Listening: Listening for Inference, Attitude, & Opinion (Advanced) C1 - Lesson 3: Critically Evaluating Speaker Credibility and Argumentation

C1 CRITICAL

Evaluating Credibility

ការវាយតម្លៃភាពជឿជាក់របស់អ្នកនិយាយ

🎯 Context: A debate on "The Future of AI".
Alex (Tech Guru): Influencer, sells courses, very charismatic.
Dr. Chen (Academic): Researcher, university professor, neutral tone.

A

Alex (The Guru)

Red Flag: Alex uses Conspiracy Thinking ("They don't want you to know") and Absolutes ("Guaranteed", "Every problem"). He relies on Anecdotal Evidence ("I've helped thousands").

C

Dr. Chen (The Researcher)

Green Flag: Dr. Chen uses Qualifiers ("Show promise", "Limitations") rather than absolutes. She cites External Verification ("Peer-reviewed studies").

Academic vs. Persuasive Vocabulary:

Empirical Evidence Information acquired by observation or experimentation (Science-based).

Anecdotal Evidence Evidence based on personal accounts rather than facts or research (Story-based).

Substantiate To provide evidence to support or prove the truth of something.

Hyperbole Exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally (e.g., "Solve EVERY problem").

Who wins on Credibility? Rate them.

Avoids Exaggeration

Cites Verifiable Sources

Acknowledges Nuance

Task: Write a Critical Review

Summarize why Alex is less credible. Use words: "Lacks substance", "Hyperbolic", "Unsubstantiated".