4.3 Section 2: Points Task (Correct, Incorrect, Not Mentioned)
Key Takeaways
- Section 2 tests statement evaluation against an extended audio recording using three options: Correct, Incorrect, or Not Mentioned.
- 'Correct' statements accurately paraphrase explicit audio facts or clear logical implications.
- 'Incorrect' statements directly contradict stated audio evidence, reversing facts, numbers, or outcomes.
- 'Not Mentioned' statements introduce plausible or related ideas that are absent from the recording.
- Candidates must rely exclusively on audio evidence, avoiding real-world background knowledge traps and over-inference.
4.3 Section 2: Points Task (Correct, Incorrect, Not Mentioned)
Exam Focus: Section 2 requires candidates to evaluate eight written statements against an extended audio monologue or dialogue. Each statement must be categorized as Correct, Incorrect, or Not Mentioned based strictly on spoken audio evidence.
The Points Task in Section 2 assesses high-level analytical listening. Unlike standard multiple-choice questions where one option is correct and three are distractors, Section 2 requires candidates to evaluate every statement independently. The key challenge lies in distinguishing between a statement that is false (Incorrect) and one that simply lacks audio support (Not Mentioned).
Section 2 Format and the Three-Way Decision Model
In Section 2, candidates listen to a single extended audio recording (approximately 3 minutes long). The text is typically an informational talk, a project briefing, an interview, or a discussion regarding university facilities, research projects, or academic events.
Alongside the recording, the test presents a table of eight numbered statements. Candidates must evaluate each statement against the three criteria:
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THE THREE EVALUATION CATEGORIES |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1. CORRECT (True / Supported): |
| The statement matches the audio evidence, using direct paraphrase or |
| synonyms. The facts in the statement align fully with spoken details. |
| |
| 2. INCORRECT (False / Contradicted): |
| The statement directly contradicts spoken facts, numerical data, sequence, |
| or logical relationships stated in the recording. |
| |
| 3. NOT MENTIONED (Unstated / Absent): |
| The audio clip contains NO evidence to confirm or deny the statement. |
| Even if the statement is true in real life, it is omitted from the recording.|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Deep Dive: Defining the Three Categories
To achieve consistent precision, candidates must master the precise boundary rules defining each category.
| Category | Audio Text Example | Evaluation Statement Example | Analytical Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct | "The main library will extend evening access until midnight during final exam weeks." | "Library opening hours will be longer during the examination period." | Supported: Extend evening access until midnight directly matches longer opening hours via paraphrase. |
| Incorrect | "Funding for student travel grants has been cut by fifty percent this year." | "Travel grant funding has increased compared to last year." | Contradicted: Audio states funding was cut by 50%, directly contradicting the claim that funding increased. |
| Not Mentioned | "The department has purchased twenty new desktop computers for the computer lab." | "The new computers were purchased from a local electronics supplier." | Unstated: The audio confirms 20 computers were bought, but nowhere specifies where or from whom they were bought. |
The 'Not Mentioned' Dilemma: Absence of Evidence vs. Falsehood
The 'Not Mentioned' option is the most frequent source of candidate errors in Section 2. Candidates often misclassify unmentioned items as 'Incorrect' or 'Correct' due to cognitive biases:
1. The Outside Knowledge Trap
Never use personal background knowledge to evaluate statements. If a statement claims "Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius," and the audio topic is polar oceanography but never mentions freezing points, the correct answer is Not Mentioned—not Correct.
2. The Over-Inference Trap
Do not extrapolate beyond the spoken words. If a speaker states that "Enrollment in computer science has risen," you cannot determine whether enrollment in humanities has dropped, risen, or remained flat unless the speaker explicitly addresses humanities. Assuming humanities enrollment dropped is an unwarranted inference.
3. The Partial Mention Trap
If a statement combines two pieces of information—one mentioned in the audio and one unmentioned—the statement as a whole cannot be validated and must be categorized as Not Mentioned (or Incorrect if explicitly contradicted).
Audio Clip: "Professor Aris published a paper on renewable energy in 2024."
Statement: "Professor Aris won an international award for his 2024 paper on renewable energy."
Evaluation: NOT MENTIONED (Publication is confirmed; winning an award is unstated).
Step-by-Step Verification Process for Section 2
Follow this systematic workflow to manage all eight statements efficiently:
[Playback 1] --------------> Take chronological notes on key facts & topics
|
[Question Reveal] ---------> Read all statements; underline key subjects & verbs
|
[Playback 2] --------------> Track statements chronologically alongside audio
|
[Elimination Hierarchy] ---> 1. Is it paraphrased? ---------> CORRECT
2. Is it contradicted? -------> INCORRECT
3. Is it completely absent? ---> NOT MENTIONED
- Playback 1 (Chronological Note-Taking): Focus on capturing the sequence of points made in the recording. Note numbers, names, dates, and cause-and-effect links.
- Question Reveal (Statement Analysis): Read through all statements during the pause. Underline key keywords (nouns, dates, action verbs) that serve as location anchors.
- Playback 2 (Sequential Matching): In Password Section 2, statements generally follow the chronological order of the audio recording. As the audio progresses, match each section of the recording against its corresponding statement.
- Apply the Elimination Hierarchy:
- Can you point to a specific sentence in the audio that means the exact same thing? $\rightarrow$ Correct.
- Can you point to a specific sentence in the audio that says the opposite or a conflicting fact? $\rightarrow$ Incorrect.
- Is there no sentence in the audio that confirms or denies the claim? $\rightarrow$ Not Mentioned.
Key Takeaways
- Section 2 requires evaluating eight statements as Correct, Incorrect, or Not Mentioned against a 2–3 minute recording.
- Correct statements use synonyms and paraphrasing to reflect spoken facts.
- Incorrect statements explicitly contradict audio data, numbers, logic, or sequences.
- Not Mentioned statements contain plausible claims that lack spoken audio evidence.
- Rely strictly on spoken audio content; never incorporate real-world background knowledge or make unsupported inferences.
What defines a statement as 'Not Mentioned' in the Password Listening Section 2 Points Task?
How should a candidate evaluate a statement that contains accurate real-world scientific facts, but is omitted entirely from the listening passage?
If the audio states that a university orientation seminar is mandatory for first-year students, but a test statement claims the seminar is optional for all students, how should the statement be classified?
What is the most effective approach for tracking the eight statements in Section 2 during the second audio playback?