Amikor a hallott szöveg nem egyezik a józan ésszel
A listening item describes a phone call. A woman says she will arrive 'pénteken, a délutáni gyorsvonattal, fél négy körül'. The printed question asks when she arrives. The options are: A) 15:30, B) around 16:00, C) 16:30. The recording also contains a background announcement saying a train is delayed by twenty minutes, and the woman laughs and says 'remélem, nem az én vonatom'. A student reasons: 'fél négy' is 15:30, but she said 'körül', so it is approximate; the delay announcement is 20 minutes, so 15:50; the closest option is B. Another student picks A because 'fél négy' literally means 15:30. The item tests handling approximate time expressions and distractor information.
1. Which option is correct, and what is the decisive piece of reasoning?
Read the worked answer
Option B (around 16:00) is correct. The decisive reasoning is that the woman's own words are the answer: she says she arrives 'fél négy körül', i.e. around 15:30. The word 'körül' marks the time as approximate, so an answer that pins it to exactly 15:30 (option A) over-reads the source. But the option list has no 'around 15:30' entry, so the student must choose the closest available representation of an approximate arrival - and the passage's own framing supports a window rather than a precise minute. The delay announcement is a distractor: it is a general station announcement, and the woman explicitly jokes that she hopes it is not her train, so there is no basis for adding twenty minutes. The model reasoning: anchor on the speaker's own statement, treat unconnected background speech as noise, and do not perform arithmetic on information the speaker has not applied to herself.
2. The first student reached B by adding 20 minutes to 15:30. Explain why the right answer for the wrong reason is still a problem, and how a marker should treat it.
Read the worked answer
The student's conclusion matches the key, but the chain of reasoning is unsound: it treats the delay announcement as applying to her train, which the passage explicitly leaves open ('remélem, nem az én vonatom'). If the options had included 15:50, this student would have chosen it confidently. That matters because the same faulty habit - merging unattributed background information into a speaker's statement - will produce wrong answers on items where the distractor is the nearest option. In a multiple-choice listening paper the mark is awarded for the selected option, so this student scores; but in feedback, the marker should name the reasoning error rather than confirm it, and re-ask the question with a 15:50 distractor added to expose it. The model reasoning: correct answers built on invalid inferences are fragile, and the teaching point is attribution - always ask who said this, and about what.