Androic

The speaker gives feedback on an assignment, focusing on oral expression. They mention that the first reaction is too short and vague, lacking specific examples and details. The second reaction is even shorter and lacks a clear point or supporting arguments. The third commentary is also short and lacks sufficient information to justify the point. The speaker suggests improving argumentation and providing more details. They also mention that pronunciation and accent are good, but the speaker needs to speak more and reduce hesitation. The speaker also notes that the language used is generally correct but simple. Copie d'Androïd Yégoslav, devoir d'onglet numéro 6, de première. On s'intéresse plus particulièrement donc à l'expression orale. Ok, so about your first reaction, it's very short indeed, you just 24 seconds instead of 130 seconds, so it's very short. You could maybe give more details about what you are reacting about, because it's still quite vague, we don't know what you're talking about and what you're reacting to. You talk about a good idea, ok, but why is it a good idea exactly? You mention the fact of providing historical anecdotes, that's it. But which one, can you give concrete examples maybe? And also, who gives these anecdotes to who, that's still to indicate. So yes, indeed for the first reaction, it's still quite too precise and give more details. Ok, so for your second reaction, it's even shorter, only 8 seconds. Honestly, I don't see the point of just doing a video of 8 seconds, you just answer to the point of someone, but you don't mention what is his opinion. You talk about sir, ok, what is he saying, you just say you quite not agree, but you don't indicate any comment or any concrete sentence or expression to justify your point and what you're talking about. So it's still very very vague. And you don't give really concrete arguments. Ok, so for the third commentary, still still still very short, not even 20 seconds. So really you need to work on your time, ok, it's really really super short. So this time, yes, you mentioned that you agree with the opinion mentioned and you rephrased it as that the Caribbean community should get involved because of the first concern by your English generation. Ok, you mentioned the comment, but you don't argue on it, you don't give any more information. That could be very useful for us and for me also. So still, your major point to work on is your argumentation because you don't give any more details or pieces of information to justify your point. Except, I agree, I don't agree. It's too much superficial, you need to go further. Ok, I will now move on to the language point of view and what can be improved. So your pronunciation is rather correct and fluent, your accent is quite well mastered and is close to English. That said, you speak very little, barely a minute actually through the three audios, the three videos. So it's much too little unfortunately to give really enough material to argue. So you also have some hesitation in your comments, so that can be improved. Also, you tend to look at your screen and read. So I don't know, I didn't notice, but it looks like you're reading on your screen. But otherwise, the language is generally correct, simple, very simple, but correct, without major mistakes, except for a few hesitations. Really, the point you need to work on is the argumentation because your productions are too short and too brief. You only mention yes, I agree with, no, I don't agree, without a background argument. And above all, your productions are too short to be able to establish a personal opinion with enough material.