B2 Unit 1: Evaluate Options and Explain a Recommendation

B2 · LEARN THROUGH PRACTICE

Clear ideas.
Thoughtful choices.

Try a real task. Practice with support. Use what you learn in a new situation.

LE-B2-OPTS-01 · B2 pilot · Reading, writing and spoken discussion · Free

Allow about 60–75 minutes, with breaks. All figures and scenarios are fictional practice material, not research findings.

Your goal

Evaluate options against clear criteria, acknowledge a limitation and recommend a practical next step. You can reach a different conclusion from the model if your reasons fit the evidence and constraints.

Before you start

It helps if you can explain a familiar problem, connect reasons and confirm actions, as in B1 Unit 2. For this task you will also weigh competing needs rather than simply identify one workable option.

1. Pre-check: make a first recommendation

A community center wants to run four weekly English sessions for 24 adults. It has US$150 for the whole pilot and can allow up to five hours of preparation each week. All 24 learners can attend in person. In a planning survey, only 10 said they could reliably join live video from home; the other 14 could not. No learning-outcome data are available yet.

These are complete cost and preparation estimates for each option in this fictional scenario:

Print-based: US$60 total; two preparation hours a week. In-person discussion and printed tasks; no recorded audio.
Live video only: US$100 total; two preparation hours a week. Everyone must connect reliably from home.
Blended in-person: US$140 total; four preparation hours a week. Printed tasks and short audio on two shared offline players, used in small groups.

Write a first recommendation of roughly 120–180 words. Compare at least two options, explain your priorities, acknowledge one drawback and suggest how to review the pilot. Keep the response before reading the model. Length is a practice guide, not a pass rule.

2. Presentation: read an evidence-based recommendation

“I recommend the blended in-person option for the four-week pilot. At US$140, it stays within the budget, and the estimated four preparation hours remain below the weekly limit. It also gives all 24 learners access to discussion, printed work and recorded audio without requiring reliable internet at home.

The print-based option is cheaper and takes less preparation, so it would be a reasonable choice if staff capacity became a concern. However, it would not offer recorded listening practice. Live video costs less than the blended option, but 14 learners reported that they could not reliably connect from home. That makes it a poor fit for the current access requirement.

The blended option has a limitation: two players may make audio practice slow to organize. Before starting, staff should plan small-group rotations. After two sessions, they should review waiting time, attendance and preparation hours. These checks can show whether the arrangement is workable; they will not by themselves prove which option produces better learning.”

Notice the reasoning

A criterion is a basis for comparison: budget, preparation time, access or learning opportunities.
A trade-off means gaining something while accepting a cost or limitation.
A survey about connection is evidence about reported access, not evidence that one method teaches better.
A recommendation can be conditional and open to revision.

3. Practice: test the claims

1. Which options meet both the budget and preparation limits?

All three do on the supplied estimates. Access is a separate criterion: video only does not meet the requirement that all current learners can take part reliably.

2. Does the survey prove that blended learning is more effective?

No. It reports access to live video. There are no learning-outcome data, so claims of better learning would go beyond the evidence.

3. Must everyone choose the blended option?

No. A well-supported print-based recommendation could prioritize staff time and lower cost while acknowledging the absence of recorded audio. A recommendation should explain its priorities, not hide a disadvantage.

4. Why does the model review waiting time?

Two players are shared by 24 people. Waiting time helps staff see whether the proposed rotation is workable. It does not measure learning by itself.

Make your claims precise

Improve: “Video does not work for these learners.”
Improve: “Blended learning is definitely best.”
Join a benefit and limitation using “although” or “however”.
Write one condition under which you would change your recommendation.

Possible revisions

“Fourteen learners reported that they could not reliably join live video from home.” “The blended option appears to fit the current access and resource limits, but it needs a workable audio rotation.” “Although print-based sessions cost less, they do not include recorded audio.” “If preparation regularly exceeds five hours, I would review the task design or use the print-based option.”

4. Production: discuss and revise

Discuss the options with a partner. One person prioritizes preparation time; the other prioritizes access to different types of practice. State the strongest reasonable point for the other person’s view before responding. Work toward a recommendation, or explain what information you still need.

If studying alone, record a recommendation, then record a fair objection to it. Answer the objection without dismissing it.

Revise your written recommendation. Use at least two criteria, a specific comparison, a limitation and a review step. Make clear which statements are supplied facts, which are estimates and which are your proposals.

Review with four checks

Score each area 0–3 using evidence from your response. If you have not attempted the task, write “Not tried yet”. These scores describe this task; they do not award a CEFR level or predict an exam score.

Task completion

0 — No usable recommendation is made.
1 — A preference is stated, but key criteria or constraints are missed.
2 — A recommendation compares at least two options using relevant evidence, acknowledges a drawback and proposes a next step.
3 — Priorities and trade-offs are handled coherently, including conditions that could change the recommendation.

Clear meaning and organization

0 — The line of reasoning cannot yet be followed.
1 — Ideas are listed, but comparisons or links to the conclusion are unclear.
2 — The comparison and conclusion form a clear, organized argument.
3 — Structure and emphasis help the reader follow competing considerations efficiently.

Fit for the situation and interaction

0 — The response does not address the decision or disregards the audience.
1 — The response partly fits, but dismisses another view or overstates what the evidence shows.
2 — Tone suits a planning group; other views are represented fairly and claims are appropriately limited.
3 — The response addresses a substantial objection constructively and helps the group make an informed decision.

Language range and control

0 — There is not enough relevant language to express the comparison.
1 — Limited control obscures key contrasts, reasons or conditions.
2 — A suitable range of comparison, concession and condition language expresses the argument clearly.
3 — Language is varied and well controlled, with precise qualification and effective emphasis.

5. Post-check: recommend a new arrangement

A neighborhood reading project will run four sessions for 18 adults. Its total budget is US$120 and preparation is limited to three hours per week. Everyone can come in person, but only eight report reliable access to live video from home. No reading-improvement results have been collected.

Print-based in-person: US$50 total; two preparation hours per week; no recorded audio.
Blended in-person: US$110 total; three preparation hours per week; printed work and one shared offline audio player.
Live video only: US$70 total; two preparation hours per week; each learner needs a reliable home connection.

Make a fresh recommendation using the same criteria and rubric. Include the most serious drawback of your preferred option and one thing you would check after the first session.

Check your reasoning

All options fit the stated money and time limits. Video only leaves ten people without reliable reported access. Print-based and blended can both be defended with different priorities. The shared player is a practical limitation, not proof of ineffective learning. Do not claim improved reading before results exist.

One possible recommendation

“I would start with the print-based option. It includes all 18 learners in person, costs US$50 and leaves one hour within the weekly preparation limit for unexpected changes. The blended option adds recorded audio and also fits the stated limits, but its single player may require careful rotation. The drawback of my choice is the absence of recorded listening practice. After the first session, I would ask learners which practice they needed and record staff preparation time. If listening practice is a clear priority and staff can organize the rotation within three hours, I would reconsider the blended option. These are planning reasons, not evidence that print-based learning is more effective.”

Return after a break

After about a week, compare two real or invented options with different constraints. Keep your first recommendation and the later version using Check Your Progress. For work on combining evidence from several sources, preview the C1 source-synthesis task.

Use a notebook or a document on your device. This page does not collect answers, save scores or mark your work. Speaking is optional partner or solo practice. Device-voice listening practice is included below.

Choose a goal · B1 · B2 · C1 · Check your progress

Listening practice for this unit

Listen for meaning

Listen before opening the transcript. For practice, listen once for the main point and again for details. Record replays or slower playback with your result.

Listen in American English

Audio uses an American English voice available on your device. Pause and Stop appear when a session starts.

What limitation is acknowledged?
What is not established?

Transcript — open after listening

The blended option meets the stated budget and includes offline audio. However, two shared players may create waiting time. I support a short trial with a rotation plan, not a claim that this method has already improved learning.

Listening answers and reasons

Waiting time for shared players. Improved learning.

If you read the transcript before answering, record that as supported practice rather than an independent listening check.

Continue in order from B2 home.

Guided speaking: answer one question at a time

Answer about the situation or your own response in this unit. Each question stops for your answer. Take as long as you need, then choose Continue. Pause also works while you are thinking; Resume replays that question. This page does not record or upload your voice.

Guided spoken practice