Des gens pour bosser des sujets d'anglais ensemble???

[nunu]

Super ce post!! Merci!

Avant de commencer j'aimerais savoir comment vous faites pour penser en 30 minutes de quoi occuper 5 minutes à l'oral.

Moi quand je m'entraine toute seule je redige la présentation du texte et tout (omme vous le faites dans ce post) mais du coup à l'oral je le lis et ainsi je ne ne "tiens" que 2 ou 3 minutes....

Suis-je la seule à rencontrer ce problème?

Vous arrivez à rédiger sufisament de choses en 30 minutes pour tenir 5 minutes par la suite vous?

Est-ce qu'il vaut mieux ne pas rédiger pour tenir 5 minutes à l'oral?

Est-ce qu'il sont pointilleux sur les 5minutes ou est-ce que c'est juste un ordre d'idée?

Merci d'avance!

J'ai excatement le même pb de que toi, j'ouvre un nouveau post pour savoir...

Emma

[Sandy27]

;-)

[Sandy27]

Super ce post!! Merci!

Avant de commencer j'aimerais savoir comment vous faites pour penser en 30 minutes de quoi occuper 5 minutes à l'oral.

Moi quand je m'entraine toute seule je redige la présentation du texte et tout (omme vous le faites dans ce post) mais du coup à l'oral je le lis et ainsi je ne ne "tiens" que 2 ou 3 minutes....

Suis-je la seule à rencontrer ce problème?

Vous arrivez à rédiger sufisament de choses en 30 minutes pour tenir 5 minutes par la suite vous?

Est-ce qu'il vaut mieux ne pas rédiger pour tenir 5 minutes à l'oral?

Est-ce qu'il sont pointilleux sur les 5minutes ou est-ce que c'est juste un ordre d'idée?

Merci d'avance!

J'ai excatement le même pb de que toi, j'ouvre un nouveau post pour savoir...

Emma

Si je peux me permettre, le but d'un oral... c'est de parler. Donc il faut montrer par un résumé que l'on a saisi le sens de l'article, et qu'il serve de base à une discution et à étayer vos avis... Et surtout, ne pas "lire" son résumé mais le raconter. Ou est l'intéret d'écrire une paraphrase du texte de 5 min ? Les jurés l'ont déjà lu ! C'est un grand défaut de l'apprentissage des langue en France, on sait faire une "version" sur un texte du XIe avec la forme et tout, et être incapable d'achetter une baguette de pain

Il faut parler, étayer vos avis, donner votre opinion... 5 min c'est vite passé !!

Et un truc à proscrire lors de l'oral (c'est du vécu ;-) ), évitez les "heu", "alors" ... vous parlez anglais dites "so..." si vous avez besoin de temps... et c'est bien de s'y mettre en préparant... car franchement les "alors heu, ben " c'a flingue un oral...

Voilà ma petite expérience... qui vaut ce qu'elle vaut. Maintenant, rien n'empêche de grossir un peu son résumé.

[nunu]

voilà le texte 6... enfin je crois (c'est snuffed out)

This document is an rticle taken from an american newspaper, published on january the 4th 2004. It is composed of a headline « snuffed out » and a text. This text deals with bans smoking in New York city. I twas written by a journalist of the economist, after the decision to forbid smokers in 14000 bars and restaurants, taken by the mayor of New York : Mike Bloomberg.

This restriction began with the increase in cigarett’s price during the summer 2002 : from $6 to $7.50. This taxe reduced the sales, but not the number of smokers. Indeed the black market have extensively increased since the raise of price.

Then, the mayor gave a new law which ban smoking in restaurants and bars.

Two points of view contrasts :

On the one hand, the non smokers, who approve the new law. The journalist said in America only the very young or the very obtuse considere smoking a sophisticated thing to do. That is to say cigaretts is not popular anymore in New York, and Mr Bloomberg wants to preserv non smockers health.

On the other hand, bar and restaurant owners and Philip Morris, the worlds largest tabacco compagny protest, because they risk to loose money even if less restrictive laws can be accorded in severals bars, like mandate to smoke in open bars or with special equipment.

To conclude, I think these laws can be great to preserv bars and restaurants workers and customers from second hand smoke. But it is as well a simple way to own money for the gouvernement of New York city, maybe more than a health plan.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with you when you said that the increase in cigarettes' price had not reduced the number of smokers...

Je mets en rouge, à confirmer par des experts....

Par contre je suis tjs larguée dans les possessifs en anglais : on dit :

the number of smokers OU smokers' number ????OU les deux mon capitaine ???

ou encore

the raise of price OU price's raise ????

Heeelp !!

Emma

[Sandy27]

voilà le texte 6... enfin je crois (c'est snuffed out)

This document is an rticle taken from an american newspaper, published on january the 4th 2004. It is composed of a headline « snuffed out » and a text. This text deals with bans smoking in New York city. I twas written by a journalist of the economist, after the decision to forbid smokers in 14000 bars and restaurants, taken by the mayor of New York : Mike Bloomberg.

This restriction began with the increase in cigarett’s price during the summer 2002 : from $6 to $7.50. This taxe reduced the sales, but not the number of smokers. Indeed the black market have extensively increased since the raise of price.

Then, the mayor gave a new law which ban smoking in restaurants and bars.

Two points of view contrasts :

On the one hand, the non smokers, who approve the new law. The journalist said in America only the very young or the very obtuse considere smoking a sophisticated thing to do. That is to say cigaretts is not popular anymore in New York, and Mr Bloomberg wants to preserv non smockers health.

On the other hand, bar and restaurant owners and Philip Morris, the worlds largest tabacco compagny protest, because they risk to loose money even if less restrictive laws can be accorded in severals bars, like mandate to smoke in open bars or with special equipment.

To conclude, I think these laws can be great to preserv bars and restaurants workers and customers from second hand smoke. But it is as well a simple way to own money for the gouvernement of New York city, maybe more than a health plan.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with you when you said that the increase in cigarettes' price had not reduced the number of smokers...

Je mets en rouge, à confirmer par des experts....

Par contre je suis tjs larguée dans les possessifs en anglais : on dit :

the number of smokers OU smokers' number ????OU les deux mon capitaine ???

ou encore

the raise of price OU price's raise ????

Heeelp !!

Emma

On peut dire les deux ! Selon la tournure c'est plus ou moins judicieux...

Par contre on dit the raise in price, ou on parle de "rising prices"... or inflation... ou raise of price... selon la tournure et on dit les deux aussi mon capitaine !

[PetiteWendy]

Hello everybody!

I'm very happy as I found this website yesterday! if I can help you it would be my pleasure!

Just for your information, you should buy the book "Le mot et l'idée 2". It's a very good book for vocabulary. I worked with it for my english Deug!

If you want, I will work the last document you sent, with a friend and I will try to send it to you!

I'm pleased to meet you!

Laetitia

[nenette85]

TEXTE 6:

This texte is an extract from the newspaper "the economist". It dates from January 2004. The tittle of this extract is "snuffed out". The main topic is the prohibition to smoke in New York city.

New York's mayor has decided to increase the taxation of packs of 20 cigarettes: price passed from 6 dollars to 7,50 dolars. As a result, sales have decrease of 50%. We can think taht it's a good thing because there's less smokers. But it'sn't the case. In fact black market has grow up and sales by internet have inreased. After taxes, the mayor decided to set up a strict law in order to prohibite smoking in bars and restaurants of N.Y. Only bars and restaurants awners protested and also Philip Morris, because his company has a headquarters in N.Y.

The mayor thinks that smoking in bars and restaurants is dangereous for no-smokers, so he wanted to protect them. For habitants, he is right: public was on his side and the authors asserts that many cigarettes lovers too.

In order to avoid to much problems with bars and restaurants owners, the mayor decided to allow a little leeway in this law: in fact smoking will be permitted in out door bars. New yorkers may to smoke in private but if they didn't respect the law they can pay a amend which can go to 200 dollars to 400 dollars.

I think that prohibite smoke in bars and restaurant could be a good idea in order to preserve health of people. But governement has to prevent of risks of cigarettes as of the youth, at school. But for the amend, I think it's just a reason in order to have much money for the governement...

Un de plus!!!

Si nos correcteurs préférés pouvaient me corriger... Merci!!!!

[nenette85]

je remets deux autres textes pour les motivés... je sens qu'il y en a de moins en moins!!! Faites moi signe si vous voulez que je continue à déposer des sujets...

anglais_8.pdf

anglais_9.pdf

[atypic]

TEXTE 6:

This texte is an extract from the newspaper "the economist". It dates from January 2004. The tittle of this extract is "snuffed out". The main topic is the prohibition to smoke in New York city.

New York's mayor has decided to increase the taxation on the packs of 20 cigarettes: price went from 6 dollars to 7,50 dollars. As a result, sales have decreased by 50%. We can think that it's a good thing because thereare less smokers. But it color=#00FF00]isn't the case. In fact the black market has grown and internet sales have shot up. On top of taxes, the mayor decided to set up a strict law in order to ban smoking in the bars and restaurants of N.Y. Only bars and restaurants aowners protested and also Philip Morris, because his company has a headquarters in N.Y.

The mayor thinks that smoking in these places is dangereous for non-smokers, so he wanted to protect them. For the inhabitants, he is right:the public was on his side and the authors assert that many cigarettes lovers too.

In order to avoid too many problems with bars and restaurants owners, the mayor decided to allow give little leeway in this law: in fact smoking will be permitted in outdoor bars( at the terraces). New yorkers may smoke in private but if they didn't respect don't comply with the new law they can face a fine which can gofrom 200 to 400 dollars.

I think that to ban smoking in bars and restaurant could be a good idea in order to protect people's health. But the governement has to educate the youth about the risks of smoking at school. But for the color]fine, I think it's just a reason / excuse for the gouvernment to make even more money ...

Un de plus!!!

Si nos correcteurs préférés pouvaient me corriger... Merci!!!!

salut,

j'ai fait ca rapidos entre 2 lecons! j'ai garde ton resume qui est bon.

je ne sais pas si c'est assez clair avec les couleurs.

je n'ai pas lu le texte mais ton resume" makes sense". on comprend tout! bravo!

juste change quelques tournures.

au fait, mon fils regarde Dora aussi( il a 3 ans) mais en anglais et il me donne des phrases en espagnol!!( moi qui veut qu'il apprenne le francais!!)

cette Dora est polyglotte!

good luck and all the best.

K

( je repasserai plus tard)

m...e!! la couleur est nulle.

desole, j'ai appuye sur les mauvais boutons! plus le temps!

Sincere apologies. didn't mean it!

[titou017017]

Hello, I give us my text number six, if someone can correct me, thanks.

I made an other text , but anyone watch it! snifff.....

This text is extracted from a magazine intituled « the economist », written on january, 4 th 2003. The main topic is the prohibition to smoke in New York city

In this extract, the journalist explains that NY had decided to create an anti-smoking law. This law was written by Mike Blomberg. People can’t smoke in the bars and the restaurants.

According to him, the young smoked because they think that it’s sophisticated. That’s because, they smoke more and more young.

If the smokers don’t accept this law, they must pay £200-£400, but according to the journalist, this fine doesn’t enough important because a lot of people continue to smoke again.

The journalist is surprised because the majority of people are agree with this law.

Don’t smoke, is important to the health. This problem become a social problem because the child smoke more and more young . It’s a real problem, indeed, to smoke a lot , can provocate cancers or a pulmonary illness.

But I understand the smokers, it’s difficult to stop to smoke and the laws are severes, I think that they will have a right to smoke in private’s places.

Meanwhile, I don’t accept that a person smokes near the others persons without to ask the permission, particullary, when child or babies are near theim!

Perhaps, would create the private’s places who will be expensives, like this, the child won’t pay. A lot of solutions are create in differents country, for example, to use the patche , and sometimes, it’s pad by the state. Sometimes too, the state multiplies the preventions against the tabacco in the schools or creating the shocking publicities to discourage the smokers.

Reading this extract, we get the impression that the country don’t think to create others solutions to resolve this problem. Indeed, a tax and a law don’t be sufficient to incite to stop to smoke, and to discourage the child to smoke

[ceara17]

Hello everybody,I've just found that website and I'm very pleased with that because everybody wants to help each other! If it's not to late,I would like to join you on this topic because my english spoken and written becomes less and less fluent.

My results are announced tomorrow;that's why,I'm stressing right now.If it's ok,I'll take a look at what you've posted till tomorrow. Hope I'll see you soon!

Bye!!

[nunu]

Hello, I give us my text number six, if someone can correct me, thanks.

I made an other text , but anyone watch it! snifff.....

This text is extracted from a magazine entitled « the economist », written on january, 4 th 2003. The main topic is the ban on smokingin New York city

In this extract, the journalist explains that NY (city ? mayor ?) had decided to create an anti-smoking law. This law was written by Mike Blomberg. People can’t smoke in the bars and the restaurants.

According to him, youngs smoke because they think that it’s sophisticated. That’s why they begin to smoke younger and younger.

If the smokers don’t accept this law, they must pay £200-£400, but according to the journalist, this fine isn’t enough important because a lot of people keep on smoking. According to me the fine is for the bar and not for the smokers. The journalist is surprised because the majority of people are agree with this law.

Don’t smoke, is important to the health. This problem becomes a social problem because childrens smoke younger and younger. It’s a real problem, indeed, to smoke a lot , can provocate cancers or a pulmonary illnesses.

But I understand the smokers, it’s difficult to stop smoking and the laws are severes, I think that they will have a right to smoke in private’s places. I understood in the article that they could !Meanwhile, I don’t accept that someone smokes near others without asking the permission, particulary, when childrens or babies are near them!

Perhaps, we would create the private’s places who will be expensives, like this, the child won’t pay. (I don't understand what you want to say)

A lot of solutions are created in differents countries, for example, the use of the patche , and sometimes, it’s pad by the state. Sometimes too, the state multiplies the preventions against the tabacco in the schools or creates shocking advertising to discourage the smokers.

Reading this extract, we get the impression that the country don’t think to create others solutions to resolve this problem. Indeed, a tax and a law don’t be sufficient to incite to stop smoking, and to discourage childrens to smoke

I am not a all a specialist.. so maybe I forgot mistakes. I hope I did help you !

Emma