Bài 7–8; whole-clause which, source audit và verb–preposition chunks. Double comparatives được mở ở bài này; adverbial clauses of manner/result dành cho phần sau của lớp 12.
ENGLISH 6–12 • LEARN IT, USE IT, MAKE IT YOURSTHPT • ĐÍCH BẬC 3 • 105 TIẾT/NĂM
ƯỚC MƠ LỚNENGLISH EVERY DAY
Trang chủCHƯƠNG 3 • BÀI 9 • 85% MỚI + 15% NỀN CŨ
The more we check, the less we guess
Càng kiểm tra, càng bớt đoán
Nhóm thêm ba nguồn nhưng chỉ đọc tiêu đề. Bảng tổng hợp nói: ‘Tôi nhiều ô hơn, chưa chắc nhiều hiểu biết hơn.’
“The more tabs I opened, the less I remembered why I had opened the first tab.”Tớ càng mở nhiều tab, càng ít nhớ vì sao mình mở tab đầu tiên.
The + comparative..., the + comparative... nối hai thay đổi; nó không tự chứng minh quan hệ nhân quả. More and more diễn tả một đại lượng tăng dần.VOC • CHUNKS BEFORE SINGLE WORDS
Học sáu cụm để dùng ngay
Đọc nghĩa, nghe câu mẫu, che thẻ rồi gọi lại. Không chép một từ rời 10 lần.
verify a central claim
/ˈverɪfaɪ ə ˈsentrəl kleɪm/xác minh nhận định trung tâmVerify the claim before adding descriptive language.
trace information to its source
/treɪs ˌɪnfəˈmeɪʃn tə ɪts sɔːs/truy thông tin về nguồn gốcTrace each figure to the fictional source file.
compare independent accounts
/kəmˈpeər ˌɪndɪˈpendənt əˈkaʊnts/so sánh các tường thuật độc lậpCompare accounts that do not simply copy one another.
label a level of certainty
/ˈleɪbl ə ˈlevl əv ˈsɜːtnti/ghi nhãn mức độ chắc chắnLabel confirmed, reported, estimated or unknown.
avoid circular confirmation
/əˈvɔɪd ˈsɜːkjələ ˌkɒnfəˈmeɪʃn/tránh xác nhận vòng trònThree reposts of one source are not three confirmations.
publish a correction trail
/ˈpʌblɪʃ ə kəˈrekʃn treɪl/công bố dấu vết đính chínhA correction trail records what changed and why.
GRAM • MEANING → FORM → USE
Double comparatives: hai thay đổi liên hệ và một xu hướng tăng/giảm
The + comparative..., the + comparative... diễn tả hai thay đổi có quan hệ. Comparative and comparative diễn tả một đặc điểm tăng/giảm dần: more and more careful, less and less clear. Cấu trúc mô tả pattern; bằng chứng ngoài ngữ pháp mới quyết định nguyên nhân.
Khung câu
- The + comparative + subject + verb, the + comparative + subject + verb
- more/less + noun clause: The more sources we trace, the fewer unsupported claims remain
- comparative and comparative: clearer and clearer
- more and more + adjective/noun; less and less + adjective/noun
Câu dùng thật
The more carefully we trace a figure, the less likely we are to repeat an unsupported claim.
The wider the sample becomes, the more cautious the comparison must be.
The correction trail became clearer and clearer.
The draft contained fewer and fewer unlabelled estimates.
Bẫy cần gỡ
Không dùng more better hoặc the more easier. Double comparative không tự chứng minh cause; có thể mô tả quy trình hoặc association đã quan sát. Phải giữ cùng biến và phạm vi khi so sánh.
SOUND • CLEAR ENGLISH
Nhịp và trọng âm tương phản trong double comparatives
Ưu tiên người nghe hiểu rõ. Có hai mẫu Anh–Mỹ/Anh–Anh; giọng cụ thể phụ thuộc thiết bị, còn IPA và hướng dẫn khẩu hình là chuẩn đối chiếu.
Chia hai vế thành hai thought groups và nhấn comparative mang thay đổi: The MORE we CHECK | the LESS we GUESS. Function words the/we thường nhẹ trừ khi đối lập. Ngữ điệu vế đầu giữ mở, vế sau hạ khi kết luận.
- the MORE we CHECK | the LESS we GUESS
- CLEARer and CLEARer
- FEWer and FEWer unlabelled claims
The more carefully we trace a figure, the less likely we are to repeat an unsupported claim.1. Nghe không nói. 2. Nói đè theo cụm. 3. Tự ghi âm và so độ rõ.
LISTEN • 239 WORDS
Three links, one original source
Ghi CLAIM–ORIGINAL SOURCE–INDEPENDENT?–CERTAINTY–CHANGE–CORRECTION. Vẽ mũi tên để phát hiện circular confirmation.
NGHE 3 LƯỢT
- Chỉ bắt ý chính.
- Nghe thông tin cần cho nhiệm vụ.
- Mở transcript để kiểm, rồi shadow một câu.
Chỉ mở transcript sau ít nhất hai lượt nghe
A fictional verification team receives a claim that a new square layout has doubled evening visits. The post includes three links, which first appears to provide three confirmations. The students trace each link. Two are reposts that both point to the same undated summary; the third is a classroom news article based on that summary. The team therefore has one original account, not three independent sources. The summary reports a change from twenty to forty role-card entries, but it does not state whether the observation periods were equal. The students label the figure ‘reported, comparison incomplete’. They then find a second fictional file with two equal thirty-minute observations. It records twenty-two entries before the change and twenty-nine after it. The more carefully the team traces the links, the fewer independent confirmations remain. The figures also become clearer and clearer because the observation periods are finally stated. However, the new file still cannot show why the count changed. Weather role cards, event timing or the layout may have contributed. The team revises the headline to ‘Equal-Period Simulation Records More Entries After Layout Change’. It publishes a correction trail naming the original wording, duplicated source chain, new file and remaining uncertainty. The final brief does not say that checking always causes accuracy. Instead, it describes this workflow: as source independence and measurement details improved, unsupported certainty decreased. The team keeps one open question about cause and recommends another controlled fictional comparison.
- 1Why do three links provide only one original account?
- 2What remains uncertain after the equal-period file is found?
TALK • ROLE + GOAL + REPAIR
Hội thoại có mục đích
Mục tiêu: Trình bày source chain–certainty–revision bằng double comparatives có giới hạn.
Vai: A: fact-check editor • B: verifier
ADid the three links give us three independent confirmations?
BNo. The more carefully we traced them, the fewer original sources remained.
AWhat became clearer?
BThe observation periods became clearer and clearer after we found the second file.
ADo we know why the count changed?
BNo. We can report the association, but the cause remains open.
READ • 293 WORDS
More links do not always mean more confirmation
Vẽ SOURCE GRAPH rồi ghi ORIGINAL–COPY–INDEPENDENT–MEASURE–CERTAINTY–CORRECTION.
Online information can appear well supported because many pages repeat the same figure. Repetition is not independence. If three articles point to one undated summary, they may create three links but only one original account. Verification begins by tracing the source chain and asking whether each account collected its own evidence or simply copied another page. Double comparatives can describe what happens during a careful workflow. ‘The more links we trace, the fewer independent sources remain’ expresses two related changes. ‘The correction trail becomes clearer and clearer’ describes a gradual development. These structures do not prove cause by themselves. The writer still needs a record showing how the variables changed and should avoid stronger causal wording than the evidence supports. Measurement details matter as much as source count. Two figures cannot be compared fairly if one represents an hour and the other ten minutes. Population, location type, observation method and time period should be aligned or clearly qualified. Levels of certainty help readers follow the result: confirmed, reported, estimated, disputed or unknown. Labels should be defined by the newsroom method, not chosen for dramatic effect. Correction trails make revision visible. A useful trail states the earlier wording, what new information appeared, which source supplied it and how the conclusion changed. It does not pretend the earlier version never existed. Classroom verification should use fictional source networks so that students do not amplify real rumours or accusations. The final task is not to collect the largest number of tabs. It is to identify the smallest set of genuinely independent, relevant and well-described evidence. The more transparent the source path becomes, the easier it is for another reader to reproduce the check—and the harder it is for circular confirmation to hide behind a crowded screen.
1What makes sources independent?
2What should a correction trail explain?
WRITE • 180–200 WORDS
Viết fictional verification brief 180–200 từ.
Viết cho người đọc thật: dựng ý, viết nháp, kiểm nghĩa rồi mới sửa hình thức.
Plan
- Original claim
- Source-chain finding
- Missing measurement
- Independent file
- Revised headline
- Correction trail + open cause
Model • 200 words
A fictional post claimed that a new square layout had doubled evening visits and provided three links. At first, the links appeared to offer three confirmations. However, two were reposts of the same undated summary, and the third article also relied on that summary. The more carefully we traced the links, the fewer independent sources remained. The summary compared twenty and forty role-card entries but did not state whether the observation periods were equal. We therefore labelled the claim ‘reported, comparison incomplete’. A second fictional file contained two equal thirty-minute observations: twenty-two entries before the change and twenty-nine after it. The measurement became clearer and clearer, but the cause did not. Weather roles, event timing or the layout may have contributed. Our revised headline is ‘Equal-Period Simulation Records More Entries After Layout Change’. We published a correction trail showing the earlier wording, duplicated source chain, new file and changed certainty. The updated evidence supports an association in this simulation; it does not prove that the layout caused the increase. We recommend another controlled comparison and will keep the causal question open. More links did not create more evidence, but a more transparent source path made the conclusion easier to check.
Self-edit
- 180–200 từ
- Double comparatives đúng form
- Tách repetition khỏi independence
- Không biến association thành cause
RETRIEVAL PRACTICE
Luyện tập 85%–15%
17 câu bài hiện tại + 3 câu nền đã học. Không có câu dùng kiến thức của bài sau.
Cụm “verify a central claim” có nghĩa phù hợp nhất là gì?
Cụm “trace information to its source” có nghĩa phù hợp nhất là gì?
Cụm “compare independent accounts” có nghĩa phù hợp nhất là gì?
Cụm “label a level of certainty” có nghĩa phù hợp nhất là gì?
Cụm “avoid circular confirmation” có nghĩa phù hợp nhất là gì?
Cụm “publish a correction trail” có nghĩa phù hợp nhất là gì?
___ carefully we trace a figure, ___ likely we are to repeat an unsupported claim.
The correction trail became ___.
The draft contained ___ unlabelled estimates after each check.
Which statement is accurate?
Which words normally carry contrastive focus in ‘The more we check, the less we guess’?
How should the two halves usually be grouped?
What tone is common at the end of a complete conclusion?
Why do three links provide only one original account?
What remains uncertain after the equal-period file is found?
What makes sources independent?
What should a correction trail explain?
The team relied ___ one original account.
The first post hid the sample, ___ weakened the claim.
The editor asked the team ___ the source chain.
Gợi mở, không nói hộ
Khi thấy nhiều link, hỏi con ‘có bao nhiêu nguồn gốc độc lập?’. Không kiểm tin bằng cách chia sẻ lại tin thật chưa xác minh.
Dạy để giao tiếp có căn cứ
Dạy double comparative bằng tracked variables và causal caution. Source network hoàn toàn hư cấu; học sinh không được khuếch đại tin đồn hoặc cáo buộc có thật.
CHƯƠNG 3Cities and media