Détails explicites
Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.
B2
Interpréter une expérimentation au travail
À propos de cette leçon
Interpréter une expérimentation au travail · B2. Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
Lis le document original en anglais et appuie tes réponses sur des indices. Le niveau est un repère éditorial, pas un résultat certifié.
12 questions
Retrouvez-le dans Ma collection après enregistrement.
This is a fictional workplace report created for reading practice.
Linden Services tested a revised working arrangement in its accounts and customer-support departments. For eight weeks, participating employees could work away from the office on two fixed days. The purpose was to explore whether a predictable schedule could combine uninterrupted work with reliable access to colleagues. It was not designed to compare every possible form of remote working.
Managers initially suggested allowing individuals to choose different days each week. Staff representatives objected that this would make it difficult to know when help was available in person. The final arrangement therefore used a shared timetable. Each team retained at least one experienced employee in the office every day, although the person covering that role rotated.
The report presents several kinds of evidence. Completed accounts work rose slightly during the trial, while customer response times remained broadly unchanged. However, these figures came from normal internal records, and no comparable department continued under the previous arrangement as a control group. A change in the amount or difficulty of incoming work could therefore have contributed to the results. The authors explicitly avoid claiming that the new schedule caused the increase in completed accounts work.
An anonymous questionnaire produced mostly favourable comments about concentration. Yet only employees who had participated completed it. Some staff had chosen not to join because their homes offered little private space. Their absence matters: a positive response from volunteers does not establish that the arrangement would suit the whole workforce. The report recommends asking non-participants about their needs before extending the scheme.
There were practical costs as well. New employees sometimes waited longer for informal advice, even though formal response targets were met. One supervisor suggested scheduled online question sessions. Another worried that making every question into an appointment would remove the spontaneous learning that happens when colleagues share a room. The authors propose testing a mentoring arrangement rather than assuming either suggestion is sufficient on its own.
The conclusion supports a longer, more carefully monitored pilot. It calls for records of work complexity, attention to new employees and a review of whether staff can access suitable equipment. Participation would remain optional during this next stage. The authors regard the initial results as a reason to investigate further, not as a final verdict on where everyone should work. A decision that affects different roles and home circumstances requires more than a single favourable average.
Quelques repères
Raisons · Détails explicites
Retenez la raison donnée ; une cause plausible mais extérieure au texte ne suffit pas. Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
We meet inside because it is raining.
Limites des éléments disponibles · Déductions à partir d’indices
Distinguez ce qui est étayé de ce qui reste inconnu. L’absence de mention ne prouve pas l’absence du fait. Combinez les indices réels sans ajouter un fait non étayé.
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.
Support de cours
This is a fictional workplace report created for reading practice.
Linden Services tested a revised working arrangement in its accounts and customer-support departments. For eight weeks, participating employees could work away from the office on two fixed days. The purpose was to explore whether a predictable schedule could combine uninterrupted work with reliable access to colleagues. It was not designed to compare every possible form of remote working.
Managers initially suggested allowing individuals to choose different days each week. Staff representatives objected that this would make it difficult to know when help was available in person. The final arrangement therefore used a shared timetable. Each team retained at least one experienced employee in the office every day, although the person covering that role rotated.
The report presents several kinds of evidence. Completed accounts work rose slightly during the trial, while customer response times remained broadly unchanged. However, these figures came from normal internal records, and no comparable department continued under the previous arrangement as a control group. A change in the amount or difficulty of incoming work could therefore have contributed to the results. The authors explicitly avoid claiming that the new schedule caused the increase in completed accounts work.
An anonymous questionnaire produced mostly favourable comments about concentration. Yet only employees who had participated completed it. Some staff had chosen not to join because their homes offered little private space. Their absence matters: a positive response from volunteers does not establish that the arrangement would suit the whole workforce. The report recommends asking non-participants about their needs before extending the scheme.
There were practical costs as well. New employees sometimes waited longer for informal advice, even though formal response targets were met. One supervisor suggested scheduled online question sessions. Another worried that making every question into an appointment would remove the spontaneous learning that happens when colleagues share a room. The authors propose testing a mentoring arrangement rather than assuming either suggestion is sufficient on its own.
The conclusion supports a longer, more carefully monitored pilot. It calls for records of work complexity, attention to new employees and a review of whether staff can access suitable equipment. Participation would remain optional during this next stage. The authors regard the initial results as a reason to investigate further, not as a final verdict on where everyone should work. A decision that affects different roles and home circumstances requires more than a single favourable average.
01 / 12D01Retrouvez-le dans Ma collection après enregistrement.
Interpreting a work trial
What specific arrangement did the trial test?
Votre parcours
01
Étape 1 · Échauffement
0/3Échauffement
02
Étape 2 · Développer la compétence
0/2Détails explicites
Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.03
Étape 3 · Développer la compétence
0/1Limites des éléments disponibles · Déductions à partir d’indices
Distinguez ce qui est étayé de ce qui reste inconnu. L’absence de mention ne prouve pas l’absence du fait. Combinez les indices réels sans ajouter un fait non étayé.
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.04
Étape 4 · Développer la compétence
0/1Raisons · Détails explicites
Retenez la raison donnée ; une cause plausible mais extérieure au texte ne suffit pas. Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
We meet inside because it is raining.05
Étape 5 · Entraînement associé
0/3Entraînement associé
06
Étape 6 · Défi du texte
0/2Défi du texte
Révisions de cette unité
0Apprenez de vos erreurs.
Conservez la première réponse, vérifiez le passage et essayez une autre question. Une réussite sur le même document ne prouve pas le transfert à un nouveau texte.
Pas encore de notes. Essayez un court échauffement.
Carte de la leçon
B2Interpréter une expérimentation au travail
Points de la leçon
Détails explicites
Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
The doors open at eight. The class starts at nine.Raisons · Détails explicites
Retenez la raison donnée ; une cause plausible mais extérieure au texte ne suffit pas. Reliez la personne, l’heure, le lieu ou la quantité à l’événement exact.
We meet inside because it is raining.Limites des éléments disponibles · Déductions à partir d’indices
Distinguez ce qui est étayé de ce qui reste inconnu. L’absence de mention ne prouve pas l’absence du fait. Combinez les indices réels sans ajouter un fait non étayé.
The notice gives a price, but says nothing about delivery.Questions et réponses
Ouvrir une réponse enregistre une aide pour cette question.
Interpreting a work trial
What specific arrangement did the trial test?
- A temporary closure of the offices on the remote-working days.
- A comparison intended to identify the best model for all remote work.
- Completely unrestricted weekly choices for every employee.
- Two fixed remote-working days within a predictable schedule.
Réponse et explication
Two fixed remote-working days within a predictable schedule.
La réponse étayée est « Two fixed remote-working days within a predictable schedule. ». Indice : « participating employees could work away from the office on two fixed days. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « Completely unrestricted weekly choices for every employee. ». Cela confond deux étapes : la situation initiale et une vérification ou décision ultérieure. Comparez l’autre proposition : « A temporary closure of the offices on the remote-working days. ». Cela ajoute un détail absent du document ; sa plausibilité ne constitue pas une preuve.
Interpreting a work trial
Why was the managers’ first suggestion changed?
- Employees preferred a trial without any fixed days.
- Staff representatives wanted to remove experienced employees’ office duties.
- Staff representatives thought changing days would make in-person help less predictable.
- Customer response data had already shown the shared timetable was ineffective.
Réponse et explication
Staff representatives thought changing days would make in-person help less predictable.
La réponse étayée est « Staff representatives thought changing days would make in-person help less predictable. ». Indice : « Staff representatives objected that this would make it difficult to know when help was available in person. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « Staff representatives wanted to remove experienced employees’ office duties. ». Cela attribue une caractéristique ou une action au mauvais groupe ou locuteur. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Customer response data had already shown the shared timetable was ineffective. ». Cela confond deux étapes : la situation initiale et une vérification ou décision ultérieure.
Interpreting a work trial
How was experienced office cover maintained?
- At least one experienced person remained each day, with the role rotating.
- The same supervisor stayed every day for eight weeks.
- New employees took turns providing the experienced office support.
- The experienced employees remained in the office throughout the trial.
Réponse et explication
At least one experienced person remained each day, with the role rotating.
La réponse étayée est « At least one experienced person remained each day, with the role rotating. ». Indice : « Each team retained at least one experienced employee in the office every day, although the person covering that role rotated. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « The experienced employees remained in the office throughout the trial. ». Cela transforme un constat nuancé en une affirmation sans exception. Comparez l’autre proposition : « New employees took turns providing the experienced office support. ». Cela attribue une caractéristique ou une action au mauvais groupe ou locuteur.
Interpreting a work trial
Which reported measure rose slightly?
- The number of teams continuing under the original schedule.
- Completed accounts work.
- Customer response times.
- The share of the workforce reporting improved concentration.
Réponse et explication
Completed accounts work.
La réponse étayée est « Completed accounts work. ». Indice : « Completed accounts work rose slightly during the trial ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « The share of the workforce reporting improved concentration. ». Cela remplace le résultat mesuré ou rapporté par un autre. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Customer response times. ». Cela inverse la relation indiquée dans le document.
Interpreting a work trial
Whose views were missing from the questionnaire results?
- Employees who had not joined the trial.
- Supervisors responsible for organising the shared timetable.
- Participants who reported slower access to informal advice.
- People working in customer support rather than accounts.
Réponse et explication
Employees who had not joined the trial.
La réponse étayée est « Employees who had not joined the trial. ». Indice : « only employees who had participated completed it. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « People working in customer support rather than accounts. ». Cela transforme un constat nuancé en une affirmation sans exception. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Supervisors responsible for organising the shared timetable. ». Cela transforme un constat nuancé en une affirmation sans exception.
Interpreting a work trial
Why can the report not confidently attribute that rise to the schedule?
- The report had established that workload difficulty remained constant.
- There was no comparable control department and work demands might have changed.
- The questionnaire’s inclusion of non-participants distorted the work figures.
- The work data were collected only through participants’ opinions.
Réponse et explication
There was no comparable control department and work demands might have changed.
La réponse étayée est « There was no comparable control department and work demands might have changed. ». Indice : « no comparable department continued under the previous arrangement as a control group. A change in the amount or difficulty of incoming work could therefore have contributed to the results. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « The work data were collected only through participants’ opinions. ». Cela inverse la relation indiquée dans le document. Comparez l’autre proposition : « The report had established that workload difficulty remained constant. ». Cela inverse la relation indiquée dans le document.
Interpreting a work trial
Why does the report mention employees without private space at home?
- Their experience provides the strongest direct evidence of improved concentration.
- Their circumstances limit how far the volunteers’ positive feedback can be generalised.
- Their absence shows the scheme was unsuitable for any role.
- It establishes that home-working conditions caused the accounts increase.
Réponse et explication
Their circumstances limit how far the volunteers’ positive feedback can be generalised.
La réponse étayée est « Their circumstances limit how far the volunteers’ positive feedback can be generalised. ». Indice : « Some staff had chosen not to join because their homes offered little private space. Their absence matters: a positive response from volunteers does not establish that the arrangement would suit the whole workforce. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « Their experience provides the strongest direct evidence of improved concentration. ». Cela attribue une caractéristique ou une action au mauvais groupe ou locuteur. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Their absence shows the scheme was unsuitable for any role. ». Cela inverse la relation indiquée dans le document.
Interpreting a work trial
What difficulty did new employees sometimes experience?
- Formal customer-response targets were removed for employees at home.
- They had to provide the rotating experienced cover themselves.
- A longer wait for informal advice.
- Their formal requests routinely failed to meet the agreed response targets.
Réponse et explication
A longer wait for informal advice.
La réponse étayée est « A longer wait for informal advice. ». Indice : « New employees sometimes waited longer for informal advice ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « Formal customer-response targets were removed for employees at home. ». Cela transforme un constat nuancé en une affirmation sans exception. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Their formal requests routinely failed to meet the agreed response targets. ». Cela inverse la relation indiquée dans le document.
Interpreting a work trial
What concern was raised about scheduled question sessions?
- Scheduling questions would make meeting formal response targets impossible.
- The sessions would prevent experienced employees from rotating office duties.
- The sessions had been tested and found to solve the mentoring difficulty.
- They might not replace spontaneous learning between colleagues.
Réponse et explication
They might not replace spontaneous learning between colleagues.
La réponse étayée est « They might not replace spontaneous learning between colleagues. ». Indice : « making every question into an appointment would remove the spontaneous learning that happens when colleagues share a room. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « Scheduling questions would make meeting formal response targets impossible. ». Cela transforme un constat nuancé en une affirmation sans exception. Comparez l’autre proposition : « The sessions had been tested and found to solve the mentoring difficulty. ». Cela confond deux étapes : la situation initiale et une vérification ou décision ultérieure.
Interpreting a work trial
What do the authors suggest testing in response?
- Waiting for response targets to fail before changing the support arrangements.
- Replacing face-to-face advice entirely with scheduled online questions.
- A compulsory timetable limited to employees who joined recently.
- A mentoring arrangement.
Réponse et explication
A mentoring arrangement.
La réponse étayée est « A mentoring arrangement. ». Indice : « The authors propose testing a mentoring arrangement ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « A compulsory timetable limited to employees who joined recently. ». Cela supprime ou modifie une condition qui encadre la recommandation ou l’affirmation. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Replacing face-to-face advice entirely with scheduled online questions. ». Cela inverse la relation indiquée dans le document.
Interpreting a work trial
What will happen to participation in the proposed next stage?
- It will become compulsory for every role.
- Employees without private home space will be required to join.
- Participation will be restricted to those who declined the first trial.
- It will remain optional.
Réponse et explication
It will remain optional.
La réponse étayée est « It will remain optional. ». Indice : « Participation would remain optional during this next stage. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « Employees without private home space will be required to join. ». Cela ajoute un détail absent du document ; sa plausibilité ne constitue pas une preuve. Comparez l’autre proposition : « Participation will be restricted to those who declined the first trial. ». Cela ajoute un détail absent du document ; sa plausibilité ne constitue pas une preuve.
Interpreting a work trial
Which interpretation matches the conclusion?
- The initial findings justify further investigation rather than a universal final decision.
- The lack of a control group makes the initial findings unhelpful for planning.
- The favourable average is sufficient grounds for permanent workforce-wide adoption.
- The results show that office location has no meaningful effect on any role.
Réponse et explication
The initial findings justify further investigation rather than a universal final decision.
La réponse étayée est « The initial findings justify further investigation rather than a universal final decision. ». Indice : « a reason to investigate further, not as a final verdict on where everyone should work. ». Comparez l’autre proposition : « The lack of a control group makes the initial findings unhelpful for planning. ». Cela utilise une limite pour rejeter tout l’apport, au lieu de distinguer son utilité de ses limites. Comparez l’autre proposition : « The favourable average is sufficient grounds for permanent workforce-wide adoption. ». Cela attribue aux preuves une certitude ou une portée plus grande que ce qu’elles permettent.