Listening audioscript

1.WHY DOES THE STUDENT GO TO SEE THE PROFESSOR? 
2. LISTEN AGAIN TO PART OF THE CONVERSATION. THEN ANSWER THE 
QUESTION. 
 (Professor)
: Well, you’ve described the Haymarket Affair in…extensive detail… 
(Student) 
I think it was super important! Plus it’s so ironic that those events in 
Chicago started international Labor Day on May first, but at the same 
time made the government choose September for Labor Day in the U.S. 
(Professor)
: I’m not disputing any of that. My problem isn’t with your idea that 
Haymarket made a huge difference. 
HOW DOES THE PROFESSOR SEEM TO FEEL ABOUT THE HAYMARKET
AFFAIR? 
3. WHAT PROBLEMS DOES THE PROFESSOR HAVE WITH THE STUDENT’S 
OUTLINE?

---

LPREP IBT 3 E AudioScript 
107
4. LISTEN AGAIN TO PART OF THE CONVERSATION. THEN ANSWER THE 
QUESTION. 
(Professor):
Well, here’s the thing. There’s no rule that says you have to look at all 
the causes of the current lack of popular support for socialism here. You 
can narrow your focus to just how the Haymarket Affair affected the 
future of socialism in the U.S. I guess what I’m saying is that you’re 
neither here nor there with your outline. It’s neither just about the 
Haymarket massacre, nor does it do justice to all of the other factors. 
WHAT DOES THE PROFESSOR MEAN WHEN HE SAYS THIS? 
 (Professor)
:  I guess what I’m saying is that you’re neither here nor there with your 
outline. 
5. WHAT CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE STUDENT? 
Page 395 
[ mp3 170-171] 
 
Questions 6 through 11. 
Listen to a discussion in an archaeology class. 
(Professor) 
So we’ve talked about how sites are generally dated using absolute 
techniques such as carbon dating and tree rings, but today I’d like to 
discuss something a bit different. Today I’d like to discuss cross-dating, 
which is …um…another way of dating a site when there is no way of 
directly dating it. Uh what I mean is, it’s a method of dating one 
archaeological area by extending relative dates from another area. When 
archaeologists are certain of the dates that one particular culture existed, 
from scientific data in that area, but do not have scientific information to 
be sure of the dates of another culture in the area, they can sometimes 
draw a conclusion about the dates that the second culture existed by 
comparing certain aspects with the first culture. 
 
Um let me give you an example. Archaeologists found two areas of 
ancient cultural development, one in what is today northern Arizona and 
the other in what is today southern Arizona. They were able to date the 
cultural development in the northern area scientifically, but they were 
unable to date the cultural development in the southern area in the same 
way. 
So the connection between the two cultures was a style of pottery. Um, 
is there a question? 
(Student) 
Dr. Ammond, what type of scientific method did the archaeologists use to 
date the culture in the northern area? 
(Professor)
Oh, uh…they used tree-ring remnants to determine the dates of the 
northern culture. So we talked about this on Tuesday. You’ll remember 
that I said that since trees grow a different thickness of ring every year 
depending on what the weather’s like…primarily the amount of rain…um, 
if you have enough specimens you can construct a pattern of rings back 
in time. Once you know the pattern for a particular species in a particular 
area, you can date other wood specimens by comparing the pattern of 
tree rings in them to the known, dated pattern. 
(Student) 
Why couldn’t they use the same method to determine the dates of the 
southern culture? 

---

LPREP IBT 3 E AudioScript 
108
(Professor)
There were no trees in that area. You know, the archaeologist’s 
perennial problem of incomplete evidence. But happily in this case, 
archaeologists were able to use the technique of cross-dating to 
determine the dates of the southern area. 
 
And so we’re back to pottery, which was the connection between the 
cultures, as I said before…and also how the cross-dating was done. The 
culture in the northern area, which had been scientifically dated at 700 to 
900 
A
.
D
. using tree-ring dating, had a distinctive type of pottery. Um 
pieces of this distinctive northern pottery were found in the southern 
area. 
Apparently, the pottery from the northern culture came to the southern 
culture through trade, so, um… both cultures clearly existed at the same 
time. 
OK, so, because these pieces of northern pottery were found in the 
southern culture, archaeologists were able to infer that the culture of the 
southern area was active sometime around the period of 700 to 900 
A
.
D
., 
just as the northern culture was. 
(Student) 
Dr. Ammond, maybe this is an obvious question, or the answer is 
obvious or…well, how do archaeologists know that someone else didn’t 
bring in the pottery later? I mean like a different group of people? 
(Professor) 
Dave, if more people asked obvious questions, a lot fewer ridiculous 
hypotheses would go unquestioned, so by all means ask away. In any 
case, I don’t think the answer is obvious. Here, the site in question had 
other trade goods, and there didn’t seem to be contamination from other 
historical periods, so we can say that the interpretation that the pottery 
was traded by this group at this time makes the most sense. 
This does give me an opportunity to talk about some of the potential 
problems with cross-dating methods like this though, and the biggest one 
is indeed when objects are introduced from outside their time period. 
Um imagine, for example, that one of these groups of people decide to 
build a house. They might dig down into the earth to set foundations or 
supporting walls. At this point, if the site has been occupied for a long 
time, they may dig up artifacts from the past and bring them to the 
surface. Or they might, for example, mix in bits of their own pottery as 
they fill in the space around the foundation. In both cases, evidence may 
end up above or below the layer where it truly belongs. The area around 
any artifact must be examined for evidence of disturbance to make sure 
that the artifact has not been displaced from the layer of deposited 
material that it actually represents.