A Law to Help the Environment Which You Think Your Country Should Have

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 kinds of rules do most schools have?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer lists rule types one after another with 'then' and 'also', using one plain personal example (the Hue school) and ending with a direct, simply worded reflection.

   Mostly rules about appearance and behaviour, I think. At my secondary school in Hue, there were strict rules about hair length for boys, a uniform checked every Monday, and we had to stand up when a teacher walked in. Then there were practical rules too, like no phones in class and homework deadlines. Most schools also have rules about respect, like how you speak to teachers, and these are really the ones that matter. Looking back, a lot of the rules were about control rather than learning, and the hair rule is a good example of that.

   Why this band

   • FC“Looking back, a lot of the rules were about control rather than learning” — A plain reflective phrase ('Looking back') introducing the final point. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely open this reflection with a slightly more natural phrase such as 'What strikes me now is', giving the closing thought a more considered feel.
   • LR“we had to stand up when a teacher walked in” — A plain, literal description of the action. A higher band would likely use a more vivid verb, such as students who 'rose the instant' a teacher walked in, which conveys more immediacy.
   • GRA“Then there were practical rules too, like no phones in class and homework deadlines” — A short main clause followed by a list tagged on with 'like', safe and clear. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use a colon to introduce the list instead, for a more compact structure.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer uses a colon to introduce the list of practical rules and opens the closing reflection with 'What strikes me now is', a more natural phrase than the plainer 'Looking back' a 6.5 answer uses for the same move.

   Mostly rules about appearance and behaviour. At my secondary school in Hue there were strict limits on hair length for boys, a uniform inspected every Monday, and you stood up whenever a teacher walked in. Then the practical ones: no phones in class, no leaving the grounds at lunch, homework deadlines. Most schools also have rules around respect — how you address teachers, not fighting, not cheating — which are really the ones that matter. What strikes me now is how many rules were about control rather than learning; the hair-length rule taught me nothing except that adults like tidy lines.

   Why this band

   • FC“What strikes me now is how many rules were about control rather than learning” — The phrase 'What strikes me now is' frames the closing reflection more naturally than the plainer 'Looking back' a 6.5 answer uses to introduce the same idea, giving it more of a considered, spoken quality.
   • LR“you stood up whenever a teacher walked in” — The connector 'whenever' is a slightly more natural, idiomatic choice than the plain 'when' a 6.5 answer uses in the same spot, though the underlying vocabulary remains fairly ordinary.
   • GRA“Then the practical ones: no phones in class, no leaving the grounds at lunch, homework deadlines” — A colon introduces a compact list without repeating a verb for each item, a more economical structure than the 'like...and...' list the 6.5 answer uses for the same information.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the vivid verb 'rose the instant' and the evaluative adverb 'tellingly', closing with the extended, slightly wry reflection about adults being 'fond of tidy lines' rather than a short final sentence.

   Mostly rules about appearance and conduct. At my secondary school in Hue there were strict limits on hair length for boys, a uniform inspected every Monday, and you rose the instant a teacher walked in. Then came the practical layer: no phones in class, no leaving the grounds at lunch, homework deadlines that didn't budge. Most schools also carry rules around respect — how you address teachers, not fighting, not cheating — and those, tellingly, are the ones that actually matter. What strikes me now is how many rules were about control rather than learning; the hair-length rule taught me nothing beyond the fact that adults are fond of tidy lines, and I suspect plenty of schools still keep a few like it.

   Why this band

   • FC“and those, tellingly, are the ones that actually matter” — The inserted adverb 'tellingly' signals the speaker's own judgement mid-sentence, a more developed piece of commentary than the plainer 'which are really the ones that matter' the lower bands use for the same point.
   • LR“you rose the instant a teacher walked in” — The phrase 'rose the instant' is more vivid and precise than the plain 'stood up when' the lower bands use, conveying a sharper sense of immediacy.
   • GRA“the hair-length rule taught me nothing beyond the fact that adults are fond of tidy lines, and I suspect plenty of schools still keep a few like it” — The closing reflection is extended with a second clause speculating about other schools, a more developed final sentence than the shorter, single-clause reflections the lower bands end on.

2. 2. Why are rules important for schoolchildren?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer opens with a direct reason ('because children genuinely can't learn well in chaos') and one plain classroom anecdote, using 'and' and 'because' to connect ideas simply throughout.

   Because children genuinely can't learn well in chaos, and I saw this happen once. In year eight we had a substitute teacher for a week who didn't enforce any rules, and by Wednesday the class was impossible to teach — not because we were bad kids, but because nobody knew the limits. Rules make the environment predictable, which is calming, and they protect quieter children from louder ones. They also teach children something useful for adult life: that you can dislike a rule and still follow it. The key thing is that rules need to be explained, not just given.

   Why this band

   • FC“The key thing is that rules need to be explained, not just given.” — A plain closing sentence stating the main takeaway directly. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely extend this into a reason why explained rules work better, rather than stopping at the bare claim.
   • LR“by Wednesday the class was impossible to teach” — A plain adjective phrase ('impossible to teach'). A higher band would likely use the more precise, slightly less common adjective 'unteachable', which names the same state more economically.
   • GRA“In year eight we had a substitute teacher for a week who didn't enforce any rules, and by Wednesday the class was impossible to teach” — Two clauses joined with 'and', a plain coordinated structure. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use 'lasted barely a week before' to compress the timing and consequence into one tighter clause.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer upgrades 'impossible to teach' to the more precise 'unteachable' and extends the closing point with a since-clause explaining why explanation matters, rather than the bare claim a 6.5 answer gives.

   Because children genuinely can't learn in chaos, and I saw the alternative once. In year eight we had a substitute teacher for a week who enforced nothing, and by Wednesday the class was unteachable — not because we were bad kids, but because nobody knew where the edges were. Rules give children a predictable environment, which is calming, and they protect the quieter kids from the louder ones. They also teach something adult life demands constantly: that you can dislike a rule and still follow it. The important thing is that rules are explained, since children accept limits they understand far more easily than ones that seem arbitrary.

   Why this band

   • FC“The important thing is that rules are explained, since children accept limits they understand far more easily than ones that seem arbitrary.” — The closing point is extended with a since-clause giving the reason, more developed than the bare claim ('rules need to be explained, not just given') the 6.5 answer ends on.
   • LR“by Wednesday the class was unteachable” — The adjective 'unteachable' is a more precise, economical choice than the plain phrase 'impossible to teach' a 6.5 answer uses for the same state.
   • GRA“not because we were bad kids, but because nobody knew where the edges were” — A 'not X but Y' contrastive structure organises the explanation more deliberately than the simpler coordinated clauses a 6.5 answer uses for the same idea.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer compresses the classroom anecdote into 'lasted barely a week before the class became unteachable' and closes with the extended contrast 'explained rather than simply imposed', ending on the escalating 'or, worse, pointless'.

   Because children genuinely can't learn amid chaos, and I watched the alternative unfold once. In year eight, a substitute teacher who enforced nothing lasted barely a week before the class became unteachable — not because we were bad kids, but because nobody knew where the edges were anymore. Rules hand children a predictable environment, which is calming in itself, and they shield quieter children from louder ones. They also teach something adult life demands constantly: that you can dislike a rule and still follow it. What matters is that rules get explained rather than simply imposed, since children accept limits they understand far more readily than ones that seem arbitrary or, worse, pointless.

   Why this band

   • FC“What matters is that rules get explained rather than simply imposed, since children accept limits they understand far more readily than ones that seem arbitrary or, worse, pointless.” — The closing point escalates with 'or, worse, pointless', a small rhetorical flourish that neither of the plainer bands attempts, giving the final sentence a sharper edge.
   • LR“Rules hand children a predictable environment, which is calming in itself” — The verb 'hand' is a more vivid, natural choice than the plain 'give' the lower bands use for the same idea about rules providing structure.
   • GRA“a substitute teacher who enforced nothing lasted barely a week before the class became unteachable” — The relative clause and 'lasted barely a week before' compress the anecdote into one tighter sentence, more economical than the 'we had a substitute teacher for a week who...and by Wednesday' structure the lower bands use for the same event.

3. 3. How can teachers and parents help their children follow rules?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer states its main point directly and gives one plain personal anecdote about the mother's trick, using 'but' and 'also' to link the supporting ideas.

   Mainly by following the rules themselves, which sounds obvious but isn't always true. A parent who tells a child to put the phone away at dinner while checking their own messages has already lost the argument. Consistency matters more than strictness — a rule that's enforced every day is easy to follow, but one enforced randomly feels unfair. My mother had a good trick: before I could argue with a rule, I had to write down what I thought the reason for it was, and about half the time I ended up agreeing with her. Teachers and parents should also let children have some say in the rules where possible.

   Why this band

   • FC“which sounds obvious but isn't always true” — A plain, direct way of framing the opening claim. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely use the punchier 'which sounds obvious and isn't', dropping the extra words for a tighter, more natural rhythm.
   • LR“one enforced randomly feels unfair” — A plain, general adjective ('unfair'). A higher band would likely use the more vivid idiom 'feels like a trap', which conveys the child's experience more concretely than the abstract 'unfair'.
   • GRA“a rule that's enforced every day is easy to follow, but one enforced randomly feels unfair” — A relative clause ('that's enforced every day') followed by a contrast with 'but', clear but standard. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use a semicolon to fuse the two contrasting halves into one tighter sentence.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer tightens the opening to 'which sounds obvious and isn't' and uses a semicolon plus the idiom 'feels like a trap', extending the closing point with a because-clause a 6.5 answer leaves out.

   Mainly by following the rules themselves, which sounds obvious and isn't. A parent who tells a child to put the phone away at dinner while checking their own messages has already lost. Consistency matters more than strictness — a rule enforced every day is easy to follow; one enforced randomly feels like a trap. My mother had a good trick: before I was allowed to argue with a rule, I had to write down what I thought the reason for it was, and about half the time I ended up agreeing with her. Teachers and parents should also give children some say in the rules where possible, because people follow what they helped create.

   Why this band

   • FC“which sounds obvious and isn't” — The tighter phrasing drops unnecessary words compared with the fuller 'which sounds obvious but isn't always true' a 6.5 answer uses, giving the opening a punchier, more natural rhythm.
   • LR“one enforced randomly feels like a trap” — The idiom 'feels like a trap' is a more vivid, natural collocation than the plain adjective 'unfair' a 6.5 answer uses for the same idea about inconsistent rules.
   • GRA“a rule enforced every day is easy to follow; one enforced randomly feels like a trap” — A semicolon fuses the two contrasting halves into one flowing sentence, more compact than the 'but'-joined clauses a 6.5 answer uses for the same contrast.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the vivid verb 'thumbing' and the idiom 'talked myself straight into agreeing', closing with the emphatic 'Consistency beats strictness every time' instead of the plainer comparative structure.

   Mainly by following the rules themselves, which sounds obvious and somehow still isn't. A parent telling a child to put the phone away at dinner while thumbing their own messages has already lost the argument. Consistency beats strictness every time — a rule enforced daily is easy to live with; one enforced at random just feels like a trap. My mother had a neat trick: before I was allowed to argue with a rule, I had to write down what I thought its reason was, and about half the time I talked myself straight into agreeing with her. Teachers and parents should also give children some genuine say in the rules where feasible, since people tend to follow what they helped create.

   Why this band

   • FC“which sounds obvious and somehow still isn't” — The inserted 'somehow still' adds a small note of wry surprise to the opening claim, a more developed piece of commentary than the tighter but flatter '...and isn't' the 7.0 answer settles for.
   • LR“A parent telling a child to put the phone away at dinner while thumbing their own messages” — The verb 'thumbing' is a more vivid, specific choice than the plain 'checking' the lower bands use, conveying the exact physical action of scrolling a phone.
   • GRA“about half the time I talked myself straight into agreeing with her” — The phrase 'talked myself straight into agreeing' compresses the process of self-persuasion into one vivid verb phrase, more compact and figurative than the plainer 'ended up agreeing' the lower bands use for the same outcome.

4. 4. What types of jobs are rules especially important in?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer opens with a direct definition and one plain example about the friend Hà, listing further job types with 'like' before a simple closing contrast about the speaker's own job.

   Any job where a mistake can hurt someone who can't protect themselves. My friend Hà, who is a paediatric nurse, follows a medication checklist she could probably recite from memory, but she still checks it every single time, because the rule exists for the one day she's tired. Jobs like aviation, surgery, construction, driving buses and handling food all depend on rules being followed even when they seem unnecessary. Finance is another example, since rules stop one person's shortcut from becoming everyone's disaster. In my own job, design, rules matter much less, because breaking them is often the whole point.

   Why this band

   • FC“In my own job, design, rules matter much less, because breaking them is often the whole point.” — A plain closing contrast introduced with 'In my own job'. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely phrase this as 'In my own line of work', giving the closing personal contrast a slightly more natural, considered feel.
   • LR“she could probably recite from memory” — A plain phrase ('recite from memory'). A higher band would likely use the more vivid idiom 'recite in her sleep', which conveys the same familiarity with more colour.
   • GRA“she still checks it every single time, because the rule exists for the one day she's tired” — A because-clause explaining the habit, plain and direct. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use 'fatigue gets the better of her' as a more vivid alternative to the plain 'she's tired'.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer upgrades 'recite from memory' to the idiom 'recite in her sleep' and uses an em dash list for the job examples, closing with a semicolon-linked final sentence rather than a because-clause.

   Any job where a mistake hurts someone who can't protect themselves. My friend Hà, a paediatric nurse, follows a medication checklist she could recite in her sleep, and she still reads it every single time, because the rule exists for the one day she's tired. Aviation, surgery, construction, driving buses, handling food — all of these depend on rules being followed even when they seem pointless. Finance is another: rules stop one person's clever shortcut becoming everyone's disaster. In my own work, design, rules matter much less; breaking them is often the point.

   Why this band

   • FC“In my own work, design, rules matter much less; breaking them is often the point.” — A semicolon links the closing contrast to its explanation in one flowing sentence, more compact than the because-clause version a 6.5 answer uses for the same final point.
   • LR“follows a medication checklist she could recite in her sleep” — The idiom 'recite in her sleep' is a more vivid, natural collocation than the plainer 'recite from memory' a 6.5 answer uses for the same idea of deep familiarity.
   • GRA“Aviation, surgery, construction, driving buses, handling food — all of these depend on rules being followed even when they seem pointless” — An em dash sets off the list of job types before the main clause, a more compact structure than the 'Jobs like X, Y and Z all depend on' sentence the 6.5 answer uses for the same list.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the vivid phrase 'fatigue gets the better of her' and the compact 'rules holding' instead of 'rules being followed', closing with the fuller phrase 'the entire point of the exercise'.

   Any job where a single mistake harms someone who can't protect themselves. My friend Hà, a paediatric nurse, follows a medication checklist she could recite in her sleep, and still reads it every single time, because the rule exists for the one day fatigue gets the better of her. Aviation, surgery, construction, driving buses, handling food — all of it depends on rules holding even when they feel pointless in the moment. Finance is another case: rules exist precisely to stop one person's clever shortcut from becoming everyone's disaster. In my own line of work, design, rules matter far less; breaking them is often the entire point of the exercise.

   Why this band

   • FC“In my own line of work, design, rules matter far less; breaking them is often the entire point of the exercise.” — The closing phrase 'the entire point of the exercise' extends the plain 'the point' the 7.0 answer ends on, giving the final contrast a slightly more developed, self-aware finish.
   • LR“because the rule exists for the one day fatigue gets the better of her” — The phrase 'fatigue gets the better of her' is a more vivid, idiomatic way of expressing tiredness than the plain 'she's tired' the lower bands use for the same idea.
   • GRA“Aviation, surgery, construction, driving buses, handling food — all of it depends on rules holding even when they feel pointless in the moment” — The verb 'holding' (used intransitively, meaning rules staying in force) replaces the fuller passive 'being followed' the lower bands use, a more compact and slightly more idiomatic construction.

5. 5. Should there be rules about what people can wear at work?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct hedge ('some, but only as many as needed') and one plain studio example, using 'where' clauses and 'beyond that' to organise the different cases.

   Some rules, but only as many as the job really needs. In places where clothes affect safety or hygiene, like kitchens or hospitals, rules obviously make sense. Where clothes affect how customers see a company, a light rule is fine — my studio's only rule is that you shouldn't wear anything you'd be embarrassed to wear if a client walked in, and that has worked fine for years without a written policy. Beyond that, I think dress codes are mostly about making managers feel comfortable. Forcing a designer to wear a shirt and tie doesn't make the designs any better.

   Why this band

   • FC“Beyond that, I think dress codes are mostly about making managers feel comfortable.” — A plain transition using 'Beyond that'. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely add a qualifying phrase like 'rather than anything measurable' to extend the point, rather than leaving it as a single flat claim.
   • LR“and that has worked fine for years without a written policy” — A plain adjective ('worked fine'). A higher band would likely use the more vivid idiom 'held up for years', which suggests the rule has been tested and proven rather than simply functioning.
   • GRA“In places where clothes affect safety or hygiene, like kitchens or hospitals, rules obviously make sense” — A where-clause with an example list tagged on, clear but plain. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use an em dash to set off the examples instead of embedding them with 'like'.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer uses an em dash to set off the safety examples and a semicolon to link the customer-facing rule to its studio example, ending with the more developed observation about 'the trend toward relaxed dress'.

   Some, but as few as the job actually needs. Where clothes affect safety or hygiene — kitchens, hospitals, factories — of course. Where they affect how customers see the company, a light rule makes sense; my studio's only one is that you shouldn't wear anything you'd be embarrassed to wear if a client walked in, and that's worked for years without a written policy. Beyond that, I think dress codes are mostly about managers' comfort. Forcing a designer into a shirt and tie doesn't improve the designs. The trend toward relaxed dress in most offices suggests companies have worked out that people do better work when they're not being costumed.

   Why this band

   • FC“The trend toward relaxed dress in most offices suggests companies have worked out that people do better work when they're not being costumed.” — A final observational sentence extends the argument with a broader trend, something the 6.5 answer's shorter, flatter ending doesn't attempt.
   • LR“and that's worked for years without a written policy” — The phrase is slightly tightened from the 6.5 version's 'has worked fine for years', with 'that's worked' reading more naturally and economically.
   • GRA“Where clothes affect safety or hygiene — kitchens, hospitals, factories — of course.” — An em dash sets off the example list before an abbreviated closing phrase ('of course'), a more compact, spoken-style construction than the fuller 'rules obviously make sense' clause the 6.5 answer uses for the same idea.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the less common verb 'bear on' and the idiom 'held up for years', adding the qualifying phrase 'rather than anything measurable' and the adverb 'quietly' to sharpen the final observation.

   Some, but as few as the job genuinely needs. Where clothes bear on safety or hygiene — kitchens, hospitals, factories — of course rules apply. Where they affect how customers perceive the company, a light rule makes sense; my studio's only one is that you shouldn't wear anything you'd be embarrassed to wear if a client walked in, and it's held up for years without ever being written down. Beyond that, I suspect dress codes are mostly about managers' own comfort rather than anything measurable. Forcing a designer into a shirt and tie does nothing for the designs. The drift toward relaxed dress across most offices suggests companies have quietly worked out that people do better work when they're not being costumed.

   Why this band

   • FC“Beyond that, I suspect dress codes are mostly about managers' own comfort rather than anything measurable.” — The added phrase 'rather than anything measurable' extends the claim a step further than the flat statement the 6.5 answer offers, giving the point more precision about what it's ruling out.
   • LR“Where clothes bear on safety or hygiene” — The verb 'bear on' (meaning 'relate to' or 'affect') is a less common, more formal choice than the plain 'affect' the lower bands use in the same spot.
   • GRA“and it's held up for years without ever being written down” — The passive 'without ever being written down' replaces the plainer 'without a written policy' the lower bands use, a slightly more flexible construction that keeps the focus on the action rather than the document.

6. 6. Should employees be involved in making company rules?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct reason and one plain studio example ('no meetings on Fridays'), using 'though' and 'but' to add the two qualifying points at the end.

   Yes, mainly because rules that people help write actually get followed. The most respected rule at my studio is 'no meetings on Fridays', and it came from a staff survey instead of the boss — nobody breaks it because everyone feels it's theirs. Employees also know things managers don't, like which process is actually slowing the work down. Involvement doesn't mean voting on everything, though — some rules, about safety or the law, aren't up for discussion. But asking staff and explaining the final decision costs almost nothing, and it stops a lot of quiet rule-breaking.

   Why this band

   • FC“But asking staff and explaining the final decision costs almost nothing, and it stops a lot of quiet rule-breaking.” — A plain closing sentence joining two ideas with 'and'. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely extend the list of actions (asking, explaining, revisiting) into a three-part structure rather than the two-part version here.
   • LR“it stops a lot of quiet rule-breaking” — A plain quantifier ('a lot of'). A higher band would likely use the more vivid verb 'dramatically cuts' or 'dramatically reduces', which conveys a stronger, more deliberate effect.
   • GRA“Employees also know things managers don't, like which process is actually slowing the work down” — A relative-style clause tagged on with 'like', clear but plain. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use a colon to introduce a tighter pair of examples instead.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer uses a colon to introduce a tighter pair of examples ('which process...which policy...') and extends the closing list to three actions (consulting, explaining, revisiting) rather than the two-part version a 6.5 answer gives.

   Yes, for the simple reason that rules people help write get followed. The most respected rule at my studio is 'no meetings on Fridays', and it came from a staff survey rather than the boss — nobody breaks it because everybody owns it. Employees also know things managers don't: which process is actually slowing the work, which policy people are quietly ignoring. Involvement doesn't mean a vote on everything; some rules, on safety or law, aren't negotiable. But consulting staff, explaining the final decision, and revisiting rules that turn out to be stupid costs almost nothing and dramatically reduces the amount of quiet rule-breaking every company has.

   Why this band

   • FC“But consulting staff, explaining the final decision, and revisiting rules that turn out to be stupid costs almost nothing and dramatically reduces the amount of quiet rule-breaking every company has.” — The closing sentence lists three parallel actions rather than the two a 6.5 answer manages, giving the conclusion a fuller, more considered structure.
   • LR“dramatically reduces the amount of quiet rule-breaking every company has” — The verb phrase 'dramatically reduces' is a more emphatic, precise choice than the vaguer 'stops a lot of' a 6.5 answer uses for the same effect.
   • GRA“Employees also know things managers don't: which process is actually slowing the work, which policy people are quietly ignoring” — A colon introduces two parallel noun clauses without repeating 'like' or a full sentence for each, a more compact structure than the single example tagged on with 'like' in the 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the vivid phrase 'grinding the work to a halt' and 'had a hand in it', closing with the less common verb 'accumulates' rather than the plainer 'has' or 'reduces the amount of'.

   Yes, for the simple reason that rules people help write actually get followed. The most respected rule at my studio is 'no meetings on Fridays', and it came out of a staff survey rather than a management memo — nobody breaks it, because everybody had a hand in it. Employees also know things managers don't: which process is quietly grinding the work to a halt, which policy people have already stopped bothering with. Involvement doesn't mean putting everything to a vote; anything touching safety or law simply isn't negotiable. But consulting staff, explaining the final call, and revisiting rules that turn out to be dumb costs the company almost nothing, and it dramatically cuts the quiet rule-breaking every workplace otherwise accumulates.

   Why this band

   • FC“it dramatically cuts the quiet rule-breaking every workplace otherwise accumulates” — The verb 'accumulates' at the very end gives the closing sentence a sharper, more deliberate final word than the plainer 'has' the 7.0 answer ends on for the same idea.
   • LR“which process is quietly grinding the work to a halt” — The idiom 'grinding...to a halt' is a far more vivid, physical image than the plain 'slowing the work' the lower bands use for the same problem.
   • GRA“nobody breaks it, because everybody had a hand in it” — The idiom 'had a hand in it' replaces the plainer 'owns it' the 7.0 answer uses, a more figurative, natural way of expressing shared ownership within the same clause structure.

7. 7. How likely is it that, in the future, everyone in the world will be subject to the same laws?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct hedge and one plain business example about the German client, using 'but' and 'so' to move through the reasoning to a clear final contrast.

   Not very likely, I think, though some areas are becoming more similar. My studio recently built an app for a German client, and we had to follow European data-privacy rules even though we're based in Da Nang — that kind of thing is really happening, especially with trade and finance. But laws come from values, and values are different between countries — what counts as free speech or what counts as a crime, for example. Countries also see law-making as an important part of being independent. So I'd expect more shared rules in technical areas, but very different laws on moral or political questions.

   Why this band

   • FC“that kind of thing is really happening, especially with trade and finance” — A plain, informal phrase ('that kind of thing is really happening'). A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely name the process itself with a word like 'creep', which describes the trend more precisely than the vague 'thing'.
   • LR“Countries also see law-making as an important part of being independent” — A plain phrase ('being independent'). A higher band would likely use the more precise, formal noun 'sovereign', which is the standard term for this idea in a legal or political context.
   • GRA“laws come from values, and values are different between countries” — Two short clauses joined with 'and', repeating 'values' plainly. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to use 'grows out of' as a more vivid verb in place of the plain 'come from'.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer names the trend precisely with 'that kind of creep is real' and uses the formal term 'sovereign', closing with the more developed final clause about 'as long as there are countries'.

   Not very, though certain areas are converging. My studio recently built an app for a German client, and the data-privacy rules we had to follow were essentially European law applied in Da Nang — that kind of creep is real, and it's happening with trade, aviation and finance too. But law reflects values, and values differ: what counts as free speech, what's a family, what's a crime. Countries also guard law-making as the core of what makes them sovereign. So I'd expect more shared rules in technical areas where everyone benefits from the same standard, and stubbornly different laws on anything moral or political, probably for as long as there are countries.

   Why this band

   • FC“that kind of creep is real, and it's happening with trade, aviation and finance too” — The noun 'creep' names the trend precisely, a more developed, specific way of describing the process than the vague 'that kind of thing is really happening' the 6.5 answer uses for the same idea.
   • LR“Countries also guard law-making as the core of what makes them sovereign” — The adjective 'sovereign' is the precise, standard legal term, an upgrade on the vaguer 'being independent' a 6.5 answer uses for the same concept.
   • GRA“law reflects values, and values differ: what counts as free speech, what's a family, what's a crime” — A colon introduces a compact three-item list of parallel noun clauses, more economical than the single tagged-on example ('for example') the 6.5 answer manages for the same point.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the vivid verb 'transplanted' and the adverb 'jealously', with 'grows out of' replacing the plainer 'reflects' or 'come from' the lower bands use for the same idea about law and values.

   Not very, though certain pockets are clearly converging. My studio recently built an app for a German client, and the data-privacy rules we had to follow were essentially European law transplanted into Da Nang — that kind of creep is real, and it's happening with trade, aviation and finance too. But law grows out of values, and values differ: what counts as free speech, what's a family, what's a crime. Countries also guard law-making jealously, as the core of what makes them sovereign in the first place. So I'd expect more shared rules in technical areas where everyone gains from a common standard, and stubbornly different laws on anything moral or political, probably for as long as countries exist at all.

   Why this band

   • FC“Countries also guard law-making jealously, as the core of what makes them sovereign in the first place.” — The adverb 'jealously' adds a note of evaluative commentary to the claim, a more developed observation than the flatter 'guard law-making as the core of what makes them sovereign' the 7.0 answer offers.
   • LR“the data-privacy rules we had to follow were essentially European law transplanted into Da Nang” — The verb 'transplanted' is a more vivid, precise choice than the plainer 'applied' the lower bands use, suggesting a whole legal system being moved into a new setting.
   • GRA“But law grows out of values, and values differ” — The verb phrase 'grows out of' replaces the plainer 'reflects' or 'come from' the lower bands use, a more vivid, organic metaphor within the same short sentence structure.

8. 8. How may technology become more important in law enforcement?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer opens with a direct claim and one plain local example about Da Nang's cameras, using 'but' to balance fairness against worry before a clear closing warning.

   It's already taking over some of the work police officers used to do. Da Nang has put cameras at the main junctions, so now if you run a red light on your motorbike, a fine arrives by post two weeks later, even though nobody was there to catch you. This will probably spread — number-plate cameras, facial recognition, software that finds fraud in bank transactions faster than a person could. This makes enforcement fairer because it's more consistent, but also a bit worrying because it's everywhere all the time. The risk is that the technology ends up watching everyone constantly, and law enforcement becomes something done to people, not for them.

   Why this band

   • FC“This makes enforcement fairer because it's more consistent, but also a bit worrying because it's everywhere all the time.” — A plain sentence balancing two effects with 'but', repeating 'because' twice. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely use a parallel structure like 'more X, which is fair, and more Y, which is unsettling' instead of repeating the same connector.
   • LR“a fine arrives by post two weeks later” — A plain, literal time phrase ('two weeks later'). A higher band would likely use the more idiomatic 'a fortnight later', which is a more natural, slightly less common way of expressing the same period.
   • GRA“This will probably spread — number-plate cameras, facial recognition, software that finds fraud in bank transactions faster than a person could” — An em dash introduces a list of examples, already a reasonably compact structure. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to add a further comparative clause like 'faster than any investigator ever could' for extra emphasis.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer uses the parallel structure 'more consistent, which is fair, and more total, which is unsettling' instead of the repeated 'because' clauses a 6.5 answer relies on, giving the contrast a tighter, more deliberate shape.

   It's already replacing the police officer on the corner. Da Nang has put cameras at the main junctions, and now running a red light on your motorbike means a fine arrives by post two weeks later — nobody was there, but you were caught anyway. That will spread: automatic number-plate reading, facial recognition, software that spots fraud in bank transactions faster than any investigator. It makes enforcement more consistent, which is fair, and more total, which is unsettling. The obvious risk is that the technology ends up watching everyone all the time, and law enforcement becomes something done to people rather than for them.

   Why this band

   • FC“It makes enforcement more consistent, which is fair, and more total, which is unsettling.” — The parallel 'more X, which is fair, and more Y, which is unsettling' structure balances the two effects more elegantly than the repeated 'because' clauses the 6.5 answer uses for the same contrast.
   • LR“nobody was there, but you were caught anyway” — A short, punchy contrastive clause that adds emphasis beyond the plainer 'even though nobody was there to catch you' phrase the 6.5 answer uses for the same idea.
   • GRA“That will spread: automatic number-plate reading, facial recognition, software that spots fraud in bank transactions faster than any investigator” — A colon introduces the list of examples, a slightly more compact structure than the em dash the 6.5 answer uses, with the added comparative 'faster than any investigator' sharpening the final item.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the idiomatic 'a fortnight later' and the adverb 'faintly unsettling', closing with the extended evaluative image 'a line worth watching closely over the next few decades' rather than a flat final sentence.

   It's already replacing the police officer standing on the corner. Da Nang has installed cameras at the main junctions, so running a red light on your motorbike now means a fine arriving by post a fortnight later — nobody was there, yet you were caught regardless. That trend will spread: automatic number-plate reading, facial recognition, software that spots fraud in bank transactions faster than any investigator ever could. It makes enforcement more consistent, which is fair, and more total, which is faintly unsettling. The real risk is that the technology ends up watching everyone all the time, and law enforcement quietly becomes something done to people rather than for them — a line worth watching closely over the next few decades.

   Why this band

   • FC“a line worth watching closely over the next few decades” — The final phrase extends the closing warning into a forward-looking evaluative image, something the plainer bands' shorter final sentences don't attempt, giving the answer a more considered, essay-like close.
   • LR“a fine arriving by post a fortnight later” — The idiom 'a fortnight later' is a more natural, slightly less common way of expressing 'two weeks later', which the lower bands use in its plainer literal form.
   • GRA“software that spots fraud in bank transactions faster than any investigator ever could” — The comparative clause is extended with 'ever could' at the end, a more emphatic construction than the plainer 'faster than any investigator' the 7.0 answer stops at for the same comparison.

9. 9. Will crime disappear and laws become unnecessary in the future?

   Sep–Dec 2026
   Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer states its main opinion directly and gives one plain generational comparison (grandmother's scams vs the speaker's), using 'but' three times to build the contrasts throughout.

   I don't think crime will disappear, but it will change shape. My grandmother used to worry about fake goods at the market, but now I get fake messages on Zalo pretending to be my bank, and in twenty years it will probably be something neither of us can imagine today. As long as people want things they can't easily get, some of them will find shortcuts, and that's really why laws exist. Some crimes might almost disappear — car theft is much harder now because of modern keys — but new laws will always be needed for new kinds of crime. A world with no laws would need people who had stopped wanting things, and I don't see that happening.

   Why this band

   • FC“A world with no laws would need people who had stopped wanting things, and I don't see that happening.” — A plain closing sentence using the basic phrase 'I don't see that happening'. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would more likely use the more natural idiom 'that's not a future I'd bet on', which frames the same conclusion more vividly.
   • LR“My grandmother used to worry about fake goods at the market” — A plain verb choice ('worry about'). A higher band would likely use the more vivid, slightly less common verb 'fretted over', which conveys more sustained anxiety than the neutral 'worry about'.
   • GRA“As long as people want things they can't easily get, some of them will find shortcuts, and that's really why laws exist” — An as-long-as clause followed by a result and a final explanatory clause joined with 'and', workable but fairly linear. A 7.5 answer would be more likely to compress the final clause using 'not because of any particular era' as an added contrast.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer uses a semicolon to contrast the grandmother's and the speaker's scams in one sentence, and closes with the idiom 'that's not a future I'd bet on' instead of the plainer 'I don't see that happening'.

   Crime will change shape rather than disappear. The scams my grandmother worried about were fake goods at the market; the ones I get are messages on Zalo pretending to be my bank, and in twenty years it'll be something neither of us can imagine. As long as people want things they can't easily get, some of them will take shortcuts, and law exists because of that constant, not because of any particular era. Some crimes may practically vanish — car theft is much harder with modern keys — but laws will still be needed to define the new ones. A society with no laws would need people who've stopped wanting, and that's not a future I'd bet on.

   Why this band

   • FC“and that's not a future I'd bet on” — The idiom 'a future I'd bet on' frames the closing judgement more vividly and naturally than the plain 'I don't see that happening' the 6.5 answer ends on.
   • LR“law exists because of that constant, not because of any particular era” — The noun 'constant' is a more precise, abstract term than the plainer phrasing a 6.5 answer would use to make the same point about a fixed underlying cause.
   • GRA“The scams my grandmother worried about were fake goods at the market; the ones I get are messages on Zalo pretending to be my bank” — A semicolon links the two parallel generational examples into one flowing sentence, more compact than the 'but' and separate clause structure the 6.5 answer uses for the same comparison.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the less common verb 'fretted over' and the compact idiom 'all but disappear', closing on the emphatic 'not a future I'd bet money on' instead of the plainer 'bet on'.

   Crime will change shape rather than vanish outright. The scams my grandmother fretted over were fake goods at the market; mine arrive as messages on Zalo pretending to be my bank, and in twenty years it'll be something neither of us could picture today. As long as people want things they can't easily get, some will always find a shortcut, and law exists because of that constant, not because of any particular era. Certain crimes may all but disappear — car theft is far harder with modern keys — but laws will still be needed to define whatever comes next. A society with no laws at all would need people who'd simply stopped wanting, and that's not a future I'd bet money on.

   Why this band

   • FC“and that's not a future I'd bet money on” — Adding 'money' to the idiom used in the 7.0 answer ('bet on' → 'bet money on') gives the closing judgement a slightly more emphatic, colloquial edge.
   • LR“The scams my grandmother fretted over were fake goods at the market” — The verb 'fretted over' is a more vivid, less common choice than the plain 'worried about' the lower bands use, suggesting more sustained, active anxiety.
   • GRA“Certain crimes may all but disappear — car theft is far harder with modern keys — but laws will still be needed to define whatever comes next” — The idiom 'all but disappear' compresses the idea of near-total disappearance into a compact phrase, more economical than the plainer 'might almost disappear' or 'may practically vanish' the lower bands use for the same idea.