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.Notice first: read these and say what they share — "**Receive**: We thank Reviewer 2 for three substantive concerns and one clarifying suggestion." / "**Sort**: We accept the first concern in full, accept the second in part with one qualification, and respectfully disagree with the third." / "**Accept with precision**: On the first: we have rewritten Section 3 to address this directly. The new text appears on pages 14–16 and is highlighted in the tracked version."
Show answer
Reviewer response at C2: (a) RECEIVE FAIRLY ('We thank the reviewer for three substantive concerns'); (b) SORT ('We accept the first in full, accept the second in part, and disagree with the third'); (c) ACCEPT WITH PRECISION ('On the first: we have rewritten Section 3 to address this directly; the new text appears on pages 14–16'); (d) DISAGREE WITH SHARED GROUND ('On the third: we share the reviewer's commitment to identification; we differ on whether the proposed instrument resolves the concern more cleanly than ours — for reasons we set out below').
2.RECEIVE FAIRLY a hostile review.
Show answer
'We thank the reviewer for the careful read and for three concerns that we take seriously and address one by one.'
3.ACCEPT WITH PRECISION a methodological correction.
Show answer
'We accept this concern in full. We have re-estimated the model with cluster-robust standard errors and reported the corrected results in Table 3; the substantive conclusions are unchanged.'
4.DISAGREE WITH SHARED GROUND on an interpretive dispute.
Show answer
'We share the reviewer's view that the engagement mechanism is under-determined by these data. We differ on whether that under-determination requires us to retract the mechanism claim or to flag it as a working hypothesis. We argue for the latter for the following two reasons.'
5.Sort these into "natural" and "not natural" and justify each decision out loud: "**Receive**: We thank Reviewer 2 for three substantive concerns and one clarifying suggestion." · "**Sort**: We accept the first concern in full, accept the second in part with one qualification, and respectfully disagree with the third." · "**Accept with precision**: On the first: we have rewritten Section 3 to address this directly. The new text appears on pages 14–16 and is highlighted in the tracked version." · "**Disagree with shared ground**: On the third: we share the reviewer's commitment to identification; we differ on whether the proposed instrument resolves the concern more cleanly than ours. The argument is set out below in three points."
6.Build three sentences on this pattern about your own week — one neutral, one emphatic, one tentative.
Show answer
Reviewer response at C2: (a) RECEIVE FAIRLY ('We thank the reviewer for three substantive concerns'); (b) SORT ('We accept the first in full, accept the second in part, and disagree with the third'); (c) ACCEPT WITH PRECISION ('On the first: we have rewritten Section 3 to address this directly; the new text appears on pages 14–16'); (d) DISAGREE WITH SHARED GROUND ('On the third: we share the reviewer's commitment to identification; we differ on whether the proposed instrument resolves the concern more cleanly than ours — for reasons we set out below').
1.Fill: 'On this point we ____ ____.' (2 words)
Show answer
respectfully disagree
2.Fill: 'Let me engage with the ____ ____ of the objection.' (2 words)
Show answer
strongest version
3.Fill: 'We treat this as a ____ ____.' (2 words)
Show answer
friendly amendment
4.Complete in context: "We take this concern seriously and have rewritten the relevant section."
Show answer
to take (a concern) seriously
5.Complete in context: "On this point we ______; our reasons follow."
Show answer
respectfully disagree
6.Complete in context: "Let me start from the ______ that identification matters."
Show answer
shared ground
7.Complete in context: "Let me engage with the strongest version of the objection."
Show answer
(to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection)
8.Complete in context: "On the cross-national measure, we defer to the reviewer's expertise."
Show answer
to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on
9.Complete in context: "We treat this as ______ and have adopted it."
Show answer
a friendly amendment
10.Cover the list. Which words can you still recall, and what does each one add that a simpler word wouldn't?
Show answer
to take (a concern) seriously — to engage substantively rather than dismiss | respectfully disagree — to maintain a position without conceding tone | shared ground — a position both parties can agree to before disagreement | (to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection) — to respond to the best form of the critique, not a weakened one | to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on — to accept the other side's authority on a specific point | a friendly amendment — a suggested change that improves a paper without challenging it
1.Give two natural word partners for "to take (a concern) seriously" (adjective + noun, verb + noun, or adverb + adjective), then use one.
Show answer
Model use: We take this concern seriously and have rewritten the relevant section.
2.Give two natural word partners for "respectfully disagree" (adjective + noun, verb + noun, or adverb + adjective), then use one.
Show answer
Model use: On this point we respectfully disagree; our reasons follow.
3.Give two natural word partners for "shared ground" (adjective + noun, verb + noun, or adverb + adjective), then use one.
Show answer
Model use: Let me start from the shared ground that identification matters.
4.Give two natural word partners for "(to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection)" (adjective + noun, verb + noun, or adverb + adjective), then use one.
Show answer
Model use: Let me engage with the strongest version of the objection.
5.Give two natural word partners for "to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on" (adjective + noun, verb + noun, or adverb + adjective), then use one.
Show answer
Model use: On the cross-national measure, we defer to the reviewer's expertise.
6.Give two natural word partners for "a friendly amendment" (adjective + noun, verb + noun, or adverb + adjective), then use one.
Show answer
Model use: We treat this as a friendly amendment and have adopted it.
7.Choose three words from this lesson and build one sentence that uses all three naturally.
1.Rewrite so the meaning stays the same but you do NOT use "to take (a concern) seriously": "We take this concern seriously and have rewritten the relevant section."
Show answer
Keep the meaning of: to engage substantively rather than dismiss
2.Rewrite so the meaning stays the same but you do NOT use "respectfully disagree": "On this point we respectfully disagree; our reasons follow."
Show answer
Keep the meaning of: to maintain a position without conceding tone
3.Rewrite so the meaning stays the same but you do NOT use "shared ground": "Let me start from the shared ground that identification matters."
Show answer
Keep the meaning of: a position both parties can agree to before disagreement
4.Rewrite so the meaning stays the same but you do NOT use "(to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection)": "Let me engage with the strongest version of the objection."
Show answer
Keep the meaning of: to respond to the best form of the critique, not a weakened one
5.Rewrite so the meaning stays the same but you do NOT use "to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on": "On the cross-national measure, we defer to the reviewer's expertise."
Show answer
Keep the meaning of: to accept the other side's authority on a specific point
6.Summarise the lesson's main idea in exactly 20 words — no more, no less.
1.Talk: opacity and trust (Q from cultural-strand defender).
2.Talk: AI tutoring effects (Q from a methodology hawk).
3.Talk: four-day week trial (Q from a hostile economist).
4.Long turn (2 minutes, no notes): You = author defending a paper you wrote (real or invented). Teacher = examiner alternating between fair-minded and adversarial questioning. 10 minutes live. Then write a 200-word formal response addressing the single hardest question raised — RECEIVE / SORT / ACCEPT-or-DISAGREE structured.
5.Record 90 seconds using at least four of: to take (a concern) seriously, respectfully disagree, shared ground, (to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection), to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on. Listen back and mark one thing to make more precise.
1.Plan first: write a three-line outline (position → strongest support → concession) before you draft.
2.Write a 300–340-word reviewer response to three reviewer concerns (real or invented). You MUST: (a) RECEIVE fairly, (b) SORT cleanly, (c) ACCEPT with precision on at least one, (d) DISAGREE with shared ground on at least one, (e) avoid both filler thanks and dismissive language, (f) use at least four target items. (300–340 words). Include: to take (a concern) seriously, respectfully disagree, shared ground, (to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection), to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on, a friendly amendment.
3.Model analysis: compare your text with the model. What does the model do in its first and last sentences that yours doesn't?
1.Examiners reward candidates who can disagree with a partner or with the examiner's follow-up without losing register.
Show answer
Open disagreement with shared ground; close it with an explicit invitation to the other side. 'We share the view that X — we differ on whether Y.'
2.Where does the writer SORT the concerns?
Show answer
Second sentence — 'accept in full, accept in part, respectfully disagree'.
3.Where is ACCEPT WITH PRECISION done?
Show answer
'We have re-estimated the main models with two-way clustering and report the corrected estimates in Table 3.' Specific, located, tracked.
4.Where is DISAGREE WITH SHARED GROUND done?
Show answer
'We share the reviewer's commitment to identification. We differ on whether the proposed instrument resolves the exclusion-restriction concern more cleanly than ours.'
5.Where does the writer DEFER selectively?
Show answer
On the cross-national restriction the writer accepts the concern in part and adds a robustness check, while maintaining the main-text choice with a reason.
6.What does 'welcoming further work' do?
Show answer
Signals scholarly openness without conceding the immediate point — leaves the door open.
1.In your own words, when do you use "Reviewer response: defence as discipline"?
Show answer
Reviewer response at C2: (a) RECEIVE FAIRLY ('We thank the reviewer for three substantive concerns'); (b) SORT ('We accept the first in full, accept the second in part, and disagree with the third'); (c) ACCEPT WITH PRECISION ('On the first: we have rewritten Section 3 to address this directly; the new text appears on pages 14–16'); (d) DISAGREE WITH SHARED GROUND ('On the third: we share the reviewer's commitment to identification; we differ on whether the proposed instrument resolves the concern more cleanly than ours — for reasons we set out below').
2.Complete naturally: "We take this concern seriously and have rewritten the relevant section."
Show answer
to take (a concern) seriously
3.Complete naturally: "On this point we ______; our reasons follow."
Show answer
respectfully disagree
4.Complete naturally: "Let me start from the ______ that identification matters."
Show answer
shared ground
5.Complete naturally: "Let me engage with the strongest version of the objection."
Show answer
(to engage with) the strongest version (of the objection)
6.Complete naturally: "On the cross-national measure, we defer to the reviewer's expertise."
Show answer
to defer to (the reviewer / the literature) on
7.Two-minute retell: summarise the reading/listening from this lesson without looking at it.
8.When did you last respond to criticism defensively when sorting + precision would have served better?
9.Whose academic defence have you seen done well — what made it work?
1.Warm-up — spot the register slip — 'I'm going to talk today about some interesting things I found.' — what's missing, and fix it.
2.Warm-up — spot the register slip — 'Smith (2021) states that screen time reduces attention.' — what's missing, and fix it.
3.Warm-up — spot the register slip — 'These results show that the programme works.' — what's missing, and fix it.
4.The research talk — deliver and defend — You deliver your prepared talk. Teacher plays conference chair: no interruptions during delivery. You MUST open thesis-forward, include at least one positioned citation and one disciplinary hedge, and name one bracketed question before you finish. Hand teacher your abstract at the end.
5.Q&A — four escalating questions — Teacher asks four questions about your talk: one clarifying, one sceptical, one hostile, one bad-faith. 60 seconds each. Every answer must receive the question fairly and either accept a point with precision or disagree while naming shared ground. Name the bad-faith question as such, calmly.
6.Referee for ten minutes — review a stranger's paragraph — Where does the paragraph lean on a source too heavily?
7.Referee for ten minutes — review a stranger's paragraph — Is the gap actually a gap, or something the literature has already answered badly?
8.Referee for ten minutes — review a stranger's paragraph — Which citation could be cut without loss?
9.Bring it together — a 400-word reviewer response — Using the three plausible reviewer concerns you prepared for homework, write a 400-word reviewer response to your own talk. You MUST: (a) receive the concerns fairly in one opening sentence, (b) sort them explicitly (accept in full / accept in part / disagree), (c) accept at least one with precision (say exactly what you changed and where), (d) disagree with at least one on shared ground, (e) name at least one scope condition on your own claim, (f) use at least six Review Lab 5 vocabulary items naturally.
10.Talk it through — what held up, what didn't — Together, name the strongest hedge you produced today, the strongest disagreement, the weakest citation moment, and one concrete change you'll make the next time you present real work.
11.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to take issue with (the literature)".
12.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "robust at conventional levels".
13.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "the (analytically) interesting feature".
14.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to depart from (the received view)".
15.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to bracket (a question)".
16.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to draw on (a source)".
17.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "to lean on (a source / a claim)".
18.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "in conversation with (the literature)".
19.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "strand (of work / argument)".
20.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "the gap (in the literature)".
21.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "scope condition(s)".
22.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "respectfully disagree".
23.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "shared ground".
24.Say a natural sentence from this unit's world using "a friendly amendment".
25.Which question in the Q&A forced you to think, rather than just perform confidence?
26.Where did refereeing someone else's paragraph change how you'll write your own?
27.Which Unit 5 item are you most likely to use for real, outside a classroom?