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 — "**Name the two goods**: 'This is not climate versus jobs. It is a faster transition with a harder five years for one industry, versus a slower one with a longer tail of emissions. That's the actual pair.'"
2.Transformation: express the same meaning without repeating the original wording — "**Price the loss**: 'The faster path costs 3,400 direct jobs in one region over five years. The slower path costs an extra 0.08°C of committed warming by 2050. Those are the numbers.'"
3.Transformation: express the same meaning without repeating the original wording — "**Rank on purpose**: 'I rank the faster path first. Not because the job cost is small — it isn't — but because the warming cost is irreversible in a way the retraining is not.'"
4.Name the two goods honestly: 'We must ban delivery bikes on pavements.'
Show answer
Pedestrian safety, especially for elderly and disabled residents, versus the earnings of a mostly-migrant gig workforce whose margins already assume pavement time.
5.Price the loss on both sides for: 'Cutting the university budget by 8%.'
Show answer
Loss side A: roughly 900 taught postgraduate places lost within two years, concentrated in humanities. Loss side B: roughly €120m redirected to primary-school class-size reduction — 400 fewer classes above 30 pupils.
6.Mini-context: someone disagrees with you in a meeting. Reply in two turns, using this structure at least once.
Show answer
Four moves at C2: (a) NAME THE TWO GOODS — say plainly what the trade-off is between; if you can't name both without loading one, you haven't understood the call; (b) PRICE THE LOSS — attach a specific cost to each side (a number, a person, a year) rather than an abstraction; (c) RANK ON PURPOSE — commit to an ordering and defend it, rather than 'balancing' as a way of saying nothing; (d) ADMIT THE RESIDUE — name the person whose life is worse because of your ranking; a ranking that pretends nobody loses is dishonest.
1.Sort these into "positive", "neutral" and "critical" in tone, and be ready to defend a borderline case: a trade-off, to name the two goods, to price the loss, to rank on purpose, to admit the residue, an irreversibility asymmetry, a smuggled value claim, to false-balance, an acceptable worst case, a defended ranking
Show answer
a trade-off — a decision in which getting more of one good means accepting less of another | to name the two goods — to state plainly what is being traded off against what, without loading either side | to price the loss — to attach a concrete cost — number, person, year — to each side of the trade-off | to rank on purpose — to commit to an ordering and defend it, rather than 'balancing' as a way to say nothing | to admit the residue — to name the specific person or group whose life is worse because of your ranking | an irreversibility asymmetry — the case where one side of a trade-off is undoable and the other isn't, which usually breaks the tie | a smuggled value claim — a value judgement disguised as a technical or numerical fact | to false-balance — to treat two positions as equally weighted when the evidence or ethics don't support it | an acceptable worst case — the worst outcome of a chosen option that you are willing to defend having chosen | a defended ranking — an ordering you are willing to argue for against a serious opponent who ranks differently
2.Odd one out: which of these is least like "a trade-off" in meaning or use — to name the two goods / to price the loss / to rank on purpose? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: a decision in which getting more of one good means accepting less of another
3.Odd one out: which of these is least like "to name the two goods" in meaning or use — to price the loss / to rank on purpose / to admit the residue? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: to state plainly what is being traded off against what, without loading either side
4.Odd one out: which of these is least like "to price the loss" in meaning or use — to rank on purpose / to admit the residue / an irreversibility asymmetry? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: to attach a concrete cost — number, person, year — to each side of the trade-off
5.Odd one out: which of these is least like "to rank on purpose" in meaning or use — to admit the residue / an irreversibility asymmetry / a smuggled value claim? Explain why.
Show answer
Compare against: to commit to an ordering and defend it, rather than 'balancing' as a way to say nothing
6.Semantic map: place "a trade-off" on a scale from mild to strong against two other words you know. Then use the strongest one.
7.Semantic map: place "to name the two goods" on a scale from mild to strong against two other words you know. Then use the strongest one.
8.Semantic map: place "to price the loss" 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 "a trade-off" 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 "to name the two goods" 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 price the loss" 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 "to rank on purpose" where they exist, then use the form that is hardest for you.
5.Spot the mismatch: which partner does NOT work with "a trade-off" — and what would a proficient speaker say instead?
Show answer
Natural model: This isn't a puzzle. It's a trade-off — you don't get both.
6.Spot the mismatch: which partner does NOT work with "to name the two goods" — and what would a proficient speaker say instead?
Show answer
Natural model: Name the two goods first. Everything else is easier once they're on the table.
7.Spot the mismatch: which partner does NOT work with "to price the loss" — and what would a proficient speaker say instead?
Show answer
Natural model: Price the loss on both sides. Abstractions don't rank.
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 — "**Name the two goods**: 'This is not climate versus jobs. It is a faster transition with a harder five years for one industry, versus a slower one with a longer tail of emissions. That's the actual pair.'"
2.Shift the register twice: make this markedly formal, then markedly conversational — "**Price the loss**: 'The faster path costs 3,400 direct jobs in one region over five years. The slower path costs an extra 0.08°C of committed warming by 2050. Those are the numbers.'"
3.Shift the register twice: make this markedly formal, then markedly conversational — "**Rank on purpose**: 'I rank the faster path first. Not because the job cost is small — it isn't — but because the warming cost is irreversible in a way the retraining is not.'"
4.Diplomatic vs direct: soften this, then sharpen it. Which version would you actually use, and to whom? "Which single sentence in Briefing A tells you the writer wanted to avoid the trade-off work?"
5.Compress: express the idea behind "This isn't a puzzle. It's a trade-off — you don't get both." in six words or fewer without losing the nuance.
Show answer
a decision in which getting more of one good means accepting less of another
6.Compress: express the idea behind "Name the two goods first. Everything else is easier once they're on the table." in six words or fewer without losing the nuance.
Show answer
to state plainly what is being traded off against what, without loading either side
7.Compress: express the idea behind "Price the loss on both sides. Abstractions don't rank." in six words or fewer without losing the nuance.
Show answer
to attach a concrete cost — number, person, year — to each side of the trade-off
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 Which single sentence in Briefing A tells you the writer wanted to avoid the trade-off work? / Which sentence in Briefing B would a hostile minister use against the desk that wrote it? / What does Briefing B's paragraph 4 model about how to invoke an irreversibility argument without hiding behind it? from most to least convincing. Defend your top choice.
2.Role-play: 3 minutes to brief the trade-off; 12 minutes chaired discussion; 5 minutes to draft the memo. Take the position you least agree with.
3.Decision task: you have two minutes to reach a single recommendation on The one-page Briefing-B-style memo: two goods · four priced options · ranking · residue.. 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: The four warm-up cases. Add a counter-example.
6.Follow-up — push further: Optional stress test: teacher swaps two adjacent positions in your ranking and you must decide whether to accept or defend. 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 280-word decision memo in the Briefing B register. It MUST: (a) name the two goods being traded off in the first paragraph; (b) present at least three options; (c) price the loss on each option in specific terms (number, person, year — no adjectives); (d) rank the options on purpose and defend the top rank; (e) close with an ADMIT-THE-RESIDUE paragraph naming the specific group whose life is worse under your recommendation. Alongside the 280 words, submit a 40-word RESIDUE NOTE that a person from that group would recognise as an honest description of what the memo costs them. Use at least SEVEN target items naturally. — 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.Take a Part 3-style prompt board (real or invented — 'How should a city best support families with young children?'). Deliver a 60-second opening that names the two goods and prices the loss on ONE of the prompts, before you commit to any ranking.
Show answer
Open Part 3 with a two-good statement, not with a preference. 'Before we rank, I think what we're actually trading off here is X against Y — that's the pair. Let me start by pricing the loss on option one.' That framing anchors the whole conversation and gives the examiner immediate evidence of structured reasoning.
2.Find the evidence: which exact words in the text/script support this — Where does Briefing A HIDE one of the two goods?
Show answer
Paragraph 3. 'Some concerns have been raised locally' names the objection without naming what is actually being traded off — 3,200 hectares of farmland and a consultative framework. The 'standard mitigation processes' line is a decency shortcut inside a briefing.
3.Find the evidence: which exact words in the text/script support this — Where does Briefing B PRICE THE LOSS on both sides?
Show answer
Paragraph 2 (fast-track): 3,200 hectares, hedgerow corridors, ~140 jobs, framework inconsistency. Paragraph 3 (standard): 12–18 month slip, ~2.4 Mt CO2e cumulative, international credibility. Both sides get numbers, not adjectives.
4.Find the evidence: which exact words in the text/script support this — Where does Briefing B invoke an IRREVERSIBILITY ASYMMETRY — and does it use it to close the case?
Show answer
Paragraph 4: it names the asymmetry openly and argues that in this specific case it doesn't break the way it usually does, because the missed milestone is recoverable via offshore capacity while a bypassed consultative framework is a structural loss with a longer tail. It uses the concept honestly rather than as a rhetorical trump card.
5.Key word transformation: rewrite "**Name the two goods**: 'This is not climate versus jobs. It is a faster transition with a harder five years for one industry, versus a slower one with a longer tail of emissions. That's the actual pair.'" using the structure from Trade-off reasoning: name the two goods · price the loss · rank on purpose · admit the residue, in 3–8 words.
Show answer
Four moves at C2: (a) NAME THE TWO GOODS — say plainly what the trade-off is between; if you can't name both without loading one, you haven't understood the call; (b) PRICE THE LOSS — attach a specific cost to each side (a number, a person, a year) rather than an abstraction; (c) RANK ON PURPOSE — commit to an ordering and defend it, rather than 'balancing' as a way of saying nothing; (d) ADMIT THE RESIDUE — name the person whose life is worse because of your ranking; a ranking that pretends nobody loses is dishonest.
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: "Paragraph 3. 'Some concerns have been raised locally' names the objection without naming what is actually being traded off — 3,200 hectares of farmland and a consultative framework. The 'standard mitigation processes' line is a decency shortcut inside a briefing." · "Paragraph 2 (fast-track): 3,200 hectares, hedgerow corridors, ~140 jobs, framework inconsistency. Paragraph 3 (standard): 12–18 month slip, ~2.4 Mt CO2e cumulative, international credibility. Both sides get numbers, not adjectives." · "Paragraph 4: it names the asymmetry openly and argues that in this specific case it doesn't break the way it usually does, because the missed milestone is recoverable via offshore capacity while a bypassed consultative framework is a structural loss with a longer tail. It uses the concept honestly rather than as a rhetorical trump card."
Show answer
Where does Briefing A HIDE one of the two goods? → Paragraph 3. 'Some concerns have been raised locally' names the objection without naming what is actually being traded off — 3,200 hectares of farmland and a consultative framework. The 'standard mitigation processes' line is a decency shortcut inside a briefing. | Where does Briefing B PRICE THE LOSS on both sides? → Paragraph 2 (fast-track): 3,200 hectares, hedgerow corridors, ~140 jobs, framework inconsistency. Paragraph 3 (standard): 12–18 month slip, ~2.4 Mt CO2e cumulative, international credibility. Both sides get numbers, not adjectives. | Where does Briefing B invoke an IRREVERSIBILITY ASYMMETRY — and does it use it to close the case? → Paragraph 4: it names the asymmetry openly and argues that in this specific case it doesn't break the way it usually does, because the missed milestone is recoverable via offshore capacity while a bypassed consultative framework is a structural loss with a longer tail. It uses the concept honestly rather than as a rhetorical trump card.
2.Retrieval race: in 60 seconds, list every word from this lesson you can remember, then check what you missed.
Show answer
a trade-off, to name the two goods, to price the loss, to rank on purpose, to admit the residue, an irreversibility asymmetry, a smuggled value claim, to false-balance, an acceptable worst case, a defended ranking
3.Use "a trade-off" in a sentence about a completely different topic from the lesson.
Show answer
a decision in which getting more of one good means accepting less of another
4.Use "to name the two goods" in a sentence about a completely different topic from the lesson.
Show answer
to state plainly what is being traded off against what, without loading either side
5.Use "to price the loss" in a sentence about a completely different topic from the lesson.
Show answer
to attach a concrete cost — number, person, year — to each side of the trade-off
6.Teach it back: explain Trade-off reasoning: name the two goods · price the loss · rank on purpose · admit the residue to someone who has never met it, in under 45 seconds.
Show answer
Four moves at C2: (a) NAME THE TWO GOODS — say plainly what the trade-off is between; if you can't name both without loading one, you haven't understood the call; (b) PRICE THE LOSS — attach a specific cost to each side (a number, a person, a year) rather than an abstraction; (c) RANK ON PURPOSE — commit to an ordering and defend it, rather than 'balancing' as a way of saying nothing; (d) ADMIT THE RESIDUE — name the person whose life is worse because of your ranking; a ranking that pretends nobody loses is dishonest.
7.Which trade-off in your own life or work are you currently refusing to name as a trade-off?