Last check, at speed
One to four words per gap. Do not check your notes. Whatever stalls is what you watch for in ten minutes’ time.
Her badge was not used all day, so she in the building. The light was on at midnight, so somebody late. He has not replied since Tuesday, so he the message — although he seen it and decided to wait. The parcel was signed for, so it delivered. She was in Porto that week, so she at the meeting.
What is being assessed
Three parts. Four minutes of spoken speculation about a set of objects nobody has seen before, three minutes of challenge from a partner, and the written piece with a short reflection.
The criteria are below, and they are the criteria.
Six criteria. Match each to what it looks like when somebody is doing it.
The whole unit, on one card
Hold these three
| Hold this | Because |
|---|---|
| The scale, both directions | must ↔ can’t; might / could / may ↔ might not / may not. Never mustn’t, which is prohibition and always was. |
| Elimination, not likelihood | Must is the last explanation standing. If you cannot say what rules the others out, you have a might. |
| /əv/ | must’ve been, not |
Fast. No discussion.
1. Her flight landed at 23:50 and the meeting was at 09:00 the next morning. Which?
2. The badge system shows no entry. Which?
3. Which is correctly formed?
4. He was quiet all afternoon. What is the strongest claim that will carry?
The unit task
How the thirty minutes run. Two to read the file, then rounds of seven: four minutes speaking, three minutes of challenge. Pairs work in parallel and swap. Four minutes at the end for the written reflection.
Locker 42 · cut open after six months, contents listed by the duty manager
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | A gym bag, dry, with a membership card inside dated to a joining month of January. |
| 2 | One training shoe, left foot, size 44. No right shoe anywhere in the locker. |
| 3 | A charger for a phone model discontinued in 2019, coiled and fastened with a hair tie. |
| 4 | A hospital appointment letter, folded into eighths, for a date four days after the last recorded entry on the door system. |
| 5 | Three pound coins and a key with no fob. |
| 6 | A paperback with a boarding-pass stub used as a bookmark, page 12. |
| 7 | Door records: entry on 41 consecutive weekdays, then nothing. |
| 8 | The locker was paid for annually, in advance, and the payment renewed automatically in March. |
Part 1 · Spoken speculation · 4 minutes · No notes
Speculate about the person who used locker 42, from the eight items only.
Four minutes. Evidence first, claims second, and the line marked out loud.
- Begin with what you know — items that can be pointed at, no modals.
- You may make two must or can’t claims. Name what each rules out.
- Say where the evidence stops and you begin. Say it in those words if you like.
- Finish by naming the one item your account does not explain.
Part 2 · Challenge · 3 minutes · You do not choose these
Your partner now puts the question to every strong claim you made.
Three minutes. Downgrade or defend — and downgrading is not losing.
- What rules out the alternatives? Asked of each must and each can’t.
- Which of your claims was about a feeling, a motive or a reason? What bought it?
- Is there a claim you hedged that the evidence would actually have carried?
- Last: if this person walked in now, is there anything you said you would take back?
Part 3 · Written · 4 minutes at the end
Hand in the 250-word piece from Lesson 7 with a short reflection underneath.
Sixty words. Three sentences will do.
- How many claims did you downgrade under challenge today, against the number in Lesson 6?
- Which claim would you take back if the person could read it?
- What does somebody deduce about you from the objects around you right now — and how much of it would be wrong?
Where the unit landed
Self-assessment · tick honestly, this is not collected
| Not yet | Getting there | Yes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I use can’t, never mustn’t, for negative deduction | |||
| My must claims can name what they rule out | |||
| I say the because in the same sentence as the claim | |||
| I say must’ve, and I hear it when others say it | |||
| I mark the line between evidence and guessing, out loud | |||
| I downgrade under challenge instead of repeating |
Three questions. Answer for yourself.
1. Compared with Lesson 6, how many claims did you have to downgrade?
2. Which claims were still challenged?
3. Why will nobody outside this room correct these for you?
What you can do now
Since Lesson 1 you have added: the present and past scales in both directions; the crossed pairs, must with can’t and might with might not; the continuous forms for what is happening now and what was happening then; the /əv/ that makes must’ve audible; the difference between deduction, criticism and the unreal past in one shared shape; and a stock of evidence and certainty language.
And one habit that is not grammar: asking what rules out the alternatives before you say something about a person who is not in the room.
Two questions. Twenty seconds.
1. What buys the top of the scale?
2. What is the negative of must have been?
Next unit — The Way Things Work. You have spent eight lessons deducing who did something. Next you describe processes where nobody needs to be named at all: the forms are checked in Leeds, the bridge was widened in 1998, your application will be reviewed. The passive — and the question of who disappears when you use it.