Escape Campus
All assessments
Progress Test 2

Progress Test 2 — Checkpoint after Lesson 40

Lessons 21–40CEFR C2 30 min

1 · Grammar

Multiple choice — choose the best option.

  1. 1.Choose the most appropriate reporting verb for cautious scholarly attribution.

  2. 2.Select the most idiomatic use of nominalisation in academic register.

  3. 3.Identify the sentence with the most defensible methodological hedge.

  4. 4.Choose the sentence that best avoids moralising while making an ethical point.

  5. 5.Which option best signals dialectical reasoning rather than mere balance?

2 · Gap fill

Type the single best word for each gap.

  1. 1.The literature, broadly, points in two directions.
  2. 2.The author takes with the prevailing consensus.
  3. 3.We must be careful not to the question by assuming what we set out to prove.
  4. 4.There is no easy answer, but the trade-offs are at tractable.
  5. 5.The interview pivoted a hostile question with disarming calm.

3 · Vocabulary — matching

Match each term to its meaning.

1.wicked problem
2.to platform someone
3.face-saving
4.to triangulate
5.constructive ambiguity

4 · Vocabulary — collocations & word choice

  1. 1.Choose the natural collocation: '___ scrutiny'

  2. 2.Choose the natural collocation: 'to ___ a counter-argument'

  3. 3.Choose the natural collocation: 'a ___ defence'

  4. 4.Choose the natural collocation: 'to hold someone to ___'

5 · Reading

Read the passage, then answer.

On the Ethics of the Loud Opinion

There was a time when reticence on a contested question signalled either ignorance or cowardice. Today it can equally signal something more demanding: the refusal to be hurried into a position one has not earned. The democratisation of the platform has unbundled the right to speak from the work of having something to say. To withhold judgment, in such an environment, is itself a kind of statement — and a costly one, since silence reads, online at least, as absence rather than restraint. The honest commentator, then, has a new and unwelcome duty: to be visibly thinking in public, to show the working, to risk looking slow.

  1. 1.The author argues that, online, withheld judgment is read as:

  2. 2.The phrase 'unbundled the right to speak from the work of having something to say' implies:

  3. 3.The author's overall stance toward 'visible thinking in public' is:

6 · Listening

Audio is generated via ElevenLabs when the integration is connected; otherwise read the transcript.

Conference Q&A — handling a hostile question

Transcript fallback
Show / hide transcript

Questioner: Your entire framework rests on data from a single country. Isn't the generalisation reckless? Speaker: That's a fair challenge, and I'd push back gently on the word reckless while accepting the substance. You're right that the empirical base is narrower than the claims might suggest, and we say so in section four. What I'd resist is the inference that a single-country dataset can carry no transferable signal at all — the mechanism we identify is, on theoretical grounds, likely to operate similarly elsewhere, though the magnitudes will differ. The honest answer is that we've staked out a hypothesis worth testing, not a settled finding. I'd welcome cross-national replication, and I'd be the first to revise if the pattern doesn't hold.

  1. 1.How does the speaker respond to the word 'reckless'?

  2. 2.What does the speaker say about the dataset?

  3. 3.What is the speaker's stance toward future evidence?

7 · Functional language

Choose the most appropriate response for each situation.

  1. Situation 1

    A journalist asks a hostile question on live air designed to make you contradict an earlier statement. Choose the most strategically composed reply.

  2. Situation 2

    You are mediating between two parties whose communicative norms differ sharply (one direct, one high-context). Choose the most effective opening.

  3. Situation 3

    A reviewer's comment on your paper is dismissive but raises a partial fair point. Choose the most professional reply.

8 · Writing

One short level-appropriate task — assessed by your teacher.

Draft a 200–250 word response to a hostile online comment on an op-ed you have written. Acknowledge what is fair, refute what is not and close without escalation. Maintain public composure throughout.

Target length: 200–250 words

Teacher scoring criteria

  • Identifies and concedes any fair element in the criticism.
  • Refutes unfair elements with evidence or reasoning, not personal attack.
  • Avoids escalation; closes the exchange rather than fuelling it.
  • Sustains public register; no defensiveness or sarcasm.
  • Uses at least two pieces of unit-taught lexis (e.g. steelman, calibrated, on reflection).
Back to all assessments

Progress Test 1

Checkpoint after Lesson 20 · Units 1–4

Final Exit Test

Mastery checkpoint · Units 1–10