Skip to main content
Exam guide & reading text

Neighbourhood Note: A Local Reporting AppPart 3

"Neighbourhood Note: A Local Reporting App" is a Cambridge C2 Proficiency Listening Part 3 practice exam (Multiple Choice (Long)). Effective listening at C2 requires tracking attitude, implied meaning and discourse markers, not just factual detail. Listen once for gist, then focus on the specific questions. Use the transcript in this guide after your attempt to study linking devices, stress patterns and how speakers signal opinion or contrast.

Read the full Part 3 strategy guide →

Transcript

[ELEANOR]: Joining me is Hassan Malik, designer of Neighbourhood Note, an app trialled in one city area. It lets residents describe everyday difficulties in public spaces. Hassan, welcome. [HASSAN]: Thanks. It is not an emergency service or a replacement for formal reporting channels. We wanted to hear about smaller obstacles people notice repeatedly but often treat as too minor to report. [ELEANOR]: The trial was limited to three streets. Why not launch across the city? [HASSAN]: The software could have coped. But our categories had to follow residents' language, not office terminology. In a small area, we could hear how people described difficulties: "I can't get my buggy past the bin," or "My father avoids this corner after dark." That tells us what an ordinary journey feels like. [ELEANOR]: A larger launch might also have created expectations you could not meet immediately. [HASSAN]: We considered that, but it was not the main reason. Before scaling up, we needed to know what residents themselves considered worth raising. [ELEANOR]: What surprised you when the first reports arrived? [HASSAN]: We expected unrelated complaints. Instead, people supplied the circumstances. One person explained that a dropped kerb became difficult only when delivery vehicles blocked it. Another said a broken light changed the route older residents took in winter. A map pin can show where something happened, but not why it matters in that particular way. The reports gave us a more realistic account of moving through the area. [ELEANOR]: I had been sceptical. I worried the app would encourage people to hunt for defects and turn public space into a contest over whose street had the longest list of complaints. [HASSAN]: A reasonable concern. [ELEANOR]: What changed my mind was that users also mentioned things that helped: a bench moved into afternoon sun, or a shopkeeper who cleared wet leaves from the pavement. It stopped feeling like a ledger of irritation. [HASSAN]: Once people described the effect of a place, rather than simply calling it good or bad, the tone shifted. [ELEANOR]: You also changed a question in the app. Originally, users were asked to identify a problem and suggest what should be done. [HASSAN]: Yes, and we stopped asking them to diagnose it. That encouraged people to offer a remedy before explaining what had happened. Someone might write, "Install a crossing," when the useful starting point is, "Cars turn this corner too quickly at school closing time." That could point to a crossing, but it might equally point to parking, timing or visibility. We wanted residents to describe their experience, not supply an answer. [ELEANOR]: So the wording changed the relationship between the person reporting and the people making decisions. [HASSAN]: Exactly. Officials still decide what action is possible, but they start with a fuller account. [ELEANOR]: The map was altered halfway through the pilot. Why? [HASSAN]: The first version used large, bright markers. It implied every report was equally certain and equally urgent. But one report from one afternoon is not the same as a pattern noticed by several people over months. We redesigned the display to indicate how much evidence lay behind a pattern, so it is clear when information is still limited. [ELEANOR]: Did people find that frustrating? [HASSAN]: Some did, but most preferred knowing where uncertainty remained, provided someone explained what would happen next. That is why the app cannot be treated as a complete service by itself. [ELEANOR]: Because a map does not change a pavement. [HASSAN]: Precisely. Its useful next step is discussion: residents, local groups and council officers looking at the information together. The app can give that discussion a grounded starting point, but it cannot replace it.

Questions summary

Question 1

The limited scale of the pilot was intended chiefly to

  • keep residents' expectations under control.
  • compare reports from neighbourhoods with similar profiles.
  • identify how residents naturally expressed their experiences.
  • limit the volume of information entering council systems.

Question 2

What did Hassan find notable about the early reports?

  • They required the council to revise its existing priorities.
  • They included context that a location marker would miss.
  • They were distributed evenly across the trial area.
  • They encouraged residents to attend public meetings.

Question 3

What conclusion had Eleanor reached by the time of the interview?

  • The app should be preferred to face-to-face discussion.
  • Staff could provide an immediate response to every report.
  • Participants would need technical training to use it well.
  • It did not inevitably encourage a negative view of local life.

Question 4

Why did the team stop asking users to "diagnose" a problem?

  • They wanted accounts of experience before proposed remedies.
  • They wanted reports to focus more closely on underlying causes.
  • They needed officials to determine the project priorities.
  • They wanted to reduce the number of reports submitted.

Question 5

What principle informed the redesign of the map?

  • Individual reports should receive a direct staff response.
  • The number of categories should be kept to a minimum.
  • The display should show the strength of the evidence available.
  • No single street should receive more attention than another.

Question 6

Both speakers feel that the app becomes most valuable when

  • it operates separately from existing reporting services.
  • its reports are used as a basis for joint discussion.
  • it receives a larger budget for public promotion.
  • users receive faster individual responses.