Several voices in a consultation dialogue
A partner reads this original Czech dialogue: A: “Nikdo neprotestoval, všichni tedy souhlasili”. B: “Nikdo z přítomných neprotestoval. Lidi, kterých se rozhodnutí týká nejvíc, jsme ale nepozvali”. A learner interprets B as denying that a meeting occurred. Another treats silence among attendees as the consent of every affected person. A third identifies the change in the reference group and the limitation of the inference. The task concerns the actual dialogue, not the legality of a real consultation. No government body, procedural deadline or binding voting rule is supplied. This bank has a written script rather than a recording. Partner reading with hidden text can add listening practice, but silent reading alone does not demonstrate auditory comprehension.
1. What inference does B challenge?
Read the worked answer
B restricts the observed absence of protest to attendees and notes that highly affected people were not invited. That undermines the inference from silence among those present to everyone’s agreement.
2. What is not claimed by B?
Read the worked answer
B does not deny that a meeting occurred or prove that every absent person opposed the decision. The dialogue establishes a limitation on the consent inference, not the opposite universal conclusion.