A Famous Person You Would Like to Meet

Part 3 follow-up questions

These are the discussion questions examiners asked after this cue card. Sample answers are shown where available.

1. 1. What types of famous people are often in the news in your country?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   This answer lists categories in short, plainly connected sentences using 'and' and 'because', giving concrete examples in everyday vocabulary such as 'important national news' and 'more attention'.

   Singers and actors are the main ones, and then footballers, especially the national team's coach right now, because every press conference he gives becomes news. Business people also appear a lot, like a couple of billionaires whose company announcements get treated like important national news. Politicians are in the news too, of course, but the coverage of them is more formal and less about gossip. One thing that has changed recently is that online personalities are becoming more famous, like a beauty influencer or a funny TikToker, who can get more attention in one week than a serious writer gets in their whole career. If I look at my news feed, it is mostly the same fifteen faces again and again.

   Why this band

   • FC“One thing that has changed recently is that online personalities are becoming more famous” — This transition is introduced with the plain, fairly generic phrase 'One thing that has changed recently is that'. A band 7 answer would more likely mark this shift more naturally, framing it as 'What's changed in the last few years' to sound more like spoken reflection.
   • LR“get more attention in one week than a serious writer gets in their whole career” — This is a clear but fairly literal comparison. A higher band answer would likely phrase this contrast more sharply, for instance saying someone can 'generate more headlines in a week than a serious writer does in a career', tightening the comparison with more precise vocabulary.
   • GRA“Business people also appear a lot, like a couple of billionaires whose company announcements get treated like important national news.” — This sentence adds an example with the connector 'like' inside a fairly long single clause. A 7.5 answer would likely break this into two shorter linked ideas using a comma and 'a couple of billionaires whose...', avoiding the slightly heavy single-clause structure.

   Band 7.0

   The verb 'dominate' and the dash-set example give this answer more precise, flexible phrasing than a 6.5 response's plainer listing, while the aside 'to be honest' adds natural spoken reflection to the closing line.

   Singers and actors dominate, then footballers and, at the moment, the national team's coach, whose every press conference seems to be news. Business figures come up a lot too — a couple of billionaires whose company announcements get treated like national events. Politicians appear, of course, but coverage of them is more formal and less gossipy. What's changed in the last few years, I'd say, is the rise of online personalities: a beauty influencer or a comedy TikToker can now generate more headlines in a week than a serious writer does in a career. If I scroll my news feed, it's roughly the same fifteen faces rotating, to be honest.

   Why this band

   • FC“What's changed in the last few years, I'd say, is the rise of online personalities:” — The aside 'I'd say' is folded into the middle of this transition sentence rather than placed at the start, giving it a more natural, spoken rhythm. A 6.5 answer would more likely open this same point with the plainer, more generic phrase 'One thing that has changed recently is that'.
   • LR“can now generate more headlines in a week than a serious writer does in a career” — 'Generate more headlines' is a more precise, media-specific phrase than the plainer 'get more attention' a 6.5 answer would use, fitting the topic of news coverage more exactly. It shows developing lexical precision.
   • GRA“Business figures come up a lot too — a couple of billionaires whose company announcements get treated like national events.” — The dash attaches the example directly to the general claim without a connecting word like 'like', showing a more flexible way of adding illustrative detail than a 6.5 answer's fuller single-clause version. This punctuation-based attachment is typical of band 7 range.

   Band 7.5

   The imperative-conditional 'Scroll my news feed and it's...' and the closing evaluative clause 'which says something about what actually gets clicks' give this answer compressed grammar and a sharp final observation typical of band 7.5.

   Singers and actors dominate, then footballers and, currently, the national team's coach, whose every press conference somehow counts as news. Business figures crop up a lot too — a couple of billionaires whose company announcements get treated like national events. Politicians appear, naturally, but coverage of them stays more formal and considerably less gossipy. What's shifted in the last few years is the rise of online personalities: a beauty influencer or a comedy TikToker can now generate more headlines in a week than a serious writer manages in a career. Scroll my news feed and it's roughly the same fifteen faces rotating, which says something about what actually gets clicks.

   Why this band

   • FC“which says something about what actually gets clicks” — This closing clause draws a wider, slightly cynical conclusion about the media system itself, going beyond simply describing the pattern of names. A 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely end on the observation about the same fifteen faces without this extra evaluative step.
   • LR“Business figures crop up a lot too” — 'Crop up' is a genuinely more idiomatic phrasal verb than the plainer 'come up' or 'appear' a lower band would use, suggesting something recurring somewhat unpredictably. It gives the sentence a natural, conversational texture.
   • GRA“Scroll my news feed and it's roughly the same fifteen faces rotating, which says something about what actually gets clicks.” — This imperative-plus-result structure ('Scroll..., and it's...') replaces a more conventional conditional clause like 'If I scroll...', giving the sentence a punchier, more flexible rhythm. This kind of grammatical risk-taking for stylistic effect is characteristic of the range expected at 7.5.

2. 2. Are there more famous people in the news now than in the past?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   Short, separate sentences joined with 'but' and 'so' present a direct claim, a generational comparison, and a simple final conclusion, all in plain, everyday vocabulary.

   I think there are far more now, but most of them are famous for less. My grandmother can name maybe ten celebrities from her youth, just a few singers and a couple of film stars, and they stayed famous for decades. I could probably name hundreds of famous people, but half of them will probably be forgotten by next year. The internet made it cheaper to become known, because now you just need a phone and one lucky week, instead of a record label or a film studio. So the number of famous people has grown a lot, but fame itself has become thinner and shorter. The truly famous people, the ones everyone from every generation knows, are probably not more common than before.

   Why this band

   • FC“The internet made it cheaper to become known, because now you just need a phone and one lucky week, instead of a record label or a film studio.” — This causal point is stated in a straightforward sentence using the plain connector 'because'. A band 7 answer would more likely phrase the cause more abstractly, describing the internet as having 'lowered the cost of becoming known', treating fame like an economic good.
   • LR“fame itself has become thinner and shorter” — 'Thinner and shorter' is simple, everyday descriptive vocabulary applied metaphorically to fame. A higher band answer would likely extend or vary this metaphor with a more specific contrast, describing fame as having become 'thinner and shorter' while pairing it with a sharper claim about the genuinely famous being 'no more numerous than before'.
   • GRA“I could probably name hundreds of famous people, but half of them will probably be forgotten by next year.” — This sentence repeats the modal 'probably' twice within one short sentence, which is accurate but slightly repetitive. A 7.5 answer would likely vary this, keeping only one hedge and expressing the second idea with a more definite, confident verb like 'vanished' instead of a repeated hedge.

   Band 7.0

   The phrase 'lowered the cost of becoming known' treats fame as an economic good, showing more abstract, precise vocabulary than a 6.5 answer, while the dash-set list of examples adds more flexible structure.

   Far more, I'd say, though I'd argue most of them are famous for less. My grandmother can name maybe ten celebrities from her youth — a few singers, a couple of film stars — and they were famous for decades. I could probably name hundreds, and half of them will have vanished by next year. The internet lowered the cost of becoming known, since you no longer need a record label or a film studio, just a phone and a lucky week. So the number has exploded, but fame has become thinner and shorter. The genuinely famous, the people everyone across generations knows, are probably no more numerous than before.

   Why this band

   • FC“though I'd argue most of them are famous for less” — The aside 'I'd argue' signals a personal, considered stance folded directly into the opening sentence, rather than being stated as a flat, separate claim. A 6.5 answer would more likely present this same idea as its own plain sentence: 'but most of them are famous for less'.
   • LR“The internet lowered the cost of becoming known” — Describing fame in economic terms, as something with a 'cost' that can be 'lowered', is a more abstract and precise way of framing the idea than a 6.5 answer's more literal 'made it cheaper to become known'. This shows developing conceptual precision in vocabulary.
   • GRA“I could probably name hundreds, and half of them will have vanished by next year.” — This sentence uses the single hedge 'probably' alongside the more definite future perfect 'will have vanished', avoiding the repeated hedging a 6.5 answer's version shows. This gives a slightly more confident, varied grammatical structure.

   Band 7.5

   The colon-launched explanation and the vivid verb 'rattle off' give this answer compact, natural phrasing typical of band 7.5, while the closing comparison 'no more numerous than they ever were' shows a compressed, idiomatic final clause.

   Far more, though I'd argue most of them are famous for considerably less. My grandmother can name maybe ten celebrities from her youth — a few singers, a couple of film stars — and they stayed famous for decades. I could rattle off hundreds, and half of them will have vanished by next year without a trace. The internet lowered the cost of becoming known: you no longer need a record label or a film studio, just a phone and a lucky week. So the number has exploded, but fame itself has grown thinner and shorter-lived. The genuinely famous, the people everyone across generations recognises, are probably no more numerous than they ever were.

   Why this band

   • FC“I could rattle off hundreds, and half of them will have vanished by next year without a trace” — The trailing phrase 'without a trace' adds a vivid, almost dramatic image to the idea of disappearing fame, going beyond a plain statement of the fact. A 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely end this sentence right after 'vanished by next year' without the extra idiomatic flourish.
   • LR“I could rattle off hundreds” — 'Rattle off' is a genuinely idiomatic phrasal verb for listing something quickly and easily, more vivid and natural-sounding than the plainer 'name' a lower band would use. It shows confident, native-like phrasing.
   • GRA“The internet lowered the cost of becoming known: you no longer need a record label or a film studio, just a phone and a lucky week.” — The colon launches directly into the explanation without a connecting word like 'since', compressing the cause-and-effect relationship into a single flowing sentence. This kind of punctuation-based compression is characteristic of the grammatical control expected at 7.5.

3. 3. Do you agree or disagree that everyone enjoys reading news about famous people?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   Short, separate sentences joined with 'but' and 'so' present a direct opinion, a personal example, and a final qualification, all in plain, everyday vocabulary.

   I disagree, but with one exception. My father cannot name a single singer today, and he finds celebrity gossip really strange, but he reads every word about the national football coach, so his lack of interest is only about certain famous people, not all of them. I think almost everyone follows some famous person, maybe an athlete, a scientist, or a chef instead of a film star. What is different is whether people admit it is really the same habit. There are also people who avoid all of this completely, usually because they find the whole idea of fame a bit unpleasant, and I understand that feeling a little. So it is most people, not everyone, and usually not for the same reasons.

   Why this band

   • FC“I disagree, but with one exception.” — This opening states the position and adds the qualification in two short clauses joined by the basic connector 'but'. A band 7 answer would more likely phrase the same idea more naturally, framing the qualification as 'I disagree, but with a caveat', which sounds more like considered spoken reflection.
   • LR“he finds celebrity gossip really strange” — This is plain, everyday descriptive vocabulary. A higher band answer would likely use a more precise, slightly formal word for the same reaction, such as describing him as finding celebrity gossip 'genuinely baffling', which sounds more natural and specific.
   • GRA“so his lack of interest is only about certain famous people, not all of them” — This clause is added with the plain connector 'so' to state the conclusion directly. A 7.5 answer would likely compress this same idea into a more compact contrastive noun phrase, such as calling the indifference 'selective rather than total', avoiding the fuller explanatory clause.

   Band 7.0

   The phrase 'his indifference is selective rather than total' compresses the reasoning into a compact noun phrase, showing more range than a 6.5 answer's fuller 'so' clause, while the closing fragment sentence adds a natural, spoken finish.

   I disagree, but with a caveat. My father can't name a single current singer and finds celebrity gossip genuinely baffling, yet he'll read every word about the national football coach, so his indifference is selective rather than total. I think almost everyone has some famous person they follow — it might be an athlete, a scientist or a chef rather than a film star. What varies is whether they'd admit it's the same instinct. Then there are people who really do avoid all of it, usually because they find the whole system of fame slightly distasteful, and I have some sympathy with that. So most people, not everyone, and rarely for the same reasons.

   Why this band

   • FC“So most people, not everyone, and rarely for the same reasons.” — This closing sentence is a deliberate fragment without a main verb, summarising the whole answer in a compact, confident way. A 6.5 answer would more likely spell this out as a fuller sentence, such as 'So it is most people, not everyone, and usually not for the same reasons'.
   • LR“finds celebrity gossip genuinely baffling” — 'Genuinely baffling' is a more precise, natural-sounding phrase than the plainer 'really strange' a 6.5 answer would use, capturing a stronger sense of confused incomprehension. It shows developing lexical precision.
   • GRA“so his indifference is selective rather than total” — This compact noun-based clause replaces a fuller explanatory sentence with a tight, abstract contrast ('selective rather than total'), rather than the 6.5 answer's longer explanation. This kind of economical noun-phrase contrast shows more grammatical range.

   Band 7.5

   The vivid verb 'devour' and the metaphor 'the machinery of fame' give this answer precise, idiomatic vocabulary, while the fronted structure 'Almost everyone, I'd argue, has...' shows the flexible, compressed grammar typical of band 7.5.

   I disagree, but with a caveat. My father can't name a single current singer and finds celebrity gossip genuinely baffling, yet he'll devour every word about the national football coach, so his indifference is selective rather than total. Almost everyone, I'd argue, has some famous person they quietly follow — an athlete, a scientist, a chef, rather than necessarily a film star. What varies is whether they'd admit it's the same instinct at work. Then there are people who genuinely opt out of the whole business, usually because they find the machinery of fame slightly distasteful, and I have some sympathy with that stance. Most people, then, not everyone, and rarely for the same reasons.

   Why this band

   • FC“Most people, then, not everyone, and rarely for the same reasons.” — The connector 'then' inside this final fragment signals a confident summarising conclusion drawn from everything just said, more integrated than a plain 'So' opener. A 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely begin this closing thought with the bare 'So' rather than this slightly more reflective 'then'.
   • LR“yet he'll devour every word about the national football coach” — 'Devour' used figuratively for reading eagerly is a genuinely less common, vivid word choice than the plainer 'read' a lower band would use, suggesting real enthusiasm. It fits naturally with the contrast being drawn about selective interest.
   • GRA“Almost everyone, I'd argue, has some famous person they quietly follow — an athlete, a scientist, a chef, rather than necessarily a film star.” — The subject 'Almost everyone' is fronted with the aside 'I'd argue' inserted mid-sentence, and the dash launches a bare list of examples without a connecting word. This layered, flexible sentence-building is characteristic of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.

4. 4. Do people need to be talented to become famous?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   This answer uses short, plain sentences joined with 'because' and 'but' to give a direct claim, a vivid local example, and a simple final contrast, in everyday vocabulary.

   Not anymore, and I am not sure they ever really did. A woman who sells bánh xèo in Da Nang became famous all over the country last year because of a ten-second video of her scolding a rude customer. It was funny, it spread quickly online, and for about a month she appeared on talk shows. There was no real talent involved, just being herself at the right moment. But I think lasting fame usually still needs something behind it, because the singers who are still famous after ten years can actually sing well. So talent is not needed to become famous, but it seems necessary to stay famous, and the internet has made the first part almost random.

   Why this band

   • FC“It was funny, it spread quickly online, and for about a month she appeared on talk shows.” — This sentence repeats the same subject-verb pattern three times ('it was', 'it spread', 'she appeared'), joined with commas and 'and'. A band 7 answer would more likely vary this rhythm, replacing one of the repeated clauses with a shorter fragment or different structure like 'it went viral' for a punchier feel.
   • LR“There was no real talent involved, just being herself at the right moment.” — This is plain, direct phrasing. A higher band answer would likely tighten this into a more compact clause, such as 'no talent involved beyond being herself at the right moment', which reads as a single flowing idea rather than two separated statements.
   • GRA“So talent is not needed to become famous, but it seems necessary to stay famous, and the internet has made the first part almost random.” — This closing sentence uses the plain connector 'but' and 'and' to link three separate claims in sequence. A 7.5 answer would likely compress this using a semicolon between the first two contrasted ideas, tightening the parallel structure between 'become famous' and 'stay famous'.

   Band 7.0

   The verb 'went viral' replaces a fuller description, and the compact fragment 'No talent involved beyond being herself at the right moment' shows tighter grammar than a 6.5 answer's fuller sentence, while 'That said' adds natural spoken concession.

   Not any more, and I'm not sure they ever did entirely. A woman who sells bánh xèo in Da Nang became famous across the country last year because of a ten-second clip of her scolding a rude customer — it was funny, it went viral, and for a month she was on talk shows. No talent involved beyond being herself at the right moment. That said, lasting fame usually still needs something underneath it: the singers who are still around in ten years can actually sing. So talent isn't required to become famous, but it seems to be required to stay famous, and the internet has made the first part almost random.

   Why this band

   • FC“it was funny, it went viral, and for a month she was on talk shows” — Replacing 'it spread quickly online' with the more compact 'it went viral' avoids the mild repetition a 6.5 answer's version shows, giving the list a punchier rhythm. This is a moderately more idiomatic, economical way of describing the same event.
   • GRA“No talent involved beyond being herself at the right moment.” — This is a deliberate sentence fragment without a main verb, compressing the idea into a tight, punchy phrase. It shows more confident, compact grammar than a 6.5 answer's fuller two-clause version of the same idea.
   • LR“the singers who are still around in ten years can actually sing” — 'Still around' is a natural, moderately idiomatic way of describing lasting relevance, more compact than a fuller phrase like 'still famous after ten years'. It shows developing fluency in natural collocation.

   Band 7.5

   The semicolon replacing 'and' in the closing sentence tightens the parallel contrast between becoming and staying famous, and the idiomatic phrase 'doing the rounds on talk shows' shows the natural, compact vocabulary typical of band 7.5.

   Not any more, and I'm not sure they ever did entirely. A woman who sells bánh xèo in Da Nang became nationally known last year over a ten-second clip of her scolding a rude customer — funny, it went viral, and for a month she was doing the rounds on talk shows. No talent involved beyond being herself at the right moment. That said, lasting fame still seems to need something underneath it: the singers still standing a decade on can actually sing. So talent isn't required to become famous, but it does seem required to stay famous; the internet has simply made the first part close to random.

   Why this band

   • LR“for a month she was doing the rounds on talk shows” — 'Doing the rounds' is a genuinely idiomatic phrase for appearing repeatedly across multiple shows, more vivid and natural than the plainer 'was on talk shows' a lower band would use. It suggests a circuit of appearances rather than a single static fact.
   • FC“funny, it went viral, and for a month she was doing the rounds on talk shows” — Dropping the subject and verb from the first item ('funny' instead of 'it was funny') creates a punchier, more varied rhythm across the three-part list. A 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely keep the full 'it was funny' structure, repeating the same pattern across all three items.
   • GRA“So talent isn't required to become famous, but it does seem required to stay famous; the internet has simply made the first part close to random.” — The semicolon replaces 'and' between the second and third clauses, tightening the parallel contrast between 'become famous' and 'stay famous' before adding the final observation as its own compact clause. This kind of semicolon-based compression is characteristic of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.

5. 5. Why do so many young people want to become famous?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   This answer connects ideas with plain connectors like 'because' and 'so', giving a direct claim, a personal example, and two simple supporting reasons in everyday vocabulary.

   I think it is because fame looks like the fastest way to get everything else they want, like money, respect, and being chosen for things. My cousin Nam, who is sixteen, checks his follower count the way my parents' generation checked exam results, and I do not think he wants fame exactly, he wants proof that he matters. There is also a visibility problem, because young people see famous people every single day but almost never see ordinary successful people, so fame looks like the only kind of success that exists. It also looks easy from the outside, because nobody shows the years of failure, so it looks like something lucky that just happens to some people.

   Why this band

   • FC“checks his follower count the way my parents' generation checked exam results” — This is a clear but fairly literal comparison using the repeated verb 'checked'. A band 7 answer would more likely vary the second half of this comparison, using a different verb like 'tracked' to avoid repetition while keeping the same meaning.
   • LR“It also looks easy from the outside” — This is plain, general phrasing. A higher band answer would likely use a more precise, evaluative word for this appearance, describing fame as appearing 'effortless' rather than the more generic 'easy', which carries a slightly stronger, more specific connotation.
   • GRA“There is also a visibility problem, because young people see famous people every single day but almost never see ordinary successful people, so fame looks like the only kind of success that exists.” — This long sentence chains three clauses with 'because', 'but' and 'so', which is accurate but somewhat linear. A 7.5 answer would likely break this into a punchier structure, using a colon to separate the named problem from its explanation.

   Band 7.0

   The dash-set list 'money, respect, being chosen' and the colon before the visibility problem show more flexible punctuation than a 6.5 answer's fuller connected sentences, while the word 'effortless' adds more precise vocabulary.

   Because fame looks like the shortest route to everything else they want — money, respect, being chosen. My cousin Nam, who's sixteen, tracks his follower count the way my parents' generation tracked exam marks, and I don't think he wants fame exactly; he wants proof that he matters, and that's the proof his world offers. There's also a visibility problem: young people see famous people every day and see ordinary successful people almost never, so fame seems like the only model of success on display. And it appears effortless from the outside. Nobody posts the years of failure, so it looks like something that just happens to the lucky.

   Why this band

   • FC“There's also a visibility problem: young people see famous people every day and see ordinary successful people almost never” — The colon launches directly into the explanation of the named problem, rather than chaining it on with 'because' as a 6.5 answer does. This shows a more efficient, natural way of introducing a supporting reason.
   • LR“it appears effortless from the outside” — 'Effortless' is a more precise, single-word evaluative choice than the plainer 'looks easy' a 6.5 answer would use, conveying a stronger sense of apparent ease without visible struggle. It shows developing lexical precision.
   • GRA“he wants proof that he matters, and that's the proof his world offers” — This sentence links two related clauses with 'and', repeating and extending the key word 'proof' across both halves rather than restating the whole idea. This kind of deliberate lexical repetition for cohesion is more sophisticated than a 6.5 answer's simpler, separate statements.

   Band 7.5

   The participial phrase 'sixteen and obsessively tracking his follower count' replaces a full relative clause, and the closing dash before 'nobody posts the years of failure' shows the compressed, punchy grammar typical of band 7.5.

   Because fame looks like the shortest route to everything else they want — money, respect, being chosen. My cousin Nam, sixteen and obsessively tracking his follower count the way my parents' generation tracked exam marks, doesn't want fame exactly, I think; he wants proof that he matters, and that's the only proof his world seems to offer. There's also a visibility problem: young people see famous people daily and ordinary successful people almost never, so fame becomes the only model of success on permanent display. And it looks effortless from the outside — nobody posts the years of failure, so it reads as something that simply happens to the lucky.

   Why this band

   • LR“fame becomes the only model of success on permanent display” — 'On permanent display' is a more vivid, precise extension of the idea than the plainer 'the only model of success that exists' a lower band would use, adding a visual, almost exhibition-like quality to the image. It reflects genuinely wide lexical resource.
   • GRA“sixteen and obsessively tracking his follower count the way my parents' generation tracked exam marks” — This participial phrase ('sixteen and... tracking') attaches directly to 'My cousin Nam' without a relative pronoun like 'who is', compressing what a lower band would express as a full clause. This kind of participial compression is characteristic of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.
   • FC“And it looks effortless from the outside — nobody posts the years of failure, so it reads as something that simply happens to the lucky.” — The sentence opens with 'And' as a deliberate continuation fragment, then uses a dash to attach the supporting explanation in one flowing structure rather than starting fresh sentences. This confident, connector-light style is typical of the top band's coherence.

6. 6. Would anyone want to become famous if they knew what it was really like?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   Short, separate sentences joined with 'and' and 'because' present a direct claim, a personal example, and a simple final contrast, in plain, everyday vocabulary.

   Fewer people, certainly, but probably not nobody. An illustrator friend of mine had a piece of her art go viral two years ago, and within a week she received more insults than praise, with strangers criticising her face, her prices, and her opinions. She stopped posting completely after that. This was only a small taste of fame, and it was already enough to put her off. I think most people would say no if they understood it clearly, because they would lose privacy, feel pressure to keep performing, and watch their friends change around them. But some people really do enjoy attention and have thick skin, so for them the trade might be worth it. The sad part is you only find out which type you are afterwards.

   Why this band

   • FC“This was only a small taste of fame, and it was already enough to put her off.” — This sentence states the point directly with the plain connector 'and'. A band 7 answer would more likely phrase 'a small taste' more vividly, describing it as 'a tiny taste of fame', and fold the consequence into the same flowing clause rather than a separate connected statement.
   • LR“she received more insults than praise” — 'Insults' is plain, general vocabulary. A higher band answer would likely use a slightly stronger, more specific word for this kind of online hostility, such as 'abuse', which better captures the intensity of the experience being described.
   • GRA“I think most people would say no if they understood it clearly, because they would lose privacy, feel pressure to keep performing, and watch their friends change around them.” — This sentence lists three consequences using a repeated verb pattern ('lose', 'feel', 'watch') joined by commas and 'and'. A 7.5 answer would likely convert this list into three short noun phrases instead, such as 'the loss of privacy, the pressure to keep performing, the way friends change around you', for a punchier structure.

   Band 7.0

   The dash-set list 'her face, her prices, her politics' and the colon before 'I think most people would decline' show more flexible punctuation than a 6.5 answer's fuller connected sentences, while 'That's a tiny taste of fame' adds a natural evaluative touch.

   Fewer people, certainly, but not nobody. An illustrator friend of mine had a piece go viral two years ago, and within a week she'd received more abuse than praise — strangers picking apart her face, her prices, her politics — and she stopped posting entirely. That's a tiny taste of fame, and it was enough to put her off. The loss of privacy, the pressure to keep performing, the way friends change around you: I think most people would decline if they saw it clearly. But some genuinely thrive on attention and have thick enough skin, and for them the trade is worth it. The tragedy is that you only find out which type you are afterwards.

   Why this band

   • FC“That's a tiny taste of fame, and it was enough to put her off.” — The demonstrative opener 'That's' ties this summarising sentence directly back to the previous example in a natural, spoken way. A 6.5 answer would more likely restate the idea more formally as 'This was only a small taste of fame', without the tighter, more conversational link.
   • LR“she'd received more abuse than praise” — 'Abuse' is a stronger, more precise word than the plainer 'insults' a 6.5 answer would use, better capturing the severity of sustained online hostility. It shows developing lexical precision.
   • GRA“The loss of privacy, the pressure to keep performing, the way friends change around you: I think most people would decline if they saw it clearly.” — This sentence converts the list of consequences into three parallel noun phrases before the colon, rather than a repeated verb pattern as a 6.5 answer uses. This kind of noun-phrase listing is more compact and shows more grammatical range.

   Band 7.5

   The intensified phrase 'for good' and 'after the fact' give this answer natural, idiomatic closing touches, while the fronted noun-phrase list before the colon shows the compressed, evaluative structure typical of band 7.5.

   Fewer people, certainly, but not nobody. An illustrator friend of mine had a piece go viral two years ago, and within a week she'd received more abuse than praise — strangers picking apart her face, her prices, her politics — and she stopped posting entirely. That's a tiny taste of fame and it was enough to put her off for good. The loss of privacy, the relentless pressure to keep performing, the way friends quietly change around you: most people, I'd wager, would decline if they saw it clearly. But some genuinely thrive on attention and have thick enough skin, and for them the trade is worth it. The tragedy is that you only find out which type you are after the fact.

   Why this band

   • FC“The tragedy is that you only find out which type you are after the fact.” — The phrase 'after the fact' delivers the final, slightly poetic observation with idiomatic economy, closing the whole answer on a reflective, almost philosophical note. A 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely end with the plainer 'afterwards' instead of this more natural collocation.
   • LR“it was enough to put her off for good” — 'For good' is a genuinely idiomatic intensifier meaning permanently, adding emphasis that the plainer version without it lacks. It shows confident, natural use of a common but precise idiom.
   • GRA“The loss of privacy, the relentless pressure to keep performing, the way friends quietly change around you: most people, I'd wager, would decline if they saw it clearly.” — This sentence fronts three parallel noun phrases before the colon and inserts the aside 'I'd wager' mid-clause rather than at the sentence's start, layering two flexible structures together. This kind of multi-level, punctuation-driven sentence-building is characteristic of the range expected at 7.5.

7. 7. Do famous people make good role models for young people?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   This answer uses short, plainly connected sentences with 'but' and 'so' to give a direct opinion, a family example, and a simple recommendation, in everyday vocabulary.

   Some do, but it depends what they are famous for. My sister followed a Vietnamese Paralympic swimmer for years, and his story about training, setbacks, and refusing to be pitied really shaped how she deals with difficulty now. She also followed pop idols at the same time, but they mostly taught her about skincare. I think the problem is that fame usually depends on looks, luck, and charisma rather than character, so treating famous people as role models in general is a bit like a lottery. I would prefer young people to admire specific things famous people do, like their discipline or their craft, rather than admiring the whole person. Admire the work, not the person, is probably a safer rule.

   Why this band

   • FC“his story about training, setbacks, and refusing to be pitied really shaped how she deals with difficulty now” — This is a clear but fairly straightforward listing of three nouns before the main verb. A band 7 answer would more likely set the list off with a dash, treating it as an inserted aside within the sentence rather than a plain lead-in list.
   • LR“treating famous people as role models in general is a bit like a lottery” — 'A bit like a lottery' is a common, everyday comparison. A higher band answer would likely make the same comparison more directly and confidently, calling it simply 'a lottery' without the softening 'a bit like', for a sharper, more precise claim.
   • GRA“I would prefer young people to admire specific things famous people do, like their discipline or their craft, rather than admiring the whole person.” — This sentence uses the fuller phrase 'I would prefer young people to admire' before listing examples with 'like'. A 7.5 answer would likely compress this into a more direct recommendation, dropping 'I would prefer' in favour of a more confident, general statement.

   Band 7.0

   The dash-set list 'the training, the setbacks, the refusal to be pitied' shows more flexible punctuation than a 6.5 answer's plain listing, and the verb 'selects for' adds a more precise, almost technical vocabulary choice.

   Some do, but it depends on what they're famous for. My sister followed a Vietnamese Paralympic swimmer for years, and his story — the training, the setbacks, the refusal to be pitied — genuinely shaped how she handles difficulty. The pop idols she also followed at the time taught her mostly about skincare. The problem is that fame selects for looks, luck and charisma rather than for character, so treating famous people as role models by default is a lottery. I'd rather young people admired specific things famous people do — the discipline, the craft — than the people themselves. Admire the work, not the person, is probably the safe rule.

   Why this band

   • LR“fame selects for looks, luck and charisma rather than for character” — 'Selects for' is a more precise, almost scientific way of describing what fame tends to reward, compared to the plainer 'depends on' a 6.5 answer would use. This shows developing lexical precision in expressing an abstract process.
   • FC“so treating famous people as role models by default is a lottery” — Calling it directly 'a lottery' without the softening 'a bit like' shows a more confident, precise claim than a 6.5 answer's hedged comparison. This kind of direct, unhedged metaphor is a natural feature of band 7 fluency.
   • GRA“his story — the training, the setbacks, the refusal to be pitied — genuinely shaped how she handles difficulty” — The dash-set list is inserted directly into the middle of the sentence as an aside, rather than being placed before the main verb as a lower band would do. This shows a more flexible, embedded way of adding detail without breaking the sentence's flow.

   Band 7.5

   The phrase 'little more than a lottery' adds an idiomatic intensifier, and the compact phrase 'admired... than the people wholesale' shows a slightly unusual but precise word choice typical of band 7.5's lexical range.

   Some do, but it depends entirely on what they're famous for. My sister followed a Vietnamese Paralympic swimmer for years, and his story — the training, the setbacks, the refusal to be pitied — genuinely shaped how she handles difficulty. The pop idols she followed at the same time taught her mostly about skincare. The trouble is that fame selects for looks, luck and charisma rather than character, so treating famous people as role models by default is little more than a lottery. I'd rather young people admired specific things famous people do — the discipline, the craft — than the people wholesale. Admire the work, not the person, is probably the safer rule.

   Why this band

   • FC“treating famous people as role models by default is little more than a lottery” — 'Little more than' intensifies the comparison, presenting it as barely qualifying for anything better than chance, a more evaluative phrase than the plainer, unhedged 'is a lottery' a 7.0 answer uses. It gives the closing judgement extra sharpness.
   • LR“than the people wholesale” — 'Wholesale' used here to mean admiring someone entirely, without discrimination, is a genuinely less common, precise word choice borrowed from commercial language and applied metaphorically to admiration. A lower band would more likely use the plainer phrase 'the people themselves' instead.
   • GRA“The trouble is that fame selects for looks, luck and charisma rather than character, so treating famous people as role models by default is little more than a lottery.” — This sentence nests a 'that' clause listing three qualities inside a larger 'so' consequence clause, building two layers of reasoning into one continuous structure. This kind of layered clause embedding is characteristic of the grammatical control expected at 7.5.

8. 8. What do you think of the view that famous people have an obligation to use their fame to change society for the better?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   This answer joins short, plain sentences with 'but' and 'so' to give a balanced opinion, a concrete example, and a simple final position, using everyday vocabulary.

   I think it is a reasonable expectation, but not a good rule. A few years ago, a well-known singer raised money for flood victims in central Vietnam, and she collected more money in one day than the local charity managed in a whole year, which shows what fame can achieve when it is used for something. So I understand why people expect famous people to help. But obligation is a very strong word. Famous people did not agree to a contract with society, many of them are famous just for singing, and forcing them to also be moral leaders often creates clumsy activism that feels fake. I would say they have a chance most of us do not have, and it is admirable when they take it, but it is also fine when they do not.

   Why this band

   • FC“forcing them to also be moral leaders often creates clumsy activism that feels fake” — This is a clear but fairly plain evaluative phrase. A band 7 answer would more likely use a more precise word than 'fake', describing the activism as 'self-serving' instead, which captures the specific motive being criticised rather than just its general falseness.
   • LR“she collected more money in one day than the local charity managed in a whole year” — This is clear, direct vocabulary. A higher band answer would likely use a slightly more natural, compact phrase for the same comparison, such as 'collected more in a day than the local charity managed in a year', tightening the wording without losing precision.
   • GRA“Famous people did not agree to a contract with society, many of them are famous just for singing, and forcing them to also be moral leaders often creates clumsy activism that feels fake.” — This long sentence chains three separate ideas together with commas and 'and', which is accurate but somewhat linear. A 7.5 answer would likely break this into two sentences, giving each idea more weight and avoiding the slightly overloaded single-sentence structure.

   Band 7.0

   The phrase 'pointed at something' adds a natural, figurative touch beyond a 6.5 answer's plainer phrasing, and the semicolon in 'didn't sign a contract with society; many are famous for singing' shows more flexible punctuation.

   I think it's a reasonable expectation but a poor rule. When a well-known singer raised money for flood victims in central Vietnam a few years ago, she collected more in a day than the local charity managed in a year, which shows what fame can do when it's pointed at something. So I understand why people expect it. But obligation is a strong word. Famous people didn't sign a contract with society; many are famous for singing, and demanding they also be moral leaders often produces clumsy, self-serving activism. I'd say they have an opportunity most of us don't, and it's admirable when they take it and legitimate when they don't.

   Why this band

   • FC“it's admirable when they take it and legitimate when they don't” — This closing sentence uses parallel structure to balance two contrasting outcomes in one tight clause, rather than the 6.5 answer's fuller, separately explained version. This kind of compact parallelism is a natural feature of band 7 coherence.
   • LR“demanding they also be moral leaders often produces clumsy, self-serving activism” — 'Self-serving' is a more precise, specific evaluative word than the plainer 'that feels fake' a 6.5 answer would use, naming the exact motive being criticised rather than just its general falseness. It shows developing lexical precision.
   • GRA“Famous people didn't sign a contract with society; many are famous for singing, and demanding they also be moral leaders often produces clumsy, self-serving activism.” — The semicolon joins the first two closely related ideas into one sentence, avoiding the repeated commas and 'and' a 6.5 answer's fuller three-part chain uses. This shows more flexible punctuation-based sentence-building.

   Band 7.5

   The dropped verb in 'entirely legitimate when they don't' and the fronted opener 'A reasonable expectation, I'd say, but a poor rule' show the compressed, flexible grammar typical of band 7.5, alongside the precise verb 'seize'.

   A reasonable expectation, I'd say, but a poor rule. When a well-known singer raised money for flood victims in central Vietnam a few years back, she collected more in a day than the local charity managed in a year, which shows exactly what fame can do once it's pointed at something worthwhile. So I understand the expectation. But obligation is a strong word. Famous people never signed a contract with society; many are famous purely for singing, and demanding they double as moral leaders often produces clumsy, self-serving activism. They have an opportunity most of us don't, I'd argue, and it's admirable when they seize it, entirely legitimate when they don't.

   Why this band

   • FC“A reasonable expectation, I'd say, but a poor rule.” — This opening fragment drops the subject and verb entirely, jumping straight into the evaluative noun phrases with the aside 'I'd say' inserted mid-sentence. A 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely open with a full sentence like 'I think it's a reasonable expectation but a poor rule' instead.
   • LR“it's admirable when they seize it, entirely legitimate when they don't” — 'Seize' is a genuinely more vivid, active verb than the plainer 'take' a lower band would use, suggesting decisive action rather than passive acceptance. It fits naturally with the confident, evaluative tone of the closing sentence.
   • GRA“it's admirable when they seize it, entirely legitimate when they don't” — This closing sentence drops the repeated verb 'it's' before 'entirely legitimate', relying on the parallel structure alone to carry the meaning. This kind of verb-ellipsis across a parallel contrast is characteristic of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.

9. 9. Do some famous people have as much power as governments have?

   May–Aug 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   This answer joins short, separate ideas with 'and' and 'but' in plain sentences, giving a concrete example and a simple final contrast, in everyday vocabulary.

   In a narrow way, I think a few of them do. When a certain tech billionaire posts an opinion online, markets react and millions of people change what they believe within a day, and no government minister in my country has that kind of immediate reach. Celebrities can also shift what people pay attention to, and attention is a kind of power that governments spend huge amounts of money trying to get. But it is a shallow kind of power. A famous person cannot build a road, pass a law, or force anyone to do anything, they can only make people want to. And it is unstable too, because one scandal can make it disappear. So they can rival governments in what people think about, but almost never in what actually happens.

   Why this band

   • FC“attention is a kind of power that governments spend huge amounts of money trying to get” — This is plain, direct phrasing describing an abstract idea. A band 7 answer would more likely use a more precise verb for this relationship, describing governments as spending money 'trying to buy' attention, which frames it as a purchasable resource more sharply.
   • LR“A famous person cannot build a road, pass a law, or force anyone to do anything, they can only make people want to.” — This is a clear but fairly plain list of three verbs joined with commas and 'or'. A higher band answer would likely use a semicolon before the contrasting final clause instead of a comma, giving the sentence a tighter, more deliberate structural break.
   • GRA“So they can rival governments in what people think about, but almost never in what actually happens.” — This closing sentence uses the plain connector 'but' to join two parallel prepositional phrases. A 7.5 answer would likely replace 'but almost never' with 'while having almost none over', creating a more compressed, less repetitive parallel structure.

   Band 7.0

   The dash before the minister comparison and the semicolon before 'they can only make people want to' show more flexible punctuation than a 6.5 answer's plainer connected sentences, while 'trying to buy' adds a more precise, economic framing.

   In a narrow sense, a few of them do. When a certain tech billionaire posts an opinion, markets move and millions of people adjust what they believe overnight — no minister in my country has that kind of immediate reach. Celebrities can shift attention, and attention is a form of power that governments spend enormous sums trying to buy. But it's a shallow kind of power. A famous person can't build a road, pass a law, or make anyone do anything; they can only make people want to. And it's unstable — one scandal and it evaporates. So they rival governments in influence over what people think about, while having almost none over what actually happens.

   Why this band

   • LR“attention is a form of power that governments spend enormous sums trying to buy” — 'Trying to buy' frames attention explicitly as a purchasable resource, a more precise and pointed economic metaphor than the plainer 'trying to get' a 6.5 answer would use. It shows developing precision in expressing an abstract relationship.
   • FC“one scandal and it evaporates” — This short, punchy clause drops the conditional 'if' entirely, relying on the juxtaposition alone to imply cause and effect, a more confident, compact structure than a 6.5 answer's fuller 'because one scandal can make it disappear'. This kind of implied conditional is a natural feature of band 7 fluency.
   • GRA“A famous person can't build a road, pass a law, or make anyone do anything; they can only make people want to.” — The semicolon replaces the comma a 6.5 answer uses before the contrasting final clause, giving the sentence a sharper structural break between the list of impossibilities and the actual capability. This shows more deliberate control over punctuation and sentence-building.

   Band 7.5

   The verb 'wields' and the colon before the shallow-power explanation show precise, compact vocabulary and flexible punctuation typical of band 7.5, alongside the semicolon-based contrast carried through from a strong 7.0 structure.

   In a narrow sense, a few of them genuinely do. When a certain tech billionaire posts an opinion, markets move and millions of people adjust what they believe overnight — no minister in my country wields that kind of immediate reach. Celebrities can shift attention, and attention is a form of power governments spend enormous sums trying to buy. But it's a shallow kind of power: a famous person can't build a road, pass a law, or make anyone do anything; they can only make people want to. And it's unstable — one scandal and it evaporates entirely. So they rival governments in influence over what people think about, while having almost none over what actually happens.

   Why this band

   • LR“no minister in my country wields that kind of immediate reach” — 'Wields' is a genuinely less common, more powerful verb than the plainer 'has' a lower band would use, evoking the image of power being actively exercised like a weapon or tool. It gives the sentence a more precise, almost literary edge.
   • GRA“But it's a shallow kind of power: a famous person can't build a road, pass a law, or make anyone do anything; they can only make people want to.” — This sentence uses both a colon and a semicolon within one continuous structure, launching the explanation with the colon and then sharpening the internal contrast with the semicolon. This layered, multi-punctuation control is characteristic of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.
   • FC“one scandal and it evaporates entirely” — The added intensifier 'entirely' sharpens the finality of the claim beyond the 7.0 version's plainer 'it evaporates', giving the observation a more emphatic, confident edge. This small addition shows a more deliberate, evaluative use of language.