Deciding What the Speaker Actually Recommends
A reading passage contains a short opinion column in which a Russian student, Kirill, writes: «На мой взгляд, ехать в Москву на выходные - плохая идея: билеты дорогие, а времени на осмотр почти не останется. Лучше поехать в Казань на три дня». A question asks: 'What does Kirill recommend, and why?' A student answers: 'He recommends not travelling because it is expensive.' The teacher says this is a misreading of the speaker's stance. The student must locate the actual recommendation, distinguish it from the stated problem, and explain the reasoning in English for the marker.
1. What is the correct answer to the question, and where does the student's answer go wrong?
Read the worked answer
Correct answer: Kirill recommends going to Kazan for three days instead of Moscow for a weekend. Reason: weekend trips to Moscow are expensive and leave too little time for sightseeing.
The student's error is confusing a criticism with a recommendation. «плохая идея» criticises one option (a weekend in Moscow), not travel in general. The contrastive «Лучше…» (better…) introduces the actual recommendation: Kazan for three days. The student also dropped the reason (lack of time), which the question asks for. A full answer must name the recommended destination, the rejected option, and the justification.
2. Write the marker's model answer in 4-5 sentences that shows how «Лучше…» signals the recommendation.
Read the worked answer
Kirill does not advise against travelling; he advises against one specific plan. He says a weekend in Moscow is a bad idea because tickets are expensive and there will be almost no time for sightseeing. The word «Лучше» then marks his actual recommendation: go to Kazan for three days. So the answer should state that he recommends Kazan for three days, and that his reason is cost plus insufficient time in Moscow. Recognising «Лучше» as a recommendation signal, not as a further complaint, is the key to the question.