Task 1: Core Topic Vocabulary

Task 2: Collocation Matching

Task 3: Useful Spoken Patterns

Complete the sentences using key pattern words:

Task 4: High-Altitude Trivia (Guess the Number)

Well, honestly, it's hard to say. I'd lean towards saying no, because high altitude climbing isn't just a leisure activity. When inexperienced people buy their way onto big peaks, they put everyone at risk. However, um, guided expeditions do provide expert leaders who handle technical safety. Still, if someone lacks basic fitness, they might suffer severe exhaustion or freeze. For instance, last winter my friend tried a simple mountain hike and struggled with basic gear. So, it comes down to whether safety standards are strictly enforced, but nobody needs to attempt these peaks unless they have proper preparation.

Well, I'd lean towards thinking it's quite selfish. Pursuing a personal goal is fine, but when your choices endanger emergency teams, that changes things. Climbers ought to think twice before taking unnecessary hazards near a treacherous crevasse or steep slope. Um, it's true that rescue crews choose their job, but risking someone else's life for personal glory isn't fair. For example, if a climber ignores storm warnings just to reach a peak, they had better take responsibility. Ultimately, we ought to reflect on safety before setting off on high-risk adventures.

Personally, I believe the expedition leader should make the final decision. In high mountains, a leader has the experience to assess weather, icefall hazards, and physical tiredness. If a single climber is struggling, the whole team's safety is compromised. Um, of course, the person in difficulty should speak up honestly about their fatigue, but nobody needs to push forward unless conditions are completely safe. For instance, on an everyday group hike, if one person gets sick, the leader naturally steps in. So it comes down to respecting authority to ensure everyone returns safely.

Well, honestly, it usually comes down to summit fever. People invest thousands of dollars and months of preparation, so they hate turning back so close to their goal. Um, there's also social pressure and ego involved. Climbers often feel that if someone wants to achieve something great, they had better push through discomfort. For example, I remember continuing a rainy jog just because I wanted to hit my daily distance target, even though my legs hurt. On a huge mountain, however, that stubborn mindset can lead straight to severe exhaustion or disaster.

I think it comes down to finding a reasonable middle ground. On one hand, general tax funds should cover basic emergency services because saving human life is a public duty. However, um, high-altitude climbing involves extreme, voluntary risks. If unprepared tourists head onto dangerous terrain without proper gear like crampons or supplemental oxygen, taxpayers shouldn't cover massive helicopter bills. For instance, in local parks, emergency services help lost hikers for free, but extreme sports require insurance. Therefore, we ought to require mandatory rescue insurance before allowing climbers onto high peaks.

Personally, I'd much rather try a small climb myself! Reading exciting books about Everest or treacherous icefall passages is fun, but experiencing nature directly is far more rewarding. Um, of course, I have zero interest in risking my life at extreme altitudes without oxygen. But taking on a moderate, guided hill climb sounds like a great personal challenge. For example, last summer I did a short weekend trail walk, and standing on the peak felt amazing. Nobody needs to conquer massive mountains unless they want to, but starting small is wonderful.