More practice with the language you're learning
Supplementary support — grammar, vocabulary, speaking and review — built from language already taught in the course. Not a lesson, and never a test.
1.Transformation: express the same meaning without repeating the original wording — "**Claim**: This will reduce churn by 8 percent."
2.Transformation: express the same meaning without repeating the original wording — "**Hedge**: This should reduce churn meaningfully — best read is roughly 6–10 percent."
3.Transformation: express the same meaning without repeating the original wording — "**Qualify**: It reduces churn where onboarding is intact; in the under-30 cohort the effect is smaller."
4.Move 'AI will replace half of office jobs in a decade' from CLAIM to HEDGE.
Show answer
'AI may replace a meaningful share of office jobs in a decade — though both the share and the timeline are heavily contested.'
5.QUALIFY: 'Reading fiction improves empathy.'
Show answer
'Reading fiction appears to improve perspective-taking on short-term measures; the long-term and large-scale evidence is thinner.'
6.Mini-context: someone disagrees with you in a meeting. Reply in two turns, using this structure at least once.
Show answer
Calibration at C2: (a) CLAIM — flat, undefended assertion ('This will work'). (b) HEDGE — modal + epistemic frame ('This should work, on the evidence we have'). (c) QUALIFY — name the conditions ('It works where X and Y hold; less so where they don't'). (d) RETRACT — publicly withdraw without dissolving ('I overstated this last week; here's the corrected version').
1.Sort these into "positive", "neutral" and "critical" in tone, and be ready to defend a borderline case: to overstate (one's case), the working hypothesis is (that), to walk (a claim) back, with high / low confidence, to climb down (from a position), to commit on (something)
Show answer
to overstate (one's case) — to claim more than the evidence supports | the working hypothesis is (that) — a provisional claim used to make progress | to walk (a claim) back — to publicly soften or partly retract | with high / low confidence — an explicit confidence label on a claim | to climb down (from a position) — to abandon a previously held stance | to commit on (something) — to take a firm public position
2.Odd one out: which of these is least like "to overstate (one's case)" in meaning or use — the working hypothesis is (that) / to walk (a claim) back / with high / low confidence? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: to claim more than the evidence supports
3.Odd one out: which of these is least like "the working hypothesis is (that)" in meaning or use — to walk (a claim) back / with high / low confidence / to climb down (from a position)? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: a provisional claim used to make progress
4.Odd one out: which of these is least like "to walk (a claim) back" in meaning or use — with high / low confidence / to climb down (from a position) / to commit on (something)? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: to publicly soften or partly retract
5.Odd one out: which of these is least like "with high / low confidence" in meaning or use — to climb down (from a position) / to commit on (something) / to overstate (one's case)? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: an explicit confidence label on a claim
6.Semantic map: place "to overstate (one's case)" on a scale from mild to strong against two other words you know. Then use the strongest one.
7.Semantic map: place "the working hypothesis is (that)" on a scale from mild to strong against two other words you know. Then use the strongest one.
8.Semantic map: place "to walk (a claim) back" on a scale from mild to strong against two other words you know. Then use the strongest one.
9.Mini-dialogue: write four lines in which two of this lesson's words appear naturally.
1.Word family: give the noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms linked to "to overstate (one's case)" where they exist, then use the form that is hardest for you.
2.Word family: give the noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms linked to "the working hypothesis is (that)" where they exist, then use the form that is hardest for you.
3.Word family: give the noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms linked to "to walk (a claim) back" where they exist, then use the form that is hardest for you.
4.Word family: give the noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms linked to "with high / low confidence" where they exist, then use the form that is hardest for you.
5.Spot the mismatch: which partner does NOT work with "to overstate (one's case)" — and what would a proficient speaker say instead?
Show answer
Natural model: I overstated the case in Friday's memo; let me correct it.
6.Spot the mismatch: which partner does NOT work with "the working hypothesis is (that)" — and what would a proficient speaker say instead?
Show answer
Natural model: The working hypothesis is that the drop is seasonal; we'll know in a quarter.
7.Spot the mismatch: which partner does NOT work with "to walk (a claim) back" — and what would a proficient speaker say instead?
Show answer
Natural model: He walked the claim back to 'a moderate effect under specific conditions'.
8.Rewrite one sentence from your last piece of writing, swapping a weak combination for a precise one from this lesson.
1.Shift the register twice: make this markedly formal, then markedly conversational — "**Claim**: This will reduce churn by 8 percent."
2.Shift the register twice: make this markedly formal, then markedly conversational — "**Hedge**: This should reduce churn meaningfully — best read is roughly 6–10 percent."
3.Shift the register twice: make this markedly formal, then markedly conversational — "**Qualify**: It reduces churn where onboarding is intact; in the under-30 cohort the effect is smaller."
4.Diplomatic vs direct: soften this, then sharpen it. Which version would you actually use, and to whom? "Is the writer credible AFTER this statement? Why?"
5.Compress: express the idea behind "I overstated the case in Friday's memo; let me correct it." in six words or fewer without losing the nuance.
Show answer
to claim more than the evidence supports
6.Compress: express the idea behind "The working hypothesis is that the drop is seasonal; we'll know in a quarter." in six words or fewer without losing the nuance.
Show answer
a provisional claim used to make progress
7.Compress: express the idea behind "He walked the claim back to 'a moderate effect under specific conditions'." in six words or fewer without losing the nuance.
Show answer
to publicly soften or partly retract
8.Read one of your own paraphrases aloud. Which word choice is doing the most work? Replace everything around it.
1.Rank and justify: order the ideas in Is the writer credible AFTER this statement? Why? / Where could they have under-conceded? / Where could they have over-conceded and lost the actual claim? from most to least convincing. Defend your top choice.
2.Role-play: Two minutes to plan your three calibration moves before the meeting starts. Take the position you least agree with.
3.Decision task: you have two minutes to reach a single recommendation on A one-sentence summary in the CEO's voice of your committed position + one note on which hedge sounded most honest.. State it in one sentence.
4.Now switch sides and argue the opposite for 60 seconds. Which language had to change?
5.Follow-up — push further: Claim: 'Our new policy will cut waiting times by a third within six months.' Add a counter-example.
6.Follow-up — push further: Claim: 'No company funds were used in the way the press has reported.' Add a counter-example.
1.Paragraph ordering: draft your four topic sentences only, then decide their best order and say why.
2.Partial writing: write only the concession paragraph of Write a 150–170-word public correction of a previous statement (yours or invented). You MUST: (a) name what was wrong (in confidence AND scope), (b) climb down from one version without dissolving the underlying claim, (c) include one explicit confidence label, (d) use at least three target items. — 60–80 words.
3.Editing pass: cut 15% of your words without losing content. What went first?
4.Audience switch: rewrite your opening for a hostile reader, then for a sympathetic one.
5.Self-check: underline every repeated word and replace two with precise choices from this lesson.
1.Prompt: 'Smartphones should be banned in primary schools.' Say the same position four ways: claim, hedge, qualify, partial retract. Aloud.
Show answer
Open with a hedged claim, not a flat one. Use the examiner's pushback to qualify, not to retreat. Only retract on evidence, never on tone.
2.Find the evidence: which exact words in the text/script support this — What is the writer retracting, and what are they keeping?
Show answer
Retracting: confidence and scope of the original claim. Keeping: the underlying claim, held with reasonable confidence on a longer horizon.
3.Find the evidence: which exact words in the text/script support this — Where is HEDGE distinguished from RETRACT?
Show answer
'I am not climbing down from the underlying claim… I am climbing down from the version that fits a headline.'
4.Find the evidence: which exact words in the text/script support this — Find ONE explicit confidence label.
Show answer
'reasonable confidence'.
5.Key word transformation: rewrite "**Claim**: This will reduce churn by 8 percent." using the structure from Calibrated certainty: claim → hedge → qualify → retract, in 3–8 words.
Show answer
Calibration at C2: (a) CLAIM — flat, undefended assertion ('This will work'). (b) HEDGE — modal + epistemic frame ('This should work, on the evidence we have'). (c) QUALIFY — name the conditions ('It works where X and Y hold; less so where they don't'). (d) RETRACT — publicly withdraw without dissolving ('I overstated this last week; here's the corrected version').
6.Reflection: which part of this task type costs you most time, and what will you do differently next time?
1.True, false or not stated? Decide for each, then correct the false ones: "Retracting: confidence and scope of the original claim. Keeping: the underlying claim, held with reasonable confidence on a longer horizon." · "'I am not climbing down from the underlying claim… I am climbing down from the version that fits a headline.'" · "'reasonable confidence'."
Show answer
What is the writer retracting, and what are they keeping? → Retracting: confidence and scope of the original claim. Keeping: the underlying claim, held with reasonable confidence on a longer horizon. | Where is HEDGE distinguished from RETRACT? → 'I am not climbing down from the underlying claim… I am climbing down from the version that fits a headline.' | Find ONE explicit confidence label. → 'reasonable confidence'.
2.Retrieval race: in 60 seconds, list every word from this lesson you can remember, then check what you missed.
Show answer
to overstate (one's case), the working hypothesis is (that), to walk (a claim) back, with high / low confidence, to climb down (from a position), to commit on (something)
3.Use "to overstate (one's case)" in a sentence about a completely different topic from the lesson.
Show answer
to claim more than the evidence supports
4.Use "the working hypothesis is (that)" in a sentence about a completely different topic from the lesson.
Show answer
a provisional claim used to make progress
5.Use "to walk (a claim) back" in a sentence about a completely different topic from the lesson.
Show answer
to publicly soften or partly retract
6.Teach it back: explain Calibrated certainty: claim → hedge → qualify → retract to someone who has never met it, in under 45 seconds.
Show answer
Calibration at C2: (a) CLAIM — flat, undefended assertion ('This will work'). (b) HEDGE — modal + epistemic frame ('This should work, on the evidence we have'). (c) QUALIFY — name the conditions ('It works where X and Y hold; less so where they don't'). (d) RETRACT — publicly withdraw without dissolving ('I overstated this last week; here's the corrected version').
7.Where in your work or study do you hedge to avoid commitment instead of to add information?
1.Warm-up — name the move — 'This isn't about cost — it's about who pays.' → name the move, then reframe again.
2.Warm-up — name the move — 'I'll grant the critics their strongest point: enforcement is hard. And yet…' → name the move, then rewrite as a tricolon.
3.Warm-up — name the move — 'I'm certain about the direction; less certain about the speed.' → name the move, then dial confidence DOWN one notch.
4.Prep — pick a motion, build the spine — Motion: 'Anonymous political donations should be banned.'
5.Prep — pick a motion, build the spine — Motion: 'University rankings do more harm than good.'
6.Prep — pick a motion, build the spine — Motion: 'Cities should price road use by demand.'
7.Round 1 — opening statements (3 min each) — You speak first for 3 minutes. Frame the debate in your opening sentence; use ONE figure (anaphora / antithesis / tricolon) on purpose and signal where you'll concede. Teacher then opens the opposing side. No interruption in this round.
8.Round 2 — concession-pivot rebuttal (3 min each) — You rebut teacher's opening. RULES: (a) restate teacher's strongest point better than they did, (b) concede ONE thing you genuinely concede, (c) pivot to the heart of the matter, (d) avoid talking past them. Teacher rebuts yours under the same rules.
9.Round 3 — calibrated close (90 sec each) — You close first for 90 seconds. You MUST: (a) state your conclusion with an explicit confidence level, (b) name ONE thing you'd climb down on, (c) reject any false dichotomy that surfaced, (d) nail the last sentence so it doesn't ring hollow. Teacher closes opposite.
10.Talk it through — what won the round, what dated it — Together, rebuild the strongest and weakest moments from the debate. Teacher names two strongest moves from your side and one weakest. You do the same for teacher's side. Then each of you writes one line you'd cut and one you'd keep.
11.Bring it together — 150-word op-ed opening — Write the OPENING 150 words of an op-ed version of your debate case. It must contain: a framed first sentence, one rhetorical figure used cleanly, one concession of the opposing case, and a calibrated stance. Use at least FIVE Unit 2 vocab items naturally.
12.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to set the terms of the debate".
13.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to reframe (something) as".
14.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "a false dichotomy".
15.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to grant the premise".
16.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to steelman (an argument)".
17.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to concede the point".
18.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "the heart of the matter".
19.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to land (a line / point)".
20.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "applause line".
21.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to ring hollow".
22.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "the spine of the argument".
23.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to nail the close".
24.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to overstate (one's case)".
25.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "with high / low confidence".
26.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to climb down (from a position)".
27.Where did you frame on purpose, and where did you let teacher set the terms?
28.Which concession actually cost you something — and was it worth it?
29.Which rhetorical figure did real work, and which one was just decoration?