House English Lesson

Two explanations under pressure

An ill passenger creates a disagreement between House and Cuddy about the risk and the next decision.

First watch: How do the characters differ in the weight they give to uncertainty?

Original source ↗

Watch and check · 6 questions

All six questions refer to this clip. Choose one answer per question.

Listen for the evidence1. What treatment does Cuddy urge House to give the passenger?

A. Antibiotics.B. A glass of water only.C. No treatment or examination.

Listen for the evidence2. What test does House propose before deciding about the antibiotics?

A. An eye test.B. A test of the passenger’s spinal fluid.C. A vote among the passengers.

Listen for the evidence3. Why does House say the proposed test is risky on the plane?

A. The lighting is too dim.B. They lack the proper needle, and the plane is shaking.C. The passenger refuses to answer questions.

Listen for the evidence4. What does Cuddy repeat near the end of the exchange?

A. The plane is arriving early.B. The illness has been ruled out.C. They should have turned back.

Listen for the evidence5. Why does House hesitate to use the available antibiotics?

A. He cannot find any water.B. He has proved the passenger is well.C. He worries about a potentially severe allergic reaction.

Interpret the scene6. What best describes their disagreement in this scene?

A. Cuddy wants immediate medication; House challenges its risks and the evidence.B. They agree on a certain diagnosis but debate the passenger’s seat.C. House urges medication while Cuddy wants to wait without checking.

Answer key and explanations

A. Antibiotics. Correct. She asks for the available Augmentin.
B. A test of the passenger’s spinal fluid. Correct. He suggests an LP to check the fluid.
B. They lack the proper needle, and the plane is shaking. Correct. He says turbulence could cause a spinal injury.
C. They should have turned back. Correct. She says they should have turned back.
C. He worries about a potentially severe allergic reaction. Correct. House warns that the medicine could trigger a dangerous reaction.
A. Cuddy wants immediate medication; House challenges its risks and the evidence. Correct. Their argument weighs treatment against uncertainty and risk.

Useful phrases

Original language for practice, not programme quotations.

At this stage, that is a possibility rather than a conclusion.
Limit the certainty of an explanation.

What evidence would help us distinguish between the two explanations?
Move a disagreement towards a useful test.

Speaking · 3 brief prompts

Answer aloud for 20–45 seconds. Add a reason or example. With a tutor, ask one follow-up question.

How does the time pressure affect the conversation?

One possible answer

It makes delaying a decision seem consequential, even though the cause is uncertain.
What is the difference between considering a risk and proving it exists?

One possible answer

Considering it may justify checking further; proving it requires supporting evidence.
Rephrase an overconfident claim about a broken website.

One possible answer

Instead of “The update caused it”, say “The timing suggests a connection, but we should test it”.

When a test changes the explanation

House makes an announcement to the passengers and then revises the explanation of the apparent wider outbreak.

First watch: What does the announcement reveal, and what remains unexplained?

Original source ↗

Watch and check · 6 questions

All six questions refer to this clip. Choose one answer per question.

Interpret the scene1. What is House doing when he names an additional symptom in the announcement?

A. Asking which passenger first noticed the original illness.B. Testing how people respond to a suggested symptom.C. Announcing a symptom independently confirmed in every case.

Listen for the evidence2. Which new symptom does he introduce for that test?

A. A sudden loss of hearing.B. A tremor in the right hand.C. A tremor in the left hand.

Use picture and dialogue3. How do some passengers respond?

A. They consistently report only symptoms mentioned before the announcement.B. They all reject the suggestion because they have never heard it before.C. They begin showing or reporting the suggested symptom.

Listen for the evidence4. What does House say the newly shaking left hand is not a symptom of?

A. Meningitis.B. A broken wrist.C. A reaction to the cabin lighting.

Listen for the evidence5. What influence does House identify in the other passengers’ symptoms?

A. The effect of suggestion and shared anxiety.B. A deliberate plan by a few passengers to imitate the original patient.C. The same proven disease in every passenger.

Listen for the evidence6. What does House ask the flight crew to offer as he closes the announcement?

A. A compulsory written test.B. A complimentary bar service.C. A change of aircraft.

Answer key and explanations

B. Testing how people respond to a suggested symptom. Correct. The later explanation reveals the purpose of the announcement.
C. A tremor in the left hand. Correct. The exact symptom matters because it is deliberately suggested.
C. They begin showing or reporting the suggested symptom. Correct. Their response becomes part of his reasoning.
A. Meningitis. Correct. House explicitly says the left-hand tremor is not a symptom of meningitis and explains that he planted the idea.
A. The effect of suggestion and shared anxiety. Correct. This is the character’s explanation of the wider response.
B. A complimentary bar service. Correct. He announces a complimentary bar service as part of his attempt to calm the passengers.

Useful phrases

Original language for practice, not programme quotations.

That fits some of the evidence, but it does not explain everything.
Acknowledge partial support without overstating it.

We should revise the explanation, not ignore the new result.
Respond constructively to disconfirming information.

Speaking · 3 brief prompts

Answer aloud for 20–45 seconds. Add a reason or example. With a tutor, ask one follow-up question.

Why is it important that the original case remains unresolved?

One possible answer

One explanation can account for part of a situation without accounting for the whole.
Can the way a question is asked influence an answer?

One possible answer

Yes. A leading description can prompt people to notice or report a particular detail.
Explain a changed view without sounding defensive.

One possible answer

I initially thought the update was responsible, but the new test suggests we should check the connection instead.

Mastery: use what you have learnt

Mastery quiz · 6 questions

Original language and application practice using both clips’ target language. These examples are not programme dialogue. Choose one answer per question.

Original language application1. A delivery is late. Which statement is a working hypothesis rather than a certainty?

A. No explanation could possibly exist.B. The address may have been entered incorrectly; let us check the order.C. The driver definitely ignored us because they dislike the company.

Original language application2. Which evidence would best help distinguish a website fault from a local connection fault?

A. Rename the page without checking whether it opens.B. Ask which explanation sounds more annoying.C. Check the same page from another connection and compare the results.

Original language application3. Which wording avoids claiming that “consistent with” means “proves”?

A. The timing is consistent with that explanation, but another cause is still possible.B. The timing is consistent with it, so every alternative is impossible.C. Consistent with means that the evidence contradicts it.

Original language application4. Two people test an app on different internet connections. What might those different connections be?

A. A confounding factor in the comparison.B. A final explanation of every error the app has ever produced.C. Proof that the app works identically everywhere.

Original language application5. New evidence contradicts your initial account. Which response is most constructive?

A. We should discard the result because the first account was mine.B. We should pretend the original problem never happened.C. We should revise the explanation and check what still remains unresolved.

Original language application6. Which action illustrates erring on the side of caution in an ordinary file-editing task?

A. Delete the only original before checking the change.B. Keep an untouched copy before testing a large change.C. Assume every future change will work because one did.

Answer key and explanations

B. The address may have been entered incorrectly; let us check the order. Correct. It proposes a possibility and an evidence check.
C. Check the same page from another connection and compare the results. Correct. The comparison helps separate the competing explanations.
A. The timing is consistent with that explanation, but another cause is still possible. Correct. It distinguishes compatibility from certainty.
A. A confounding factor in the comparison. Correct. They introduce another influence on the result.
C. We should revise the explanation and check what still remains unresolved. Correct. It incorporates the result and preserves open questions.
B. Keep an untouched copy before testing a large change. Correct. It reduces the consequences of uncertainty.

Put it together

Final speaking · 12 minutes

A small organisation’s booking page has stopped loading for some users. Compare explanations, request evidence and revise your account when a new clue arrives. This is a non-medical investigation.

Role A

You coordinate bookings. The problem was first reported after a text update, so you suspect the update. You know two affected users work in the same building.

Role B

You support the website. You know the page opens on your phone. Halfway through the conversation, reveal that both affected users can open it after changing to another network.

Practise

State a working hypothesis and at least one alternative.
Choose a useful comparison rather than defending the first explanation.
Introduce the new clue and revise the account.
Summarise what is supported, what remains unresolved and the next check; retry after feedback.

On your own: Speak both roles aloud, then improve your closing response.

Success criteria

Use calibrated certainty rather than unsupported claims.
Respond explicitly to the new clue.
Separate a partial explanation from a completed investigation.

One possible conversation

Coordinator: The reports began after the update, so that is my working hypothesis.

Support: It is possible, but the page opens on my phone. Could their connection be a confounding factor?

Coordinator: What evidence would distinguish the two explanations?

Support: They have now tried a different network, and it opens there.

Coordinator: Then we should revise the explanation. The update may not be the cause.

Support: Agreed. We should check the shared network, although the exact fault remains unresolved.

Try it again

A third user reports the problem from another location. Reopen the investigation without claiming the earlier clue was useless.