IELTS Recent Actual Test 6 General Training Listening Test 5 (Online Test)

Worker: Hello there. I was asked to tell you about the extent of the damage to the main building, caused by the recent storm.

Officer: Oh, that’s right. I take it that most of the damage is just to the main building?

Worker: It is indeed, since the building is so old. However, luckily, the damage is minor, and all of it can be fixed in one day, given that we have five people in our team.

Officer: What will you be doing first? I understand you start at 8 in the morning.

Worker: That’s right, and we were going to remove the fallen tree, but we’ve been told there are exams that morning, and I’m sure the sound of those saws and other heavy equipment will disturb all the students, so instead we’ll fix that leaky roof. That’s a four-hour job, since it involves substantial repair, not like fixing broken windows, which can be done quite quickly.

Officer: So you’ll fix the broken window after that, from midday?

Worker: We could do that, but since we’ll be working in the ceiling, it’s more logical to get rid of those birds’ nests there. It’s a small job but will require crawling inside the ceiling cavity, which is not an easy exercise, so that will take about an hour. But this is good, since by that time the exams should be over, and we can address that tree which has been blown over, after our one-hour lunch break of course. It will be quite noisy dealing with that, but it will be finished by three o’clock. Some of our staff will then leave to fix things on another site — an office nearby needs a new window — but two of us, including myself, will remain here to paint over that discoloured patch of wall in your office.

Officer: Oh good, it looks so horrible at the moment.

Worker: Well, we’ll certainly make it look good once again, and in the last hour of our working day, we’ll fix up that problem with the wiring. Apparently the power doesn’t go to one of the classrooms. Probably some water has gotten into the fuse box, so we’ll just change a few wires, and clean up the moisture, and it should be fine.

Officer: I certainly appreciate all the effort you and your team are taking to fix things here, but I do have one request.

Worker: And what is that?

Officer: You said you’re going to paint the back wall in my office. Will it be the same colour as before?

Worker: Yes, we’ll make it a nice white colour.

Officer: Well that’s the point. I’d prefer it to be yellow, to match the furniture. The furniture is orange, actually, but I think yellow is a nice match. Can you do that?

Worker: We can certainly do that. Yellow it is. Certainly a prettier colour than just plain white, or the blue in my kitchen at home for that matter. And we can leave the paint can with you, in case you need to do some touch-ups, or if the stain reappears. I’ll just leave it in the garden shed, the one next to the main classroom. And incidentally, about those birds in the ceiling. I was just investigating, and I heard the chirping of little baby birds in there, so there must be some young ones in a nest. I just thought you’d like to know that we can give them to a wildlife reserve. There’s one in the next suburb, so that should not be too much trouble.

Officer: Or you could give them to one of our teachers. I have a colleague who can raise them.

Worker: I would say the wildlife reserve is a better option, since the people there are used to dealing with animals, and as for that fallen tree, we’ll cut it up into small pieces and that can be firewood in my house, so that won’t be wasted either—although the smoke will cause some pollution, but I have a special licence for my fireplace, so no one can object to that. I’ve noticed also that the university has a garden bin, for the smaller items — leaves and sticks and bark, and so on, so we can dispose of material in that, also. You do have some waste piles out the back, but a proper garden bin means that the material will be recycled, and that’s better for the environment, so you can rest assured we will use that.

Susan: Well gentlemen, we’ve almost finished our second semester at this university. What do you think of all the courses we attend?

David: On the whole, I’d say they’re quite good, apart from Social History, which I find to be a little too inexact.

Steve: Yes, the lecturer’s style is also very very dull.

Susan: I certainly agree with you there, although I would say that the textbook is more interesting. ‘Welfare State’. The subtitle says, ‘An examination of social development in the 20th century.’

David: Yes, ‘Welfare State’ is a good book, but look how many pages it has. 458!

Steve: I agree. It’s just too long to be easily read. Far too long, although it’s certainly well written in parts.

David: Yes, and if you compare it to the textbook for Cultural Studies—what’s it called?

Susan: ‘Inner Views’, I think.

David: No, that’s the book for Media Studies, and we finished that subject last semester. The book you’re thinking of is ‘In Perspective’.

Susan: Sorry, you’re right. ‘In Perspective’. And the subtitle says, ‘A comparison of social groups.’ Somewhat interesting, wouldn’t you say?

David: Well, mildly so, as is the subject, dealing as it does with such a wide variety of issues, but the book itself certainly oversimplifies a very complex subject.

Steve: I agree. I also got annoyed at its constant oversimplification. Life is more complicated than what it suggests.

Susan: Yes, but what you call ‘oversimplifying’ may well be considered ‘clarifying’. Look at this other textbook, ‘Government in Action’. Some may say that it also oversimplifies, but it must do so in order to present a coherent picture of an equally complex subject.

David: ‘Government in Action’? Which subject...?

Susan: It’s the textbook for ‘Political Theory’.

Steve: Oh, I hate politics. That’s why I don’t like the ‘Active Leadership’ subject, either. And most of the stuff in that ‘Political Theory’ textbook is based on the American system. You see, it’s written by Americans, so it’s not even relevant to us here.

David: I’d agree with you there — it’s not relevant to us at all, since our government uses the Westminster system.

Susan: Yes, I suppose that is a problem.

Susan: Well, it seems we all have certain criticisms about the textbooks we’re using, but at the same time, we all like some elements, at least, of the subjects we’re studying. What’s your favourite subject, David?

David: I’m not sure. I like Political Theory, but...

Steve: Cultural Studies is by far the best, even better than Political Theory, which I also like, but just not as much.

David: Why do you say that, Steve? I was thinking, perhaps, Social History is worth considering as best.

Steve: Social History is good, but I made my choice because the subject is relevant to this modern society.

David: But so is Social History, and I like the historical element, which the other subjects lack. Even Political Theory examines history only briefly, and in a very narrow way, so I’d say Social History is the most rewarding for me. What about you, Susan?

Susan: I think Social History is certainly very good, but Political Theory is, in fact, the best, since basically, every human system boils down to politics. So, despite a certain irrelevancy in the details, the basic message remains as relevant as ever.

David: Oh Susan, you can’t be serious. Let’s ask Olive, again. She’s over there. Olive! Which subject do you think is the best?

Olive: Ah, a difficult question. I’m very interested in culture, so Cultural Studies is certainly my cup of tea, but I’m politically active also, and hope to pursue this as a career, so Political Theory would be the one I’d pick.

David: I don’t believe it. Even with that irrelevant textbook?

Susan: Don’t listen to him, Olive; you have a right to your own opinion.

If you consider the farms of old — the type your father or grandfather grew up on, they were small and labour-intensive, requiring lots of workers. In addition, they often had a diversity of products, be that animal or vegetable — say, cows and sheep, or oranges and lemons, with some peaches, and a few chickens on the side, for the production of eggs. The many workers involved raised their families, who needed products and support services, such as medical clinics and schools, so the small country towns had mercantile activity, store fronts, and community participation, with all ages present and a distinct town culture.

And how it has changed! Travel to any small country town in virtually any developed country, and you will often see that these places arc now somewhat forlorn and deserted, lacking life and vigour. Many of the residents have long since moved towards the big cities, so the country areas have become depopulated, and their downtowns empty. This phenomenon is so predictable and widespread that it even has a name - rural flight, or rural exodus -and it has produced some fairly predictable problems.

As for the causes of rural exodus, the most obvious is the industrialisation of agriculture. This comes in two aspects, one of them being monocultural farming practices. What this means is that it is now more efficient to have one product, and focus on its needs almost exclusively. So, for example, animal husbandry will usually involve a single type of animal, say pigs, but with huge factory farming techniques, or, in other words, the second aspect: economies of scale. This means instead of 200 pigs, there’ll be 2000, tightly fitted into small pens or cages, with high density waste disposal and automatic feeding systems. Yet despite this huge size, it can all be controlled by just a dozen farm workers pushing the right button. You might not like it, but in a competitive market, the cheaper the overheads, the better, and one can’t argue with market economics. It’s simply the way of the modern world, and it has changed the face of rural districts, mostly for the worst.

We can talk at length about the problem of rural exodus, but what about solutions? Well, there is certainly some cause for hope, since many are now feeling the negatives of increasing urbanisation, negatives which the countryside generally does not have. Thus, tourism, for example, is certainly one avenue of revenue and revitalisation. The most important consideration here is that the local residents themselves participate in developing such initiatives and deciding what happens, since outsiders, be they state government or city-based planners, do not fully understand the local settings, the possibilities which may be on offer, or the town culture, since even small rural areas can be highly distinctive from neighbouring ones. For example, the Daylesford area has developed a tourist industry based on the natural springs there, putting forward the angle that this water is relaxing and revitalising for the health. There has been the development of spas, saunas, and small-scale accommodation within its picturesque hillsides.

And another solution is to utilise the predominant local product. This takes advantage of the fact that many city-people are developing a dislike for factory-produced and packaged foodstuffs. They are becoming interested in products that can be sold directly to them, at a cheaper price, while preserving all the freshness from the tree or animal. It is important here that the country area is not only characterised by a specific product, but markets this idea well. For example, many areas of country Victoria have developed widespread grape-growing and winemaking facilities, and encourage wine tasting tourism—now a thriving industry, with an international patronage. Similarly, Harcourt is famous for apples, Shepparton for mature cheeses, and Mildura for its citrus products. Such strategies, done well, give hope that rural areas can revitalise somewhat, and once again be lively and interesting places to live in.