Darmowe konto pozwoli wrócić do niego później.
Polecenie
You are going to hear an interview about doing research. Based on what you hear, complete the gap in each sentence (3.1.–3.4.). You will hear the recording twice.
Transkrypcja nagrania:
Interviewer: Professor Allen, could you tell our students how they can avoid being misled by unreliable sources of information on the Internet when doing their research?
Professor Allen: Well, you don't have to be an Einstein to be a great researcher. You simply need to put in some effort and learn to identify what is a primary source and what is not. A news article, an award-winning book, or even Wikipedia may accurately portray the truth, but if it cites information from another source, then it is a secondary source for that information. Secondary sources typically have much less space to convey the facts so they often leave out important details and, whether intentionally or not, they often filter or paraphrase information or provide an interpretation of the facts. This is why it's so crucial to access primary sources. You should also bear in mind that something can be a primary source for one fact and a secondary source for another.
Darmowe konto pozwoli wrócić do niego później.
Interviewer: But if the same fact is cited on many websites, then presumably it's true, isn't it?
Professor Allen: Not necessarily. Let me give you an example. In July 2008, Dylan Breves, a seventeen-year-old student from New York, went on holiday to Brazil. One day he and his brother spotted some wild animals. Dylan claimed that they were called aardvarks but Dylan's brother insisted that aardvarks don't live in South America. He said they might be called coatis, a species closely related to racoons. They decided to resolve the dispute by consulting Wikipedia. When Dylan checked the aardvark entry, he realized he was wrong, but instead of admitting his mistake, he made a minor edit to the Wikipedia entry on the coati, inserting the claim that they were also called "Brazilian aardvarks". Obviously, he did not cite a source for this alternative name, because he had invented it. Dylan knew that what he had done was reprehensible but assumed that someone would note the absence of citation and flag his edit for removal.
Over time, though, something bizarre happened: although there are no such animals as Brazilian aardvarks, the alternative name caught on. About a year later, not only was Dylan's edit still on Wikipedia, but references to the so-called "Brazilian aardvark" have since appeared in several newspapers and magazines.
Interviewer: Are you implying that we need to fact-check all secondary sources?
Professor Allen: Well, if you don't want to end up reproducing errors, you should always search for first-hand accounts of a topic provided by people who have had a direct connection with it. So be ready to dig into one source after another until you've finally reached that "pot of gold". When you do, you may be surprised how different it is from the numerous secondary sources that you have relied upon.
3.1. One of the reasons Professor Allen advises caution when dealing with secondary sources of information is that they often do not ________________________________ to include all the relevant details.
3.2. While travelling in Brazil, Dylan Breves and his brother disagreed on _______________ ________________________________ which they saw.
3.3. Dylan expected that eventually his edit of the Wikipedia entry _____________________ ________________________________, but it didn't happen.
3.4. When Professor Allen mentions the "pot of gold" in the final part of the interview, he refers to ____________________________________________________________.
3.1. have enough space
3.2. the name of the animal(s) / the species of the animal(s)
3.3. would be flagged/deleted/removed
3.4. reliable information in/from primary sources
poprawna odpowiedź.
3.1. Akceptowane są odpowiedzi wskazujące na niewystarczającą/ograniczoną ilość miejsca. 3.2. Akceptowane są odpowiedzi wskazujące, że spór dotyczył gatunku/nazwy zaobserwowanych zwierząt. 3.3. Akceptowane są odpowiedzi wskazujące na oflagowanie / usunięcie / zakwestionowanie wpisu. 3.4. Akceptowane są odpowiedzi wskazujące na wiarygodne informacje (z pierwotnych źródeł) / pierwotne źródła / informacje "z pierwszej ręki".
Ocena według schematu punktowania CKE, zwykle w 15–30 s
Dowiedz się, ile punktów naprawdę zdobywasz. Zrób zdjęcie kartki albo wklej odpowiedź: Maturownik+ porówna ją ze schematem punktowania, policzy punkty i wytłumaczy, gdzie i dlaczego je tracisz.