Caffeine Lecture Notes: Hedging and Listening Accuracy
During a listening section administered once, a candidate hears a 3-minute lecture excerpt twice. The speaker says: "Moderate intake-roughly 200 mg, about two cups of coffee-can delay sleep onset by 20 to 30 minutes in some people. But the evidence is mixed; individual metabolism matters. Some studies suggest an association, yet we can't conclude causality from those designs." The candidate's notes read: "Caffeine always delays sleep by 30 min," "Study proves cause," and "mixed = unimportant." A question asks for the speaker's attitude toward the claim that caffeine delays sleep. The candidate has 45 seconds to check notes before answering and may not replay the audio.
1. Correct the candidate's three notes using specific words from the lecture. Explain each correction.
Read the worked answer
"Always delays sleep by 30 min" should become "can delay sleep onset by 20–30 minutes in some people." The speaker uses "can," not "always," and gives a range, not a fixed 30 minutes. "Study proves cause" should become "studies suggest an association, but causality cannot be concluded." The speaker explicitly limits the designs. "Mixed = unimportant" should become "mixed = evidence is not uniform; individual metabolism matters." "Mixed" means the findings are not one-directional or consistent, not that the evidence is worthless. The candidate has removed the speaker's limits and turned a hedged claim into a universal one.
2. What is the speaker's attitude toward the claim that caffeine delays sleep? Identify the function of the hedging.
Read the worked answer
The speaker treats the claim as plausible but qualified, not as proven. "Can delay" allows for possibility; "in some people" limits the population; "evidence is mixed" signals conflicting findings; "individual metabolism matters" gives a reason for variation; and "we can't conclude causality" rejects a strong causal reading. The hedging is not vague filler. It protects the speaker from overgeneralizing and tells listeners how much confidence the evidence supports. The best answer is cautious acceptance of a possible effect under certain conditions, not unconditional endorsement.
3. Why is "mixed = unimportant" a flawed note-taking inference? What should the candidate write instead, and why does it matter for answering the attitude question?
Read the worked answer
"Mixed" describes the direction or consistency of evidence: some findings point one way, some another, or effects vary by person. It does not mean the topic is unimportant or that no evidence exists. The candidate should write something like "mixed evidence: effect varies; not proven causal." This matters because the attitude question asks how confident the speaker is, not whether the speaker cares about the topic. If the candidate records "unimportant," they may choose an answer saying the speaker dismisses the claim, when the speaker actually treats it as worth discussing but not established.