نتیجه آزمون

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 1 - Listening to Problem Solving

Part 2 - Listening to a Daily Life Conversation

Audio - Conversation

Part 2 - Listening to a Daily Life Conversation

Audio - Conversation

Part 2 - Listening to a Daily Life Conversation

Audio - Conversation

Part 2 - Listening to a Daily Life Conversation

Audio - Conversation

Part 2 - Listening to a Daily Life Conversation

Audio - Conversation

Part 3 - Listening for Information

Audio - Conversation

Part 3 - Listening for Information

Audio - Conversation

Part 3 - Listening for Information

Audio - Conversation

Part 3 - Listening for Information

Audio - Conversation

Part 3 - Listening for Information

Audio - Conversation

Part 3 - Listening for Information

Audio - Conversation

Part 4 - Listening to a News Item

Audio - News Item

Sharon Smith, head librarian at Rickman Public (all people in the community) Library, has reported that the library's grant from the government will not be renewed for the coming year. Consequently, the library will start charging patrons for computer time, the amount not yet decided upon. Furthermore, she reports although patrons may continue to make special requests for books not available (ready to use) at the library, there will be a $5 fee for books available (ready to use) elsewhere in the region. The fee for books outside the region will increase from $5 to $10. Lastly, residents will have to pay a small annual membership fee. Up to now, only non-residents have had to pay for membership privileges. Smith said that they regret doing this, but they're just trying to keep the library open. Today, she learned that the province is providing grants for recreation instead of libraries. While convinced (made someone believe or agree) that recreation is important, Smith was upset (sad or angry) that the government is funding costly football leagues instead of the cheaper soccer games. She explained that not only are the equipment expenses less for soccer, but it's also more inclusive because there are girls' teams and boys' teams and leagues for all ages.

Part 4 - Listening to a News Item

Audio - News Item

Sharon Smith, head librarian at Rickman Public (all people in the community) Library, has reported that the library's grant from the government will not be renewed for the coming year. Consequently, the library will start charging patrons for computer time, the amount not yet decided upon. Furthermore, she reports although patrons may continue to make special requests for books not available (ready to use) at the library, there will be a $5 fee for books available (ready to use) elsewhere in the region. The fee for books outside the region will increase from $5 to $10. Lastly, residents will have to pay a small annual membership fee. Up to now, only non-residents have had to pay for membership privileges. Smith said that they regret doing this, but they're just trying to keep the library open. Today, she learned that the province is providing grants for recreation instead of libraries. While convinced (made someone believe or agree) that recreation is important, Smith was upset (sad or angry) that the government is funding costly football leagues instead of the cheaper soccer games. She explained that not only are the equipment expenses less for soccer, but it's also more inclusive because there are girls' teams and boys' teams and leagues for all ages.

Part 4 - Listening to a News Item

Audio - News Item

Sharon Smith, head librarian at Rickman Public (all people in the community) Library, has reported that the library's grant from the government will not be renewed for the coming year. Consequently, the library will start charging patrons for computer time, the amount not yet decided upon. Furthermore, she reports although patrons may continue to make special requests for books not available (ready to use) at the library, there will be a $5 fee for books available (ready to use) elsewhere in the region. The fee for books outside the region will increase from $5 to $10. Lastly, residents will have to pay a small annual membership fee. Up to now, only non-residents have had to pay for membership privileges. Smith said that they regret doing this, but they're just trying to keep the library open. Today, she learned that the province is providing grants for recreation instead of libraries. While convinced (made someone believe or agree) that recreation is important, Smith was upset (sad or angry) that the government is funding costly football leagues instead of the cheaper soccer games. She explained that not only are the equipment expenses less for soccer, but it's also more inclusive because there are girls' teams and boys' teams and leagues for all ages.

Part 4 - Listening to a News Item

Audio - News Item

Sharon Smith, head librarian at Rickman Public (all people in the community) Library, has reported that the library's grant from the government will not be renewed for the coming year. Consequently, the library will start charging patrons for computer time, the amount not yet decided upon. Furthermore, she reports although patrons may continue to make special requests for books not available (ready to use) at the library, there will be a $5 fee for books available (ready to use) elsewhere in the region. The fee for books outside the region will increase from $5 to $10. Lastly, residents will have to pay a small annual membership fee. Up to now, only non-residents have had to pay for membership privileges. Smith said that they regret doing this, but they're just trying to keep the library open. Today, she learned that the province is providing grants for recreation instead of libraries. While convinced (made someone believe or agree) that recreation is important, Smith was upset (sad or angry) that the government is funding costly football leagues instead of the cheaper soccer games. She explained that not only are the equipment expenses less for soccer, but it's also more inclusive because there are girls' teams and boys' teams and leagues for all ages.

Part 4 - Listening to a News Item

Audio - News Item

Sharon Smith, head librarian at Rickman Public (all people in the community) Library, has reported that the library's grant from the government will not be renewed for the coming year. Consequently, the library will start charging patrons for computer time, the amount not yet decided upon. Furthermore, she reports although patrons may continue to make special requests for books not available (ready to use) at the library, there will be a $5 fee for books available (ready to use) elsewhere in the region. The fee for books outside the region will increase from $5 to $10. Lastly, residents will have to pay a small annual membership fee. Up to now, only non-residents have had to pay for membership privileges. Smith said that they regret doing this, but they're just trying to keep the library open. Today, she learned that the province is providing grants for recreation instead of libraries. While convinced (made someone believe or agree) that recreation is important, Smith was upset (sad or angry) that the government is funding costly football leagues instead of the cheaper soccer games. She explained that not only are the equipment expenses less for soccer, but it's also more inclusive because there are girls' teams and boys' teams and leagues for all ages.

Part 6 - Listening for Viewpoints

Audio - Viewpoints Talk

The sole responsibility of a corporation according to economist Milton Friedman is to make money. A corporation exists to serve its shareholders—that is any entity which owns any part of the company whose goal is to increase the value of their investment in that company. As long as the decisions made by a company's executives further this aim, a corporation is fulfilling its duty. Profits aside, if a company's actions harm its employees, customers, the community (people living in an area) or the environment, surely this must be problematic. In recent decades, more people have realized that these affected groups known as stakeholders deserve consideration in corporate decision-making. In contrast to Friedman's shareholder view, the stakeholder view contends that corporations have an obligation to integrate social and environmental concerns into their business model. For example, corporations should contribute to community (people living in an area) development, pay respectable wages, or donate to worthy causes. For Milton Friedman, however, addressing social issues is the responsibility of the government, not corporations. Asking companies to spend revenue (money a business or place receives) on social welfare is akin to imposing taxation on shareholders. Friedman makes it clear that corporations are not public (all people in the community) servants and are not responsible (the person who must do something) to the public (all people in the community). What's more, a corporation as an artificial construct does not have moral or social responsibilities in the same sense as people. For Friedman, the sole social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits while obeying the law. Ethicist Margaret White says Friedman is right in one sense. While it would undoubtedly be kind for a rich company to give money to a community (people living in an area) struggling economically, we can no more require a company to hand out donations than we can require a person to give money to someone on the street who asks for change. Charity should not be mandated. White points out that in many cases, however, corporations are inextricably linked to social or environmental problems. Many companies, for example, find legal loopholes to irresponsibly dispose of their waste. Though they managed to skirt the law, companies, just like people should be held morally responsible (the person who must do something) for the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, whether companies agree or disagree with White, it's now in their interest to adopt a socially responsible (the person who must do something) position. With the rise of ethics-influenced consumerism, shoppers are demanding that products be produced with the concerns of laborers, animals, and the environment in mind. Sadly, as a byproduct, this has also given rise to a form of greenwashing in advertising where companies market themselves with an environmentally friendly (kind and nice) image for the sole interest of increasing sales.

Part 6 - Listening for Viewpoints

Audio - Viewpoints Talk

The sole responsibility of a corporation according to economist Milton Friedman is to make money. A corporation exists to serve its shareholders—that is any entity which owns any part of the company whose goal is to increase the value of their investment in that company. As long as the decisions made by a company's executives further this aim, a corporation is fulfilling its duty. Profits aside, if a company's actions harm its employees, customers, the community (people living in an area) or the environment, surely this must be problematic. In recent decades, more people have realized that these affected groups known as stakeholders deserve consideration in corporate decision-making. In contrast to Friedman's shareholder view, the stakeholder view contends that corporations have an obligation to integrate social and environmental concerns into their business model. For example, corporations should contribute to community (people living in an area) development, pay respectable wages, or donate to worthy causes. For Milton Friedman, however, addressing social issues is the responsibility of the government, not corporations. Asking companies to spend revenue (money a business or place receives) on social welfare is akin to imposing taxation on shareholders. Friedman makes it clear that corporations are not public (all people in the community) servants and are not responsible (the person who must do something) to the public (all people in the community). What's more, a corporation as an artificial construct does not have moral or social responsibilities in the same sense as people. For Friedman, the sole social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits while obeying the law. Ethicist Margaret White says Friedman is right in one sense. While it would undoubtedly be kind for a rich company to give money to a community (people living in an area) struggling economically, we can no more require a company to hand out donations than we can require a person to give money to someone on the street who asks for change. Charity should not be mandated. White points out that in many cases, however, corporations are inextricably linked to social or environmental problems. Many companies, for example, find legal loopholes to irresponsibly dispose of their waste. Though they managed to skirt the law, companies, just like people should be held morally responsible (the person who must do something) for the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, whether companies agree or disagree with White, it's now in their interest to adopt a socially responsible (the person who must do something) position. With the rise of ethics-influenced consumerism, shoppers are demanding that products be produced with the concerns of laborers, animals, and the environment in mind. Sadly, as a byproduct, this has also given rise to a form of greenwashing in advertising where companies market themselves with an environmentally friendly (kind and nice) image for the sole interest of increasing sales.

Part 6 - Listening for Viewpoints

Audio - Viewpoints Talk

The sole responsibility of a corporation according to economist Milton Friedman is to make money. A corporation exists to serve its shareholders—that is any entity which owns any part of the company whose goal is to increase the value of their investment in that company. As long as the decisions made by a company's executives further this aim, a corporation is fulfilling its duty. Profits aside, if a company's actions harm its employees, customers, the community (people living in an area) or the environment, surely this must be problematic. In recent decades, more people have realized that these affected groups known as stakeholders deserve consideration in corporate decision-making. In contrast to Friedman's shareholder view, the stakeholder view contends that corporations have an obligation to integrate social and environmental concerns into their business model. For example, corporations should contribute to community (people living in an area) development, pay respectable wages, or donate to worthy causes. For Milton Friedman, however, addressing social issues is the responsibility of the government, not corporations. Asking companies to spend revenue (money a business or place receives) on social welfare is akin to imposing taxation on shareholders. Friedman makes it clear that corporations are not public (all people in the community) servants and are not responsible (the person who must do something) to the public (all people in the community). What's more, a corporation as an artificial construct does not have moral or social responsibilities in the same sense as people. For Friedman, the sole social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits while obeying the law. Ethicist Margaret White says Friedman is right in one sense. While it would undoubtedly be kind for a rich company to give money to a community (people living in an area) struggling economically, we can no more require a company to hand out donations than we can require a person to give money to someone on the street who asks for change. Charity should not be mandated. White points out that in many cases, however, corporations are inextricably linked to social or environmental problems. Many companies, for example, find legal loopholes to irresponsibly dispose of their waste. Though they managed to skirt the law, companies, just like people should be held morally responsible (the person who must do something) for the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, whether companies agree or disagree with White, it's now in their interest to adopt a socially responsible (the person who must do something) position. With the rise of ethics-influenced consumerism, shoppers are demanding that products be produced with the concerns of laborers, animals, and the environment in mind. Sadly, as a byproduct, this has also given rise to a form of greenwashing in advertising where companies market themselves with an environmentally friendly (kind and nice) image for the sole interest of increasing sales.

Part 6 - Listening for Viewpoints

Audio - Viewpoints Talk

The sole responsibility of a corporation according to economist Milton Friedman is to make money. A corporation exists to serve its shareholders—that is any entity which owns any part of the company whose goal is to increase the value of their investment in that company. As long as the decisions made by a company's executives further this aim, a corporation is fulfilling its duty. Profits aside, if a company's actions harm its employees, customers, the community (people living in an area) or the environment, surely this must be problematic. In recent decades, more people have realized that these affected groups known as stakeholders deserve consideration in corporate decision-making. In contrast to Friedman's shareholder view, the stakeholder view contends that corporations have an obligation to integrate social and environmental concerns into their business model. For example, corporations should contribute to community (people living in an area) development, pay respectable wages, or donate to worthy causes. For Milton Friedman, however, addressing social issues is the responsibility of the government, not corporations. Asking companies to spend revenue (money a business or place receives) on social welfare is akin to imposing taxation on shareholders. Friedman makes it clear that corporations are not public (all people in the community) servants and are not responsible (the person who must do something) to the public (all people in the community). What's more, a corporation as an artificial construct does not have moral or social responsibilities in the same sense as people. For Friedman, the sole social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits while obeying the law. Ethicist Margaret White says Friedman is right in one sense. While it would undoubtedly be kind for a rich company to give money to a community (people living in an area) struggling economically, we can no more require a company to hand out donations than we can require a person to give money to someone on the street who asks for change. Charity should not be mandated. White points out that in many cases, however, corporations are inextricably linked to social or environmental problems. Many companies, for example, find legal loopholes to irresponsibly dispose of their waste. Though they managed to skirt the law, companies, just like people should be held morally responsible (the person who must do something) for the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, whether companies agree or disagree with White, it's now in their interest to adopt a socially responsible (the person who must do something) position. With the rise of ethics-influenced consumerism, shoppers are demanding that products be produced with the concerns of laborers, animals, and the environment in mind. Sadly, as a byproduct, this has also given rise to a form of greenwashing in advertising where companies market themselves with an environmentally friendly (kind and nice) image for the sole interest of increasing sales.

Part 6 - Listening for Viewpoints

Audio - Viewpoints Talk

The sole responsibility of a corporation according to economist Milton Friedman is to make money. A corporation exists to serve its shareholders—that is any entity which owns any part of the company whose goal is to increase the value of their investment in that company. As long as the decisions made by a company's executives further this aim, a corporation is fulfilling its duty. Profits aside, if a company's actions harm its employees, customers, the community (people living in an area) or the environment, surely this must be problematic. In recent decades, more people have realized that these affected groups known as stakeholders deserve consideration in corporate decision-making. In contrast to Friedman's shareholder view, the stakeholder view contends that corporations have an obligation to integrate social and environmental concerns into their business model. For example, corporations should contribute to community (people living in an area) development, pay respectable wages, or donate to worthy causes. For Milton Friedman, however, addressing social issues is the responsibility of the government, not corporations. Asking companies to spend revenue (money a business or place receives) on social welfare is akin to imposing taxation on shareholders. Friedman makes it clear that corporations are not public (all people in the community) servants and are not responsible (the person who must do something) to the public (all people in the community). What's more, a corporation as an artificial construct does not have moral or social responsibilities in the same sense as people. For Friedman, the sole social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits while obeying the law. Ethicist Margaret White says Friedman is right in one sense. While it would undoubtedly be kind for a rich company to give money to a community (people living in an area) struggling economically, we can no more require a company to hand out donations than we can require a person to give money to someone on the street who asks for change. Charity should not be mandated. White points out that in many cases, however, corporations are inextricably linked to social or environmental problems. Many companies, for example, find legal loopholes to irresponsibly dispose of their waste. Though they managed to skirt the law, companies, just like people should be held morally responsible (the person who must do something) for the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, whether companies agree or disagree with White, it's now in their interest to adopt a socially responsible (the person who must do something) position. With the rise of ethics-influenced consumerism, shoppers are demanding that products be produced with the concerns of laborers, animals, and the environment in mind. Sadly, as a byproduct, this has also given rise to a form of greenwashing in advertising where companies market themselves with an environmentally friendly (kind and nice) image for the sole interest of increasing sales.

Part 6 - Listening for Viewpoints

Audio - Viewpoints Talk

The sole responsibility of a corporation according to economist Milton Friedman is to make money. A corporation exists to serve its shareholders—that is any entity which owns any part of the company whose goal is to increase the value of their investment in that company. As long as the decisions made by a company's executives further this aim, a corporation is fulfilling its duty. Profits aside, if a company's actions harm its employees, customers, the community (people living in an area) or the environment, surely this must be problematic. In recent decades, more people have realized that these affected groups known as stakeholders deserve consideration in corporate decision-making. In contrast to Friedman's shareholder view, the stakeholder view contends that corporations have an obligation to integrate social and environmental concerns into their business model. For example, corporations should contribute to community (people living in an area) development, pay respectable wages, or donate to worthy causes. For Milton Friedman, however, addressing social issues is the responsibility of the government, not corporations. Asking companies to spend revenue (money a business or place receives) on social welfare is akin to imposing taxation on shareholders. Friedman makes it clear that corporations are not public (all people in the community) servants and are not responsible (the person who must do something) to the public (all people in the community). What's more, a corporation as an artificial construct does not have moral or social responsibilities in the same sense as people. For Friedman, the sole social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits while obeying the law. Ethicist Margaret White says Friedman is right in one sense. While it would undoubtedly be kind for a rich company to give money to a community (people living in an area) struggling economically, we can no more require a company to hand out donations than we can require a person to give money to someone on the street who asks for change. Charity should not be mandated. White points out that in many cases, however, corporations are inextricably linked to social or environmental problems. Many companies, for example, find legal loopholes to irresponsibly dispose of their waste. Though they managed to skirt the law, companies, just like people should be held morally responsible (the person who must do something) for the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, whether companies agree or disagree with White, it's now in their interest to adopt a socially responsible (the person who must do something) position. With the rise of ethics-influenced consumerism, shoppers are demanding that products be produced with the concerns of laborers, animals, and the environment in mind. Sadly, as a byproduct, this has also given rise to a form of greenwashing in advertising where companies market themselves with an environmentally friendly (kind and nice) image for the sole interest of increasing sales.