Picture descriptions

[RealJames]

Originally Posted by Supperman

I thought RADIO programs were better to listen to than TV programs, because RADIO programs were intended to make for listeners, while TV's were for watchers.
Yet, to the contrary, I heard from plural visually handicapped people that TV programs were better than radio programs, when they listen to them.

I though of the reason, and my conclusion was;
TV programs have higher performance than RADIO programs, because TV programs use much money to produce.
A radio jockey can't talk all through one program, so their speech is interrupted by musics.
So if one want to listens to someone's voice instead of music, one may prefer to listen to TV program.
Though I don't know it is correct or not.

My guess would be that radio has to communicate using words alone, whereas TV can make use of body language and situational context.
In that respect, tv would be much more similar to conversational English.
Even when regular people speak on the phone, they aren't trained as radio announcers and would still use conversational English more similar to TV English than Radio.

Just a guess though.

[Supperman]

Originally Posted by Supperman

I thought RADIO programs were better to listen to than TV programs, because RADIO programs were intended to make for listeners, while TV's were for watchers.
Yet, to the contrary, I heard from plural visually handicapped people that TV programs were better than radio programs, when they listen to them.

I though of the reason, and my conclusion was;
TV programs have higher performance than RADIO programs, because TV programs use much money to produce.
A radio jockey can't talk all through one program, so their speech is interrupted by musics.
So if one want to listens to someone's voice instead of music, one may prefer to listen to TV program.
Though I don't know it is correct or not.

I will re-write the above sentences, according to an advice.

I thought RADIO broadcasts were better to listen to than TV shows, because RADIO broadcasts were intended for listeners, while TV shows were for watchers.
Yet, on the contrary, I heard from plural visually handicapped people that TV shows were better than radio broadcasts, when they listen to them.

I though of the reason, and my conclusion was;
TV shows have higher level of quality than RADIO broadcasts, because production of TV shows involves a higher amount of money.
In addition, a radio jockey can't talk all through one program, so their speech is interrupted by music.
So if one wants to continuously listen to someone's voice instead of music, one may prefer to listen to TV shows.
Though I don't know it is correct or not.

[Supperman]

Originally Posted by RealJames

My guess would be that radio has to communicate using words alone, whereas TV can make use of body language and situational context.
In that respect, tv would be much more similar to conversational English.
Even when regular people speak on the phone, they aren't trained as radio announcers and would still use conversational English more similar to TV English than Radio.

Just a guess though.

Thank you, RealJames.
I got your point.

If one wants to listen to the more natural conversation, one would choose TV shows, right?
It is more real, more natural than radio broadcasts.

When I think about those handicapped people, I tend to think that radio broadcasts are more kind ("kinder" is correct?) to them. But on the contrary, they tend to prefer "natural things", right?

They don't need redundant explanation, instead, they can feel the atmosphere of the conversation.

[dogsbody70]

I don't know what Japanese radio programmes are like. We have some excellent programmes-- apart from news and music programmes there are plays and serials and many discussion programmes.

I do not think there are enough programmes suitable for children though.

I find the radio a very personal commodity.

Anyway, let's hope that help will be available for the visually Impaired in Japan.

We have local radio where local people phone in and participate in various discussions.

[Supperman]

An optician is holding a pair of glasses with both hands, and he’s just attaching it to the old man’s eyes.
There is a visual testing chart on the wall.
This seems to be a room of the optician’s clinic.

The optician wears a white coat and his face is flushed, which makes him less likely to be a real, skillful optician.
The room is unnatural for a optician’s clinic. The only proof is the visual testing chart on the wall. In order to test correctly, the chart should be illuminated. Though there is no　illumination lamps or fluorescent. The room is too simple. There are no goods to adjust the frame of the glasses with to be seen in this photo. What are they trying to do?

Both of them are flushed, maybe they’re hesitate to act this scene. I think this is a faked photo acted by the actors, or models, or even the members of the TOEIC test making staff.

At the optician's / TOEIC

[dogsbody70]

It looks to me as though the optician is trying a new pair of spectacles for size. I think you are reading too much into that photograph.

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by Supperman

An optician is holding a pair of glasses with both hands, and he’s just attaching measuring them to see if they fit.it to the old man’s eyes.
There is a visual testing chart on the wall.
This seems to be a room of the optician’s clinic.

The optician wears a white coat and his face is flushed, which makes him less likely to be a real, skillful optician.
The room is unnatural for aN optician’s clinic. The only proof is the visual testing chart on the wall. In order to test correctly, the chart should be illuminated. Though there is ARE no　illumination lamps or fluorescent. The room is too simple. There are no goods to adjust the frame of the glasses with to be seen in this photo. What are they trying to do?

Both of them are flushed, maybe they’re hesitate HESITANT to act this scene. I think this is a faked photo acted by the actors, or models, or even the members of the TOEIC test making staff.

At the optician's / TOEIC

Maybe there is a separate room to fit new glasses.

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by Supperman

An optician is holding a pair of glasses with both hands, and he’s just attaching it to the old man’s eyes. He would hardly be attaching the glasses to the actual eyes would he. ( He would place them over the client's nose and hook them over his ears.)There is a visual testing chart on the wall.
This seems to be a room of the optician’s clinic.

The optician wears a white coat and his face is flushed, which makes him less likely to be a real, skillful optician.
The room is unnatural for a optician’s clinic. The only proof is the visual testing chart on the wall. In order to test correctly, the chart should be illuminated. Though there is no　illumination lamps or fluorescent. The room is too simple. There are no goods to adjust the frame of the glasses with to be seen in this photo. What are they trying to do?

Both of them are flushed, maybe they’re hesitate to act this scene. I think this is a faked photo acted by the actors, or models, or even the members of the TOEIC test making staff.

At the optician's / TOEIC

good effort

[Kuuzoku]

I visualize the optician saying "Here, let me take those glasses for you," then he puts them aside and prepares for an eye exam.

[Supperman]

Originally Posted by Kuuzoku

I visualize the optician saying "Here, let me take those glasses for you," then he puts them aside and prepares for an eye exam.

Oh, your scenario makes perfect sense to me.

I myself couldn't imagine "taking off that glasses", I only thought "putting them on".

Thank you, Kuuzoku, for your suggestion.