The transcript is:

So in 2005, I was a development executive at Leonardo’s production company. I got a phone call from the representative of a screenwriter that began pretty much the way all of those conversations did: “I’ve got Leo’s next movie.” Now in this movie, that his client had written, Leo would play an oil industry lobbyist whose girlfriend, a local meteorologist, threatens to leave him because his work contributes to global warming. And this is a situation that’s been brought to a head by the fact that there’s a hurricane forming in the Atlantic that’s threatening to do Maria-like damage from Maine to Myrtle Beach. Leo, very sad about this impending break up, does a little more research about the hurricane and discovers that in its path across the Atlantic, it will pass over a long-dormant, though now active volcano that will spew toxic ash into its eye that will presumably be whipped into some sort of chemical weapon that will destroy the world.

It was at that point that I asked him, “So are you basically pitching me ‘Leo versus the toxic superstorm that will destroy humanity?'” And he responded by saying, “Well, when you say it like that, it sounds ridiculous.” And I’m embarrassed to admit that I had the guy send me the script, and I read 30 pages before I was sure that it was as bad as I thought it was. Now, “Superstorm” is certainly an extreme example, but it’s also not an unusual one. And unfortunately, most scripts aren’t as easy to dismiss as that one.

The correct option is:

Option 2

It captures all the key points – Executive at Leonardo’s company, experience receiving and reviewing the scripts, difficult to judge them easily. Other options either talk about something that is not mentioned in the audio or focus on a subsection of the audio, rather than the overall theme.

The transcript is:

Without curiosity-driven research, though, none of these things would exist at all. So, over the years, we really learned to explore inside the atom. And to do that, we had to learn to develop particle accelerators. The first ones we developed let us split the atom. And then we got to higher and higher energies; we created circular accelerators that let us delve into the nucleus and then create new elements, even. And at that point, we were no longer just exploring inside the atom. We’d actually learned how to control these particles. We’d learned how to interact with our world on a scale that’s too small for humans to see or touch or even sense that it’s there.

The correct option is:

Option 1

This option covers all the key points – importance of curiosity driven research, how it made possible to explore inside the atom and invention of technologies like particle accelerators. Please note that the correct summary is the one which captures the main points of what is discussed in the audio. It should not contain anything that was not spoken in the audio.

The transcript is:

Here’s another really smart human trick. Suppose I ask you how many penguins are there. Well, I bet I know how you’d solve that problem if you solved it. You went, “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.” You counted them. You named each one with a number, and the last number you said was the number of penguins. This is a little trick that you’re taught to use as kids. You learn the number list and you learn how to apply it. A little linguistic trick. Well, some languages don’t do this, because some languages don’t have exact number words. They’re languages that don’t have a word like “seven” or a word like “eight.” In fact, people who speak these languages don’t count, and they have trouble keeping track of exact quantities. So, for example, if I ask you to match this number of penguins to the same number of ducks, you would be able to do that by counting. But folks who don’t have that linguistic trick can’t do that.

The correct option is:

Option 2

This option captures all key points in the audio – counting, letters for numbers, language without counting numbers

Please note the summary is the gist of what is spoken. It contains no unnecessary references to things like penguins or tricks, which are there only to support the main point. So, should make it a point to ignore such options that contain these unnecessary things. The correct summary will only contain the main points.

The transcript is:

I assure you, people have done much more careful calculations, and it comes out with the same answer, which is that you have to put chalk up at the rate of about 10 teragrams a year to undo the effects of the CO2 that we’ve already done — just in terms of temperature, not all the effects, but the temperature. So what does that look like? I can’t visualize 10 teragrams per year. So I asked the Cambridge Fire Department and Taylor Milsal to lend me a hand. This is a hose pumping water at 10 teragrams a year. And that is how much you would have to pump into the stratosphere to cool the earth back down to pre-industrial levels. And it’s amazingly little; it’s like one hose for the entire earth. Now of course, you wouldn’t really use a hose, you’d fly it up in airplanes or something like that. But it’s so little, it would be like putting a handful of chalk into every Olympic swimming pool full of rain. It’s almost nothing.

The correct option is:

Option 3

This covers all the main points – using chalk to undo the effects of CO2, amount of chalk needed for this. Other options focus either on just one of these main points or mention something that is not said in the audio.

The transcript is:

That problem is that there is really no way. When you throw something away, it typically goes into a landfill. Now, a landfill is basically something which is not going to go away, and it’s increasing. At the moment, we have about 1.3 billion tons of material every year going into landfills. By 2100, it’s going to be about four billion tons. See, instead, I’d prefer if we started thrifting. What that means is, we consider materials when they go into products and also when they get used, and, at the end of their life: When can they be used again? It’s the idea of completely changing the way we think about waste, so waste is no longer a dirty word — we almost remove the word “waste” completely. All we’re looking to is resources. Resource goes into a product and then can basically go into another product.

The correct option is:

Option 4

Option 4 covers all the main points – landfills, magnitude of waste in them, think differently about waste. If a few options look similar, go for the one that is most specific to the audio. For example, if one option talks about general waste management and the other talks about landfill management, then go for the second as it is more to the point.

The transcript is:

The power and beauty of mathematical modeling lies in the fact that it makes you formalize, in a very rigorous way, what we think we know. We make assumptions, translate them into equations, run simulations, all to answer the question: In a world where my assumptions are true, what do I expect to see? It’s a pretty simple conceptual framework. It’s all about asking the right questions. But it can unleash numerous opportunities for testing biological hypotheses. If our predictions match our observations, great! — we got it right, so we can make further predictions by changing this or that aspect of the model. If, however, our predictions do not match our observations, that means that some of our assumptions are wrong, and so our understanding of the key mechanisms of underlying biology is still incomplete.

Luckily, since this is a model, we control all the assumptions. So we can go through them, one by one, identifying which one or ones are causing the discrepancy. And then we can fill this newly identified gap in knowledge using both experimental and theoretical approaches.

The correct option is:

Option 1

This option has all the key information discussed in the audio – mathematical modeling, use in testing biological hypothesis, how it is done. Other options either don’t cover all the key aspects or mention something that is not correct as per the audio.

The transcript is:

This Great Migration began when the North had a labor problem. The North had a labor problem because it had been relying on cheap labor from Europe — immigrants from Europe — to work the factories and the foundries and the steel mills. But during World War I, migration from Europe came to a virtual halt. And so the North had a labor problem. And so the North decided to go and find the cheapest labor in the land which meant African Americans in the South, many of whom were not even being paid for their hard work. Many of them were working for the right to live on the land that they were farming. They were sharecroppers and not even being paid. So they were ripe for recruitment.

But it turned out that the South did not take kindly to this poaching of its cheap labor. The South actually did everything it could to keep the people from leaving. They would arrest people from the railroad platforms. Remember, putatively free American citizens. They would arrest them from their train seats. And when there were too many people to arrest, they would wave the train on through so that people who had been hoping and saving and praying for the chance to get to freedom had to figure out: How now will we get out?

The correct option is:

Option 1

This option captures all the key points – great migration, its importance in the context of slavery and freedom of African Americans, opposition to the movement. Always go for the summary that has all the essential points. If any summary talks more about one supporting point, then ignore it.

The transcript is:

That is the history of the National Parks on land. The ocean, what I want to talk to you about today, is a completely different story. And we are almost precisely 100 years behind. So, the first marine sanctuary was in 1972, after the oil spill in Santa Barbara, people got interested in taking that concept and applying it to underwater environments. We’ve had our own John Muir, who’s Dr. Sylvia Earle, who’s been a tireless advocate for creating these marine protected areas around the world. So, I know there’s a lot of bad news about the ocean, there’s plastic pollution, coral bleaching, over-fishing — it’s hard to take it all in sometimes. But this idea of setting aside places for nature is working. Science tells us that if you set these places aside, nature will come back and we can keep the oceans healthy. So we know this idea works. And Dr. Sylvia Earl has been influential, like John Muir, with administrations — George W. Bush and Obama were both fantastic ocean presidents, creating marine protected areas all around the country. This is not a conservative idea or a liberal idea, it’s not even an American idea, it’s just a good idea.

The correct option is:

Option 4

This option covers all the main points. The main points in the audio are – national parks for oceans, origin of the idea, support for the idea – among people and government. Sometimes the summary will cover the key points in a paraphrased way. Therefore, do not always depend upon matching words. It is important to understand the overall meaning and theme of what you have heard.

The transcript is:

So why do you think the rich should pay more in taxes? Why did you buy the latest iPhone? Why did you pick your current partner? And why did so many people vote for Donald Trump? What were the reasons, why did they do it?

So we ask this kind of question all the time, and we expect to get an answer. And when being asked, we expect ourselves to know the answer, to simply tell why we did as we did. But do we really know why? So when you say that you prefer George Clooney to Tom Hanks, due to his concern for the environment, is that really true? So you can be perfectly sincere and genuinely believe that this is the reason that drives your choice, but to me, it may still feel like something is missing. As it stands, due to the nature of subjectivity, it is actually very hard to ever prove that people are wrong about themselves.

The correct option is:

Option 1

This option covers all the key points discussed in the audio – difficulty in explaining motives behind actions, our expectation to know the reasons behind actions. Please note the second option talks about taxes, purchases etc. The summary is not meant to talk about the examples, it is only for the main points and the overall theme. You should always keep this point in mind while selecting the correct option.

The transcript is:

After the announcement, pretty quickly, colleagues started leaving the team, and soon, we were left in a small group, all pretty much sharing the same attitude of, “I’m going to be the last person leaving the ship.” What I mean is, while the number of scientists working on the project was decreasing, the dedication of people remaining grew dramatically. And also, a new and more intense team spirit formed. We all shared the same passion for our work, we all were sad that it was about to end, and we all wanted to show that we could turn our ideas into reality. We felt that we belonged to something bigger. And furthermore, our project was less and less in the focus of the management, because they started to think about new projects, restructuring and so on. This resulted in additional freedom and the possibility to take a few things into our own hands. Of course, more freedom also means more responsibility, which we were happy to take, because we believed in our work. We felt empowered. And these three pillars — dedication, belonging and empowerment — worked together in a kind of self-reinforcing cycle, and the closer we got to shutdown, the better our output became.

The correct option is:

Option 2

This covers all the main points – members remaining in a closed project, increase in productivity, reasons behind it. Please note that highlight correct summary in a way is just like a multiple choice question. Same principles that apply there, can also be used here while selecting your option.