Audioscripts IELTS Practice 20 Listening Test 01

Part 1

You will hear a man asking a colleague for restaurant recommendations.

First, you have some time to look at questions 1 to 4.

[Pause]

Now listen carefully and answer questions 1 to 4.

Man: I've been meaning to catch you to get some advice about eating out. I need to book somewhere to host our team's annual dinner, and I liked the sound of that place you went to for your department's Christmas party.

Colleague: The Lighthouse. Yeah, I'd highly recommend that for a corporate event. We had a brilliant evening there. Everyone was really impressed.

Man: Where is it again? I've forgotten the address.

Colleague: It's on Riverside Way, only about a five-minute taxi ride from the office.

Man: Oh, that's handy. I'd prefer not to have to organise a minibus anywhere. But I don't want the team having to walk for ages either.

Colleague: Yes, the location's very convenient, but that's not the main reason I'd suggest it. The menu is fantastic. If you appreciate seafood, it's arguably the top venue in the city for that. It's always locally caught, and there are plenty of creative dishes to pick from. Though honestly, all the cooking is excellent there.

Man: Is it completely out of our budget?

Colleague: It certainly isn't a cheap eat, but for an end-of-year dinner, I feel it's justified. It has a superb ambiance, and before your meal, you can wander out onto the terrace and have some appetizers. It's beautifully landscaped out there, but you must reserve it in advance. It gets completely booked up, as the sunset views are stunning.

Man: Sounds wonderful. So that's certainly a strong contender then. Is there anywhere else you might suggest?

Colleague: Um, if you prefer somewhere a bit more relaxed, then you could try The Olive Tree.

Man: Where's that? It doesn't ring a bell.

Colleague: No, it's a recent addition to the city. It's only been trading for half a year, but it's built a solid following already. It's situated in a gorgeous renovated warehouse on Merchant Street.

Man: Oh, I think I know the spot you mean. Just past the old theatre.

Colleague: Yes, exactly.

Before you hear the rest of the conversation, you have some time to look at questions 5 to 10.

[Pause]

Now listen and answer questions 5 to 10.

Colleague: I've only eaten there once or twice, but I was blown away. The head cook used to run the kitchen at Bella Roma, supposedly.

Man: I was devastated when that place shut its doors. So is the cuisine entirely Italian, then?

Colleague: Yeah. You can order various sharing platters, which is always a great icebreaker if you're dining with colleagues.

Man: Hmm, definitely worth considering.

Colleague: Yeah, there's a vibrant energy about the place. And the waiting staff are incredibly attentive. The only drawback is that you have to put down a ten pound per person holding fee to secure a large table. Many establishments are introducing that policy lately.

Man: I ought to review the menu online to ensure there's a decent range of gluten-free options. Several of my team have specific dietary needs.

Colleague: I'm not entirely sure. I'd guess the variety of those might be somewhat restricted. I've just remembered another possibility. Have you eaten at The Copper Kettle?

Man: No, I don't believe I know it. Could you spell that?

Colleague: C-O-P-P-E-R. You surely must have read about it. It's been featured heavily in the local food blogs.

Man: I'm afraid not. I don't usually follow culinary news closely. So where is it located?

Colleague: It's situated inside that boutique hotel near the Botanical Gardens, down in the basement.

Man: Oh, the atmosphere would be quite intimate down there.

Colleague: Yeah, I'm desperate to try it. I can't recall the owner's name, but he won that national baking competition a while back. And he's launched his own line of artisan breads.

Man: Oh, David Thorne.

Colleague: That's the guy. Anyway. It's received glowing praise from all the food critics.

Man: That sounds like a unique setting for our gathering.

Colleague: Absolutely. Obviously it's worth visiting just for the novelty, but the ingredients are supposed to be top tier.

Man: He's very strict about using organic produce, isn't he?

Colleague: Yes. Every single item at the venue has to be certified organic, and absolutely zero processed foods are allowed in the kitchen.

Man: I expect it justifies the price tag. It's known for being pricey, though.

Colleague: Well, you could opt for the early bird menu. That's surprisingly affordable for a fine-dining establishment. Twenty-five pounds a head. For the main dinner service, I suspect it would be closer to forty pounds.

Man: I'd imagine at least that. But I'm confident the staff would be thrilled with it. It isn't the sort of establishment where you leave craving a burger afterwards, is it? Serving microscopic meals?

Colleague: No, the write-ups I've seen didn't complain about that. I assume the servings would be standard size.

Man: Well, those are all brilliant suggestions.

That is the end of Part 1. You now have one minute to check your answers to Part 1.

Part 2

You will hear a guide, David Miller, introducing a group of visitors to the Highfield Observatory and Astronomy Club.

First, you have some time to look at questions 11 to 16.

(Pause 30 seconds)

Now listen carefully and answer questions 11 to 16.

David: Good evening everyone, and a warm welcome to the Highfield Observatory. I’m David, the club secretary, and I’m delighted to see so many new faces here for our monthly "Open Sky" night. Before we head out to the telescopes, I’d like to give you a brief introduction to what we do here and share a few practical tips.

People often ask me why amateur astronomy is becoming so popular again. You might think it’s because high-tech equipment has become cheaper, and while that’s true, I don't think it's the main reason. In our busy, digital lives, we are constantly looking down at screens. Astronomy forces you to look up. It gives people a sense of perspective—when you look at a star that is light-years away, your daily worries about traffic or emails seem much smaller. That sense of escape is really what drives our membership numbers.

Now, a little history about where we are standing. The Highfield Observatory wasn't always a place for science. The main building was originally constructed in 1910 as a private hunting lodge for a local wealthy family. It was only in the 1970s that the local council bought the land. There was a plan to turn it into a golf course, but thankfully, a group of local physics teachers campaigned to save the site for educational purposes, and the club was founded shortly after.

Regarding tonight's session: we are expecting clear skies, which is fantastic. However, there is one strict rule we have here. Please, do not use the flashlight on your mobile phone. It takes the human eye about 20 minutes to fully adapt to the dark. If someone flashes a bright white light, it ruins that night vision instantly for everyone nearby. If you need to see where you are walking, we have a box of red-light torches by the door—please borrow one of those, as red light doesn't affect your eyes in the same way.

Also, for those of you interested in joining the club, we have a special project starting next month called "Star Count." We are trying to measure light pollution in the area. We need volunteers to count how many stars they can see within the constellation of Orion from their own back gardens. You don't need a telescope, just your eyes and a bit of patience. It’s a great way to contribute to real scientific data.

One last thing before we tour the grounds—our main telescope, the "Big Bertha," is currently undergoing maintenance. The mirrors are being realigned. It’s a delicate job, so unfortunately, the main dome is closed tonight. But don't worry, we have set up six smaller telescopes on the lawn which are perfect for viewing the planets.

Before you hear the rest of the talk, you have some time to look at questions 17 to 20.

(Pause 20 seconds)

Now listen and answer questions 17 to 20.

David: Right, let me orient you with the layout of the observatory grounds so you don't get lost in the dark.

So, we are currently standing in the Welcome Centre. If you look at the map on the wall... assume we are here at the bottom, near the entrance gate.

Directly in front of us, you’ll see a large circular path. If you follow the path round to the left, the first building you come to is the Old Library. It’s a lovely brick building. We’ve recently converted it into a small museum displaying antique navigation tools. It’s definitely worth a look if you get cold outside.

Further up the path on the left-hand side, just past the library, you’ll find the Planetarium. It looks like a small white dome. Unlike the main telescope dome, this one is for digital projections. We have a show starting at 8 pm called "Journey to Mars," which is great for kids.

Now, if you take the path to the right from the entrance... you’ll walk past the cafeteria. Just behind the cafeteria, tucked away in the trees, is the Equipment Shed. This is normally locked, but tonight we’ve opened it up because that’s where you can hire binoculars if you didn't bring your own. They require a small deposit, just so you know.

Finally, right at the top of the map, directly opposite the entrance but on the far side of the grounds, is the Solar Terrace. It’s a flat, paved area. Obviously, it's used for viewing the sun during the day, but at night, we set up deck chairs there. It’s the highest point on the grounds, so it offers the widest view of the horizon—perfect for spotting shooting stars if you're lucky.

Okay, does anyone have any questions before we head out?

That is the end of part two. You now have 30 seconds to check your answers to part two.

Part 3

You will hear two environmental science students, named Leo and Mia, discussing their dissertation project on urban farming.

First, you have some time to look at questions 21 to 24.

(Pause 30 seconds)

Now listen carefully and answer questions 21 to 24.

Mia: Hi Leo. Thanks for meeting up. I think we need to finalize the focus of our dissertation on urban farming. There’s just so much material.

Leo: I know, Mia. I’ve been reading through the case studies you sent over. It’s fascinating how the perception of urban farming has shifted.

Mia: Absolutely. Ten years ago, it was seen as a niche hobby for hipsters. But now, it’s being taken seriously by city planners.

Leo: I was looking at the reasons for that shift. I assumed the main driver was the need for fresh, locally sourced food. You know, reducing food miles.

Mia: That’s certainly part of it. But actually, the literature suggests the biggest factor is mental health. Green spaces in cities reduce stress.

Leo: Interesting. I would have thought it was economic—you know, saving money on groceries. But I suppose setting up a garden isn't exactly cheap initially.

Mia: Exactly. Now, what about the environmental impact? I found a study from Singapore that claimed rooftop gardens could lower a building's temperature by up to five degrees.

Leo: Yes, I read that too. It’s a strong argument for energy saving. But we have to be careful. There was another study from New York that contradicted the carbon footprint benefits.

Mia: You mean the one about the materials used to build the planters?

Leo: Right. They found that if you use plastic containers and imported soil, the carbon cost is actually higher than just importing vegetables from the countryside.

Mia: That’s a valid point. We should definitely include that critique. It shows we’re looking at both sides.

Leo: Agreed. I also looked into the social aspect. There’s this idea that community gardens reduce crime rates in deprived areas.

Mia: I saw those statistics. The theory is that people are outside more, looking after the space, so there’s more natural surveillance.

Leo: It sounds logical. But to be honest, the data on that is a bit thin. Most of the evidence is anecdotal rather than statistical.

Mia: Fair enough. We can mention it as a potential benefit, but let’s not treat it as a hard fact.

Leo: What about the issue of soil contamination? That seems to be the biggest barrier for new projects.

Mia: Definitely. I found a report stating that over 40% of potential sites in London were unsuitable due to heavy metals in the ground from past industrial use.

Leo: That’s huge. So, remedial work is essential before they can even start planting.

Mia: Yes, and that takes time and money.

Before you hear the rest of the discussion, you have some time to look at questions 25 to 30.

(Pause 20 seconds)

Now listen and answer questions 25 to 30.

Leo: Shall we look at how to structure the presentation? We need to decide on our methodology section.

Mia: Okay. I think we should start by explaining why we chose a comparative approach. Comparing the vertical gardens in Tokyo with the community allotments here.

Leo: Good idea. It highlights the difference between high-tech and low-tech solutions.

Mia: Then we need to discuss the interviews we did. I was worried that we didn't get enough participants.

Leo: We only got twelve in the end. But the quality of their answers was excellent. The interview with the project manager in Tokyo was particularly detailed.

Mia: True. I was surprised by what she said about the "social hierarchy" in the gardens. I thought everyone worked together equally, but apparently, there's quite a strict structure.

Leo: Yeah, the senior members make all the planting decisions. We should definitely quote her on that. It contrasts nicely with the democratic approach here.

Mia: What about the photos? I took loads when I visited the allotment.

Leo: We should use them, but be selective. Maybe just show the ones that illustrate the irrigation systems.

Mia: Okay, I’ll sort those out. Oh, and are we going to include the section on hydroponics? Growing plants without soil?

Leo: I’m not sure. It’s a bit technical. And it might distract from our main focus on community interaction.

Mia: I agree. It’s a whole other topic really. Let’s leave it out.

Leo: Finally, the conclusion. We need to summarize the future challenges.

Mia: Funding is obviously the main one. Most of these projects rely on grants that run out after three years.

Leo: And the lack of permanent land tenure. Developers can just take the land back whenever they want.

Mia: That is the biggest threat. Okay, I think we have a plan.

That is the end of part three. You now have 30 seconds to check your answers to part three.

Part 4

You will hear a Lecture by a university professor about the history and science of urban soundscapes.

First, you have some time to look at questions 31 to 40.

(Pause 45 seconds)

Now listen carefully and answer questions 31 to 40.

Lecturer: Today, we’re going to look at an aspect of urban design that is often overlooked by architects and planners: the acoustic environment, or what we simply call the "Soundscape." While we obsess over how a city looks—its skyline, its parks, its architecture—we rarely pay enough attention to how it sounds. Yet, sound affects our stress levels, our health, and our social behavior just as much as visual stimuli.

Now, it’s a common misconception that noise pollution is a purely modern invention. We tend to imagine ancient cities as quiet, peaceful places. But in reality, historical records show that noise has been a complaint for thousands of years. In ancient Rome, for instance, the noise from iron wagon wheels on stone pavements was so unbearable that Julius Caesar actually enacted a law. He banned the movement of heavy chariots within the city during the night, just so people could sleep. So, the struggle for a quiet city is nothing new.

However, the nature of the noise changed dramatically with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before this, urban sounds were organic—human voices, animals, bells, tools. But with the arrival of the steam engine and factories, noise became mechanical and, crucially, continuous . It was a low-frequency hum that never stopped. Medical reports from the Victorian era began to link this constant industrial noise to hearing loss in workers, and later, to wider public health issues, such as elevated blood pressure and heart disease.

Moving to the modern day, the problem has shifted from factories to transport. But it’s not just humans who are suffering. We are now beginning to understand the impact of anthropogenic noise—that is, human-made noise—on the natural world, particularly in marine environments near coastal cities. We know that many marine species, such as whales and dolphins, rely on sound for communication and navigation. The noise from shipping lanes interferes with these signals, causing the animals to become disoriented. Interestingly, recent trials in the port of Vancouver showed that simply reducing the speed of large ships by just 10% significantly lowered the underwater noise intensity, proving that small adjustments can have a huge ecological benefit.

Let's turn back to the city streets. One of the biggest challenges in modern urban acoustics is architecture itself. Modern skyscrapers are often covered in flat, hard surfaces, particularly glass and steel. While these look sleek, acoustically they are a disaster. They reflect sound waves back into the street, creating a "canyon effect" where noise is amplified rather than dissipated. To combat this, innovative architects are now experimenting with materials. Soft, porous materials are being used on building facades to absorb sound rather than reflect it.

So, what does the future hold for the quiet city? Well, technology is playing a role. In road design, engineers are developing new types of asphalt. Believe it or not, at speeds over 50 kilometers per hour, the noise comes not from the car engine, but from the interaction between the road and the tires. By using a more porous road surface, this friction noise can be cut by half.

There is also a psychological component to how we perceive sound. Urban planners used to think that planting trees was the answer to blocking noise. In reality, vegetation is not a very effective sound barrier unless the forest is very thick. However, research shows that if people can see greenery, their subjective perception of noise drops. Essentially, if a place looks quiet, our brains trick us into thinking it is quieter.

Finally, there is the technique of "sound masking." This involves introducing pleasant sounds to cover up unpleasant ones. You’ll often find this in public plazas where the sound of flowing water from a fountain is used to mask the rumble of traffic. It doesn't reduce the decibel level, but it changes the quality of the soundscape, making the environment much more relaxing for pedestrians.

So, as we move towards smarter cities, the role of the acoustic planner will become...

That is the end of part four. You now have one minute to check your answers to part four.