📊 Прогресс:

Всего вопросов: 0

Правильных: 0

Ошибок: 0

Proceed to speaking practice

III. Listening

Step 1. Listen to the mini-lecture (or read the transcript) and then answer the questions.

Listening + Questions — 8-12 minutes on average

Attention! You will not see the questions in advance, so, take down as many facts and details as possible!
You will have about 8 minutes to answers the questions. You will see them one by one.

Click here to show/hide the transcript

 
You've got: 08:00

Questions:

1. What is the main focus of the lecture?




Show/Hide explanation

2. Why would detecting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in an exoplanet’s atmosphere be significant, according to the lecture?




Show/Hide explanation

3. According to the professor, what would a Dyson sphere most likely look like to our telescopes?




Show/Hide explanation

4. What has happened to previous candidates for Dyson spheres?




Show/Hide explanation

5. Why might lasers serve as possible technosignatures?




Show/Hide explanation

6. According to the lecture, which TWO signs would most strongly indicate potential technosignatures?

"Максимальный балл за этот вопрос — 2. Выберите ДВА варианта:






Total Questions: 7

Correct Answers: 0

Incorrect Answers: 0

 

II. Reading

1. Step 1. Read the text below

Reading + Test Time — 18 minutes

 
You've got: 18:00

Passage:

The modern search for extraterrestrial life began not with visions of advanced civilizations, but with the simpler question of whether microbes exist beyond Earth. Early in the twentieth century, astronomers even debated whether the “canals” they thought they saw on Mars were evidence of vegetation. These features were later shown to be optical illusions, but the discussion encouraged more systematic exploration of nearby planets.

By the mid-1900s, attention shifted from surface structures to chemical signatures. Scientists recognised that certain molecules, such as methane, could indicate biological activity under the right conditions. NASA’s Viking missions in the 1970s were the first to conduct direct experiments on Martian soil. Although their results were inconclusive, they produced intriguing signals and sparked decades of scientific debate over whether the data reflected life or merely complex chemical reactions.

In recent years, exploration has expanded to include icy moons such as Europa and Enceladus. These bodies possess subsurface oceans warmed by tidal heating, creating environments that might be suitable for microbial ecosystems. The discovery of hydrothermal vents on Earth’s ocean floor — where life thrives without sunlight — strengthened the idea that similar ecosystems could exist in the dark oceans of distant moons.

Another major development involves planets orbiting distant stars, known as exoplanets. Improvements in telescope technology now allow scientists to examine some of their atmospheres. When certain gases appear together, such as oxygen and methane, they may represent a biosignature — a detectable sign of biological activity that would be difficult to explain by non-biological processes alone.

Several exoplanets show promising atmospheric profiles, but none has yet provided definitive proof of life. The data are often incomplete or noisy, and researchers must carefully rule out alternative explanations, including unusual chemistry or volcanic activity. As instruments become more sensitive, however, the number of potentially interesting worlds is likely to increase.

Despite the absence of confirmed discoveries, interest in microbial life is growing. Many researchers argue that simple organisms are far more common in the universe than technologically advanced species, making microbes the most likely form of extraterrestrial life. Moreover, finding even a single example of independent biology would demonstrate that life emerges readily given the right conditions, and it would firmly establish the search for microbes as a central frontier in modern astrobiology.

Questions:

1. What is the main purpose of the passage?




2. According to the passage, what was one outcome of the Viking missions?




3. Why are Europa and Enceladus considered promising places to search for life?




4. What role did hydrothermal vents on Earth play in shaping scientists’ views?




5. What is implied about detecting oxygen and methane together in an exoplanet’s atmosphere?




6. Why do many researchers concentrate on microbial rather than intelligent life?




7. The word “biosignature” in paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to




8. Which of the following statements would the author most likely agree with?





9. Look at the four squares [A], [B], [C], and [D] . Where would the sentence best fit?

Sentence: As a result, each new mission refines the tools scientists use to distinguish possible biology from purely chemical processes.

Paragraph: (A) NASA’s Viking missions in the 1970s were the first to conduct direct experiments on Martian soil. (B) The results were inconclusive and sparked decades of debate. (C) Subsequent orbiters and rovers have continued to investigate Mars with more advanced instruments. (D) Some scientists claim that one Viking experiment detected signs of microbial metabolism, while others argue that the data can be fully explained by non-biological chemistry.




Show/Hide explanation

10. Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Select the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas. This question is worth 2 points.

Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that best express the most important ideas of the passage.

Выберите ТРИ варианта:






 

Total Questions: 10

Incorrect Answers: 0

2. Integrated writing.

Step 1. Read the text below.

Reading Time — 3 minutes

 
Read & take down 3 main ideas: 3:00

Reading Passage:

Many researchers argue that microbial life beyond Earth is not only possible but likely, given several recent discoveries in planetary science. Three major lines of evidence support this optimistic view.

First, methane repeatedly detected in the Martian atmosphere may indicate the presence of living microorganisms. On Earth, a significant portion of methane is produced biologically, especially by microbes that thrive in oxygen-poor environments. Since the methane on Mars appears and disappears in seasonal patterns, many scientists interpret it as a strong hint that the gas is being generated by active microbial communities beneath the planet’s surface.

Second, two icy moons—Europa of Jupiter and Enceladus of Saturn—are now considered among the most promising habitats for extraterrestrial biology. Both bodies possess vast subsurface oceans of liquid water, warmed by tidal heating and shielded from space by thick ice. Observations of hydrothermal-like activity on Enceladus suggest that these oceans could closely resemble Earth’s deep-sea vent systems, which are known to support rich microbial ecosystems independent of sunlight. If similar chemical and thermal conditions exist there, microbial colonies could easily persist.

Third, scientists studying distant exoplanets have identified atmospheric combinations—such as the simultaneous presence of oxygen and methane—that may serve as biosignatures. These gases generally coexist only when continuously replenished by living organisms. Because modern telescopes are capable of detecting such atmospheric patterns from many light-years away, the probability of identifying a biologically active planet has grown substantially.

Taken together, these discoveries provide compelling support for the hypothesis that microbial life may be widespread in the universe. Although direct proof remains elusive, the existing evidence strongly suggests that Earth is unlikely to be the only world where life has emerged.

Step 2. Listen to part of a lecture below and take notes.

If the lecture is hard to follow, click to show/hide a transcript

Click here to show/hide the question

Step 3. Write your answer.

Writing time - 16 min.

 
Write: 16:00

Click here to show/hide the template

Email отправителя [Отправляя свои личные данные в любом поле на этом сайте, вы соглашаетесь с политикой обработки персональных данных, которая осуществляется в соответсвии с законодательством РФ.] *:
Ваше имя *:
Write your answer[s] here.= Введите письменный ответ здесь. Озаглавьте свою работу по теме задания. На пример: Essay on the topic " To be or not to be" или " Звуковой файл по видео о том как готовить пиццу" или "Звуковой файл со сравнением картинок о видах домашних животных" But better write in English) After all, you are learning to use it;)ESL tutor Tatyana Dolina webenglish.org *:
Прикрепите фото, скриншот, звуковой файл или др.файл [jpeg, png, pdf, doc, docx, txt, mp3]:
Докажите, что вы не робот. *:

2. Independent writing

Reading time – 2 minutes, writing time – 8 minutes

Step 1. Read the academic discussion

 
Read the post carefully: 2:00

Professor’s Post (Topic):

In recent years, governments and private companies have invested billions of dollars in space technologies: launching new satellites, planning missions to Mars, and even developing space tourism. Supporters argue that these projects drive innovation, create jobs, and help us understand our place in the universe. However, critics point out that many societies still struggle with poverty, inadequate healthcare, and the effects of climate change, and they question whether expensive space programmes are morally justified when so many urgent problems remain unsolved on the ground. In your view, should governments continue to allocate significant public funds to space exploration, or should they redirect that money to more immediate needs on Earth?

Esmeralda

I believe that governments should keep investing heavily in space exploration, even if there are serious problems on Earth. Many everyday technologies, from medical imaging to satellite navigation, originally came from space research, so cutting these programmes could slow progress in many other fields. In addition, space missions often require international cooperation, which can reduce political tensions and create shared goals. For me, the long-term benefits of scientific discovery and technological innovation justify the expense.

Claudio

Personally, I think it is difficult to defend huge space budgets while basic social needs are not fully covered. When hospitals are underfunded and many people cannot afford education or housing, spending billions on rockets seems irresponsible. Of course, some level of space research is useful, but it should not receive priority over essential services that directly affect people’s lives today. In my opinion, governments ought to reduce large, ambitious space projects and focus more on solving problems here on Earth first.

Step 2. Write a response (about 120 words) stating your opinion on the issue. Be sure to:

  • State your own view clearly. It brings you more points if your opinion is different from those of the students.
  • Refer to the opinions of both Luise and Lucas
  • Use specific reasons or examples
 
Write: 8:00
Email отправителя [Отправляя свои личные данные в любом поле на этом сайте, вы соглашаетесь с политикой обработки персональных данных, которая осуществляется в соответсвии с законодательством РФ.] *:
Ваше имя *:
Write your answer[s] here.= Введите письменный ответ здесь. Озаглавьте свою работу по теме задания. На пример: Essay on the topic " To be or not to be" или " Звуковой файл по видео о том как готовить пиццу" или "Звуковой файл со сравнением картинок о видах домашних животных" But better write in English) After all, you are learning to use it;)ESL tutor Tatyana Dolina webenglish.org *:
Прикрепите фото, скриншот, звуковой файл или др.файл [jpeg, png, pdf, doc, docx, txt, mp3]:
Докажите, что вы не робот. *:

You can use one of these templates:

Proceed to speaking practice