Répondre à la consigne
Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.
B2
Un rapport factuel
À propos de cette leçon
Un rapport factuel · B2. Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
Rédige ta réponse avant de consulter le modèle. Utilise la liste propre à la tâche pour la relire. Les productions ne sont pas automatiquement notées justes ou fausses.
La rédaction se relit à l’aide des critères. Cette version n’attribue pas de note et ne certifie pas votre niveau.
4 questions
Retrouvez-le dans Ma collection après enregistrement.
Read each task, draft your own text, then compare the model and checklist. Models are not unique answer keys.
Quelques repères
Organiser le message
Présente les idées dans un ordre utile. Utilise des phrases et, selon la tâche, des paragraphes et des liens. N’ajoute pas de connecteur sans relation réelle.
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.
Vérifier la clarté et la langue
Vérifie verbes, accords, orthographe et ponctuation. Utilise des mots que tu comprends et clarifie les passages ambigus.
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.
Support de cours
Read each task, draft your own text, then compare the model and checklist. Models are not unique answer keys.
01 / 4P01Retrouvez-le dans Ma collection après enregistrement.
Fictional briefing: observe a library study area on three afternoons. Notes: 18 desks; all occupied twice; six users asked for sockets; quiet-room signs hard to see; groups and silent readers shared the same space.
Write a report of 180–220 words for the library manager. Present the observations, separate evidence from interpretation, identify limitations, and recommend two practical improvements.
Votre parcours
01
Étape 1 · Développer la compétence
0/2Répondre à la consigne
Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.02
Étape 2 · Développer la compétence
0/1Organiser le message
Présente les idées dans un ordre utile. Utilise des phrases et, selon la tâche, des paragraphes et des liens. N’ajoute pas de connecteur sans relation réelle.
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.03
Étape 3 · Développer la compétence
0/1Vérifier la clarté et la langue
Vérifie verbes, accords, orthographe et ponctuation. Utilise des mots que tu comprends et clarifie les passages ambigus.
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.Expression écrite
La rédaction se relit à l’aide des critères. Cette version n’attribue pas de note et ne certifie pas votre niveau.
Aucun texte enregistré pour le moment. Commence un exercice pour retrouver ton brouillon ici.
Carte de la leçon
B2Un rapport factuel
Points de la leçon
Répondre à la consigne
Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.Organiser le message
Présente les idées dans un ordre utile. Utilise des phrases et, selon la tâche, des paragraphes et des liens. N’ajoute pas de connecteur sans relation réelle.
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.Vérifier la clarté et la langue
Vérifie verbes, accords, orthographe et ponctuation. Utilise des mots que tu comprends et clarifie les passages ambigus.
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.Questions et réponses
Ouvrir une réponse enregistre une aide pour cette question.
Fictional briefing: observe a library study area on three afternoons. Notes: 18 desks; all occupied twice; six users asked for sockets; quiet-room signs hard to see; groups and silent readers shared the same space.
Write a report of 180–220 words for the library manager. Present the observations, separate evidence from interpretation, identify limitations, and recommend two practical improvements.
Réponse et explication
Study Area Review
Purpose
This report summarises observations made in the library study area on three afternoons and suggests practical changes for consideration.
Findings
The area contains eighteen desks. All were occupied during two of the visits, and six users asked staff where they could find a power socket. The signs identifying the quiet room were difficult to notice. Groups discussing projects and people reading silently were using the same open space.
Interpretation and limits
These observations suggest possible pressure on seating and power access, but three afternoon visits cannot show how busy the library is throughout the week. They also do not establish how many visitors would use additional desks or whether existing sockets are always unavailable. The different study activities may create conflicting expectations, although no formal user survey results were supplied.
Recommendations
First, the library should make the quiet-room signs clearer and explain which spaces permit discussion. Second, staff should review socket locations and publish a simple guide before considering new electrical work. A short follow-up record covering different days and times would help the manager decide whether larger changes are justified.
Purpose
This report summarises observations made in the library study area on three afternoons and suggests practical changes for consideration.
Findings
The area contains eighteen desks. All were occupied during two of the visits, and six users asked staff where they could find a power socket. The signs identifying the quiet room were difficult to notice. Groups discussing projects and people reading silently were using the same open space.
Interpretation and limits
These observations suggest possible pressure on seating and power access, but three afternoon visits cannot show how busy the library is throughout the week. They also do not establish how many visitors would use additional desks or whether existing sockets are always unavailable. The different study activities may create conflicting expectations, although no formal user survey results were supplied.
Recommendations
First, the library should make the quiet-room signs clearer and explain which spaces permit discussion. Second, staff should review socket locations and publish a simple guide before considering new electrical work. A short follow-up record covering different days and times would help the manager decide whether larger changes are justified.
Un modèle possible, pas un corrigé unique. Autoévaluation: Le lecteur retrouve-t-il tous les points demandés : observations, limites d’interprétation et deux recommandations ? Organisation: Sépare faits relevés, interprétation prudente, limites et recommandations avec des titres. Les recommandations sont des propositions, pas des résultats observés. “Findings” → “Interpretation and limits”. Langue: “These observations suggest possible pressure on seating and power access, but three afternoon visits cannot show how busy the library is throughout the week.” La formulation prudente sépare les données d’une explication possible ; n’invente ni enquête, ni pourcentage, ni cause prouvée. D’autres formulations et structures peuvent convenir. Respecte les faits fournis. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation, pas d’une note automatique de langue.
Fictional briefing: a college cafe trials reusable cups for one week. Notes: 90 drinks in reusable cups; 14 customers asked about cleaning; return box full twice; staff spent extra time explaining the system; total drinks sold was not recorded.
Write a report of 180–220 words. Summarise the trial, explain what the figures can and cannot show, identify operational issues, and recommend a next step.
Réponse et explication
Reusable Cup Trial
Overview
The college cafe tested a reusable cup system for one week. This report reviews the available notes and identifies what should be checked before the scheme is extended.
Recorded results
Ninety drinks were served in reusable cups. Fourteen customers asked how the cups were cleaned, and the return box became full on two occasions. Staff also reported spending additional time explaining how customers should return their cups.
What the evidence means
The trial recorded reusable cup use, but the total number of drinks sold was not recorded. It is therefore impossible to calculate the proportion served in reusable cups or compare daily participation rates. Questions about cleaning suggest a need for clearer information, but they do not prove that customers were dissatisfied. The full return box may indicate a practical collection issue that needs checking, rather than a failure of the idea itself.
Recommended next step
A second short trial should record total drinks sold as well as reusable cup use. Clear cleaning information should be displayed, and staff should check the return box at agreed intervals. These modest changes would provide stronger evidence about participation while reducing avoidable demands on staff.
Overview
The college cafe tested a reusable cup system for one week. This report reviews the available notes and identifies what should be checked before the scheme is extended.
Recorded results
Ninety drinks were served in reusable cups. Fourteen customers asked how the cups were cleaned, and the return box became full on two occasions. Staff also reported spending additional time explaining how customers should return their cups.
What the evidence means
The trial recorded reusable cup use, but the total number of drinks sold was not recorded. It is therefore impossible to calculate the proportion served in reusable cups or compare daily participation rates. Questions about cleaning suggest a need for clearer information, but they do not prove that customers were dissatisfied. The full return box may indicate a practical collection issue that needs checking, rather than a failure of the idea itself.
Recommended next step
A second short trial should record total drinks sold as well as reusable cup use. Clear cleaning information should be displayed, and staff should check the return box at agreed intervals. These modest changes would provide stronger evidence about participation while reducing avoidable demands on staff.
Un modèle possible, pas un corrigé unique. Autoévaluation: Le lecteur retrouve-t-il tous les points demandés : résultats, limites des données, difficultés pratiques et prochaine étape ? Organisation: Sépare faits relevés, interprétation prudente, limites et recommandations avec des titres. Les recommandations sont des propositions, pas des résultats observés. “Recorded results” → “What the evidence means”. Langue: “Questions about cleaning suggest a need for clearer information, but they do not prove that customers were dissatisfied.” La formulation prudente sépare les données d’une explication possible ; n’invente ni enquête, ni pourcentage, ni cause prouvée. D’autres formulations et structures peuvent convenir. Respecte les faits fournis. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation, pas d’une note automatique de langue.
Fictional briefing: a museum tests a new audio guide with 12 volunteers. Notes: nine completed the route; three stopped because their phone battery was low; four found one instruction unclear; all testing occurred on a quiet weekday morning.
Write a report of 180–220 words for the museum team. State the results, distinguish device problems from guide problems, discuss the sample limits, and propose improvements.
Réponse et explication
Audio Guide Test
Purpose and results
This report considers the museum’s trial of a new audio guide with twelve volunteers. Nine completed the route. The remaining three stopped because their phone batteries were low. Four volunteers also identified one instruction that they found unclear.
Problems to distinguish
The incomplete routes should not automatically be treated as failures of the guide content. Low batteries are a device-related barrier, although the museum may still need to help visitors prepare for using their own phones. By contrast, an unclear instruction is a content issue that the guide team can examine directly. The notes do not show whether the same volunteers experienced both problems.
Limitations
All testing took place on a quiet weekday morning. A small volunteer group may not reflect the range of visitors or the conditions of a busy weekend. These results cannot establish how the guide will work for every visitor.
Recommendations
The team should rewrite and retest the unclear instruction. It should also provide an advance reminder about phone batteries and explain any charging options available. A further test at a busier time, involving a wider range of visitors, would help assess whether these changes are sufficient.
Purpose and results
This report considers the museum’s trial of a new audio guide with twelve volunteers. Nine completed the route. The remaining three stopped because their phone batteries were low. Four volunteers also identified one instruction that they found unclear.
Problems to distinguish
The incomplete routes should not automatically be treated as failures of the guide content. Low batteries are a device-related barrier, although the museum may still need to help visitors prepare for using their own phones. By contrast, an unclear instruction is a content issue that the guide team can examine directly. The notes do not show whether the same volunteers experienced both problems.
Limitations
All testing took place on a quiet weekday morning. A small volunteer group may not reflect the range of visitors or the conditions of a busy weekend. These results cannot establish how the guide will work for every visitor.
Recommendations
The team should rewrite and retest the unclear instruction. It should also provide an advance reminder about phone batteries and explain any charging options available. A further test at a busier time, involving a wider range of visitors, would help assess whether these changes are sufficient.
Un modèle possible, pas un corrigé unique. Autoévaluation: Le lecteur retrouve-t-il tous les points demandés : résultats, deux types de problèmes, limites de l’échantillon et améliorations ? Organisation: Sépare faits relevés, interprétation prudente, limites et recommandations avec des titres. Les recommandations sont des propositions, pas des résultats observés. “Problems to distinguish” → “Limitations”. Langue: “The incomplete routes should not automatically be treated as failures of the guide content.” La formulation prudente sépare les données d’une explication possible ; n’invente ni enquête, ni pourcentage, ni cause prouvée. D’autres formulations et structures peuvent convenir. Respecte les faits fournis. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation, pas d’une note automatique de langue.
Fictional briefing: a shared workplace tests online desk booking for two weeks. Notes: 30 staff used it; seven bookings were cancelled late; three people could not find their booked desk; there is no comparison with the previous system.
Write a report of 180–220 words. Present the facts, identify possible causes without claiming certainty, explain the missing comparison, and recommend practical adjustments.
Réponse et explication
Desk Booking Pilot
Scope
This report summarises a two-week trial of online desk booking in the shared workplace. Thirty staff members used the system during this period.
Recorded difficulties
Seven bookings were cancelled late, and three people reported that they could not find the desks they had reserved. Late cancellations may have limited the opportunity for other staff to use those desks. Difficulty locating a desk could reflect unclear labels, an unfamiliar layout or confusing instructions, but the available notes do not identify a definite cause.
Limits of the findings
There is no comparable record from the previous system. The trial therefore cannot show whether online booking reduced confusion or improved desk availability overall. It also covers only a short period, during which staff may still have been learning how the system worked.
Suggested adjustments
The workplace should make desk labels easier to match with the booking screen and send a reminder explaining how to cancel promptly. Staff should also have a clear way to report a problem. A further trial should record the reasons for cancellations and compare desk use with an equivalent earlier period, where reliable information is available.
Scope
This report summarises a two-week trial of online desk booking in the shared workplace. Thirty staff members used the system during this period.
Recorded difficulties
Seven bookings were cancelled late, and three people reported that they could not find the desks they had reserved. Late cancellations may have limited the opportunity for other staff to use those desks. Difficulty locating a desk could reflect unclear labels, an unfamiliar layout or confusing instructions, but the available notes do not identify a definite cause.
Limits of the findings
There is no comparable record from the previous system. The trial therefore cannot show whether online booking reduced confusion or improved desk availability overall. It also covers only a short period, during which staff may still have been learning how the system worked.
Suggested adjustments
The workplace should make desk labels easier to match with the booking screen and send a reminder explaining how to cancel promptly. Staff should also have a clear way to report a problem. A further trial should record the reasons for cancellations and compare desk use with an equivalent earlier period, where reliable information is available.
Un modèle possible, pas un corrigé unique. Autoévaluation: Le lecteur retrouve-t-il tous les points demandés : faits, causes possibles prudentes, comparaison manquante et ajustements ? Organisation: Sépare faits relevés, interprétation prudente, limites et recommandations avec des titres. Les recommandations sont des propositions, pas des résultats observés. “Recorded difficulties” → “Limits of the findings”. Langue: “Difficulty locating a desk could reflect unclear labels, an unfamiliar layout or confusing instructions, but the available notes do not identify a definite cause.” La formulation prudente sépare les données d’une explication possible ; n’invente ni enquête, ni pourcentage, ni cause prouvée. D’autres formulations et structures peuvent convenir. Respecte les faits fournis. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation, pas d’une note automatique de langue.