradicating Again,

14:29

we've got this negative this contrast,

14:31

but that's not the case. So they're both

14:34

saying we don't know much about Animal

14:37

diseases. So let's have a look at

14:39

the opinions in the box where they agree D

14:42

is the first one they both found the reading

14:45

required for this was quite difficult.

14:46

No nothing here about reading. No

14:50

Or F they were both surprised how

14:52

little is known about some aspects

14:54

of this. That's not very nice Is it some aspects

14:56

of this? I know a

14:58

lot of very inaccurate

15:01

woolly language there

15:03

But I guess how little is known.

15:05

Yeah, that's of course that's F. Yeah. Yeah,

15:08

I thought they'd know I thought they

15:10

would know Means they don't know.

15:13

Yes, they don't though. Do they though?

15:16

That's from an English TV show. So Howard

15:21

Is sometimes used in the exam, but when

15:23

it is used, I mean how difficult would

15:25

you rate those particular questions name?

15:27

I mean

15:27

they're not easy I

15:30

was matching in part three is never easy.

15:32

I think on the scale of very difficult

15:35

to very easy is Let's

15:38

say very difficult to not too bad.

15:40

Yes, it's somewhere in the middle Yeah,

15:44

I would say not too bad

15:46

as long as you understand very often

15:48

these past predictions I thought

15:50

yeah, I thought it

15:53

Should be easier. I thought it

15:56

would you know, or I'd do

15:58

something that's telling you what

15:59

they thought before the course and then you need

16:02

to wait to see

16:04

what the truth was

16:06

later in the sentence. I

16:08

do think that's difficult however that is not

16:11

using the opposites trick which

16:13

I'd like to look at today. You know what I

16:15

want to look at today are instances

16:18

where IELTS are using what I would

16:20

call unreal conditionals.

16:23

So in English we have got four types

16:25

of conditional sentence. Five

16:28

if you include

16:28

mixed conditionals. So we've got the

16:31

zero, the first, the second and the third. The

16:34

ones that IELTS really likes in part three are

16:36

the second and the third because these are

16:39

the conditionals that we use to

16:41

talk about things which are not

16:43

real.

16:44

And the way we do that is we

16:46

often

16:47

think about the opposite of the truth.

16:50

So right now Nick at the beginning of today's

16:52

episode we discussed

16:55

that it's pretty hot or warm

16:58

right now in the UK and in Latvia.

17:01

So that is the truth for the

17:03

unreal conditional we want to imagine the opposite

17:06

of the truth. So right

17:09

now it is hot but

17:11

if it was cooler Nick

17:14

what would you do this evening? I

17:17

would go to bed early. Okay

17:20

because you can sleep better when it's

17:23

cold. Yes so what Nick has just

17:25

done is finish our second conditional.

17:28

So the second conditional is when we

17:30

imagine the opposite

17:32

of the truth now. And

17:34

that is the key thing. We are saying if

17:37

it was cooler now

17:40

Nick would go to bed earlier.

17:43

Now you and I Nick recognize

17:45

that this is the second conditional

17:48

from the grammar. So what grammar

17:50

do we use in this second

17:51

conditional? So we need to use past

17:54

simple after if. Yes. If

17:56

it was cooler. Yes

17:59

and we need to... about the past? No,

18:01

we're talking about the imaginary present. Yes,

18:04

exactly. And then what do we use in the second

18:07

half? We would use would with the infinitive.

18:09

Again, would with the infinitive.

18:12

Right, so if it was cooler,

18:15

Nick would go to bed earlier.

18:18

It's not cooler, he's not going to bed

18:20

earlier, we are just imagining, okay?

18:24

Also, Nick, you are always a very busy man,

18:26

aren't you? I am, that's true. So, you don't

18:28

have free time. But what would

18:31

you do if you had some more free

18:33

time?

18:33

If I had more free time,

18:37

I would get more sleep.

18:40

There's a pattern, can you notice?

18:43

So, everything's going to be safe. What would you do

18:45

if you won a million pounds? I would sleep.

18:47

I would buy a nice bed. Good.

18:51

So, for our second conditional, what we

18:54

are telling you, you know, when English people use

18:56

the second conditional, we are saying this is

18:58

not true, right?

18:59

But if it was, it's not cooler. I

19:01

don't have free time, I don't have a million

19:03

pounds. But if I did, let's imagine

19:05

this is what I would do. So,

19:08

there, as Nick said, we're using would and

19:10

an infinitive and just the past

19:12

simple.

19:13

You use had, but that was just the main verb

19:16

there, if I had more free time, it was the only

19:18

verb. So, we can use that

19:20

unreal conditional, the second conditional,

19:23

to talk about imaginary

19:25

things now. And then we've got our

19:27

beautiful third conditional, which is the

19:29

only conditional in English, which refers

19:32

to the past. And there we

19:34

can think, you know, wouldn't

19:36

we all love a time machine where we can go

19:38

back and change the past, right? Regrets,

19:41

things we wish we had done, we

19:44

hadn't done. We can't actually go back

19:46

and change them, but

19:48

we can use our imaginations, can't we?

19:50

So, I might say something like, actually,

19:54

again,

19:56

if I hadn't eaten

19:58

my dinner,

19:59

so late yesterday, I wouldn't

20:03

have

20:04

felt sick when

20:06

I went to bed.

20:08

So now, what is

20:11

the structure of my third conditional?

20:13

How do you know, Nick, that I am talking about the

20:15

past? Well,

20:15

first of all, we've got past perfect

20:19

after if. So rather than if

20:21

I... What did you say, if I...

20:23

So I said, if I hadn't eaten dinner

20:26

so late. So you would... You

20:28

wouldn't say, if I hadn't

20:31

eaten, which means you did

20:35

eat late last

20:37

night. Exactly. Yes. So I'm using

20:39

the past perfect, but I'm telling

20:41

you the opposite of the truth, isn't it? The opposite of the

20:43

truth. So I did eat late, so I'm imagining

20:46

the opposite, if I hadn't eaten

20:48

late. And what do we use in the second

20:50

part now?

20:51

So we're using would again,

20:53

but this time we're adding have before

20:56

the infinitive. Before the

20:58

past participle. Before the past participle,

21:00

yes, of course. Yeah. So I wouldn't

21:02

have felt sick

21:05

when I went to bed. When you're starting

21:07

English, that is a lot of things to think

21:09

about when you're constructing a sentence, isn't

21:12

it? Right? But if you hear, if I

21:14

hadn't done something, I

21:17

wouldn't have done something or I

21:19

would have, you should know that

21:21

the speaker is telling you the opposite

21:24

of the truth. And this is where the

21:26

opposites come. So

21:29

I said then, if I hadn't eaten my

21:31

dinner late,

21:33

I had. So I gave the negative when

21:35

the truth was positive. Yeah. Do you want to give a sentence

21:38

Nick, where you give us a positive?

21:40

Mm hmm. In the

21:42

after if, yeah. Yeah. If

21:48

I had gone to bed early last

21:51

night, yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't

21:54

have woken up in a bad mood. Perfect.

21:57

Okay. So that means Nick did.

22:00

He didn't go to bed early and he did

22:02

wake up in a bad mood. Perfect.

22:05

So these

22:07

conditional sentences give

22:09

IELTS this opportunity to be playing

22:12

with opposites, right? Because whenever we

22:14

use an unreal second or a third conditional,

22:17

we are telling you the thing that is not

22:19

true. In

22:22

the same way, it's not necessarily conditional

22:24

sentence, Nick, but we also play this same

22:27

trick with the truth and not the truth.

22:30

We do, yes. Okay. If you're talking,

22:33

if I today say, oh, today I should

22:35

go to the

22:36

dentist, right? If

22:39

I want to say that should in

22:41

the past, right? So yesterday

22:43

I should go to the dentist. What

22:46

is the past of should then? There's

22:48

no

22:49

shoulded, is there? You can only

22:51

say I had to go to the dentist,

22:54

right? Yeah. So that had

22:56

to is just saying like something I

22:59

needed to do in the past. That's

23:01

not the past of should that we are talking about,

23:03

right? I want to talk about should.

23:07

Usually I guess, do we use, is it only

23:09

for regrets, do you think? I

23:15

mean, it can be for regrets, but it can also be to

23:17

talk about things that you didn't

23:20

do or did

23:22

do, which maybe wasn't a good idea.

23:24

So I guess it is kind of regrets, isn't it?

23:26

Yeah. So let's imagine today,

23:29

I, okay, this is true, right? I parked

23:31

my car under a tree. Yep. And

23:34

because it's summer, well, yeah,

23:36

not birds, but there's all of this stuff is

23:38

coming from the tree and making my car sticky,

23:41

right? So when I looked at my car

23:43

this morning, I was like, oh God,

23:45

look at my car. I need to take it to the

23:47

car wash now. I'm an idiot.

23:50

I shouldn't have parked it. I shouldn't

23:52

have parked it under the tree. So

23:55

when I say I shouldn't have

23:58

parked it, it actually.

23:59

means you did Parker and you feel

24:02

bad about it and I feel bad about it so when

24:04

it whenever you hear I shouldn't have

24:06

done something or shouldn't have mm-hmm

24:08

it means the person did that thing mm-hmm

24:12

if I said I should have mm-hmm

24:14

so you know oh I should

24:17

have gone for a run this morning did I

24:19

go for a run it means you wanted

24:21

to it would have been a good idea

24:23

yes you didn't do it I didn't

24:26

mm-hmm so we've got to be really careful

24:28

with this shouldn't have should have would

24:30

have wouldn't have because we

24:32

are telling you the opposite

24:35

of the truth mm-hmm

24:37

so why don't we show now I think we may

24:39

have used this

24:42

example mm-hmm before

24:45

actually but we've got two students

24:47

who are talking about a traffic

24:50

light system which is used by

24:52

supermarkets right so I think it's the idea

24:55

that you know

24:58

sometimes now in England when you

25:00

go into a shop they have

25:02

packaging and

25:05

it's got like green yellow

25:08

and red mm-hmm

25:10

to show you how much sugar or

25:12

fat mm-hmm is in a

25:14

particular item so if you pick up I don't know like

25:17

a big what would be the worst

25:19

thing that you like eating Nick

25:20

the worst thing that I like eating probably

25:23

a frozen pizza right so if

25:25

you pick up a big lovely delicious frozen

25:28

pizza it'll probably have a big red

25:30

symbol on it yeah fat or salt

25:32

saturated fat salt same

25:34

bad carbohydrates a broccoli mm-hmm

25:37

yeah or some mushrooms that'll have a big green

25:40

healthy sticker so the students

25:42

are talking about this and

25:45

basically

25:47

we have to choose so it's a multiple

25:49

multiple choice right we

25:52

have to say which two things

25:54

are true about

25:55

the participants in

25:58

the study on the traffic light

26:00

system. So basically we

26:02

need to listen for what is true

26:06

about the people they spoke to

26:08

in the traffic light system. I

26:10

think we might actually have to tell

26:14

our listeners what the five options are,

26:16

otherwise it's too difficult. So

26:19

can you read the five options

26:20

for us? Right, so from the list of things to

26:22

choose that are true about

26:25

the participants, one,

26:28

they had low literacy levels.

26:31

The second is they were regular consumers

26:33

of packaged food. C

26:36

or three, they were selected randomly.

26:39

The next one is they were from all

26:41

socioeconomic groups.

26:43

And the last one, they were interviewed face to face. Okay,

26:47

great. So again, what

26:49

we're listening for now is not, it's the opposite of opinion

26:52

really. We're just listening for the truth.

26:55

Not what the listeners think was good or bad or the

26:57

speakers think was good or bad, but what is just

27:00

true about the participants. So

27:02

let's play this one.

27:09

Yeah, maybe. The participants

27:12

in the survey were quite positive about

27:14

the traffic light system.

27:15

Hmm. But I don't think

27:18

they targeted the right people. They

27:20

should have focused on people with low literacy

27:23

levels because these labels are designed

27:26

to be accessible to them. Yeah.

27:28

But it's good to get feedback from all socioeconomic

27:31

groups and there wasn't much variation

27:34

in their responses. No, but

27:37

if they hadn't interviewed participants face

27:39

to face, they could have used a much

27:41

bigger sample size.

27:43

I wonder why they chose that method. Don't

27:46

know. How were they selected?

27:48

Did they volunteer or were they approached?

27:52

I think they volunteered. The

27:54

thing that wasn't stated was how often

27:56

they bought packaged food. All

27:58

we know is how free. frequently they use

28:00

the supermarket.

28:06

Alright,

28:06

so let's go through these one by one,

28:08

because I don't think you'll ever find a better example

28:12

of how IELTS loves

28:14

this... Opposites. Opposites by

28:16

using unreal conditionals. So if we go through each

28:19

of the options, so A, is it true

28:21

that the participants had low literacy

28:24

levels? What did they say about low literacy

28:26

levels? Alice said they should

28:28

have focused on people with low literacy

28:30

levels, which means they did not

28:33

focus.

28:34

They didn't. They should have focused on them

28:36

means they didn't exactly. So

28:38

A, you should actually be not circling is the answer,

28:40

but eliminating. Crossing it

28:42

out. Yeah, right. They were regular consumers

28:45

of packaged food.

28:46

Alice said at the end,

28:49

the thing that wasn't stated

28:51

was how often they bought packaged

28:54

food. So we don't know.

28:55

We don't know. All that we know is that they frequently

28:58

use the supermarket. So they

29:00

were regular consumers at the supermarket.

29:03

But

29:03

not specifically of packaged food. No,

29:06

right. C, they were selected randomly. That's

29:08

not true. They volunteered. They

29:12

volunteered. So this is a good example

29:14

of where eliminating the wrong answers... Can actually

29:16

help you a lot. Can help

29:18

you find the right answers because again,

29:20

OK, D, they were all from

29:22

socioeconomic groups. What did

29:25

we get? That was the easiest

29:26

one, I think. Yeah. She... Jack said

29:29

it's good to get feedback from

29:31

all socioeconomic groups. Exactly.

29:34

So they actually... Yeah, they did get

29:36

feedback from all socioeconomic groups. Yeah. So

29:39

they just gave that to you word for word.

29:41

But I think there was so much confusion between

29:43

you should have. Some

29:46

students might have not got that. And the last

29:48

one, E, they were interviewed

29:51

face to face. Is that true,

29:52

Nick? It is true

29:54

because Alice said if

29:56

they hadn't interviewed participants

29:59

face to face... they could have used a much

30:01

bigger sample size. So that means they

30:04

didn't use a big sample size because

30:07

they interviewed participants face to face.

30:09

So they did. So she was criticizing,

30:12

right? If they hadn't interviewed

30:14

them face to face, but that means they did. So

30:17

that is the answer. E, they

30:19

were interviewed face to face. So this

30:22

whole question, all they are doing IELTS

30:24

is playing with this should

30:27

have,

30:27

hadn't, could have to

30:30

try and confuse you. Ooh,

30:33

they are so tricky. Okay.

30:35

Let's just have

30:37

another look then. We're just going to have a couple more examples,

30:40

right, to see how this second or

30:42

third conditional is used quite

30:44

consistently by IELTS, right?

30:47

So

30:48

we're only going to listen to short extracts

30:50

again. So this time we're going to listen

30:52

to another

30:54

box matching.

30:56

This is the box matching where students are discussing different bike sharing

30:58

schemes in different countries. Well, actually

31:00

it's sort of cities really, but

31:03

they are different countries. So the one that I want to focus on is

31:05

the last question, which

31:10

is talking about the bike

31:12

sharing scheme in Sydney, Australia.

31:15

So it's

31:16

just three sentences, okay. But I'm

31:18

not going to tell you the options in the box,

31:20

but based on those sentences,

31:24

what would you, how would we summarise their

31:27

opinion of the bike sharing scheme

31:29

in Sydney?

31:34

There's lacked vision and ambition

31:37

there. I think so too. Sydney

31:39

would be a good example to use. I

31:42

would have expected it to have grown pretty quickly

31:45

here. Yes. I can't quite work out

31:46

why it hasn't

31:48

been an instant success like some of

31:51

the others. It's a shame really. I know. Okay.

31:53

So now we've thought about all the...

32:02

Right, Nick, so can you see it's a similar sort of thing,

32:05

isn't it? Very similar. Yeah. So what

32:07

do they think about this Sydney scheme

32:09

here? What's their opinion?

32:10

Well, she said, first of all, it would be a good example

32:12

to use. And

32:15

then she said, I would have expected

32:17

it to have grown pretty quickly here. And

32:19

Jake agreed and said, yes, I can't

32:22

quite work out why it hasn't been

32:24

an instant success like some of the others.

32:27

So that first sentence,

32:29

I would have expected it to have grown pretty

32:32

quickly. That's our third conditional,

32:34

isn't it?

32:35

Sometimes we don't always use

32:38

the third conditional with the

32:41

if. You don't always have to have if

32:43

it had,

32:45

it could just be the would've, I

32:47

would have expected it to have grown pretty quickly

32:49

means that

32:50

it did not. It didn't.

32:53

Exactly. And he says, I can't work out

32:55

why it hasn't been an instant success. So

32:58

I will read you option

33:01

A.

33:02

They agree it has been quite disappointing.

33:04

Yeah, that's probably going to be it, isn't

33:07

it? That is the answer. So

33:10

they both thought, well, I had high expectations,

33:12

but it didn't happen. So can

33:15

you see I would have expected it to have grown

33:17

means that's

33:18

what I thought, but it's not. It's

33:20

not been the case yet. Okay.

33:24

I thought as a final one, we would do

33:28

an ABC matching because we haven't done

33:30

one of those yet. So this is where we

33:32

don't have seven or eight options in a

33:34

box. We have got four

33:37

options and it's usually a grammar question.

33:39

So yeah, so we've got,

33:41

you're absolutely right. So there's three options in the box,

33:45

but we're going to listen again to a, I think

33:48

this time it's a student with a tutor,

33:50

right? Discussing which modules

33:53

he's going to study next

33:55

year. And we've only got three

33:57

options. He will do the module.

34:00

he might do the module

34:02

or he won't do the module.

34:05

So I guess for these ABC questions where

34:07

they choose will, might or won't,

34:10

there's a slight difference here between just listening

34:12

for agreeing or disagreeing because

34:15

we've now got this extra option haven't we? Might.

34:19

Yeah so if they might do

34:21

something, what type of thing

34:23

do we tend to hear

34:24

when they say I might do it? It's

34:26

gonna be something like I need to think

34:28

about it a bit more or I'll

34:31

have to give it a bit more thought or that sounds

34:33

like it could be good but I need to think

34:35

about something else first, something like that

34:37

basically.

34:37

Exactly, exactly right. So

34:40

we're gonna listen just

34:42

to

34:44

the man, let's call him John and

34:46

the tutor, talk about the module gender

34:49

studies in Latin

34:51

America alright. So he's gonna talk about this

34:54

and then we have to say okay A

34:56

will he do it, B might he do it

34:58

or C won't he do it.

35:05

But now let's look at these modules, you'll

35:07

need to start thinking about which ones you'll definitely

35:10

want to study. The first one

35:12

here is gender studies in Latin America.

35:16

It looks at how gender analysis is reconfiguring

35:18

civil society in Latin America. Women

35:21

are increasingly occupying positions in government

35:24

and in other elected leadership positions in Latin

35:26

America I think you'd find it interesting.

35:29

If it was to do with people in the villages

35:31

rather than those in the public sphere I would. Okay,

35:34

what

35:35

about second... Right,

35:40

I think this is tricky. Yeah

35:43

it's quite fast delivery as well actually. Super

35:46

quick, actually I was looking so all four,

35:48

they discuss four modules in total.

35:51

All of the discussion happens in just a minute and

35:53

a half.

35:54

So it is just boom boom. Blindingly

35:56

quick. Yes, so this is

35:59

interesting. because we've got will, might, won't,

36:02

but we didn't hear anything like yes,

36:06

no, maybe, let me think.

36:09

What was the sentence that he used that gave,

36:11

that contained the answer?

36:13

Well, it was after the tutor had already introduced

36:16

and sort of kind of explained the

36:18

situation using Latin America

36:21

three times in two sentences,

36:23

which was a bit, which was a bit overbearing.

36:26

But he said, after she said, I

36:29

think you would find it interesting. He

36:31

said, if it was to do with people in, if

36:34

it was to do with people in the villages rather

36:36

than those in the public sphere,

36:38

I

36:39

would. Which means.

36:42

So, yeah, so interestingly, it's not a

36:44

third conditional now, is it? It's not. It's

36:47

a second conditional. Yep. So

36:49

if he's saying, if it was to do with the villages,

36:53

I would, it means it's not

36:55

to do.

36:55

To do with the villages. Villages. So I won't.

36:58

So I won't. So the answer there

37:00

is a big strong C. It's not

37:02

might, is it? It's definitely, he's not

37:04

interested. He is saying no

37:07

without using any words. That

37:11

mean no, essentially. But

37:13

he's using that, if it,

37:15

English people

37:18

use this quite a lot, didn't they? Come with me to

37:20

the cinema. Ah, if I had the

37:22

money, I would.

37:24

Which means I don't have the money.

37:25

So I'm not coming. So I'm not coming. It's

37:27

actually a really polite way of saying no in English.

37:29

Oh, if I had more time, I would. I'm

37:32

not coming. Right, so a great

37:34

example there of not the third conditional, which they tend

37:37

to use

37:37

more, but the second conditional.

37:40

So again, we're still playing with opposites, aren't

37:42

we? But we're doing it now

37:44

by using these unreal conditions. The second

37:47

conditional, the third conditional, or

37:49

that should have.

37:52

Wow, I'm glad we separated that, Nick. I'm

37:55

glad. I'm glad you're actually to do that. It's

37:57

too much, I think, for one lesson. This was a little bit more.

37:59

more advanced as

38:02

well, I think. I agree, it's a bit more

38:04

grammar heavy, isn't it? So

38:06

we're not saying, oh, we

38:08

should have put it as one episode. We're

38:11

saying ding, ding, ding, correct. It was a good

38:13

idea to have it

38:15

as one episode, yeah. So that was

38:18

our,

38:19

what do you call two things? A brace, is

38:21

that what you call them? Yeah, brace. I think

38:24

when you get two goals. Two goals

38:26

is a brace in football. Is it? A

38:28

brace is two. A brace of lessons on

38:31

the use of opposites in listening. Next

38:33

week, Nick, we will be talking about

38:36

the band descriptors because there was a recent

38:39

release of information from IELTS

38:41

regarding the speaking and the writing

38:44

band descriptors, which long-term listeners

38:46

will know are the only

38:47

things you should worry about in your IELTS

38:49

preparation. And that is

38:51

what we're gonna be talking about next week. So

38:55

don't in two weeks time be thinking

38:57

I should have listened. Be there

39:00

or be square. See you next week,

39:02

bye. Bye.

39:04

Bye. My

39:09

IELTS Classroom Podcast is a production

39:11

of My IELTS Classroom Limited. Nick

39:14

and I do not represent IELTS

39:17

and everything you heard in this episode

39:20

is our own personal

39:21

opinion. You can

39:23

find the show notes and transcript

39:25

for this episode on our blog. That's

39:28

blog.myieltsclassroom.com.

39:32

And if you're looking for our video courses,

39:34

speaking lessons and marking service,

39:37

you can find that at www.myieltsclassroom.com.

39:42

If you have a question or query or

39:44

just want to chat, you can email

39:47

Nick and I at hello at myieltsclassroom.com.

39:51

Our theme music

39:52

is by Heartbeat and our artwork

39:54

is produced by David Brown.

39:57

Have a great week, study hard. and

40:00

remember, this is my

40:02

IELTS classroom. Thanks for listening.

40:05

We'll see you next week. The

40:16

End"]