Bengaber

Louane Ben-Gaber's English assignment is reviewed. It is mentioned that her arguments should be developed more, especially in regards to coding and robotics. She suggests that coding should only be offered to students who are interested and mentions starting at the age of 15. In terms of the future of work, Louane disagrees with the idea that AI and robots will replace humans. However, her arguments are not clear and she repeats herself often. She mentions the impact of pollution from older generations and questions whether they are responsible. She suggests putting oneself in their shoes to understand their actions. The feedback also includes some linguistic mistakes and hesitations in speech, but overall, Louane's language is understandable. Copie de Louane Ben-Gaber, devoir d'anglais numéro 6, niveau terminale, partie expression orale. Et pour l'oral, on continue par là. Ok, so for the first review, your production is a little short, less than 1 minute, 52 seconds exactly. So maybe you should develop a little more your arguments to last, yeah, it will be good 1 minute 20, 1 minute 30. Your arguments are quite correct, you mention coding, coding and robotics, and so you say that it should not be proposed to all the students, if it's what I understand, not to all the students of all ages, but only those who are interested in it, in coding, and maybe for, as you say, their future career or professional jobs. Ok, and so those who may not need it or may not be fond of it should not be forced to do it. And so then you suggest maybe to start at the age of 15 in high school, but not before, maybe because you consider it too young under 15. Ok, so for you, your arguments are quite simple and maybe to develop a little, but it's correct and we understand your point. For question 2, we talk about the future of work and especially with AI and robotics, and so you don't agree with that, with the fact that AI and maybe robots could replace human beings in the near future. Maybe also it can be scary, I don't know, you don't express your personal feelings. But then you mention that some tasks cannot be done by robots, only by human beings. Ok, so then you try to, I would like to say, to grab some time, and so you repeat yourself quite a lot, you hesitate kind of at several occasions. So your arguments are not really clear to me. You mention and you repeat what are we going to do, what are humans going to be, ok, so a lot of questions without answers, so maybe it should be clearer and with more concrete arguments, concrete types of jobs that are at risk of disappearing because of AI. So really, yeah, the end of your production is not very clear, so you should maybe take your time and find concrete arguments. Finally, for the last question, so you talk about, I think, older generations and the fact that they pollute a lot, and so what would be the legacy of the older generations to the young generation? Ask for yourself, so maybe you can also express your point of view as a young girl, a young woman, impacted by the pollution of your ancestors. So you say, and it's quite, not very clear to you, that for you, if I understand well, the older generation is responsible because they polluted, that's a fact, we cannot erase it, but you ask yourself, is it wrong? And you answer, it's wrong and it's not wrong and we don't understand really why. What are your arguments? Are they polluters? And so yes, it's wrong and they are responsible. Or it's not their fault, but why isn't it their fault? Were they not aware that they were polluting? So it's still unclear to me. And then that's quite a good idea. You ask yourself and you put yourself into the position of your ancestors, maybe parents or grandparents, and if you were in their shoes, would you choose to pollute or not? Thinking about the consequences on future generations and knowing that maybe at the time, a few years ago, there were not so much talking about ecology and the solutions to progress in terms of less pollution. So yes, it's a good idea to ask questions, but maybe you should answer too or give some clues. Ok. I'm now going to move on to the more linguistic part and the few mistakes that I've noticed that are perhaps improved. So in terms of pronunciation and flow, it's quite correct and generally understandable, despite some words that remain a little bit mushy, let's say. There are a few small mistakes, including everything that is due. Be careful, there you put the verb, the verbal base, while you have to participate in it, and it's repeated several times. So be careful with that, with time and with participation, okay? Otherwise, it's quite understandable. We still note a few small hesitations in the second and third production. You look for your words a little bit, so it's normal, it's natural. But it's true that it can come back a little bit often. Often, in particular, you repeat, you ask the same questions several times, trying to find your words a little bit. Everything remains quite satisfactory and understandable. The language is simple, with a few mistakes, but which do not interfere too much with understanding.