Module 8 · Mock Exam 2 & Writing Genres II · Lesson 31
Writing Part 2 The Review
Personal voice, evaluation and recommendation
Warm-up · Section 1
4 minGet talking
Think of the LAST review you read that made you change a decision. What ONE feature of the writing made you trust it?
A reviewer writes: 'Everything was perfect.' Do you believe them? What would you write instead — to keep it positive but credible?
Read aloud TWO opening sentences: 'The restaurant is located in the city centre.' vs 'I'd been hearing about it for months — and on the strength of the friend who recommended it, I went on a Tuesday.' Which is a CPE Review opener?
Grammar focus · Section 2
8 minThe evaluative voice — register, person, stance
Quick rule
CPE Review register: semi-formal — first person allowed and helpful ('I went'); contractions sparingly; no slang. Person: the reader trusts ONE voice, not 'we'. Stance: HONEST — at least one negative ('the wine list felt thin'); calibrated recommendation ('I'd return, and I'd take a friend who orders carefully'). The C1 marker is the COMBINATION of voice + honest evaluation + calibrated recommendation. Voice alone = blog post. Honest evaluation alone = report. Calibration alone = research note. Together = CPE Review.
Examples
Voice opener: 'I'd been hearing about it for months — and on the strength of a careful friend's recommendation, I went on a Tuesday.'
Honest negative: 'The wine list felt thin — a hundred euros of bottles, two of which were the same grape.'
Calibrated recommendation: 'I'd return, and I'd take a friend who orders carefully. I would not take someone who needs the menu to do the work.'
Specific over generic: 'The pacing of the menu — three small plates building into the main — was more thoughtful than the room itself.'
Quick check
Question 1.Best CPE Review opener:
Question 2.Best HONEST NEGATIVE:
Question 3.Best CALIBRATED RECOMMENDATION:
Question 4.Why is 'specific over generic' a Band-raising move?
Question 5.First-person in a CPE Review is:
Vocabulary · Section 3
6 minWords & phrases to own
thoughtful (pacing/curation)
praised quality showing intentional design
e.g. The pacing of the menu was more thoughtful than the room itself.
Use it now
Use 'thoughtful' on something that surprised you for its design.
↻ Recycled in writing
to falter (in a specific way)
polite, calibrated way to name a fault
e.g. Where it falters, it falters from ambition, not from carelessness.
Use it now
Use 'falter' on a real thing that disappointed you in a specific way.
↻ Recycled in writing
carefully judged
praised quality showing balanced execution
e.g. The lighting was carefully judged — bright enough to read by, soft enough to talk over.
Use it now
Use 'carefully judged' on a design choice that struck the right balance.
↻ Recycled in writing
underwhelming
calibrated negative — fell short of expectations
e.g. The dessert was, frankly, underwhelming for the price.
Use it now
Use 'underwhelming' instead of 'bad' on something disappointing.
↻ Recycled in writing
to land (a moment)
for a creative choice to achieve its intended effect
e.g. The director's silent pause in the third act lands beautifully.
Use it now
Use 'lands' to praise a specific creative choice that worked.
↻ Recycled in writing
to be worth (the price / the trip)
evaluative judgement against cost
e.g. It's worth the price; it isn't quite worth the trip across the city.
Use it now
Use 'is/isn't worth' on a specific cost-vs-value judgement.
↻ Recycled in writing
Pair / group discussion
- Which of today's evaluative words feel NATURAL in your speech — and which feel borrowed-from-a-review?
- In your first language, what's the equivalent of 'underwhelming' — and is it as polite?
Complete each stem about yourself
- The pacing was ______ — three ______ building into ______.…
- Where it falters, it falters from ______ , not from ______.…
- It's worth ______ ; it isn't quite worth ______.…
- The ______ lands beautifully — ______.…
Rank & justify
Rank by how often they appear in published reviews of films, books and restaurants:
- thoughtful
- carefully judged
- underwhelming
- lands
- falters
Quick write (60 seconds)
Take ONE thing you've reviewed in conversation this week. Write a 40-word opening that uses VOICE, specifics, and ONE evaluative word from today.
Pronunciation · Section 4
3 minReading evaluative prose aloud — pace and trust
Reviews are written for the EAR as much as the eye — readers internally vocalise. Read your review aloud at MODERATE pace. Specifics should land slightly slower, evaluative words slightly louder. The calibrated recommendation is the SLOWEST sentence — give the reader time to register the caveat. Practise the same opening at three paces and pick the one that lands the trust.
- I'd been HEARing about it ↘ for MONTHS ↘ — and on the STRENGTH of a CAREful FRIEND's recomMENdation ↘ , I WENT on a TUESday ↘.
- The PACing of the MENu ↘ — THREE SMALL PLATES ↘ — was more THOUGHTful ↘ than the ROOM itSELF ↘.
- Where it FALters ↘ , it FALters ↘ from amBItion ↘ , NOT from CAREless-ness ↘.
- I'd reTURN ↘ , and I'd TAKE a FRIEND ↘ who ORDers CAREfully ↘.
Reading · Section 5
8 minReading P5 spiral — multiple choice on a published review
Mock CPE Reading P5 · published-review extract
Reading P5 spiral — multiple choice on a published review
A model CPE-style review. Read for VOICE, for the honest negative, for the calibrated recommendation.
On the Northside Gallery's 'After the City' · Pre-reading
Rarely does a free exhibition feel as carefully curated as 'After the City' at the Northside Gallery — and rarer still does one trust its audience as visibly as this one does. Across three rooms, the show traces what 'home' has come to mean for residents priced out of the centre, and it does so with restraint that I had not expected. The catalogue stays out of your way; the wall text is short and unfussy; the curator's voice is, refreshingly, almost absent.
It is the second room, not the third (which most reviews have praised), that does the heaviest lifting. There, a sequence of audio testimonials plays against a slow, near-silent video loop. What this pairing achieves is something a straightforward documentary could not: it forces the viewer to LISTEN, not to watch.
The third room, by contrast, is over-designed. Only when one steps back from the visual noise does the underlying argument become legible — and by then, the room has already lost half its audience. The fault is one of confidence; the curator finally over-explains.
On every measure that matters to a Saturday visitor — pacing, accessibility, the quality of the writing on the wall — the exhibition succeeds. Where it falters, it falters from ambition, not from carelessness. I'd return, and I'd take a friend who likes to listen.
Question 1.What does the reviewer most praise about the show?
Question 2.Which room does the reviewer say does the HEAVIEST lifting?
Question 3.What's the reviewer's HONEST NEGATIVE about the third room?
Question 4.How does the reviewer keep the negative POLITE but credible?
Question 5.The closing recommendation is best described as:
Listening · Section 6
8 minListening — a podcast critic comparing two restaurants
Notes
Pre-listen brief — two restaurants, one critic
- ▸Listen for: ONE specific evaluative detail per restaurant.
- ▸Note: the honest negative for each.
- ▸Decide: which gets the calibrated 'return' verdict?
Listening audio
Tap play to listen. Scrub the bar or use ± 5 s to jump.
Show transcript
Critic (English, f, food podcaster):Two places this month, both new, both worth talking about. The first — 'Bota' on Marshall Street — does ONE thing extremely well: the pacing. Five small plates, deliberate ten-minute pauses, a service team that doesn't apologise for the gaps. The plates themselves are clever rather than thrilling; nobody on my table chose a favourite. Where it falters is the dessert — frankly, underwhelming for the price. I'd return for the pacing alone, and I'd take a guest who values the room more than the menu.
Critic:The second — 'Honest Café' near the station — is the opposite trick. The room is forgettable, the service brisk to the point of unfriendly, and the menu reads like a list. But the cooking lands. Three plates I'm still thinking about a week later. The wine list is thin, which costs them a star they could easily reclaim. I'd return — without reservation about the food, with full reservation about the wine. Choose your guest accordingly.
Question 1.Bota's STRONGEST quality is:
Question 2.Bota's HONEST NEGATIVE is:
Question 3.Honest Café's STRONGEST quality is:
Question 4.Honest Café's HONEST NEGATIVE is:
Question 5.Both verdicts are CALIBRATED. The shared technique is:
Visual stimulus · Section 7
3 minReview structure — four sections
Four-section blueprint for a 250-word CPE Review.
Notes
Review · 250 words · four sections
- ▸OPEN (≈ 50 words) — voice + context: who you are, why you're qualified to judge.
- ▸WORKS (≈ 70 words) — ONE specific strength, with a quoted detail.
- ▸DOESN'T (≈ 70 words) — ONE honest negative, named as a quality issue (not a complaint).
- ▸VERDICT (≈ 60 words) — calibrated recommendation: who SHOULD go, and one self-selecting caveat.
- ▸Style targets: one marked structure (L25); one calibrated phrase (L26); one recycled-noun link (L27).
Discuss in pairs
Match each section to ONE feature you'll use in your own draft.
Exam skills · Section 8
3 minWriting P2 Review — band-shift moves
Strategy
- 1.Voice opener — make ONE move that establishes WHO is reviewing.
- 2.Specific over generic — one quoted detail beats five adjectives.
- 3.Honest negative — name as a quality issue ('one of confidence'), not as a complaint.
- 4.Calibrated recommendation — pair return-verdict with a self-selecting caveat.
- 5.One marked structure ONLY — and only where it earns its place.
- 6.Reserve last 3 min for word count + read aloud.
Example
Sample plan: OPEN ('I'd been hearing about it for months…') · WORKS ('The pacing of the menu — three small plates building into the main…') · DOESN'T ('The wine list felt thin — a hundred euros of bottles, two of which were the same grape') · VERDICT ('I'd return, and I'd take a friend who orders carefully — not someone who needs the menu to do the work').
Practice · Section 9
7 minFill in the blank
Question 1.The pacing of the menu was more ____ than the room itself.
Question 2.Where it falters, it falters ____ ambition, not from carelessness.
Question 3.The dessert was, frankly, ____ for the price.
Question 4.The director's silent pause in the third act ____ beautifully.
Question 5.It's worth the price; it ____ quite worth the trip across the city.
Question 6.The lighting was ____ judged — bright enough to read by, soft enough to talk over.
Writing · Section 10
4 minPut it in writing
Your task
Plan a 250-word CPE Review of YOUR choice (place / film / book / restaurant / event you have actually engaged with). Plan only today; full draft is homework. Include all four sections, ONE honest negative, ONE calibrated recommendation, ONE marked structure.
- • Four sections (Open · Works · Doesn't · Verdict) with word-count targets.
- • ONE specific quoted detail in WORKS.
- • ONE honest negative, named as a quality issue.
- • ONE calibrated recommendation with a self-selecting caveat.
- • ONE marked structure — flagged with WHY it earns its place.
Before you submit
- ☐ Voice opener establishes WHO is reviewing.
- ☐ Specific over generic — at least one quoted detail.
- ☐ Honest negative named as quality issue, not complaint.
- ☐ Calibrated recommendation with caveat.
- ☐ Marked structure justified.
- ☐ Recycled-noun link between WORKS and DOESN'T.
Show model answer
Plan: OPEN — 'I'd been hearing about Bota for months — and on the strength of a careful friend's recommendation, I went on a Tuesday.' WORKS — pacing: 'five small plates with deliberate ten-minute pauses; a service team that doesn't apologise for the gaps.' DOESN'T — dessert: 'frankly, underwhelming for the price; the kitchen's confidence falters at the sweet course.' VERDICT — 'I'd return for the pacing alone, and I'd take a guest who values the room more than the menu; I would not take a sweet-tooth.' Marked structure: 'Where it falters, it falters from confidence, not from carelessness' (fronting + parallelism in DOESN'T — earns its place by separating fault from neglect).
Speaking · Section 11
6 minMake it a real conversation
Speaking — read your plan aloud, defend the negative (7 min). Read your plan section by section to the partner. The partner's job is to challenge the HONEST NEGATIVE: 'is it credible?' / 'is it specific enough?' / 'is it framed as a quality issue?' You either defend or rewrite on the spot.
Partner rates the negative after each round.
Is the honest negative CREDIBLE, SPECIFIC and QUALITY-FRAMED?
All three
Band 4–5 negative. Move on.
Two of three
Rewrite for the missing dimension.
One of three
Rewrite from scratch — usually missing specificity.
Generic complaint
Throw out and replace — generic complaints sink the whole review.
Useful phrases
- What the negative actually says is ______.
- It's framed as a quality issue because ______.
- I'd rewrite it as ______.
- On the balance of the experience, I'd still ______.
Optional · Teacher-led
Teacher Activities
Stretches if time allows. ~14 min total
Homework · Section 12
Take-homeTake it home
Write the full 220–260 word CPE Review from today's plan. Include all four sections, the honest negative, the calibrated recommendation, and the one marked structure.
Find a published review (any genre) you respect. Highlight: voice opener, ONE specific detail, the honest negative, the calibrated recommendation. Note how the writer transitions between them.
Build a personal evaluative-lexis bank: 8 positive evaluations, 8 calibrated negatives, 4 'is/isn't worth' framings. Memorise 12.
Record yourself reading the published review (from the reading homework) aloud. Then read your own draft aloud. Compare the pace, the trust, the specificity. Re-write any sentence in yours that sounds template by comparison.
Recap · Section 13
Wrap-upWhat you've learned
- Voice + honest evaluation + calibrated recommendation = CPE Review.
- Specific over generic — one quoted detail beats five adjectives.
- Honest negative is non-negotiable — frame as quality issue, not complaint.
- Calibrated recommendation = return-verdict + self-selecting caveat.
- Module 7 standards (marked syntax, calibration, cohesion) layer on top to reach Band 5.