B2The Last Letter · Chapter 3 · Part 1About 3 min

The Names

Listen first. Answer six questions. Then explore the transcript.

01 · Before you listen

A few words to know

Explore the vocabulary
recipient
a person who receives something
spreadsheet
a table used to organise information
advertised
publicly described to attract interest
annual report
a yearly account of an organisation’s activities
scheme
an organised programme
quote
repeat someone’s exact words

02 · Listen to the story

Follow the clues.

03 · Check your understanding

What did you discover?

Choose one answer for each question. Submit all six to see your score and unlock the transcript.

1. Why does Emma avoid treating the brochure photograph as proof of twelve payments?

2. What makes the difference between twelve names and fewer completed awards inconclusive?

3. Which additional evidence would most directly test the brochure’s claims?

4. How should Emma interpret the wording “up to £3,000”?

5. Why does Emma initially withhold details of Claire’s letter from the students?

6. What is the practical significance of Ailsa’s response?

04 · Read & review

The transcript

Submit all six answers to unlock the transcript. You can then listen and read together.

Emma had hardly slept. The words from the letter kept returning to her: Look at what was promised to those students, and what they actually received. By nine o'clock she was sitting at her kitchen table with a coffee, her laptop and a notebook.

She wanted to contact Fiona Kerr, whose name she had found in the foundation's old accounts. But she had no reliable telephone number for Fiona. More importantly, she needed to understand the students' experiences before questioning a former employee.

Emma opened the Glenarraidh Education Trust's brochure from 2010. It showed twelve scholarship recipients smiling outside a college. Each name appeared beside a short description of the student's plans. The brochure said that awards could be worth up to three thousand pounds.

Up to, Emma thought. That did not mean everyone had been promised the full amount.

She copied the names into a spreadsheet. Next to each one, she left space for the amount offered, the amount received and any documents that could confirm the information.

Before contacting the students, Emma checked the dates on the brochure. One photograph had been taken in spring, but the report beside it covered the whole year. She almost counted the people in the picture as proof of the number of awards. Then she stopped. A photograph could show who attended an event; it could not show who received money. She recorded the distinction beside her table. It was a small correction, but the kind she had failed to make in 2011. She returned to her list of names, aware that some of the students might not want to speak to her.

She found public contact details for two former students and an article written by a third. She sent polite messages explaining that she was checking the scholarship programme. She did not mention Claire or the letter. She still did not know who had sent it.

Her editor, Sarah, called while Emma was working.

"Have you found anything?" Sarah asked.

"The brochure names twelve students, but the annual report mentions fewer completed awards."

"So money is missing?"

"Not necessarily. They might be counting different things. I need to ask the students."

"Good. Ask what they were offered and what they actually received. Don't mix the answers."

Emma looked again at the photograph. The people in it had made decisions about their futures. This was not simply a puzzle about numbers.

Just before lunch, an email arrived from Ailsa Grant, one of the students in the brochure.

I remember the scheme, she wrote. I can talk, but please don't quote me until I understand what you want to ask.

Emma suggested a telephone call that afternoon. Then she looked at the empty payment column in her spreadsheet. For the first time, she might be able to fill it with something more useful than guesses.