All questions
Question 1
Listen to the following exchange:
王芳:李明,你最近有没有空?下周六我们几个同学想去爬山,你要不要一起来?
李明:哦,下周六啊……我得先看看有没有安排。
王芳:没关系,你考虑一下,有空就来,我们欢迎你!
What is the primary purpose of Wang Fang's opening statement in this exchange?
- She is making a casual recommendation that Li Ming should take up hiking as a hobby during his free time.
- She is extending a social invitation to Li Ming to join a group activity planned for the following Saturday. (correct answer)
- She is requesting that Li Ming help organize and coordinate a hiking trip for a group of classmates.
- She is complaining that Li Ming has been too busy lately and has not been spending time with their friend group.
Explanation: When analyzing a conversational exchange like this, focus on the function of the speaker's words — what social action they are performing — rather than just the literal content. Ask yourself: is the speaker informing, requesting, complaining, or inviting?
Wang Fang opens by asking Li Ming if he has free time ("你最近有没有空?"), then immediately explains that a group of classmates is planning a hiking trip next Saturday and asks whether he'd like to join ("你要不要一起来?"). This is the classic structure of a Mandarin social invitation: gauge availability, name the event, and extend the offer. Her closing line — "有空就来,我们欢迎你" ("if you're free, come along, we'd love to have you") — further confirms the warm, inclusive tone of an invitation. B is correct.
A is wrong because Wang Fang is not suggesting hiking as a personal hobby for Li Ming. She's inviting him to a specific, already-planned group outing — the suggestion is about joining them, not about his lifestyle choices. C misreads her role entirely; she presents herself as a participant extending an invitation, not someone delegating organizational responsibilities to Li Ming. There's no mention of him managing or coordinating anything. D is a trap for students who over-interpret Li Ming's hesitant response ("我得先看看有没有安排") — but Wang Fang never expresses frustration or criticism about his availability. Her tone is friendly and low-pressure throughout.
A useful tip: in Mandarin conversations, pay attention to the question + event + welcome formula — it almost always signals a social invitation rather than a request or complaint.
Question 2
Listen to the following exchange:
李华:你好,我想问一下,我预订的房间是无烟房,但是一进去就闻到很浓的烟味,而且空调也不制冷,我昨晚根本没睡好。
前台:非常抱歉给您带来不便。
李华:我知道你们很忙,但我希望你们能帮我换一个干净的房间,今晚我还要继续住。
Li Hua's exchange contains both a complaint and a request, but a careful listener must distinguish which utterance serves which function. Which answer correctly assigns the two functions to the correct utterances and identifies the linguistic marker that signals the transition?
- The complaint is in the first utterance (无烟房有烟味, 空调不制冷, 没睡好), and the request is in the third utterance (希望你们能帮我换一个干净的房间); the transition is signaled by 但 in the third utterance, which pivots from acknowledgment of the staff's busyness to the specific ask. (correct answer)
- The complaint is in the second utterance (我知道你们很忙), and the request is in the first utterance (我想问一下…没睡好); the transition is signaled by 非常抱歉, which is the front desk's acknowledgment that shifts Li Hua's purpose.
- Both utterances by Li Hua are complaints; the front desk's apology is the only element that functions as a request, as it implicitly asks Li Hua to accept the inconvenience and remain patient.
- The complaint and the request both appear in the first utterance, making the third utterance a recommendation that Li Hua offers to the hotel about how to improve its room preparation process.
Explanation: When listening to a conversation in Mandarin for communicative function, train yourself to ask two questions: What is the speaker reporting as a problem? and What is the speaker asking the listener to do? These are distinct speech acts, and Chinese speakers often separate them across multiple turns.
In this exchange, Li Hua's first utterance does the heavy lifting of the complaint: she describes three concrete problems — the non-smoking room smells like smoke (无烟房有烟味), the air conditioning doesn't cool (空调不制冷), and she didn't sleep well (根本没睡好). Her third utterance then pivots to the actual request: 希望你们能帮我换一个干净的房间. The word 但 ("but") at the start of that third utterance is the critical transition marker — it concedes the staff's busyness ("我知道你们很忙") before redirecting to her specific ask. Answer A correctly maps complaint → first utterance, request → third utterance, and correctly identifies 但 as the pivot. That's why A is right.
Answer B scrambles the functions entirely, labeling the softening phrase "我知道你们很忙" as the complaint and the actual problem description as the request — reversing the logic. Answer C misreads the front desk's apology as a request; 非常抱歉 is a formulaic expression of regret, not a speech act that asks anything of Li Hua. Answer D collapses both functions into the first utterance and mislabels the third as a "recommendation," ignoring that 希望...帮我换 is a direct personal request, not general hotel advice.
As a study habit, always flag 但 and 可是 in spoken Mandarin — they almost always signal a shift from context-setting to the speaker's actual communicative goal.
Question 3
Listen to the following exchange:
张伟:老师,不好意思,我今天能不能早点走?我妈妈身体不太好,我需要去医院陪她。
老师:哦,没关系,你去吧,注意安全。
张伟:谢谢老师,我下次一定补上今天的内容。
Which of the following most accurately identifies the purpose of Zhang Wei's first utterance, and correctly distinguishes it from a similar but different speech act?
- It is an invitation, because Zhang Wei is asking the teacher to allow him to leave early and join him at the hospital to support his mother.
- It is a complaint, because Zhang Wei is expressing dissatisfaction with the class schedule by implying it conflicts with his family obligations.
- It is a request, because Zhang Wei is asking the teacher to grant him permission to leave early — an action that serves Zhang Wei's need, directed at someone with authority to approve it. (correct answer)
- It is a recommendation, because Zhang Wei is suggesting to the teacher that students with family emergencies should be permitted to leave class without penalty.
Explanation: When analyzing spoken exchanges in Mandarin, a key skill is identifying the speech act — the communicative function behind an utterance. Ask yourself: who benefits from the action being requested, who has the power to grant it, and what is the speaker's underlying goal?
In Zhang Wei's opening line, he uses 能不能 ("can or can't") to ask the teacher's permission to leave early, explains his reason (his mother's health), and implies he needs approval from someone in authority. This is the defining structure of a request: Zhang Wei wants something (early departure) that benefits him, and he's directing that ask at someone — the teacher — who has the power to approve or deny it. The teacher's response (你去吧, "go ahead") confirms this framing perfectly. C is correct.
A is wrong because an invitation involves asking someone to join an activity — Zhang Wei never asks the teacher to come to the hospital. Confusing "asking for permission" with "asking someone to participate" is a classic trap. B is wrong because a complaint expresses dissatisfaction or grievance. Zhang Wei shows no frustration with the schedule; he's polite (不好意思) and solution-oriented, which rules out any adversarial tone. D is wrong because a recommendation suggests a general course of action for future policy. Zhang Wei is making a specific, personal ask in the moment — not proposing a rule for the whole class.
A useful habit: when you see 能不能/可以吗 directed at an authority figure with a personal reason attached, that's almost always a request structure, not a complaint, invitation, or recommendation.
Question 4
Listen to the following exchange:
刘洋:嘿,周末你们想做什么?
赵敏:我听说新开了一家火锅店,味道据说很正宗,要不我们去试试?
刘洋:好啊,我也想去尝尝。
赵敏:那就这样定了,周六晚上见!
Zhao Min's second turn (要不我们去试试?) serves two communicative functions simultaneously. Which answer choice correctly identifies both and explains the relationship between them?
- It functions as both a complaint and a request — she complains about having nothing interesting to do on weekends, and simultaneously requests that Liu Yang take responsibility for choosing the group's activity.
- It functions as both a recommendation and a complaint — she endorses the restaurant enthusiastically but also implies a criticism that the group never makes the effort to explore new dining options together.
- It functions as both an invitation and a request — she invites the group to the hotpot restaurant for a shared meal while simultaneously requesting that Liu Yang handle the reservation and logistics for everyone.
- It functions as both a recommendation and an invitation — she recommends the hotpot restaurant as worth trying (based on its reported reputation for authentic flavor) while simultaneously inviting the group to go there together as a shared outing. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing conversational Chinese, pay attention to how a single utterance can accomplish multiple speech acts at once — this is especially common in casual Mandarin, where speakers layer meaning efficiently.
Zhao Min's line 要不我们去试试 ("Why don't we give it a try?") does two things simultaneously. First, she recommends the hotpot restaurant by citing its reported reputation — 味道据说很正宗 ("the flavor is said to be very authentic") provides evidence-based reasoning for why the place is worth visiting. Second, she extends an invitation by using 我们 ("we/us") and framing the suggestion as a shared group outing. The phrase 要不...试试 is a classic soft-invitation structure in conversational Mandarin, signaling "let's do this together." Both functions coexist naturally: the recommendation gives the rationale, and the invitation is the social action that follows from it. D correctly captures this relationship.
A is wrong on both counts — there is no complaint in the passage, and nothing suggests Liu Yang is being asked to shoulder any logistical responsibility. B introduces a complaint about the group's dining habits, which is entirely absent from the text; reading implied criticism here is an over-interpretation. C correctly identifies the invitation but misidentifies the second function — there is no indication Zhao Min is asking Liu Yang to handle reservations. That detail is invented.
A useful strategy: when a question asks about two simultaneous functions, first identify what the speaker is saying about something (evaluative/informational function) and what they are doing socially (relational/action function). In Chinese conversation, these two layers frequently appear together in a single turn.
Question 5
Listen to the following exchange:
林娜:你知道吗,我上周在那家超市买的牛奶,回家发现已经过期了,而且服务员态度特别差,我说了还不承认。
朋友:真的吗?那你有没有去退货?
林娜:去了,但是他们说没有小票就不退,太气人了!
This exchange is most likely an example of which of the following purposes, and what is the strongest evidence for that identification?
- A request, because Lin Na is implicitly asking her friend to accompany her back to the supermarket to help resolve the dispute about the expired milk and deal with the staff.
- A complaint, because Lin Na is expressing dissatisfaction about a negative consumer experience — expired product, poor staff attitude, and a refused refund — with no attempt to mobilize her friend to act on her behalf. (correct answer)
- A recommendation, because Lin Na is warning her friend not to shop at that particular supermarket, framing the story as cautionary advice for the friend's future benefit.
- An invitation, because Lin Na is sharing the story to encourage her friend to join her in filing a formal complaint with store management, treating the grievance as a shared cause.
Explanation: When analyzing conversational exchanges in Mandarin, your first task is to identify the communicative purpose — the speaker's underlying goal. Ask yourself: Is the speaker trying to get someone to do something, share information, or simply express an emotion?
In this exchange, Lin Na describes buying expired milk, encountering a rude staff member, and being denied a refund without a receipt. Her friend responds with questions, but Lin Na never asks for anything — she describes what already happened and expresses frustration. This is the hallmark of a complaint (抱怨): the speaker vents dissatisfaction about a past experience for the purpose of emotional expression, not to prompt action. The strongest evidence is that Lin Na uses language centered on personal grievance ("太气人了!") and recounts a completed sequence of events with no directive toward her friend.
Choice A fails because there is no implicit or explicit request for her friend to accompany her anywhere — the visit to the store already happened. Projecting a future request onto past narration is a common trap. Choice C misidentifies the exchange as a recommendation or warning; while Lin Na's story could incidentally caution someone, her language focuses on her own frustration rather than the friend's future shopping decisions. Choice D is unsupported — there is no suggestion of filing a formal complaint together, and the friend's responses are curious, not rallying.
A useful strategy: when a speaker describes a negative experience in the past tense and uses emotionally charged language without issuing directives, that's almost always a complaint, not a request, recommendation, or invitation. Focus on what the speaker wants the listener to do — if the answer is "nothing," it's a complaint.
Question 6
Listen to the following exchange:
同事A:你能不能帮我把这份报告在下班前发给王总?我现在要去开会,来不及了。
同事B:好,我帮你发。
同事A:谢谢你,真是帮了我大忙了!
A test-taker argues that this exchange is a recommendation because Colleague A is suggesting that Colleague B send the report. Which of the following most precisely identifies the flaw in that reasoning?
- The flaw is that recommendations must come from a superior to a subordinate, since only authority figures can meaningfully advise others on appropriate action; because the two speakers are colleagues of equal rank, this exchange cannot qualify as a recommendation.
- The flaw is that Colleague B's agreement to help retroactively transforms the speech act — what may have begun as a recommendation becomes a completed request at the moment Colleague B says 好, 我帮你发.
- The flaw is that the exchange concludes with Colleague A expressing gratitude, and since recommendations do not typically end with thanks from the person who initiated the speech act, the presence of 谢谢 confirms this must be classified differently.
- The flaw is that Colleague A is not proposing an action for Colleague B's benefit or advising a general course of action; instead, A is asking B to perform a specific task that serves A's immediate, urgent need — the defining feature of a request. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing speech acts in Mandarin conversation, the critical question isn't what the words sound like on the surface — it's who benefits and why. The key distinction between a request (请求) and a recommendation (建议) comes down to purpose and direction: a recommendation proposes an action for the listener's benefit or offers general advice, while a request asks someone to do something that serves the speaker's need.
In this exchange, Colleague A has an urgent personal problem — a report must be sent before end of business, and A cannot do it because of a meeting. A explicitly asks B to handle this specific task. The benefit flows entirely to A, not B. That's the textbook definition of a request, which is exactly what D captures: A is asking B to perform a concrete task driven by A's own immediate need. D is correct.
Choice A is wrong because speech act classification is not determined by organizational hierarchy. Requests and recommendations can occur between equals, superiors, or subordinates — rank is simply irrelevant to defining these categories.
Choice B is wrong because a speech act's classification is determined by its illocutionary force at the moment of utterance, not by the listener's response. B's agreement doesn't retroactively redefine what A said — the request was already a request before B responded.
Choice C is wrong because gratitude is a natural follow-up to many speech acts, not a defining feature that reclassifies them. Concluding with 谢谢 tells you the speaker felt helped, not what type of speech act preceded it.
Tip: On speech act questions, always ask yourself: who benefits from the action being requested or advised? That single question usually cuts through surface-level confusion instantly.
Question 7
Listen to the following exchange:
顾客:你好,我上个月在这里买的手机,用了没多久屏幕就出现了问题,而且我联系客服好几次都没有人回我,真的很失望。
店员:非常抱歉,我们来帮您查一下情况。
顾客:我不需要查了,我就想知道你们能不能给我换一台或者退款。
By the end of the exchange, the customer's communicative purpose has shifted. Which answer most accurately describes the shift and identifies the purpose of the customer's final utterance?
- The purpose shifts from a complaint (expressing dissatisfaction with the defective phone and poor customer service) to a request (demanding a replacement device or a refund as a concrete resolution). (correct answer)
- The purpose shifts from a recommendation (advising the store to improve its customer service) to a complaint (expressing frustration about the broken screen and unresponsive service team).
- The purpose shifts from an invitation (inviting the store to investigate the problem together) to a complaint (rejecting the store's offer to investigate and reiterating the original grievance).
- The purpose shifts from a request (asking the store to acknowledge the defective product) to a recommendation (suggesting that the store adopt a clearer refund and exchange policy for future customers).
Explanation: When analyzing communicative purpose in a conversation, pay attention to how the speaker's goal evolves across their turns — not just what they're saying, but what they're trying to accomplish with each utterance.
In this exchange, the customer opens by doing two things: describing a defective phone and expressing frustration about unresponsive customer service. Both of these actions serve a complaint function — the customer is venting dissatisfaction without yet asking for anything specific. Then, after the store employee offers to investigate, the customer redirects sharply: 「我不需要查了,我就想知道你们能不能给我换一台或者退款」("I don't need you to investigate — I just want to know if you can give me a replacement or a refund"). This is a request — a direct demand for a concrete outcome. That progression from complaint to request is exactly what A captures, making it the correct answer.
B is wrong because the customer never recommends anything — advising the store to improve its practices is never the goal. C misreads the first utterance as an invitation; the customer wasn't proposing to investigate together, they were venting. The final utterance also isn't a complaint — it's a demand, not an expression of dissatisfaction. D reverses the logic entirely: the customer's opening is a complaint, not a request, and the closing is a personal demand, not a policy suggestion for future customers.
A useful strategy: in Mandarin service interactions, watch for the shift from 抱怨 (bàoyuàn, complaining) to 要求 (yāoqiú, demanding) — this is one of the most common communicative pivots you'll encounter on this exam.
Question 8
Listen to the following exchange:
同学甲:你有没有看过《流浪地球》?
同学乙:看过,挺好看的。
同学甲:我还没看呢,值不值得去电影院看?
同学乙:值得!画面特别震撼,剧情也不错,而且在大银幕上看效果完全不一样,你一定要去看!
Student B's final response accomplishes its communicative purpose through a specific rhetorical strategy. Which answer correctly identifies both the purpose and the strategy, and explains how the strategy supports the purpose?
- The purpose is a request: Student B uses a list of positive attributes to pressure Student A into agreeing to see the film, making the enumeration of merits function as a coercive appeal that leaves Student A little room to decline.
- The purpose is a complaint: Student B uses enthusiastic language to mask underlying frustration that Student A has not yet seen a film that B considers essential viewing, with the list of praise functioning as an indirect criticism.
- The purpose is a recommendation: Student B uses evidence-based reasoning — citing specific qualities (visuals, plot, big-screen effect) — to justify the conclusion that Student A should see the film, with 你一定要去看 as the explicit advisory directive. (correct answer)
- The purpose is an invitation: Student B uses a list of the film's merits to build enthusiasm and then proposes that the two of them watch it together, with 你一定要去看 functioning as an implicit suggestion for a shared outing.
Explanation: When analyzing conversational Chinese, pay attention to two layers simultaneously: the communicative function (what the speaker is trying to do) and the rhetorical structure (how they build toward that function). Student B is responding to a direct question — 值不值得去电影院看 — which means the entire response is oriented around answering that question with supporting reasoning.
Student B's response does exactly this: it opens with an affirmative conclusion (值得!), then provides specific evidence — 画面特别震撼 (visuals), 剧情也不错 (plot), and 在大银幕上看效果完全不一样 (big-screen experience) — before closing with an explicit directive, 你一定要去看. This is classic evidence-based recommendation structure: state the verdict, justify it with concrete reasons, reinforce with a direct advisory. That makes C the correct answer.
A misidentifies the purpose as coercion or pressure. Listing merits is persuasion, not coercion — there is no threat, obligation, or social pressure implied. Student B is sharing enthusiasm, not manipulating. B invents an emotional subtext (frustration, indirect criticism) that simply isn't present in the language. Nothing in Student B's wording signals displeasure. D misreads 你一定要去看 as an invitation for a shared outing — but 你 (you, singular) refers to Student A going independently, and no "let's go together" phrasing appears anywhere.
As a study tip: on communicative-function questions, always anchor your analysis to the literal language first. Distractors like A, B, and D work by importing assumptions the text never supports — a common trap on this exam.
Question 9
Listen to the following exchange:
妈妈:你最近学习怎么样?期末考试准备好了吗?
儿子:还好,就是数学有点难,我一个人有点搞不定。
妈妈:要不要我帮你找个补习老师?你同学小刚不是有在补课吗,效果好像不错。
儿子:嗯,如果可以的话就好了。
The mother's second utterance (要不要我帮你找个补习老师?…效果好像不错) is best understood as serving what communicative purpose, and why does the presence of the example about 小刚 complicate a simple identification?
- It is a request, and 小刚's example complicates it because the mother is indirectly requesting that the son study as hard as 小刚 does, adding a second demand beneath the surface.
- It is an invitation, and 小刚's example complicates it because the mother is inviting the son to join 小刚's existing tutoring group rather than find a separate tutor.
- It is a recommendation, and 小刚's example complicates it because the reference to a peer's positive experience could also be read as an implicit invitation to consider tutoring — yet the core function remains advisory, aimed at solving the son's stated problem. (correct answer)
- It is a complaint, and 小刚's example complicates it because the mother is indirectly criticizing the son's study habits by comparing him unfavorably to a high-achieving classmate.
Explanation: When analyzing spoken Chinese exchanges, train yourself to identify the primary communicative function of an utterance first, then ask whether any secondary layer of meaning complicates that classification. This is exactly the skill this question tests.
The mother's utterance opens with 要不要我帮你找个补习老师, which is a softened offer of assistance directly responding to the son's stated difficulty with math. She isn't ordering or commanding — she's advising a course of action. That makes recommendation the core communicative function. She then reinforces this by citing 小刚's tutoring experience (效果好像不错) as supporting evidence, a classic conversational strategy in Mandarin where peer examples lend credibility to suggestions. This confirms C as correct: the utterance is fundamentally advisory, aimed at solving the son's problem.
The complication C identifies is real and nuanced — mentioning a peer's positive experience doesn't just support the recommendation; it also subtly invites the son to see tutoring as a normal, accessible option. That dual layer (advisory + implicit social invitation) is what makes simple categorization tricky, and what the question is asking you to recognize.
A misreads the register entirely — there is no embedded demand to perform like 小刚, only a reference to his experience as evidence. B fabricates a scenario (joining 小刚's group) that simply isn't stated in the passage. D projects criticism and comparison where none exists; the mother's tone is supportive, not judgmental.
Your strategy: in conversational Mandarin questions, always separate core function from secondary implicature. Distractors often inflate or invent a secondary meaning and mislabel it as the primary one.
Question 10
Listen to the following exchange:
陈刚:小美,这家餐厅的红烧肉真的很不错,你一定要尝尝,绝对不会失望的。
小美:是吗?听起来不错,那我就点这个试试吧。
陈刚:对,而且他们的汤也特别鲜,你也可以叫一碗。
A student listening to this exchange identifies its purpose as a request. Which of the following best explains why that identification is incorrect?
- The exchange cannot be a request because requests must come from a person in a position of authority, and neither speaker holds such a position in this context.
- Chen Gang is not asking Xiao Mei to do something for his benefit; he is suggesting dishes she should try for her own enjoyment, making this a recommendation rather than a request. (correct answer)
- The exchange cannot be a request because Xiao Mei agrees with Chen Gang, whereas in a true request the listener typically hesitates or declines.
- Chen Gang is not directing Xiao Mei toward any action at all; he is only describing the food positively, which places this exchange in the category of a complaint about service quality.
Explanation: When analyzing conversational exchanges in Mandarin, your first step should be identifying the communicative function — is the speaker making a request (请求), a recommendation (建议), a complaint (抱怨), or something else? The key distinction between a request and a recommendation is who benefits: requests ask someone to do something for the speaker's benefit, while recommendations suggest something for the listener's benefit.
In this exchange, Chen Gang tells Xiao Mei the red-braised pork is excellent and she should try it, and follows up by recommending the soup as well. He gains nothing from her ordering these dishes — he's guiding her toward an enjoyable meal. This is the hallmark of 建议 (recommendation), not 请求 (request), which is exactly why B is correct.
A is wrong because it invents a rule that doesn't exist — requests don't require authority. A friend can absolutely make a request of another friend. This is a trap that sounds logical but has no basis in how communicative functions are defined. C is wrong because it confuses the listener's response with the speech act's category. Whether someone agrees, hesitates, or declines does not determine whether an utterance was a request — that's defined by the speaker's intent and structure, not the outcome. D is wrong on two counts: Chen Gang is clearly directing Xiao Mei toward specific actions (ordering dishes), and nothing in the exchange relates to service quality or complaints.
As a study tip, always ask yourself: who benefits from the action being suggested? If it's the listener, lean toward recommendation; if it's the speaker, lean toward request.