Listening: The car-free pilot and the candidate's first note
In the listening section of the Schleswig-Holstein Abitur, candidates hear a four-minute radio interview twice with Lea Hoffmann, a transport planner in Kiel. In the first playing, a candidate writes: 'Hoffmann wants to ban private cars from the city centre.' In the second playing, the candidate notices the exact wording: 'I wouldn't ban cars, but I would price access to the centre and use the revenue for buses.' Hoffmann also says that 38 per cent of all trips in Kiel are shorter than two kilometres, yet she adds that the pilot's success depends less on the charge than on a ten-minute bus frequency. Near the end, the interviewer asks whether the pilot is 'a green fig leaf'; Hoffmann laughs and says, 'Ask me again in eighteen months.' The candidate must decide which note to keep for the summary task and which detail to use as evidence.
1. What is Hoffmann's position on private cars in the city centre, and why is the candidate's first note misleading? Refer to the wording and the function of the contrast.
Read the worked answer
The first note is misleading because it turns a qualified position into an absolute one. Hoffmann uses the contrast 'I wouldn't ban cars, but I would price access': the first clause rejects a ban, and the second offers a different instrument. Listening for the negative modal 'wouldn't' and the contrastive 'but' is therefore more reliable than the candidate's first impression. 'Pricing access' is not a ban; it is a charge that permits access on conditions. The revenue is earmarked for buses, which shows she links the measure to an alternative. The note to keep should say she supports demand management through pricing, not prohibition. The detail about bus frequency is the condition that makes the policy credible, so it is better evidence than the 38 per cent figure alone.
2. The figures 38 per cent and ten minutes serve different argumentative functions. Explain both functions and state which one is more relevant to the question of whether the pilot is 'a green fig leaf'.
Read the worked answer
The 38 per cent figure establishes the scale of the problem: many trips are short enough to be shifted to walking, cycling or buses. It functions as a warrant for action. The ten-minute figure functions differently: it states an implementation condition. Hoffmann says success depends 'less on the charge than on a ten-minute bus frequency', so the charge is not sufficient by itself. For the 'green fig leaf' question, the ten-minute detail is more relevant because it tests whether the pilot is substantive. A fig leaf would be a charge without an alternative; a ten-minute service is a material commitment. The 38 per cent figure could still be rhetorical if no service existed.
3. How should the candidate interpret Hoffmann's final reply ('Ask me again in eighteen months')? Give two possible readings and say which is better supported by the whole interview.
Read the worked answer
One reading is evasion: Hoffmann avoids answering whether the pilot is merely symbolic and defers judgement. Another is prudent openness: she accepts that eighteen months is a fair test period and implies the pilot should be judged on results. The second reading is better supported. She has already given a condition (bus frequency) and a revenue plan, so she is not dismissing criticism. The laughter could signal irony, but irony is not rejection; it may acknowledge the interviewer's sceptical framing. The phrase 'ask me again' also commits her to a future evaluation. A good answer notes both readings and chooses the second because it fits the surrounding argument.