戻る Advanced (Grades 10-12) English (UK) – Interactive task

Recommending Whether to Fund a New Technology

英語スピーキングシナリオ

Ada

A calm British English speaker with a warm, focused manner.

34 years · female

Practise talking about "Recommending Whether to Fund a New Technology" with Ada, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your Trinity GESE Grade 10-12 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

会話

I need advice about recommending whether to fund a new technology. Can you ask me what you need to know before suggesting a plan?

良い答えです:

Before recommending funding, I would ask what problem the technology is meant to solve and whether that problem has been clearly evidenced. Is it improving healthcare, reducing emissions, supporting education, increasing productivity or solving a problem that has been exaggerated by the company selling the technology? I would also ask how mature the technology is. A prototype, a small pilot and a proven system carry very different risks. Then I would ask who benefits, who pays and who might be harmed if it fails. Public funding especially needs a stronger test than excitement, because the money could be spent on existing services instead.

The difficulty is that different people involved want very different things. What should I do first?

良い答えです:

Success should be defined before any money is committed. The funder should state what outcomes the technology must achieve, by when, and compared with what alternative. That keeps options open because it allows a small pilot rather than immediate full funding. I would recommend independent evaluation, user feedback and a clear exit plan if the technology fails. Without those conditions, funding can become a sunk-cost trap, where leaders keep spending because they do not want to admit the first decision was too optimistic. A careful first step supports innovation while protecting public money and public trust. Those outcomes should be public before funding starts.

Some people are demanding an immediate decision, but the evidence is incomplete.

良い答えです:

If the evidence is still weak, I would not recommend full funding. I might recommend a limited pilot if the potential benefit is significant and the risks can be controlled. The pilot should have independent evaluation, clear success measures and protection for users. If the technology affects safety, health or personal data, the threshold for evidence should be higher. I would also insist that the pilot includes a comparison with existing practice. Otherwise the technology may look impressive simply because nobody measured whether a cheaper option worked as well. Responsible funding should encourage experimentation, but it should not confuse experimentation with proof. The pilot should have clear stopping rules.

What compromise would you recommend, and what would you refuse to compromise on?

良い答えです:

My compromise would be conditional funding rather than full approval or outright rejection. The technology could receive money for a carefully designed pilot, with further funding dependent on evidence. I would refuse to compromise on user safety and data protection. If the technology creates unacceptable risk in those areas, excitement about innovation is not enough. I would also require transparency about commercial interests. If a supplier stands to profit, the public should know how claims have been tested. The compromise should give the technology a fair chance while making clear that public funding is earned through results, not promises. Results should be published whether they are flattering or not.

How should I explain the decision to people who will be disappointed by it?

良い答えです:

I would state the problem, the evidence and the funding conditions. If the recommendation is to fund a pilot, I would say what the pilot must prove and what would cause funding to stop. If the recommendation is rejection, I would explain whether the issue is weak evidence, excessive risk or poor value compared with alternatives. People disappointed by the decision may accuse the funder of being too cautious or too reckless, so the reasoning needs to be explicit. I would avoid vague praise for innovation and focus on measurable public benefit. The public should know how risks will be monitored.