Présenter et discuter une étude en anglais

Teaching document: fictional study for a community repair service in England. Meadow Repair is considering one extra evening session or one Saturday session. An internal note says that an evening session would cost £120 and offer twelve appointment places; a Saturday session would cost £180 and offer eighteen places. An optional questionnaire receives twenty replies: twelve respondents prefer Saturday, five prefer the evening and three have no preference. Staff warn that the questionnaire reached existing online subscribers only. A volunteer representative favours predictable working hours. A user representative asks how people without internet access will be consulted. The manager can fund one trial session but has not yet chosen an option. No participant claims that this small questionnaire represents every user.

Read the support as a set of positions rather than a single answer. Identify the budget constraint, costs and capacities, preferences and people left outside the questionnaire. The internal note and questionnaire answer different questions. One estimates resources; the other describes responses from a limited group. Before recommending anything, explain to a partner which evidence supports a financial comparison and which supports a tentative judgement about preferences. Listen to their selection and discuss any disagreement.

Cultural reference: the GOV.UK page Charitable purposes describes public-benefit purposes in England and Wales. This offers context for discussing a community service without certifying this fictional organisation. Ask why access might matter alongside cost. Avoid treating one local case as a description of all British organisations.

Appui français : une objection peut viser le fait, le raisonnement ou le critère de choix. Commence par identifier ce qui est contesté. Une recommandation reste une proposition, même lorsqu’elle est bien argumentée.

A study answers a question through selected documents and justified reasoning. Its oral presentation should make that reasoning visible. State the decision to be made, identify evidence and explain how it supports your recommendation. Help the listener distinguish the source’s information from your interpretation. Say ‘The note estimates…’ for an assumption and ‘I recommend…’ for your position. A forecast is not an observed result. Your final recommendation should be conditional when important information remains missing.

An objection may challenge a fact, an inference or a value judgement. If someone disputes a calculation, check it. If they question representativeness, examine how respondents were selected. If they prioritise access over budget, discuss the criteria rather than pretending that another calculation settles every disagreement. Responding well does not mean always winning. You may maintain, qualify or revise your position depending on the evidence. State which part of the objection changes your reasoning.

Concession connects a valid concern with a reasoned position. ‘Although Saturday attracts more replies, the sample is limited’ holds two ideas together. Continue with a decision respecting that limit: ‘I would consult offline users before choosing a regular schedule.’ To clarify an objection, ask ‘Are you questioning the cost estimate or the survey method?’ This prevents you from answering a different question. A short pause to understand is more useful than an immediate but irrelevant response.

Source criticism includes authorship, date, purpose, selection and omissions. The manager’s note may help estimate a budget without proving the estimate will be exact. The questionnaire documents respondents’ opinions without representing non-respondents. A recommendation therefore needs a condition for revision. If actual costs exceed estimates, or excluded users express different needs, the preferred option may change. Acknowledge uncertainty while explaining what can reasonably be decided now and what requires further investigation.

Read the document once to identify the speaker, the audience and the purpose. On a second reading, underline the evidence that answers the management question. Separate what the document states from what you infer. An organisation’s own presentation tells you how it wishes to be seen. It does not independently prove the quality of its decisions. When a detail is missing, say what you would need to check rather than filling the gap with a plausible story.

For spoken reception, work with a partner who reads the document aloud, without adding information. First listen without taking notes and state the main issue in one sentence. Then listen again and record only the facts needed for your task. Compare your notes with the written support. If you misheard a figure, ask for repetition before drawing a conclusion. This activity uses the written support; it does not require an unavailable audio recording.

For oral production, prepare a small card with the question, two pieces of evidence and a limitation. Speak from these prompts instead of reading a paragraph. Stress the key words and pause between stages of the reasoning. Your listener should be able to identify the organisation, understand the decision and repeat the reason for it. If a technical term blocks understanding, explain it in ordinary English and then return to the management question.

In interaction, respond to the question actually asked. You can request clarification, acknowledge a valid objection and qualify your position. Mediation adds another responsibility: make the essential information accessible to someone who has not read the source. Select and explain; do not translate every word. After your explanation, invite the listener to restate the proposed action. A difference between your intention and their understanding reveals what you need to clarify.

Mediation task: a French-speaking representative understands ‘more popular’ as ‘already approved’. Explain in French that the questionnaire records limited preferences and the manager has made no decision. Summarise that concern in English without adding a promise. In a group of three, rotate presenter, questioner and observer. The observer checks whether the answer addresses the question and whether uncertainty remains visible. Repeat one answer more briefly without removing the condition attached to the recommendation.

S’entraîner : https://www.allostmg.fr/exercices