Task 7 asks what you think, and then gives you a minute and a half to hold that position.
You get 30 seconds to prepare and 90 seconds to speak. It is one of only two tasks with ninety seconds, and it is the one where people most often talk themselves out of their own answer without noticing.
Two of the five official strategies do most of the work here.
Quickly decide whether you will answer yes or no.
Give about three reasons to support your position.
Read the second one carefully. About three. Not two, and not at least three either. Task 1 is the one that says "Provide at least three suggestions." Task 7 says about three, and those are different instructions for different tasks.
Only two of the eight speaking tasks publish a number at all, and both of them say three. When the test bothers to give you a number, it is worth using.
🎥 The same question answered twice, and one answer argues against itself (13:26)
The first answer is fluent, confident and well spoken, and it fails. The point is that you are not supposed to hear it failing while it happens. Then the same question is answered again with the structure below.
Jump to: 0:00 four seconds to pick a side · 2:33 did you hear the mistake · 3:07 fifty seconds on the other side · 3:24 what the rated sample says · 4:07 pick the side you can argue, not the side you believe · 6:57 thin reason against developed reason · 8:35 the other side, in one sentence · 9:41 how to finish · 10:25 the same question, answered properly
There is a common Level 8 pattern on this task, and it has three parts. The answer contradicts itself. It spends more time on the problems its own choice would cause than on reasons for it. And it announces a list of reasons with a phrase like The first one is, then never gives a second.
Put them together and you can see the answer. It picks a side. It gives one reason. Then it becomes fair, and being fair takes over, and by the end it has spent more of its ninety seconds arguing the other position than its own. A second reason is announced and never arrives.
None of that sounds wrong while you are speaking. It sounds thoughtful and balanced, which is why it is worth naming.
In the video, the two answers were timed. The first spends 50 seconds on the other side. The second spends 9. Same question, same speaker, same confident delivery.
Here is what the drift looks like from the inside:
…so for those families it is genuinely hard to find anywhere at all.
**Now, having said that, I do understand where the landlord is coming from as well. Floors get damaged, and that is not a small repair. And if a dog is barking at eleven at night, the neighbours do not call the dog, they call the landlord…
The sentence in bold is where it turns, and after it the answer never comes back with a second reason. It only repeats the first one in different words at the very end.
Being balanced is not the task. The task is to support your position.
Quickly decide whether you will answer yes or no.
Note the word quickly. This decision should take a few seconds, not half your preparation.
And notice what the strategy does not say. It does not say pick the side you agree with, or the correct side, or the kind one. Nobody is scoring your opinion. They are scoring whether you can support one.
So the question to ask yourself is not what do I think? It is which of these two can I give three real reasons for in the next twenty-five seconds?
Sometimes that is the side you actually hold. Often it is not, and choosing it anyway is not dishonest. It is a speaking test.
Write the side down first, before any reason exists, as a single word at the top of your notes. It is the thing you will drift away from, so it should be sitting there in front of you.
Two reasons will not fill ninety seconds without repeating, and repeating is what the Level 8 answer was marked down for.
But three copies of the same reason is not three reasons. This is the trap.
❌ It saves money. It is cheaper for families. People would not have to spend as much.
That is one reason said three times, and an examiner hears it as one.
Three reasons are different when they belong to different worlds. Pick your three from different rows:
| Angle | What it sounds like |
|---|
| The person directly affected | it changes what this family can actually do |
| Everybody else | it costs the city, or it affects the neighbours |
| Time | it is worse in five years than it is now |
| Fairness | the same rule is already applied somewhere else |
| The objection is already handled | the problem you are worried about has an existing fix |
That last row is the strongest one and almost nobody uses it. Instead of ignoring the obvious objection, you take it as your third reason and show that the tool to deal with it already exists.
A Level 9 answer usually has exactly this shape: three clear reasons, with some of them developed through details or examples.
Three, and developed. Those are the two things.
A reason without a detail is a topic. The official strategy asks you to support each reason with specific details, and specific means small and real: a number, a place, or a person.
| Thin | Developed |
|---|
| It helps people find housing | In most cities the vacancy rate is already low, so if you remove every building that says no, a family is choosing from a handful of places |
| It costs the city money | When people move and cannot find anywhere, the animal goes to a shelter, and the shelters are full, and the city pays for that |
| Damage is not really a problem | A landlord can take a deposit and put the repair rules in the lease. That tool already exists |
And be careful with impressive-sounding words. Even a strong answer loses precision when it leans on words like these:
beneficial · different opportunities · a little bit
None of those is a mistake. They are just vague, and vague is what keeps a good answer from being a better one. Specific beats advanced. If you hear yourself say beneficial, stop and say what the thing actually does.
The concession is not the problem. Where it sits and how long it runs is the problem.
Three rules, and all three come from what went wrong above.
- It goes after your third reason, not instead of it. Trading a reason for a concession leaves you with two, and the strategy says about three.
- It is one sentence.
- The second half of that sentence takes it back.
✅ Now, a building with no pets does help somebody with a serious allergy, but that is a reason for one or two buildings, not for a whole city.
One sentence. The objection is acknowledged, and then it is sized. Nine seconds, not fifty.
If you find yourself starting a second sentence about the other side, stop. You have already given it everything it is worth.
There are five official strategies for Task 7 and not one of them is an ending. No conclusion, no summary, no wrap. Checked directly, and it is not there.
The live version of this page finished every sample with In short or Overall, and those lines cost six or seven seconds each on a task where nothing asks for them.
A short clean finish is good speaking. Landing on your position in half a dozen words is fine, and it sounds finished. But it is yours, not the test's, so if the clock takes it you have lost nothing.
What you should not do is stop early to make room for it. Spend those seconds developing your third reason instead. Length is a named factor and silence is the thing to avoid.
The side goes down first, before any reason exists.
NO
1 attention - one glance, lost the thread, rest of the lesson catching up
2 teacher - 30 students, minutes spent policing not teaching
3 emergencies already fixed - the office phone, how it always worked
( medical app -> an exception, not the whole class )
The brackets around the last line are doing real work. They are its size in the answer. One sentence, at the end, answered in the same breath.
Nouns and fragments, never sentences. One written sentence costs about eight seconds and you have thirty.
The question. Do you think students should be allowed to use mobile phones in high school classrooms? Explain your reasons.
A note on the side chosen. The answer below argues no, and that is not a recommendation about phones or about schools. It is the side that was easier to build three different reasons for in twenty-five seconds, which is the only test that matters here. An equally strong answer argues yes.
The answer, 242 words, which lands just inside ninety seconds at a natural pace.
No, I do not think they should, and there are three reasons I feel that way.
The main one is attention, and it is not really about students playing games. It is that a phone costs you even when you barely touch it. You glance at it once, you lose the thread of what the teacher was explaining, and then you spend the rest of that lesson quietly trying to catch up on something you already missed. That happens in about four seconds and nobody around you notices it.
My second reason is the teacher. There are thirty students in that room and one adult, and every minute spent asking somebody to put a phone away is a minute not spent teaching the other twenty-nine. So it is not only the student with the phone who pays for it. Everybody in the room does.
And the third one is that the emergency problem is already solved. Parents worry about reaching their child during the day, which is completely fair, but schools have had office phones for a hundred years and that is exactly how it worked before anybody had a mobile. The tool already exists, so we are not choosing between phones and no contact.
Now, a student with a medical condition might genuinely need an app on that phone, but that is a reason for an exception, not a reason for the whole classroom.
So no, I would not allow them.
What it does. The position is in the first six words. Three reasons, and they live in different worlds: the student, everybody else, and the objection already being handled. Every reason carries something small and real. The other side gets one sentence, at the end, answered inside itself. And it lands on the position without summarising anything.
Stating your position
- No, I do not think they should, and there are three reasons I feel that way.
- Yes, I would, and I will tell you why.
- I think they should, and honestly it is not a close call for me.
Starting a new reason without sounding like a list
- The main one is…
- My second reason is…
- And the third one is…
- The other thing is…
Say these rather than First, Second, Third. They do the same job and they sound like a person talking.
Adding the detail
- and what that actually means is…
- take my own street, there are…
- so in practice you end up…
The concession, in one sentence
- Now, [their point] does help [someone], but that is a reason for [small thing], not for [big thing].
- Admittedly [their point], however [why it does not change the answer].
Words to avoid
beneficial · different opportunities · a little bit · it is good for people · in short · overall · to sum up
Arguing the other side for half your answer. The named failure at the top of this page, and it does not sound like a failure while you are doing it.
Announcing reasons that never arrive. The first one is… and then nothing follows. Say the number you will actually deliver.
Two reasons instead of about three. Ninety seconds is a long time and two will either run short or repeat.
Three versions of one reason. Different angles, not different wordings.
Choosing the side you believe over the side you can argue. Nobody is scoring your opinion.
Vague praise words. Beneficial is the example the examiners themselves printed.
Stopping at seventy seconds to leave room for a conclusion. No conclusion is published, and silence is scored against you.
- [ ] My side is written down as a single word, first
- [ ] I have three reasons, and they are different in kind
- [ ] Every reason has a number, a place or a person attached
- [ ] My concession is one sentence, at the end, and it answers itself
- [ ] I am not planning a summary
- [ ] I plan to still be talking near ninety seconds
1. Pick the arguable side (3 min). Take five opinion questions and, for each one, write only which side you would take and one word for each of three reasons. Do not write the answer. You are training the twenty-five seconds that decide everything else.
2. Different in kind (5 min). Write three reasons for one question, then check whether any two could be merged into one sentence. If they could, they are the same reason and you need a new one.
3. Shrink the concession (5 min). Take any answer you have given and rewrite its concession as a single sentence whose second half takes it back. Time both versions.
4. Ninety seconds, three reasons (10 min). Record a full answer with a real timer and check one thing only: how many seconds did you spend on the side you were not arguing?
Related: