How long should my answer to this Part 2 cue card be?

Speak for 1 to 2 minutes. The examiner will stop you at 2 minutes, so aim for roughly 220-300 words that cover every bullet on the card and end with how you feel about it.

What Part 3 questions follow this cue card?

After "A Person You Recently Met and Want to Know Better", examiners have asked 9 follow-up discussion questions, listed above. They move from your personal story to general opinions on the same theme.

Is this cue card still being used?

It was most recently reported by test-takers in May–Aug 2026. Cue cards rotate every four months, and many topics return in later seasons with slightly different wording.

IELTS Speaking Part 2

A Person You Recently Met and Want to Know Better

Most recently asked in May–Aug 2026

The cue card

Describe a person you only met recently who you would like to get to know better

You should say:

who this person is
where you met him/her
what you talked about
and explain why you would like to get to know this person better

Sample answers: Band 6.5, 7.0 & 7.5

Three versions of the same answer, each written to sit genuinely at that band — compare them to see exactly what separates the scores.

Band 6.5

The 6.5 answer moves through the cue-card points with plain factual statements ('We talked mostly about flowers and her job') and a simple coordinated sentence explaining how the conversation started.

The person I want to talk about is a woman named Vy, who I met about three weeks ago at Chợ Cồn, a market in the centre of Da Nang.

I was buying fruit and she was setting up a small flower stall next to the fruit seller. We started talking because I asked her the name of a flower I didn't recognise, and she ended up telling me about several different kinds.

We talked mostly about flowers and her job, since she's been selling flowers at the market for about five years and grows some of them herself outside the city. We also talked a little about Da Nang, since she moved here from a smaller town nearby, like I moved from Hue.

I would like to know her better because she seemed very calm and happy with her simple life, which is quite different from my busy job in an office. She also knows a lot about plants, something I know almost nothing about, and I would like to learn from her. Now I stop at her stall every time I go to that market, and we always talk for a few minutes, so I hope we'll become proper friends soon.

203 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“We talked mostly about flowers and her job, since she's been selling flowers at the market for about five years and grows some of them herself outside the city.” — The answer develops its point with concrete, factual detail — five years selling flowers, growing some herself outside the city — directly supporting the earlier statement that they talked about her job. This kind of straightforward factual elaboration, rather than reflection or evaluation, is the plain but adequate development style Band 6.5 fluency is built around.
LR“proper friends” — 'Proper friends' uses everyday, informal vocabulary to describe a hoped-for future relationship, relying on 'proper' as a vague intensifier rather than a more specific description of what that friendship might look like. This kind of simple, common phrasing is exactly the plain lexical range Band 6.5 targets.
GRA“We started talking because I asked her the name of a flower I didn't recognise, and she ended up telling me about several different kinds.” — Two clauses are joined by 'and' — asking about the flower's name, and Vy responding with detail — forming a basic coordinated sentence that reports the exchange in sequence without any subordination. This accurate but structurally simple coordination is characteristic of Band 6.5 grammatical range.

Band 7.0

The 7.0 answer uses a natural collocation ('run into her again') and develops its main point with a specific concrete image (the copied shopfront sign), matching the fluent, moderately complex Band 7.0 target.

The person I want to talk about is a woman called Thu, who I met about a month ago at a small coffee shop near my office in Da Nang.

I was sitting outside waiting for my coffee, and she was painting a mural on the wall right next to the tables. I asked her how long it usually takes to finish something like that, just to make conversation, and we ended up talking for almost half an hour while my coffee went cold.

We mostly talked about her work, since it turns out she paints murals for cafés and small shops all around the city, usually based on old photos the owners give her of the area. We also talked a bit about Da Nang in general, comparing how different parts of the city have changed, since she grew up here and I only moved from Hue a few years ago.

I'd like to get to know her better mainly because she sees the city so differently from me. I walk past the same buildings every day without really noticing them, but she pointed out details on that one wall, like an old shopfront sign she'd copied exactly, that I'd genuinely never registered before. There's also something appealing about how relaxed she seemed about her job, painting outside in the heat with people watching her the whole time, which is completely different from the way I work, stuck behind a screen indoors.

Since that conversation, I've gone back to that café a couple of times hoping to run into her again, and I think I'll ask for her contact details properly next time, instead of just hoping it happens naturally.

281 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“run into her again” — 'Run into her again' uses the phrasal verb for a chance encounter, correctly distinguishing an unplanned meeting from a deliberately arranged one — which matters here, since the speaker has been deliberately returning to the café hoping for exactly this 'accidental' outcome. This kind of natural phrasal-verb use, chosen precisely rather than generically, is the flexible-but-not-showy vocabulary Band 7.0 rewards over a plainer 'see her again'.
FC“she pointed out details on that one wall, like an old shopfront sign she'd copied exactly, that I'd genuinely never registered before” — The general claim that Thu 'sees the city differently' is immediately grounded in one specific, visual example — an old shopfront sign she'd copied exactly onto the mural — rather than left as an abstract compliment. This reason-plus-concrete-example structure is precisely the development pattern the Band 7.0 descriptor asks for, turning a vague impression into something the listener can actually picture.
GRA“There's also something appealing about how relaxed she seemed about her job, painting outside in the heat with people watching her the whole time, which is completely different from the way I work, stuck behind a screen indoors.” — The sentence combines a participial clause describing Thu's work ('painting outside in the heat with people watching her') with a relative clause drawing an explicit contrast to the speaker's own job ('stuck behind a screen indoors'). Holding both structures together accurately in one sentence, so the comparison and the description happen simultaneously rather than in separate steps, is the comfortable complexity typical of Band 7.0 grammar.

Band 7.5

The 7.5 answer opens with a vivid, specific image ('reaching for the same book') and closes with a dry, practical aside ('That seems worth following up, and I have his number.') that undercuts its own reflectiveness in a controlled, idiomatic way.

The person I'd describe is a photographer called Hoàng, who I met only two weeks ago at the second-hand book stall that sets up near Han Market on Sunday mornings. We were both reaching for the same book — an old collection of black-and-white photographs of Da Nang from the seventies — and after a slightly awkward moment of politeness he simply opened it and started showing me things. That was the beginning of a forty-minute conversation standing between two tables of paperbacks.

He's in his forties, I'd guess, and he's spent the last three years photographing Nam Ô, the old fishing village at the northern edge of the city, which is being cleared bit by bit for a resort. He goes at four in the morning when the boats come in, and he's been photographing the same twenty families over and over, so that there's a record of what the place was before it becomes something else.

What we talked about was mostly that — how a city decides what to keep and what to erase, and how the official photos of Da Nang show bridges and beaches and never a fish market. But we also got onto design, oddly; he asked why every new building here looks like it was designed for a rendering rather than for a person, and I didn't have a good answer, which I've been thinking about since.

Why I'd like to know him better is partly selfish. He looks at the city I've lived in for five years and sees a completely different place, and I want to borrow that for a while. There's also a project in it, I think — his photographs deserve a proper website, not a Facebook album, and I'd like to build it. But mainly, in a city where I mostly meet people through work, he's the first stranger in years who made me lose track of time. That seems worth following up, and I have his number.

330 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“That was the beginning of a forty-minute conversation standing between two tables of paperbacks.” — Instead of a generic wrap-up like 'we ended up talking for a long time,' the sentence gives a precise duration ('forty-minute') and a specific physical setting ('standing between two tables of paperbacks'), turning an abstract claim about connection into a concrete, visualisable scene. That level of grounded, specific detail closing the opening anecdote is the confident development the Band 7.5 fluency target rewards, since it shows the speaker building the story around remembered particulars rather than vague summary. It also efficiently establishes the setting for the whole answer before the response moves into Hoàng's background.
LR“a slightly awkward moment of politeness” — The phrase captures a fairly specific and hard-to-name social experience — two strangers both reaching for the same object and briefly negotiating who defers to whom — in four words, rather than describing the moment more plainly as 'it was a bit awkward.' Naming that kind of subtle interpersonal nuance precisely, with 'politeness' functioning almost ironically since the awkwardness comes from too much of it, is the sophisticated lexical resource the Band 7.5 target rewards over the more generic emotional vocabulary a 7.0 answer would use. It also sets a wry, observational tone for the whole anecdote about meeting Hoàng.
GRA“That seems worth following up, and I have his number.” — After a fairly reflective, almost philosophical closing paragraph about wanting to borrow Hoàng's way of seeing the city, the answer ends with a short, practical, faintly dry statement — 'and I have his number' — deliberately stepping back down from the reflective register into something plain and concrete. That contrast in register, controlled well enough to read as a deliberate tonal choice rather than an inconsistency, is the kind of confident, idiomatic sentence-ending the Band 7.5 grammar and coherence target rewards. The plain final clause also gives the whole response a grounded, slightly understated finish rather than ending on abstraction.

How this card was asked, by exam period

Describe a person you only met recently who you would like to get to know betterMay–Aug 2026

Part 3 follow-up questions

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

1. Is it important for colleagues at work to be friends?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the flat frame 'I think being friendly is important, but', a clear but plain way of stating the central distinction.
I think being friendly is important, but colleagues don't need to be close friends. At my studio, two people clearly don't like each other, but they still produce our best work when they're paired together. They respect each other's judgement and stay professional. I think trust and basic warmth matter most, like covering for someone or disagreeing without it becoming personal. Real friendship at work is nice when it happens, but it can also cause problems, like people forming small groups or feeling awkward if one gets promoted.
Why this band
FC“but colleagues don't need to be close friends” — The 6.5 answer states the key distinction as a full clause joined by 'but'. The 7.0 answer compresses the same idea into a punchier fragment, 'friendly, yes, but friends, not necessarily', and 7.5 tightens it even further with a semicolon, 'Friendly, yes; friends, not necessarily', each version more economical than the last.
LR“clearly don't like each other” — This is plain, direct phrasing. The 7.0 answer's 'quite clearly don't get on' swaps in a more idiomatic verb phrase, and the 7.5 answer returns to 'don't like each other' but gains its polish elsewhere, showing that lexical upgrades aren't always about swapping every word.
GRA“They respect each other's judgement and stay professional.” — This is a short, simple sentence joined by 'and'. The 7.5 answer folds a similar idea into a longer sentence using 'simply because', embedding the reason directly into the main clause rather than stating it separately.
Band 7.0
The opening fragment 'friendly, yes, but friends, not necessarily' is a punchier, more spoken-sounding structure than the fuller sentence used at 6.5.
I'd say friendly, yes, but friends, not necessarily. Two people at my studio quite clearly don't get on, and yet they still produce our best work when they're paired, because they respect each other's judgement and keep things professional. What really matters, I think, is trust and basic warmth — that you'd cover for someone, or disagree without it turning personal. Genuine friendship at work is lovely when it happens, and it makes long projects more bearable, but it can also create problems, like cliques forming or awkwardness once someone gets promoted. So a workplace probably just needs enough friendliness to make people want to come in.
Why this band
FC“What really matters, I think, is trust and basic warmth” — Inserting the hedge 'I think' mid-sentence, between 'matters' and 'is', is a more integrated move than a sentence-initial hedge would be. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical effect with 'What matters, I'd argue, is trust and basic warmth', showing the two upper bands share this technique closely.
LR“keep things professional” — This is clear, workable phrasing. The 7.5 answer's 'keep it professional' is nearly identical, showing that the gap between 7.0 and 7.5 here lies more in sentence rhythm and closing imagery than in this particular phrase.
GRA“that you'd cover for someone, or disagree without it turning personal” — This uses two parallel clauses joined by 'or', a moderately complex structure. The 7.5 answer repeats 'that' before each clause instead of using 'or', 'that you'd cover for someone, that you can disagree without it becoming personal', a subtly more rhetorical, parallel construction.
Band 7.5
The closing image, 'so much friendship that decisions start getting made in a group chat', gives the answer a vivid, contemporary final detail beyond the plainer endings of the lower bands.
Friendly, yes; friends, not necessarily. Two people at my studio quite clearly don't like each other, and they still produce our best work when they're paired, simply because they respect each other's judgement and keep it professional. What matters, I'd argue, is trust and basic warmth — that you'd cover for someone, that you can disagree without it becoming personal. Genuine friendship at work is lovely when it happens, and it makes long projects genuinely bearable, but it also creates its own problems: cliques, difficulty giving honest feedback, awkwardness when one person gets promoted over another. A workplace probably needs just enough friendliness that people want to come in, and not so much friendship that decisions start getting made in a group chat.
Why this band
FC“Friendly, yes; friends, not necessarily.” — This semicolon-linked opening fragment is even more compact than the 7.0 answer's comma-linked version, dispensing with 'I'd say' entirely and trusting the bare contrast to carry the argument from the very first line.
LR“cliques, difficulty giving honest feedback, awkwardness when one person gets promoted over another” — This three-item list of workplace problems is more specific and varied than the two-item list at 7.0, 'cliques forming or awkwardness once someone gets promoted', showing a wider range of precise, workplace-specific vocabulary.
GRA“not so much friendship that decisions start getting made in a group chat” — This closing clause uses a 'so... that' construction with a vivid, contemporary image, a more flexible and idiomatic structure than the simpler final sentence at 7.0, which ends on the plainer 'to make people want to come in'.
2. What impact does the idea that social life should come second to work have on people?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the safe frame 'I think it slowly hurts people', a plain restatement of the question rather than a sharper opening claim.
I think it slowly hurts people, and they often notice too late. A friend of mine at an agency in Ho Chi Minh City realised at thirty that every friend he had was a colleague. When he changed jobs, his social life disappeared almost overnight. Putting work first can also make people worse at work eventually, because they become tired and have less to talk about. In Vietnam, there's extra pressure too, because long hours are often seen as loyalty. I think the healthiest people protect their social life instead of just filling gaps with it.
Why this band
FC“his social life disappeared almost overnight” — The 6.5 answer states the consequence in a short, separate sentence. The 7.0 answer folds it directly into the previous clause with 'and when he changed jobs', and 7.5 does the same but drops 'almost' for a slightly blunter, more assertive claim, 'vanished almost overnight' becoming part of one continuous sentence rather than standing alone.
LR“hurts people” — This is a general, plain verb phrase. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more vivid, idiomatic 'hollows people out', a metaphor suggesting something being scooped away from the inside, considerably more precise and memorable.
GRA“Putting work first can also make people worse at work eventually, because they become tired and have less to talk about.” — This sentence uses a 'because' clause to explain the claim, workable but standard. The 7.5 answer expresses similar ideas as a compact three-item list after a dash, 'tired, narrow, with nothing much to bring to a conversation', a more economical, listed structure.
Band 7.0
The list 'tired, narrower, with less to actually bring to a conversation' after a dash shows tighter sentence control than the 'because' clause used at 6.5.
I'd say it hollows people out slowly, and they usually notice too late. A friend of mine at an agency in Ho Chi Minh City realised at thirty that every friend he had was a colleague, and when he changed jobs, his social life basically vanished overnight. Putting work first also tends to make people worse at work eventually — tired, narrower, with less to actually bring to a conversation. There's an added pressure in Vietnam too, since long hours are often seen as a sign of loyalty. Honestly, the healthiest people I know treat their social life as something worth defending, rather than something that just fills the gaps.
Why this band
FC“Putting work first also tends to make people worse at work eventually — tired, narrower” — This dash-marked list integrates supporting detail directly into the sentence, more fluid than the 6.5 answer's separate 'because' clause. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, showing the two upper bands converge closely on this particular technique.
LR“hollows people out slowly” — This vivid metaphor matches the 7.5 answer closely, both clearly ahead of the plain 'hurts people' used at 6.5, showing that this particular lexical upgrade appears from 7.0 onward rather than being reserved for 7.5 alone.
GRA“realised at thirty that every friend he had was a colleague, and when he changed jobs, his social life basically vanished overnight” — This sentence links a noun clause to a further clause with 'and when', a fairly developed structure. The 7.5 answer achieves a very similar structure, differing mainly in dropping 'basically', showing that grammatical complexity here has already reached a similar ceiling by 7.0.
Band 7.5
The closing clause, 'they're no less successful for it', ends on a quietly confident rebuttal rather than a flatter closing observation.
It hollows people out slowly, and they usually notice too late. A friend at an agency in Ho Chi Minh City realised at thirty that every friend he had was a colleague, and when he changed jobs his social life vanished almost overnight. Putting work first also makes people worse at work eventually — tired, narrow, with nothing much to bring to a conversation. Relationships end up postponed to a future that keeps quietly moving further away. In Vietnam there's an added pressure, since long hours are widely read as loyalty. The healthiest people I know treat their social life as something they defend rather than something that fills the gaps, and, if anything, they're no less successful for it.
Why this band
FC“Relationships end up postponed to a future that keeps quietly moving further away.” — This sentence personifies 'the future' as something that moves, a more figurative and developed piece of reasoning than anything attempted at 6.5 or 7.0, adding an extra idea to the argument rather than just restating the existing ones more elegantly.
LR“widely read as loyalty” — This is a precise, almost sociological way of describing a cultural assumption, more sophisticated than the plain 'seen as loyalty' or 'seen as a sign of loyalty' used at 6.5 and 7.0.
GRA“they're no less successful for it” — This closing clause uses a litotes-style negative construction, 'no less... for it', a more subtle and idiomatic structure than the plainer positive statements used to close the 6.5 and 7.0 answers.
3. Why do successful companies often provide spaces for employees to relax and socialise?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Uses the flat opening frame 'I think it's because', a plain restatement of the question rather than a more direct, confident opening claim.
I think it's because a lot of real work actually happens there. My studio has a rooftop with a kettle and some plastic chairs, and I think more design problems get solved there over coffee than in scheduled meetings. People talk across teams, and someone might overhear a problem they know how to fix. Relaxed spaces also make people want to stay longer and help new staff feel comfortable. Some companies do this just to keep people at work, which is a bit cynical, but I think the best companies really are just buying good conversations.
Why this band
FC“People talk across teams, and someone might overhear a problem they know how to fix.” — The 6.5 answer states this idea as a separate, short sentence joined by 'and'. The 7.0 answer instead attaches a similar idea directly after a dash within a longer sentence, and 7.5 keeps that same dash structure, both showing tighter integration than the standalone 6.5 sentence.
LR“real work actually happens there” — This is plain, general phrasing. The 7.5 answer's 'the real work quietly happens' adds the more evocative adverb 'quietly', suggesting something happening below the surface rather than just stating a fact.
GRA“Relaxed spaces also make people want to stay longer and help new staff feel comfortable.” — This sentence coordinates two verb phrases with 'and', clear but structurally simple. The 7.5 answer splits a similar idea into two separate clauses joined by 'and they', each with its own relative clause, showing a more developed, two-part structure.
Band 7.0
The aside 'which companies are fairly honest about' adds a slightly critical, reflective layer beyond the plainer claim at 6.5.
I'd say it's because that's where a lot of the real work actually happens. My studio has a scruffy rooftop with a kettle and some plastic chairs, and I'd estimate more design problems get solved there over coffee than in any scheduled meeting — people talk across teams, and someone overhears a problem they happen to know how to fix. Relaxed spaces also make people stay longer, which companies are fairly honest about, and they help new staff find their place. The slightly cynical version is that a nice sofa is cheaper than a pay rise, and that's sometimes true. But the companies that do it well aren't really buying loyalty; they're buying conversations.
Why this band
FC“people talk across teams, and someone overhears a problem they happen to know how to fix” — This dash-introduced clause flows directly from the main claim, more integrated than the 6.5 answer's separate sentence. The 7.5 answer keeps this exact same clause, showing the two upper bands share this particular piece of phrasing closely.
LR“scruffy rooftop” — This is a vivid, specific adjective choice, stronger than leaving the rooftop undescribed as in the plainer 6.5 version. The 7.5 answer keeps the identical phrase, showing this lexical upgrade appears from 7.0 onward.
GRA“aren't really buying loyalty; they're buying conversations” — This uses a semicolon to balance two short, parallel clauses, a moderately sophisticated structure. The 7.5 answer achieves a similar effect but rephrases slightly as 'aren't buying loyalty so much as they're buying conversation', a marginally more idiomatic construction using 'so much as'.
Band 7.5
The closing contrast, 'aren't buying loyalty so much as they're buying conversation', gives the ending a slightly more polished, idiomatic finish than the semicolon version used at 7.0.
Because that's where a lot of the real work quietly happens. My studio has a scruffy rooftop with a kettle and some plastic chairs, and I'd estimate more design problems get solved there over coffee than in any scheduled meeting — people talk across teams, and someone overhears a problem they happen to know how to fix. Relaxed spaces also make people stay longer, which companies are fairly candid about, and they help new staff find their footing faster than any onboarding document could. There's a retention argument too, since people tend to leave managers and cultures more than they leave salaries. The cynical reading is that a nice sofa is cheaper than a pay rise, and that's sometimes true, but the companies that do it well aren't buying loyalty so much as they're buying conversation.
Why this band
FC“Because that's where a lot of the real work quietly happens.” — Opening the whole answer with a sentence fragment starting 'Because' is a bolder, more conversational move than the fuller opening sentences used at 6.5 and 7.0, immediately signalling a confident, spoken register.
LR“find their footing faster than any onboarding document could” — This comparative image is more vivid and specific than the plainer 'help new staff find their place' at 7.0 and 'help new staff feel comfortable' at 6.5, exemplifying sharper lexical choice.
GRA“people tend to leave managers and cultures more than they leave salaries” — This sentence uses a repeated verb structure, 'leave... more than they leave', for rhetorical balance, a more deliberate grammatical pattern than the simpler statements used at 6.5 and 7.0 to make a similar point.
4. What qualities are most important in a good friend?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Uses the flat opener 'I think honesty matters most', a plain and direct but slightly generic way of stating the central claim.
I think honesty matters most, especially the kind that costs something. A friend once told me my portfolio was boring when everyone else said it was fine, and that honesty helped my career more than anything else. It wasn't easy for her to say it, but I'm grateful she did. After honesty, I'd say reliability matters too, like turning up and remembering things. A good friend is also curious about you, not just available when you need them. Shared jokes and interests help, but I think they're less important than honesty and reliability.
Why this band
FC“A friend once told me my portfolio was boring” — The 6.5 answer introduces the anecdote with the general subject 'A friend'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead lead with 'The friend who told me...', turning the anecdote into the grammatical subject of the sentence itself, a more integrated and confident structure.
LR“that honesty helped my career more than anything else” — This is plain, general phrasing. The 7.5 answer's 'did more for my career than the rest combined' is more specific and emphatic, implying a direct comparison against all other qualities at once.
GRA“It wasn't easy for her to say it, but I'm grateful she did.” — This is a short, simple sentence joined by 'but'. The 7.5 answer instead links a similar idea directly into the main sentence with a dash, 'and it wasn't easy for her to say it', avoiding a separate sentence altogether.
Band 7.0
The dash-marked aside 'and it clearly wasn't easy for her to say it' integrates the reflection into the main sentence, unlike the separate sentence used at 6.5.
Honestly, I'd say honesty comes first, and specifically the kind that costs something to say. The friend who told me my portfolio was boring, when everyone else had said it was fine, did more for my career than the rest combined — and it clearly wasn't easy for her to say it. After that, I'd put reliability: turning up, remembering things, being the same person on a bad day. A good friend is also genuinely curious about you, rather than just available for you. Shared jokes and interests obviously help, but honestly, I think of them more as decoration than as the actual structure of a friendship.
Why this band
FC“The friend who told me my portfolio was boring, when everyone else had said it was fine, did more for my career than the rest combined” — This sentence uses the anecdote itself as the grammatical subject, with an embedded 'when' clause, a more sophisticated structure than the 6.5 answer's simple 'A friend once told me'. The 7.5 answer keeps an almost identical structure, showing this technique is already in place by 7.0.
LR“did more for my career than the rest combined” — This comparative phrase is shared almost exactly with the 7.5 answer, both considerably more precise and emphatic than the general 'helped my career more than anything else' used at 6.5.
GRA“After that, I'd put reliability: turning up, remembering things, being the same person on a bad day.” — This sentence uses a colon followed by a three-item list, a moderately complex structure. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure but drops 'I'd put', 'After that, reliability:', an even more compact, confident version of the same list.
Band 7.5
The closing semicolon sentence, 'they're decoration; the real structure is honesty and showing up', gives the argument a crisp, aphoristic finish.
Honesty first, and the kind that costs something. The friend who told me my portfolio was boring, when everyone else had said it was fine, did more for my career than the rest combined — and it wasn't easy for her to say it. After that, reliability: turning up, remembering, being the same person on a bad day. A good friend is curious about you rather than just available for you. And I'd add the ability to let things go — every long friendship has moments that could have ended it, and it survived because someone decided not to keep score. Shared jokes and interests help, but they're decoration; the real structure is honesty and showing up.
Why this band
FC“Honesty first, and the kind that costs something.” — Opening with this compact sentence fragment, dropping the hedge 'I'd say' used at 7.0, is a bolder, more assertive move that states the thesis immediately rather than easing into it.
LR“the ability to let things go” — This is a precise, idiomatic phrase for a quality neither lower band mentions at all, showing that the 7.5 answer introduces an additional nuanced idea, 'not keeping score', rather than just rephrasing the same points more elegantly.
GRA“every long friendship has moments that could have ended it, and it survived because someone decided not to keep score” — This sentence uses a relative clause plus a because-clause with the idiom 'keep score', a more layered and idiomatic structure than anything in the 6.5 or 7.0 answers, reflecting the flexible grammar expected at the top band.
5. Do you agree or disagree that the closest friendships are usually formed at school?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Closes with the plain declarative 'I think what makes friendships close is going through something hard together', a clear but fairly flat final statement.
I disagree, though I understand why people think that. Of my three closest friends, one is from school, one was a flatmate at university, and one I met at a pottery class at twenty-seven, and honestly the last one is probably the closest. School friendships can be deep, because you spend years together and know each other before adult life changes you. But they're also often based on being nearby, not on real choice, so many fade once that closeness ends. Adult friendships are chosen, which makes them different. I think what makes friendships close is going through something hard together and both staying.
Why this band
FC“But they're also often based on being nearby, not on real choice, so many fade once that closeness ends.” — The 6.5 answer states this idea with plain phrasing, 'being nearby' and 'real choice'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead use the more precise, technical-sounding word 'proximity', showing a step up in lexical precision that carries through both upper bands.
LR“being nearby, not on real choice” — This is plain, everyday phrasing. Both the 7.0 and 7.5 answers upgrade this to 'proximity rather than choice', a more precise, slightly formal noun that is common in discussions of relationships.
GRA“Adult friendships are chosen, which makes them different.” — This is a short, simple sentence with a relative clause. The 7.5 answer extends this into 'which gives them a different strength altogether', adding an evaluative noun, 'strength', rather than the vague 'different'.
Band 7.0
The closing structure 'isn't the stage of life so much as having gone through something difficult together' is a more developed contrast than the direct statement used at 6.5.
I'd say I disagree, though I do understand why people think so. Of my three closest friends, one is from school, one was a flatmate at university, and one I met at a pottery class at twenty-seven, and the last one is probably the closest of all. School friendships definitely have advantages — years of daily contact, and knowing each other before adult roles hardened — and they can genuinely run deep. But they're also often built more on proximity than choice, and plenty fade once that proximity ends. Adult friendships, by contrast, are chosen, which gives them a slightly different kind of strength. What really forms the closest friendship, I think, isn't the stage of life so much as having gone through something difficult together and both stayed.
Why this band
FC“What really forms the closest friendship, I think, isn't the stage of life so much as” — This inserted hedge 'I think' and the 'not X so much as Y' construction together create a more considered, argumentative close than the plain declarative sentence at 6.5. The 7.5 answer drops the hedge but keeps a similar contrastive structure, achieving a slightly more confident version of the same idea.
LR“years of daily contact, and knowing each other before adult roles hardened” — This phrase uses the precise verb 'hardened' to describe how adult roles set in, more vivid than any equivalent phrasing in the 6.5 answer. The 7.5 answer keeps this exact phrase, showing the two upper bands share this lexical choice.
GRA“School friendships definitely have advantages — years of daily contact, and knowing each other before adult roles hardened — and they can genuinely run deep.” — This sentence uses two dashes to insert a list mid-sentence before continuing the main clause, a more complex structure than the simpler sentences at 6.5. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, showing this pattern is already well established by 7.0.
Band 7.5
The closing semicolon sentence, 'isn't the stage of life; it's having gone through something difficult together and both stayed', gives the argument a crisp, quotable finish.
I disagree, though I understand why people think so. Of my three closest friends, one is from school, one was a flatmate at university, and one I met at a pottery class at twenty-seven, and the last is probably the closest. School friendships have real advantages — years of daily contact and knowing each other before adult roles hardened — and they can be very deep. But they're also often based on proximity rather than choice, and many fade once the proximity ends. Adult friendships are chosen, which gives them a different strength altogether. What forms the closest friendship isn't the stage of life; it's having gone through something difficult together and both stayed.
Why this band
FC“What forms the closest friendship isn't the stage of life; it's having gone through something difficult together and both stayed.” — This closing sentence uses a semicolon to balance two mirrored clauses, a tighter and more confident structure than the 7.0 answer's hedged 'so much as' construction or the plain final statement at 6.5.
LR“adult roles hardened” — This precise, slightly metaphorical verb choice matches the 7.0 answer exactly, both well ahead of the plain phrasing used at 6.5, showing that certain lexical upgrades are already locked in by 7.0 and simply carried through to 7.5.
GRA“What forms the closest friendship isn't the stage of life; it's having gone through something difficult together and both stayed.” — This sentence uses a cleft-like 'isn't X; it's Y' construction with a semicolon, a more sophisticated and rhetorically balanced structure than the softer 'so much as' hedge at 7.0 or the plain statement at 6.5.
6. How important is it to share the same interests when making new friends?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the flat frame 'I think shared interests are useful at the start', a clear but plain restatement rather than a sharper opening claim.
I think shared interests are useful at the start, but less important later. They give people a reason to be in the same place and something to talk about, like a class or a sport. But my closest adult friendship is with a nurse whose interests are almost completely different from mine, and it works because we're curious about each other's worlds. I think what really keeps a friendship going is shared values, like honesty and humour, not shared hobbies. People with the same interests but different personalities can run out of things to say once the interest ends.
Why this band
FC“But my closest adult friendship is with a nurse whose interests are almost completely different from mine” — The 6.5 answer marks the counterexample with a plain 'But' at the sentence start. The 7.0 answer instead uses 'But my closest adult friendship is actually with a nurse', adding the intensifier 'actually', and 7.5 drops the hedge entirely, opening the sentence directly with 'But my closest adult friendship is with a nurse', a more assured, unhedged statement.
LR“almost completely different from mine” — This is plain, general phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more precise, idiomatic 'overlap with mine almost nowhere', a spatial metaphor that is more vivid and specific.
GRA“I think what really keeps a friendship going is shared values, like honesty and humour, not shared hobbies.” — This sentence uses a 'like' example plus a negative contrast, workable but fairly plain. The 7.5 answer expresses a similar idea using a colon followed by a three-item parallel list, 'similar honesty, similar humour, similar patience', a more rhythmic and deliberate structure.
Band 7.0
The closing metaphor is absent here, but the phrase 'once the interest itself is exhausted' gives the ending more precision than the plainer 6.5 equivalent.
I'd say shared interests are useful at the start, but less important than people tend to think afterwards. They give you a reason to be in the same room and something to talk about before you really know each other — a running group, a class, a sport. But my closest adult friendship is actually with a nurse whose interests overlap with mine almost nowhere, and it works because we're genuinely curious about each other's worlds. What actually sustains a friendship, I think, is shared values and a compatible way of talking — similar honesty, similar humour, similar patience. People with identical interests but different temperaments tend to run out of things to say once the interest itself is exhausted.
Why this band
FC“What actually sustains a friendship, I think, is shared values and a compatible way of talking” — Inserting the hedge 'I think' mid-sentence integrates it more smoothly than a sentence-initial hedge would. The 7.5 answer drops the hedge entirely and states the same claim with full confidence, 'What actually sustains friendship is shared values and a compatible way of talking', an even more assured version.
LR“overlap with mine almost nowhere” — This spatial metaphor is shared with the 7.5 answer, both clearly more vivid and precise than the plain 'almost completely different from mine' used at 6.5.
GRA“They give you a reason to be in the same room and something to talk about before you really know each other — a running group, a class, a sport.” — This sentence uses a dash to introduce a three-item list of examples after the main clause, a more developed structure than the simpler examples embedded in the 6.5 answer's sentence. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, showing this pattern is already established by 7.0.
Band 7.5
The closing metaphor, 'I'd treat shared interests as the door, not the room', gives the argument a vivid, memorable final image absent from the lower bands.
Useful at the start, less important than people think afterwards. Shared interests give you a reason to be in the same room and something to talk about before you know each other — a running group, a class, a sport. But my closest adult friendship is with a nurse whose interests overlap with mine almost nowhere, and it works because we're curious about each other's worlds. What actually sustains friendship is shared values and a compatible way of talking: similar honesty, similar humour, similar patience. People with identical interests and different temperaments run out of things to say once the interest is exhausted. So I'd treat shared interests as the door, not the room.
Why this band
FC“Useful at the start, less important than people think afterwards.” — Opening with this compact sentence fragment, dropping both the hedge and the full subject-verb structure used at 6.5 and 7.0, is a bolder, more confident way to state the thesis immediately.
LR“the door, not the room” — This closing metaphor is vivid, original, and economical, well beyond anything attempted in the lower bands, exemplifying the creative, idiomatic lexis expected at the top band.
GRA“So I'd treat shared interests as the door, not the room.” — This closing sentence uses a compact metaphorical contrast without any connecting clause beyond 'not', a more flexible and idiomatic structure than the plainer final sentences used to close the 6.5 and 7.0 answers.
7. What are some good ways to meet new people in your country?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Lists methods across several short, separate sentences beginning 'For example' and 'Sharing tables', a clear but somewhat mechanical listing structure.
I think Vietnamese life makes it quite easy to meet new people if you're willing to join in. For example, the morning beach crowd in Da Nang, with swimmers and badminton players, welcomes anyone who shows up regularly. Hobby classes are also a great way to meet people, like pottery or running clubs. Sharing tables at street-food stalls often leads to conversations too, since strangers sit close together. Meeting people through family and neighbours is still common, especially outside big cities. I think the real problem isn't a lack of opportunities, it's that people look at their phones instead.
Why this band
FC“For example, the morning beach crowd in Da Nang, with swimmers and badminton players, welcomes anyone who shows up regularly.” — The 6.5 answer introduces this example with the formulaic 'For example,'. The 7.0 answer instead opens directly with 'The morning beach crowd in Da Nang', using a dash-marked list of details, and 7.5 does the same even more tersely, both skipping the marker altogether.
LR“welcomes anyone who shows up regularly” — This is plain, functional phrasing. The 7.5 answer's 'adopts anyone who turns up regularly' uses a warmer, more idiomatic verb, 'adopts', in place of the neutral 'welcomes'.
GRA“I think the real problem isn't a lack of opportunities, it's that people look at their phones instead.” — This sentence uses a comma splice joining two clauses, a minor but noticeable grammatical looseness. The 7.5 answer corrects this into a semicolon-linked sentence, 'isn't opportunity; it's that most of us look at our phones instead', showing tighter punctuation control.
Band 7.0
The list of hobby classes ends with 'honestly there seem to be more of them every year', a spoken aside that the plainer 6.5 list doesn't include.
I'd say Vietnamese life makes it fairly easy to meet people, if you're willing to put yourself out there. The morning beach crowd in Da Nang — swimmers, walkers, badminton players — is a community that basically adopts anyone who turns up regularly. Hobby classes are how I've met most of my adult friends, and honestly there seem to be more of them every year: pottery, running, language exchange. The shared tables at street-food stalls more or less force conversation on you, and coffee culture helps too, since everyone sits outside and everyone lingers. Meeting people through family and neighbours is still the traditional route, especially outside the cities. I'd say the main obstacle isn't opportunity; it's that most of us are looking at our phones instead.
Why this band
FC“Hobby classes are how I've met most of my adult friends, and honestly there seem to be more of them every year” — This sentence personalises the claim with a specific personal history plus a hedge, 'honestly there seem to be', more developed than the general 6.5 statement 'Hobby classes are also a great way to meet people'. The 7.5 answer keeps the same personal claim but drops the hedge, stating it as settled fact.
LR“more or less force conversation on you” — This is a vivid, idiomatic phrase, stronger than the plain 'often leads to conversations too' at 6.5. The 7.5 answer tightens this even further to 'force conversation on you' without the softening 'more or less', a slightly bolder claim.
GRA“The shared tables at street-food stalls more or less force conversation on you, and coffee culture helps too, since everyone sits outside and everyone lingers.” — This sentence links two ideas with 'and... since', a moderately complex structure. The 7.5 answer splits the same content into two short, punchy separate sentences instead, 'The shared tables... force conversation on you. Coffee culture helps — everyone sits outside, everyone lingers', showing a different but equally deliberate structural choice.
Band 7.5
The closing semicolon sentence, 'The main obstacle isn't opportunity; it's that most of us look at our phones instead', gives the answer a crisp, aphoristic finish.
Vietnamese life makes it easy if you're willing. The morning beach crowd in Da Nang — swimmers, walkers, badminton players — is a community that adopts anyone who turns up regularly. Hobby classes are how I've met most of my adult friends, and there are more each year: pottery, running, language exchange. The shared tables at street-food stalls force conversation on you. Coffee culture helps — everyone sits outside, everyone lingers. Through family and neighbours is still the traditional route, especially outside the cities. And volunteering, like beach cleanups, gathers exactly the kind of people worth knowing. The main obstacle isn't opportunity; it's that most of us look at our phones instead.
Why this band
FC“Vietnamese life makes it easy if you're willing.” — This short opening sentence states the thesis immediately and without hedging, a bolder move than the softened openers 'I think Vietnamese life makes it quite easy' at 6.5 and 'I'd say Vietnamese life makes it fairly easy' at 7.0.
LR“gathers exactly the kind of people worth knowing” — This precise, evaluative phrase about volunteering is more vivid than anything in the lower bands' lists, which don't mention volunteering at all, showing the 7.5 answer adding a genuinely new, well-chosen example.
GRA“The main obstacle isn't opportunity; it's that most of us look at our phones instead.” — This closing sentence uses a semicolon to balance two mirrored clauses, tighter than the comma splice at 6.5 and slightly more compact than the 7.0 answer's near-identical but hedged version, 'I'd say the main obstacle isn't opportunity; it's that most of us are looking'.
8. How should people behave politely when meeting new people?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
States the age-guessing custom as a full sentence with 'If you get it wrong', a clear but slightly wordier structure than the dash-based versions above 6.5.
In Vietnam, the first sign of politeness is choosing the right word for 'you', which means quickly guessing someone's age in the first few seconds. If you get it wrong, you might seem rude about their age or their status. Besides that, the rules are pretty universal: listen more than you talk, ask about the other person first, remember their name, and don't check your phone. Body language matters too, like a small bow of the head. I think politeness is mostly about paying attention. People forgive small mistakes from someone who seems genuinely interested in them.
Why this band
FC“If you get it wrong, you might seem rude about their age or their status.” — The 6.5 answer explains the risk in a full conditional sentence. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead compress this into a dash-marked clause, 'get it wrong, and you've either insulted their youth or their seniority', embedding the consequence directly into the previous sentence.
LR“might seem rude about their age or their status” — This is a fairly vague, general description of the risk. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the sharper, more specific 'insulted their youth or their seniority', naming the exact social error rather than describing it generally.
GRA“Besides that, the rules are pretty universal: listen more than you talk, ask about the other person first, remember their name, and don't check your phone.” — This sentence uses a colon followed by a four-item list joined partly with 'and', workable but standard. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical list but drops the final 'and', ending instead with a bare comma, 'remember the name, don't check your phone', a slightly more clipped, rhythmic effect.
Band 7.0
The aside 'honestly' before the closing claim about attention adds a small spoken touch that the plainer 6.5 version doesn't include.
In Vietnam, the first act of politeness is choosing the right word for 'you', which means quietly guessing someone's age and status within the first few seconds — get it wrong, and you've either insulted their youth or their seniority. Beyond that, the rules are fairly universal: listen more than you talk, ask about the other person before talking about yourself, remember the name, and don't check your phone. Body language matters too — a slight bow of the head, and not too much eye contact with someone older. I'd add that politeness is mostly about attention, honestly. People forgive a wrong pronoun from someone who's clearly interested in them far faster than a perfect one from someone looking over their shoulder.
Why this band
FC“I'd add that politeness is mostly about attention, honestly.” — Placing the hedge 'honestly' at the end of the sentence, after the claim, is a more natural spoken rhythm than the 6.5 answer's plain 'I think politeness is mostly about paying attention' with the hedge at the start. The 7.5 answer drops the hedge entirely, stating the claim with full confidence.
LR“politeness is mostly about attention” — This phrasing is close to but slightly more developed than the plain 'politeness is mostly about paying attention' at 6.5, and matches the 7.5 answer's more compact 'politeness is mostly attention' almost exactly, showing gradual tightening across the bands.
GRA“get it wrong, and you've either insulted their youth or their seniority” — This dash-introduced clause uses present perfect tense for a hypothetical result, a moderately sophisticated structure. The 7.5 answer achieves an identical structure, showing this particular grammatical choice is already settled by 7.0.
Band 7.5
The compact closing claim, 'politeness is mostly attention', drops the verb 'about' entirely, a bolder, more economical phrasing than the fuller version used at 7.0.
In Vietnam, the first act of politeness is choosing the right word for 'you', which means quietly guessing someone's age and status in the first three seconds — get it wrong and you've either insulted their youth or their seniority. Beyond that, the rules are fairly universal: listen more than you talk, ask about them before talking about yourself, remember the name, don't check your phone. Body language matters — a slight bow of the head, not too much eye contact with someone older. I'd add that politeness is mostly attention. People forgive a wrong pronoun from someone who's clearly interested in them far faster than a perfect one from someone looking over their shoulder.
Why this band
FC“politeness is mostly attention” — Dropping the preposition 'about' that both lower bands use creates a more compressed, almost aphoristic statement, showing confident control over how much can be trimmed from a sentence without losing clarity.
LR“insulted their youth or their seniority” — This precise phrase matches the 7.0 answer exactly, both considerably sharper than the vague 'might seem rude about their age or their status' used at 6.5, showing this lexical upgrade is locked in from 7.0 onward.
GRA“listen more than you talk, ask about them before talking about yourself, remember the name, don't check your phone” — This four-item list drops the final 'and' before the last item, creating a more clipped, rhythmic list than the fuller version at 6.5 and 7.0, reflecting flexible, deliberate punctuation choices.
9. How do you think the internet will affect friendships in the future?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Uses the plain framing 'I think the internet has already changed', repeated later as 'I think the internet will make', a slightly repetitive pattern across the answer.
I think the internet has already changed what a friend can be. My sister's closest friend is a girl in Manila she met through a game and has never met in person, but my sister says it's a real friendship, and I've stopped arguing with her about it. I think the internet will make friendships less dependent on where people live, which is good for people who feel isolated. It will also make friendships easier to start and easier to end, so maybe friendships in general will become a bit less deep, even though there will be more of them.
Why this band
FC“but my sister says it's a real friendship, and I've stopped arguing with her about it” — The 6.5 answer reports the sister's view with the plain verb 'says'. The 7.0 answer upgrades this to 'would say, without hesitation, that', and 7.5 keeps a similar structure but drops the reporting clause even further, 'she'd say without hesitation that', both adding more conviction to the same claim.
LR“has never met in person” — This is plain, standard phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use 'has never seen in person', a slightly more natural and idiomatic collocation for this particular context.
GRA“It will also make friendships easier to start and easier to end, so maybe friendships in general will become a bit less deep, even though there will be more of them.” — This long sentence links a result with 'so' to a concessive clause with 'even though', workable but somewhat loosely joined. The 7.5 answer achieves a more compact version of the same idea using 'and' plus a tighter contrast, 'gets shallower while the number grows', showing more economical grammar.
Band 7.0
The aside 'without hesitation' inserted into the reported claim adds emphasis that the plainer reporting verb at 6.5 lacks.
I'd say it's already changed what a friend can even be. My sister's closest friend is a girl in Manila she met through a game and has never seen in person, and my sister would say, without hesitation, that it's a real friendship — and honestly, I've stopped arguing with her about it. The internet will probably make friendships less dependent on geography, which is a real gain for anyone who feels isolated where they live. It'll also make them easier to start and easier to abandon, so I suspect the average friendship gets a bit shallower while the total number of them grows. I think the next step is that people will deliberately go offline to form the deep ones, the way we now go to classes and clubs.
Why this band
FC“and my sister would say, without hesitation, that it's a real friendship” — Inserting 'without hesitation' between commas mid-clause is a more developed way of expressing conviction than the plain 'my sister says' at 6.5. The 7.5 answer achieves a very similar effect, dropping only the modal 'would' for a slightly more direct claim, 'she'd say without hesitation that'.
LR“I suspect the average friendship gets a bit shallower” — This hedge plus adjective is a natural, considered way of stating a prediction, more developed than the vaguer 'friendships in general will become a bit less deep' at 6.5. The 7.5 answer keeps 'I suspect' but tightens the following clause to 'gets shallower', a more compact phrasing.
GRA“It'll also make them easier to start and easier to abandon, so I suspect the average friendship gets a bit shallower while the total number of them grows.” — This sentence links a result clause with 'so' to a contrastive 'while' clause, a well-developed structure. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, showing that by 7.0 this level of grammatical complexity is already largely in place.
Band 7.5
The closing clause, 'a screen is good for keeping a friend and poor for making one', gives the answer a neat, aphoristic final contrast.
It's already changed what a friend can be. My sister's closest friend is a girl in Manila she met through a game and has never seen in person, and she'd say without hesitation that it's a real friendship — and I've stopped arguing. The internet will make friendships less dependent on geography, which is a gain for anyone who feels isolated where they live. It will also make them easier to start and easier to abandon, and I suspect the average friendship gets shallower while the number grows. The next step, I think, is that people deliberately go offline to form the deep ones — the way we now go to classes and clubs — because we'll have learnt that a screen is good for keeping a friend and poor for making one.
Why this band
FC“It's already changed what a friend can be.” — Opening the whole answer with this short, unhedged sentence is bolder than the 6.5 answer's 'I think the internet has already changed' or the 7.0 answer's softened 'I'd say it's already changed', stating the claim as settled fact from the first line.
LR“a screen is good for keeping a friend and poor for making one” — This closing parallel contrast is vivid and precise, distinguishing between two related but different functions of technology, well beyond the vaguer closing ideas in the lower bands.
GRA“because we'll have learnt that a screen is good for keeping a friend and poor for making one” — This closing clause uses future perfect tense, 'we'll have learnt', combined with a parallel adjective structure, a more sophisticated and flexible grammatical choice than the simpler future or present tense used to close the 6.5 and 7.0 answers.

Frequently asked questions

How long should my answer to this Part 2 cue card be?: Speak for 1 to 2 minutes. The examiner will stop you at 2 minutes, so aim for roughly 220-300 words that cover every bullet on the card and end with how you feel about it.
What Part 3 questions follow this cue card?: After "A Person You Recently Met and Want to Know Better", examiners have asked 9 follow-up discussion questions, listed above. They move from your personal story to general opinions on the same theme.
Is this cue card still being used?: It was most recently reported by test-takers in May–Aug 2026. Cue cards rotate every four months, and many topics return in later seasons with slightly different wording.