What should Mike do to feel better?

He shouldn't carry heavy things.

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU?

Pretest Lesson 7 What’s the matter with you?

MR. WILLIAMS: Where's Jimmy? MRS. WILLIAMS: He's in bed. MR. WILLIAMS: What's the matter with him? MRS. WILLIAMS: He feels ill. MR. WILLIAMS: He looks ill. MRS. WILLIAMS: We must call the doctor. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we must. MR. WILLIAMS: Can you remember the doctor's telephone number? MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes. It's 09754. DOCTOR: Open your mouth, Jimmy. Show me your tongue. Say, 'Ah'. MR. WILLIAMS: What's the matter with him, DOCTOR: doctor? He has a bad cold, Mr. Williams, so he must stay in bed for a week. MRS. WILLIAMS: That's good news for Jimmy. DOCTOR : Good news? Why? MR. WILLIAMS: Because he doesn't like school!

Make questions based on the text: A small blue caseMr Hall: I left a suitcase on the train to London the other day. Attendant: Can you describe it, sir? Mr Hall: It's a small blue case and it's got a zip. There's a label on the handle with my name and address on it. Attendant: Is this case yours? Mr Hall: No, that's not mine. Attendant: What about this one? This one's got a label. Mr Hall: Let me see it. Attendant: What's you name and address? Mr Hall: David Hall,83, Bridge Street. Attendant: That's right. D. N. Hall. 83. Bridge Street. Attendant: Three pound and fifty pence please. Mr Hall: Here you are. Attendant: Thank you. Mr Hall: Hey! Attendant: What's the matter? Mr Hall: This case doesn't belong to me! You've given me the wrong case!

A small blue case KUAN: I left a suitcase on the train to London the other day. ATTENDANT: Can you describe it, sir? KUAN: It's a small blue case and it's got a zip. There's a label on the handle with my name and address on it. ATTENDANT: Is this case yours? KUAN: No, that's not mine. ATTENDANT: What about this one? This one's got a label. KUAN: Let me see it. ATTENDANT: What's your name and address? KUAN: Kuan, 83, Bridge Street. ATTENDANT: That's right. Kuan, 83, Bridge Street. ATTENDANT: Three pounds fifty pence, please. KUAN: Here you are. ATTENDANT: Thank you. KUAN: Hey! ATTENDANT: What's the matter? KUAN: This case doesn't belong to me! You've given me the wrong case!

What is an official invitation letter? The companies write a letter of invitation-business when they host business visitors from abroad or from the same region or country. The business visitors can be investors; potential buyers may be conference visitors, business partners, employees of any company, or mere individuals who come for training at the company’s facilities. If a company is inviting any visitor, a representative of that company must write the letter. Also, the firms must have some specific people who would sign the invitation letters. These letters are very much precise, only containing the necessary information. The invitation letter should state the name of the business organization they represent and their relationship to the host (e.g., distributor, regional sales reps, etc.). The letter should articulate the planned dates of travel, and must be formatted professionally. What is a personal invitation letter? A Personal invitation letter is a letter one writes to invite people to a party or a social gathering at a very personal level. It is a formal request asking for the person’s presence at the event that is going to take place. All the relevant details regarding the event like the reason, date, time and venue and the dress code, if any, must be provided in the invitation letters. This will keep the guests informed, and they will feel happy to attend the event. The style and tone of the letter would depend upon the relationship between the sender and receiver. Through the letter, you should be able to make the receiver feel that you highly value his/her presence at the party or the event. A personal invitation letter can be written to invite a person to a birthday party, wedding, conference, meeting, dinner, etc. Before writing the letter, make sure you have a list of people whom you would like to invite to the party or the event. How to Write an Invitation Letter Writing an invitation letter becomes easy and swift once you get through the tips and the format of the invitation letter provided below. Usually block, semi-block or a modified block format is used for official invitation letters. The important aspects of any invitation letters are date, time, salutations and closing. For more advice refer to the tips provided. Tips for Invitation Letter Writing ● Organize the Matter – Before you draft an invitation letter ensure that you have all the required material. This material refers to a list of the people to be invited, sequential order of the events, timings of the events, special guest, official documents, photocopies and any other required item. Some items may also need to be attached along with the letter, keep them alongside. Refer to these as and when required. All the relevant documents will help you in drafting the letter. ● Drafting – You don’t just write a letter straightway and post it. It has to be reviewed and finalized. One of these processes is drafting. Drafting ensures that your mistakes and their rectification aren’t passed on to the invitation itself. Make all the mistakes in the draft itself. Drafting an invitation letter is important as sometimes we may make mistakes that we are not able to see but they are visible to others. One may require a draft to be approved by seniors before it is finalized. A second opinion from a friend or peer etc. may be required as well to determine certain things. ● Politeness – You don’t need to be told that you have to use polite language while writing an invitation letter, why would you be rude when sending an invitation? True, but you have to remind yourself of certain manners and etiquettes required of an invitation. Your invitation is your initiative, not the recipients so you need to be gracious. Always begin the letter with a welcome note instead of straightforward information of the invitation. Words of respect and gratitude are symbols of courtesy and politeness, always expressing your gratitude in the beginning and the end of the letter. ● Positive Tone – The gesture of welcome and gratitude themselves are positive points of an invitation letter. Apart from these, gestures of appreciation and anticipation are other positive points which can persuade a guest to attend the event. When you show your appreciation and anticipation towards the recipient through your words, it is an acknowledgement of his importance and thereby a positive approach. Towards this effect two tenses are used within the invitation letter, the present and the future. The present tense conveys information about the event and the future tense conveys an anticipated presence of the guest. ● Offer Assistance – An invitation being the responsibility of the sender, the assistance to the recipient by default becomes a responsibility of the host. The more facilities you provide the better the chances of someone’s attendance. You can offer pick up and drop services, accommodation, meals, provide them contact numbers in case you are not present at the venue and other required assistance. Relevant facts like date, time and venue of the event in the beginning itself is itself assisting. These assistances encourage a positive response from the invitees. ● Special Instructions – Some occasions require special instructions for the guests. These instructions can be: 1. Dress code 2. Road or route map 3. Purpose of the occasion – birthday, honor, anniversary etc. 4. Return gift 5. Response or confirmation to the invitation 6. Attire and items required for the guest to bring 7. No eatables allowed 8. Entrance only by invitation 9. 2 people per pass 10. No weapons allowed ● Length of the Matter – A simple invitation letter will only contain only the relevant facts. A simple invitation letter features an introduction which allows the sender to introduce themselves and or the organization they represent. A simple background of the individual or company is enough. Though invitations are meant to be concise and straightforward, it isn’t necessary. You can vary the length as per your need and requirement. Wedding and party invitation letters are not lengthy as compared to visit and certain personal invitation letters. ● Using Letterhead – As a rule official Invitation letters require a letterhead. Letterhead represents the sender and its inclusion is authority established. If you have a pre printed letterhead then use that. Personal Invitation letters don’t require letterheads and one can use it as per one’s desire. ● Gesture of Appreciation – Next, the appreciation for the guest to attend an activity or event must be shown. This can be completed with a formal note, stating that you look forward to seeing the individual at the event. ● Don’t forget the Enclosure – Some requests require certain documents to be attached; these can be the photocopies of documents like agreements, hard copies of email received, earlier correspondence, receipts, warranty etc. Keep original copies of all your letters, faxes, e-mails, and other related documents. ● Closing the Letter – Start the letter with Gratitude and end it with the same. It is a professional and social courtesy. At the end of your last paragraph is written, a complimentary close of the likes of ‘Sincerely’, ‘Thank you’, ‘Truly’ is essential. Close the letter by restating your appreciation and gratitude. ● Proofreading – Check for - awkward phrases, grammatical errors, incomplete sentences and spelling mistakes. Fix them with appropriate punctuation and remove dull or lifeless sentences and replace them with clever phrasing, poetry or a themed approach. This is the final step; the draft will be reviewed and revised before it acquires a proper form. Read it aloud to yourself to figure out mistakes which are missed out in writing. ● Inform in Advance – Invitation letters need to be sent in advance. Try to send the invitation letter two weeks or more in advance. The recipient needs to know in advance so that they can adjust their schedules, book tickets or make other arrangements which are essential.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes