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 Place in Another Country Where You Would Like to Work for a Short Time", examiners have asked 8 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 Place in Another Country Where You Would Like to Work for a Short Time

Most recently asked in May–Aug 2026

The cue card

Describe a place in another country where you would like to work for a short time

You should say:

Where this place is
How you know about this place
What work you would like to do there
And explain why you would like to work in this place for a short time

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 answer gives one plain reason for wanting to go and describes the office with simple, everyday adjectives, correct but modest — squarely Band 6.5.

The place I would like to work in for a short time is Seoul, in South Korea. I know about it mainly through my colleague Quân, who worked with a Korean client on a mobile app project last year and had video calls with their design team almost every week.

From what Quân told me, and from photos he showed me, their office looked really modern, with lots of glass and very organised desks, quite different from our office in Da Nang. He said the designers there work very fast and give feedback in a clear, direct way, which he found useful.

The work I would like to do there is the same kind of work I do now, which is UI design for mobile apps, but inside a Korean studio instead of just talking to them online. I think seeing how they plan and organise their projects would teach me a lot.

I would only want to go for a short time, maybe two or three months, because my family and my whole life are here in Da Nang, and I wouldn't want to move away permanently. But a few months would be long enough to learn new working habits, try some Korean food every day, and bring some new ideas back to my own studio afterwards.

218 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“really modern, with lots of glass and very organised desks” — The description relies on three everyday adjectives and nouns — "modern," "glass," "organised" — with the intensifiers "really" and "very" doing the work instead of any more specific vocabulary like "sleek" or "minimalist." This is accurate, visual, and easy to follow, which is all 6.5 requires, but it never reaches for the one slightly less-common word that would nudge it toward 7.0. It also directly supports the comparison the speaker draws two sentences later with their own office in Da Nang.
FC“I think seeing how they plan and organise their projects would teach me a lot.” — This gives one clear, generalized reason for wanting the placement — learning their planning process — and stops there rather than adding a second reason or a concrete example of what that learning might look like. At 6.5, a single reason delivered plainly is sufficient development; a 7.0 answer would likely follow it with a specific instance, such as how they run a kickoff meeting. The vagueness of "teach me a lot" compared with a more pointed 7.5-style claim is itself a marker of this band.
GRA“I would only want to go for a short time, maybe two or three months, because my family and my whole life are here in Da Nang” — This is a because-clause attached plainly to the main clause, used correctly to explain motivation but not varied with any other clause type in the same sentence. A 7.0 speaker might combine it with a second subordinate idea, such as "even though I'd learn a lot, because...," whereas this answer keeps the reasoning to one clean cause-and-effect link. It reflects the overall pattern of the answer, where each paragraph gives one straightforward justification rather than layering several.

Band 7.0

The compound adjective 'detail-focused' and the naturally linked 'rather than just seeing the final result' clause show fluent, accurate development without idiomatic flourishes, matching Band 7.0.

The place I'd like to work in for a short time is Tokyo, in Japan. I first became interested in it because our studio collaborated with a Japanese client on a small app project about two years ago, and I had a few online meetings with their design team during that time.

From those meetings, and from what one of my colleagues told me after visiting their office in person, the working style there seemed really detail-focused. Apparently they spend a lot of time perfecting small things that we might normally rush through, like the spacing between buttons or how a screen transitions from one page to the next.

The kind of work I'd like to do there is basically the same job I do now, UI design, but inside their office rather than communicating through a screen. I think being physically present would let me actually observe how they organise their day and make decisions, rather than just seeing the final result.

Why I'd only want to go for a short time, maybe two or three months, is mainly because my life and my family are based here in Da Nang, so a permanent move isn't something I'm considering. That said, a few months would be plenty of time to pick up new habits, get used to a different pace of working, and bring some fresh ideas back with me afterwards. I'd also genuinely enjoy the experience of living somewhere so different for a while — trying the food, getting used to the trains, all of that — even if it's just temporary.

264 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“the working style there seemed really detail-focused” — "Detail-focused" is a compound adjective built for the topic rather than pulled from a fixed list of common words, showing the kind of flexible, self-generated vocabulary that marks 7.0 lexical resource. A 6.5 speaker would likely fall back on "very careful" or "very organised," while an 8.0 answer might reach for something more idiomatic like "obsessive about detail." Its use here also previews the specific example that follows — spacing between buttons, screen transitions — so the word choice is doing real descriptive work rather than being a decorative add-on.
GRA“I think being physically present would let me actually observe how they organise their day and make decisions, rather than just seeing the final result.” — The sentence runs a comfortable "would let me... rather than just..." contrastive structure, coordinating a purpose clause with a rejected alternative in one breath, without stumbling. It's accurate and fluent but not layered with anything more ambitious like a conditional or relative clause, which is why it sits at 7.0 rather than 7.5. The contrast itself is also the argumentative core of the paragraph, explaining why being physically in the Tokyo office would add value beyond the video calls already described.
FC“trying the food, getting used to the trains, all of that” — The list trails off with the vague closer "all of that" instead of a formal summary like "and other cultural aspects," which is exactly how a native speaker rounds off a list in conversation rather than in writing. This natural fluency touch — leaving a list slightly open — is a 7.0 marker because it prioritizes sounding spoken over sounding complete; a 6.5 answer would likely list two items and stop cleanly. It closes the paragraph on a light, personal note after the more practical discussion of the two-to-three-month plan.

Band 7.5

The reflective aside 'I know it only through a screen, which is a strange way to know a city' and the closing image of 'a strong opinion about bread' show the precise, natural sophistication of Band 7.5.

The place I'd like to work for a short time is Berlin. I know it only through a screen, which is a strange way to know a city, but for the past year my studio has been building an app for a German company whose design team is based there, and I've spent an hour every week on video calls with them.

What I know comes from those calls and from the gaps between them. Their office is in a converted factory in the east of the city — brick walls, enormous windows, and a bicycle rack that seems to hold more bikes than they have staff. They argue about typography the way my colleagues argue about football. When it snowed in January, one of them turned the laptop to the window to show me, and I sat in thirty-degree Da Nang watching German snow fall on a canal.

The work I'd like to do there is simple: the same job I do now, at their desk instead of mine. They've mentioned an exchange, three months, and I'd want to be inside their process rather than receiving its output. I'm curious about how they make decisions, because their feedback arrives as a single clear paragraph while ours arrives as a nervous forty-minute meeting, and I suspect that difference is cultural rather than personal.

Why short, and why there? Short because I don't want to migrate — my family is here, and I like my life. But three months would be long enough to work in a second culture properly, to learn what German directness actually feels like at ten in the morning, and to cycle to work through a city that took bicycles seriously fifty years before mine did. I'd come back, I think, a slightly different designer, with a few German words and a strong opinion about bread.

309 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“I know it only through a screen, which is a strange way to know a city” — The reflective aside "which is a strange way to know a city" is an unexpected, almost paradoxical observation rather than a standard descriptive phrase, and it's delivered with the same ease as plain narration — exactly the natural precision the 7.5 band targets. A 7.0 answer would probably just state "I've never actually been there" without pausing to comment on how odd that is. This aside also sets up the whole paragraph's structure, which builds Berlin entirely out of secondhand video-call details rather than firsthand experience.
GRA“their feedback arrives as a single clear paragraph while ours arrives as a nervous forty-minute meeting, and I suspect that difference is cultural rather than personal” — This sentence runs a parallel contrastive structure — "their feedback arrives as X while ours arrives as Y" — and then adds an evaluative subordinate clause, "I suspect that difference is cultural rather than personal," on top of it, two distinct grammatical moves stacked in one sentence, both handled without error. A 7.0 answer would likely stop after the parallel contrast and not add the interpretive layer; only at 7.5 does the speaker also editorialize about what the contrast means. It's also the intellectual center of the whole answer, since the candidate is speculating about cultural differences in workplace communication, not just describing them.
FC“I'd come back, I think, a slightly different designer, with a few German words and a strong opinion about bread.” — The ending deliberately avoids a generic wrap-up like "it would be a great experience" and instead lands on three small, specific, faintly humorous images — a changed identity, some vocabulary, an opinion about bread — which is the kind of memorable, personally-voiced closing that the 7.5 descriptor calls a reflective or evaluative point. A 7.0 answer would more likely restate the main reason for wanting to go; this one instead imagines the outcome vividly. The lightness of "a strong opinion about bread" also mirrors the wry tone set earlier in the answer, about arguing over typography like football.

How this card was asked, by exam period

Describe a place in another country where you would like to work for a short timeMay–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. What jobs can people do in another country for a short time?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Lists the friends' jobs and general categories in mostly short, separate sentences, a clear but fairly mechanical listing structure.
There are quite a lot of options now, depending on skills and visas. Among my friends, one taught English in Japan for a year, one spent a summer picking fruit in Australia on a working-holiday visa, and one designs for Vietnamese clients from a cafe in Chiang Mai. Hospitality and farm work are the classic short-term jobs. There are also internships, exchanges, and teaching. For skilled people, short project contracts of a few months are common in technology. And remote work has created a new kind of job, where people take their work with them wherever their visa allows.
Why this band
FC“Among my friends, one taught English in Japan for a year, one spent a summer picking fruit in Australia on a working-holiday visa, and one designs for Vietnamese clients from a cafe in Chiang Mai.” — The 6.5 answer lists the three friends and stops there. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both add a colon after 'friends' and extend the sentence further with an evaluative aside, 'which is a job abroad in every sense except the employer', drawing a small conclusion from the third example rather than just stating it.
LR“There are quite a lot of options now” — This is plain, general phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more natural, slightly idiomatic 'There's quite a range now', a more compact and conversational way of opening the same claim.
GRA“For skilled people, short project contracts of a few months are common in technology.” — This is a simple sentence with one example field. The 7.5 answer extends the same sentence with a second field, 'common in technology and engineering', a small but real widening of the same structure.
Band 7.0
The evaluative aside 'which is a job abroad in every sense except the employer' adds an interpretive layer beyond the flatter listing at 6.5.
There's quite a range now, honestly, depending on skills and visas. Among my friends: one taught English in Japan for a year, one spent a summer picking fruit in Australia on a working-holiday visa, and one designs for Vietnamese clients from a café in Chiang Mai, which is a job abroad in every sense except the employer. Hospitality and seasonal farm work are the classic short-term options, and then there's internships, exchanges within companies, and teaching. For skilled people, project-based contracts of a few months are fairly common in technology and engineering. And remote work has created a whole new category of people who basically take their job with them wherever the visa allows.
Why this band
FC“one designs for Vietnamese clients from a café in Chiang Mai, which is a job abroad in every sense except the employer” — This relative clause draws a small, pointed conclusion from the example, more developed than simply listing the fact as at 6.5. The 7.5 answer keeps this exact clause, showing the two upper bands share this observation closely.
LR“basically take their job with them wherever the visa allows” — The hedge 'basically' softens this slightly compared with the 7.5 answer's plainer 'take their job with them to wherever the visa allows', showing that at 7.0 small hedges are still doing some of the conversational work that 7.5 achieves through sentence rhythm alone.
GRA“Hospitality and seasonal farm work are the classic short-term options, and then there's internships, exchanges within companies, and teaching.” — This sentence links two ideas with 'and then there's', a slightly informal but workable connector. The 7.5 answer replaces this with a cleaner list using 'then', 'then internships and exchanges within companies, teaching, and volunteering', a more compact structure without the extra verb phrase.
Band 7.5
The closing list adds 'and volunteering' as a further category, a small but real widening of scope beyond the 7.0 version's list.
Quite a range now, depending on skills and visas. Among my friends: one taught English in Japan for a year, one spent a summer picking fruit in Australia on a working-holiday visa, and one designs for Vietnamese clients from a café in Chiang Mai, which is a job abroad in every sense except the employer. Hospitality and seasonal farm work are the classic short-term options, then internships and exchanges within companies, teaching, and volunteering. For skilled people, project-based contracts of a few months are common in technology and engineering. And remote work has created a whole category of people who take their job with them to wherever the visa allows.
Why this band
FC“Quite a range now, depending on skills and visas.” — Dropping the opening subject and verb 'There's... honestly,' used at 7.0, this fragment opens the answer immediately with the key claim, a bolder, more compressed structure.
LR“and volunteering” — This additional category, absent from both lower bands, shows the 7.5 answer expanding the range of examples rather than simply rephrasing the same ones more elegantly.
GRA“then internships and exchanges within companies, teaching, and volunteering” — This is a four-item list with mixed noun phrases joined by commas and a final 'and', a more compact structure than the 7.0 answer's 'and then there's internships, exchanges within companies, and teaching', which uses an extra existential clause.
2. What are the benefits for young people of working in another country for a short time?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Ends with the plain explanatory sentence 'I think a short trip is important, because it gives you a new view', a clear but flatter closing than the fragment-based endings in the upper bands.
I think the biggest benefit is that you stop thinking your own way is the only way. A colleague came back from six months in Singapore, and now he questions everything we say like 'that's how we do it here' at our studio, which is annoying but also useful. Working abroad also builds confidence, because if you can manage a job in a second language and a different system, small problems at home stop feeling scary. There's also the language you pick up, useful contacts, and something good for your CV. I think a short trip is important, because it gives you a new view without the loneliness of really moving away.
Why this band
FC“I think the biggest benefit is that you stop thinking your own way is the only way.” — The 6.5 answer opens with the full frame 'I think the biggest benefit is'. The 7.0 answer trims this to 'I'd say the biggest benefit is', and 7.5 drops the hedge entirely, opening with the bare fragment 'The biggest is that', each version more compact than the last.
LR“small problems at home stop feeling scary” — This is plain, workable phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more specific 'an ordinary problem back home stops feeling scary' or 'an ordinary problem at home stops being scary', replacing the vague plural 'problems' with a more concrete singular example.
GRA“There's also the language you pick up, useful contacts, and something good for your CV.” — This sentence lists three benefits with mixed phrasing, workable but a little uneven. The 7.5 answer tightens this into a cleaner three-item list, 'the language, obviously, the contacts, and a line on the CV that employers notice', with more parallel, evenly weighted items.
Band 7.0
The closing sentence, 'You come back before home even stops feeling like home', adds the intensifier 'even' for extra emphasis beyond the plainer 7.5 equivalent.
I'd say the biggest benefit is that you stop assuming your own way is the only way. A colleague came back from six months in Singapore and now questions every 'that's how we do it here' in our studio, which is annoying and genuinely useful in equal measure. Working abroad also builds confidence — if you can handle a job in a second language and an unfamiliar system, an ordinary problem back home stops feeling scary. There's the language, obviously, the contacts you make, and a line on the CV that employers do notice. And short is actually important here: a few months gives you the perspective without the loneliness and cost of properly migrating. You come back before home even stops feeling like home.
Why this band
FC“I'd say the biggest benefit is” — Trimming 'I think the biggest benefit is that you stop thinking' down to 'I'd say the biggest benefit is that you stop assuming' is a more economical opening than the 6.5 version, though still fuller than the bare fragment used at 7.5.
LR“annoying and genuinely useful in equal measure” — This balanced phrase is more developed than the plain 'annoying but also useful' at 6.5, adding the evaluative 'in equal measure' to sharpen the contrast. The 7.5 answer trims this back to 'annoying and extremely useful', a punchier but less explicitly balanced version.
GRA“if you can handle a job in a second language and an unfamiliar system, an ordinary problem back home stops feeling scary” — This sentence uses a conditional 'if' clause before the main clause, a moderately complex structure. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, differing only in small word choices like 'unfamiliar' versus 'strange' and 'back home' versus 'at home'.
Band 7.5
The closing sentence, 'You come back before home stops being home', trims the 7.0 version's intensifier 'even' for a more understated, confident final line.
The biggest is that you stop thinking your way is the only way. A colleague came back from six months in Singapore and now questions every 'that's how we do it here' in our studio, which is annoying and extremely useful. Working abroad also builds confidence — if you can handle a job in a second language and a strange system, an ordinary problem at home stops being scary. There's the language, obviously, the contacts, and a line on the CV that employers notice. And short is important: a few months gives you the perspective without the loneliness and cost of migrating. You come back before home stops being home.
Why this band
FC“The biggest is that you stop thinking your way is the only way.” — This opening fragment drops both the hedge 'I'd say' and the noun 'benefit' used at 7.0, an even more compressed and assured way of stating the same claim.
LR“annoying and extremely useful” — This trimmed pairing, dropping the explanatory tag 'in equal measure' used at 7.0, lets the two adjectives sit side by side without further explanation, a more confident, economical phrasing.
GRA“You come back before home stops being home.” — This closing sentence drops the intensifier 'even' used at 7.0, ending on a simpler, more understated repetition of 'home... home' that relies on the word itself for its effect rather than added emphasis.
3. Why might some people not want to work in another country?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the full frame 'I think family is the main reason here', a plain restatement rather than the more direct opening fragments used at 7.0 and 7.5.
I think family is the main reason here, and it's often a good one. My sister turned down an internship in Seoul because our grandmother was unwell, and she didn't want to be a flight away. In a culture where caring for elders is expected, leaving can feel like you're abandoning your duty. Some people also don't want the stress of learning a new language and a new system, which is completely understandable. Others have partners, children, or a career that would lose momentum if they left. Money matters too, because working abroad can sometimes cost more than it pays once you count rent and flights.
Why this band
FC“My sister turned down an internship in Seoul because our grandmother was unwell, and she didn't want to be a flight away.” — The 6.5 answer joins the reason with a plain comma and 'and'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead attach a dash-marked cultural observation directly afterward, 'in a culture where caring for elders is expected, leaving can genuinely feel like abandoning a duty', extending the same sentence with an interpretive layer.
LR“leaving can feel like you're abandoning your duty” — This is plain, direct phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more compact 'leaving can genuinely feel like abandoning a duty' or 'leaving can feel like abandoning a duty', trimming the possessive and personal pronoun for a slightly more general, idiomatic statement.
GRA“Money matters too, because working abroad can sometimes cost more than it pays once you count rent and flights.” — This sentence uses 'because' to explain the claim, workable but fairly standard. The 7.5 answer opens with the more compact 'Money cuts both ways:' followed by a colon, a punchier and more idiomatic way of introducing the same point.
Band 7.0
The closing sentence adds 'honestly,' before the final point about people who love where they live, a small spoken touch beyond the plainer 6.5 ending.
I'd say family is the main reason here, and honestly it's often a pretty good one. My sister turned down an internship in Seoul because our grandmother was unwell and she didn't want to be a flight away — in a culture where caring for elders is expected, leaving can genuinely feel like abandoning a duty. Some people simply don't want the stress of a new language and a new system, and there's really no shame in that. Others have partners, children, or a career that would lose momentum if they left. Money cuts both ways too: working abroad can end up costing more than it pays once rent and flights are counted. And some people, honestly, just love where they live and see no reason to leave it.
Why this band
FC“I'd say family is the main reason here, and honestly it's often a pretty good one” — This opens with a hedge plus an intensified adjective, 'pretty good', a more developed and conversational opening than the plain 'I think family is the main reason here, and it's often a good one' at 6.5. The 7.5 answer drops both the hedge and the intensifier, opening simply with 'Family is the main reason here, and it's often a good one', an even more assured version.
LR“Money cuts both ways too” — This idiomatic phrase is shared closely with the 7.5 answer, both more vivid than the plainer 'Money matters too' used at 6.5.
GRA“Some people simply don't want the stress of a new language and a new system, and there's really no shame in that.” — This sentence uses 'and' to link a claim with a reassurance, moderately complex. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, dropping only 'really', showing this pattern is already close to settled by 7.0.
Band 7.5
The closing sentence, 'some people genuinely love where they live and see no reason to leave it', drops the hedge 'honestly,' used at 7.0 for a more direct final statement.
Family is the main reason here, and it's often a good one. My sister turned down an internship in Seoul because our grandmother was unwell and she didn't want to be a flight away — in a culture where caring for elders is expected, leaving can feel like abandoning a duty. Some people simply don't want the stress of a new language and a new system, and there's no shame in that. Others have partners, children, or a career that would lose momentum. Money cuts both ways: working abroad can cost more than it pays once rent and flights are counted. And some people genuinely love where they live and see no reason to leave it.
Why this band
FC“Family is the main reason here, and it's often a good one.” — This opening sentence drops both the hedge 'I'd say' and the intensifier 'honestly... pretty' used at 7.0, stating the claim with plain confidence from the very first line.
LR“Money cuts both ways:” — This economical phrase, followed directly by a colon rather than 'too' plus an explanatory 'because' clause, is a more compact and idiomatic way of introducing the same financial point than either lower band's version.
GRA“Others have partners, children, or a career that would lose momentum.” — This sentence drops the conditional 'if they left' clause used at 7.0, letting the three-item list stand on its own without extra explanation, a more economical grammatical choice than the fuller version above it.
4. What personal skills do people need in order to work for an international company?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Uses full sentences for every point, 'You also need patience with time zones... you should be willing to ask', a clear but fairly repetitive subject-verb structure.
I think the main skill is being able to read people across a culture gap without getting offended. The first blunt email from our German client felt like anger to me, and it took months to understand it was actually just care expressed efficiently. In an international company, you're translating tone all day, not just words. Clear writing matters more than perfect fluency, because most of the work happens through messages. You also need patience with time zones and slower decisions, and you should be willing to ask about things that seem obvious to everyone else. Technical skill gets you the job, but these other skills keep you there.
Why this band
FC“You also need patience with time zones and slower decisions, and you should be willing to ask about things that seem obvious to everyone else.” — The 6.5 answer keeps the full subject 'you' for both listed skills. The 7.0 answer drops the second 'you' and joins with 'and a willingness to ask', and 7.5 goes further still, presenting each skill as its own short sentence fragment, 'Patience with time zones and slower decisions. A willingness to ask...', a much more compressed, listed style.
LR“expressed efficiently” — This phrase is shared across all three bands almost exactly, showing that at this point in the answer the main differences lie in surrounding sentence structure rather than in this particular lexical choice.
GRA“Technical skill gets you the job, but these other skills keep you there.” — This sentence uses 'but' to join two short clauses, clear but simple. The 7.5 answer tightens this into a semicolon-linked sentence, 'Technical skill gets you in; these skills keep you there', dropping 'the job' and 'other' for a more compact, punchy final contrast.
Band 7.0
The closing sentence uses a semicolon, 'Technical skill gets you in the door; these other skills are what keep you there', a more developed structure than the plain 'but' clause used at 6.5.
I'd say the main one is reading people across a culture gap without taking offence. The first blunt email from our German client genuinely felt like anger to me, and it took months to realise it was simply care expressed efficiently — in an international company you're translating tone all day, not just words. Clear communication in writing matters more than fluency, honestly, because most of the work happens in messages rather than face to face. There's patience with time zones and slower decisions too, and a willingness to ask what's apparently obvious to everyone else. And I'd add a kind of humility — your way of working is just one option among several, and the company's way usually wins. Technical skill gets you in the door; these other skills are what keep you there.
Why this band
FC“There's patience with time zones and slower decisions too, and a willingness to ask what's apparently obvious to everyone else.” — This sentence drops the repeated 'you' subject used at 6.5, joining the two skills more economically with 'and'. The 7.5 answer goes further still, splitting these into two separate sentence fragments entirely, showing a bolder next step in the same direction.
LR“humility” — This abstract noun, introduced here and kept at 7.5, is more precise and reflective than simply listing another skill in a 'you need to' sentence, as the 6.5 answer effectively does throughout.
GRA“your way of working is just one option among several, and the company's way usually wins” — This sentence coordinates two clauses with 'and', a moderately complex structure. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure after a colon instead of a dash, 'your way of working is one option among several, and the company's way wins', trimming 'just' and 'usually' for a more assured, unhedged version.
Band 7.5
Breaks several skills into short standalone sentence fragments, 'Patience with time zones and slower decisions. A willingness to ask what's obvious to everyone else.', a bold, listed rhythm the lower bands don't attempt.
The main one is reading people across a culture gap without taking offence. The first blunt email from our German client felt like anger to me, and it took months to understand it was simply care expressed efficiently — in an international company you're translating tone all day, not just words. Clear communication in writing matters more than fluency, because most of the work happens in messages. Patience with time zones and slower decisions. A willingness to ask what's obvious to everyone else. And a kind of humility: your way of working is one option among several, and the company's way wins. Technical skill gets you in; these skills keep you there.
Why this band
FC“Patience with time zones and slower decisions.” — This is a verbless sentence fragment, a considerably bolder structural choice than the full subject-verb sentences used at 6.5 and 7.0, giving the list of skills a punchy, almost bullet-point rhythm.
LR“a kind of humility:” — This economical phrase, followed directly by a colon, replaces the fuller 'And I'd add a kind of humility —' used at 7.0, a more compact way of introducing the same abstract quality.
GRA“Technical skill gets you in; these skills keep you there.” — This closing sentence uses a semicolon to balance two short, mirrored clauses, dropping 'the door' and 'other' from the 7.0 equivalent for maximum economy, a more compressed and confident final structure than either lower band's ending.
5. Do you agree or disagree that practical experience is more useful than qualifications when working in an international company?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the fuller frame 'I mostly agree, but there's a catch', a clear but slightly explanatory opening compared with the more compact fragments used above 6.5.
I mostly agree, but there's a catch about what gets you in the door. My degree got me interviews, but what the German team actually asked about, and judged me on, was a live project with a foreign client, like how I handled feedback, deadlines, and a difficult stakeholder. International companies work across different systems where qualifications don't always translate, so proof that you can actually do the job matters more. That said, some fields need official qualifications by law, and many companies still use degrees just to filter people before anyone looks at experience. So qualifications open the door, and experience decides what happens once you're inside.
Why this band
FC“My degree got me interviews, but what the German team actually asked about, and judged me on, was a live project with a foreign client” — The 6.5 answer joins these ideas with 'but'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead use a semicolon, 'My degree got me the interviews; what the German team really asked about...', a tighter, more deliberate link between the two contrasting facts.
LR“proof that you can actually do the job matters more” — This is plain, workable phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more precise noun phrase 'evidence of actually doing the job' or 'evidence of doing the job', a slightly more formal and specific way of expressing the same idea.
GRA“So qualifications open the door, and experience decides what happens once you're inside.” — This sentence uses 'and' to link two balanced clauses, clear and already reasonably developed. The 7.5 answer trims this slightly to 'qualifications open the door and experience decides what happens inside', dropping 'once you're', a marginally more compact final version.
Band 7.0
The closing sentence adds 'honestly,' before the final observation about not being asked where you studied, a small spoken touch beyond the plainer 6.5 or 7.5 endings.
I mostly agree, with a caveat about what actually gets you through the door. My degree got me the interviews; what the German team really asked about, and judged me on, was a live project with a foreign client — how I'd handled feedback, deadlines, a difficult stakeholder. International companies work across systems where qualifications don't always translate cleanly, so evidence of actually doing the job is what they tend to trust most. That said, some fields require credentials by law, and plenty of companies still use degrees as an initial filter before anyone even looks at experience. So qualifications open the door, and experience decides what happens once you're inside. Ten years in, honestly, nobody really asks where you studied.
Why this band
FC“My degree got me the interviews; what the German team really asked about, and judged me on, was a live project with a foreign client” — This semicolon-linked sentence is nearly identical to the 7.5 answer, both tighter than the 'but'-joined version at 6.5, showing this particular structural upgrade is already locked in by 7.0.
LR“evidence of actually doing the job is what they tend to trust most” — The hedge 'tend to' and intensifier 'most' here make this slightly softer and more qualified than the 7.5 answer's plainer, more assured 'evidence of doing the job is what they trust'.
GRA“That said, some fields require credentials by law, and plenty of companies still use degrees as an initial filter before anyone even looks at experience.” — This sentence uses 'and' to join two related claims, each with its own qualifying detail, a well-developed structure. The 7.5 answer achieves an almost identical structure, trimming 'still', 'initial', and 'even' for a more economical final version.
Band 7.5
The closing sentence, 'Ten years in, nobody asks where you studied', drops the hedge 'honestly,' used at 7.0 for a blunter, more confident final line.
Mostly agree, with a caveat about the door. My degree got me interviews; what the German team actually asked about, and what they judged me on, was a live project with a foreign client — how I'd handled feedback, deadlines, a difficult stakeholder. International companies work across systems where qualifications don't always translate, so evidence of doing the job is what they trust. That said, some fields require credentials by law, and many companies use degrees as a filter before anyone looks at experience. So qualifications open the door and experience decides what happens inside. Ten years in, nobody asks where you studied.
Why this band
FC“Mostly agree, with a caveat about the door.” — This opening fragment drops the subject 'I' and the connector 'but there's' used at 6.5, and even trims the fuller 'what actually gets you through the door' used at 7.0 down to the bare noun phrase 'about the door', the most compact of the three openings.
LR“evidence of doing the job is what they trust” — This trimmed phrase, dropping 'tend to' and 'most' from the 7.0 equivalent, states the claim with more direct confidence, letting the simple verb 'trust' carry the full weight.
GRA“Ten years in, nobody asks where you studied.” — This closing sentence drops the hedge 'honestly,' and the intensifier 'really' used at 7.0, ending on a flat, confident statement that lets the claim stand without any softening.
6. How important might it be in the future for an international company to understand the cultures of other countries?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the full frame 'I think it will become more important, not less', a clear but fuller opening than the fragment-based versions used at 7.0 and 7.5.
I think it will become more important, not less, even though the world looks more similar everywhere. A foreign delivery app entered Vietnam a few years ago with a product built for cars and card payments, in a country that mostly uses motorbikes and cash, and it was gone within two years. That was a cultural mistake, not a technical one. Global companies now sell into markets whose habits they don't fully understand, and technology makes entering a market easy but understanding it hard. Cultural knowledge also matters inside a company, as teams spread across different countries and sometimes misread each other. I think the companies that win are the ones that hire locally and actually listen.
Why this band
FC“it was gone within two years. That was a cultural mistake, not a technical one.” — The 6.5 answer separates the app's failure and its interpretation into two sentences. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead join them with a dash, 'it was gone within two years — a cultural mistake, not a technical one', folding the interpretation directly into the same sentence.
LR“technology makes entering a market easy but understanding it hard” — This is workable but slightly repetitive phrasing, repeating 'it'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both trim this to 'technology makes entering easy while understanding stays hard' or 'technology makes entering easy and understanding hard', dropping the repeated object for a more compact, parallel structure.
GRA“I think the companies that win are the ones that hire locally and actually listen.” — This sentence uses two relative clauses joined by 'that', workable but a little heavy. The 7.5 answer trims this to 'The companies that win seem to be the ones that hire locally and listen', dropping 'actually' for a slightly more economical final clause.
Band 7.0
The closing sentence, 'Assuming everyone wants what worked back home is getting more expensive, not less', adds a comparative twist beyond the plainer final sentence at 6.5.
I'd say it'll become more important, not less, even as the world looks more and more similar on the surface. A foreign delivery app entered Vietnam a few years ago with a product built for cars and card payments, in a country of motorbikes and cash, and it was gone within two years — a cultural mistake, not a technical one. Global companies now sell into markets whose habits they don't actually share, and technology makes entering easy while understanding stays hard. Cultural knowledge also matters internally, as teams spread across countries and often misread each other. The companies that seem to win are generally the ones that hire locally and genuinely listen. Assuming everyone wants what worked back home is getting more expensive, not less.
Why this band
FC“Global companies now sell into markets whose habits they don't actually share” — This relative clause uses the more reflective 'don't actually share' rather than the plainer 'don't fully understand' at 6.5, a subtly more precise way of describing the mismatch. The 7.5 answer trims the intensifier 'actually', 'whose habits they don't share', an even more economical version.
LR“technology makes entering easy while understanding stays hard” — This phrase is close to but slightly more developed than the 7.5 answer's 'technology makes entering easy and understanding hard', using 'while... stays' instead of a simple 'and', a marginally more reflective contrast.
GRA“The companies that seem to win are generally the ones that hire locally and genuinely listen.” — This sentence uses two hedges, 'seem to' and 'generally', alongside the intensifier 'genuinely', a fairly cautious, qualified structure. The 7.5 answer strips these hedges back to a single 'seem to be', a more confident, streamlined version of the same claim.
Band 7.5
The closing sentence, 'Assuming everyone wants what worked at home is increasingly expensive', trims the 7.0 version's 'getting more expensive, not less' into a single, more economical adjective.
More important, not less, even as the world looks more similar. A foreign delivery app entered Vietnam a few years ago with a product built for cars and card payments, in a country of motorbikes and cash, and it was gone within two years — a cultural mistake, not a technical one. Global companies now sell into markets whose habits they don't share, and technology makes entering easy and understanding hard. Cultural knowledge also matters internally, as teams spread across countries and misread each other. The companies that win seem to be the ones that hire locally and listen. Assuming everyone wants what worked at home is increasingly expensive.
Why this band
FC“More important, not less, even as the world looks more similar.” — This opening fragment drops the subject and hedge 'I'd say it'll become' used at 7.0, stating the comparative claim immediately and starkly from the very first words.
LR“increasingly expensive” — This single compact adjective phrase replaces the fuller 'getting more expensive, not less' used at 7.0, a more economical way of expressing the same idea without the extra negative clause.
GRA“The companies that win seem to be the ones that hire locally and listen.” — This sentence trims the double hedge 'seem to... generally' and the intensifier 'genuinely' used at 7.0 down to a single 'seem to be', a more confident and economical grammatical structure.
7. Do you think the location of the workplace will become increasingly irrelevant because of advances in technology?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with the fuller frame 'I think location will become less important, but not completely irrelevant', a clear but wordier version than the fragment-based openings used above 6.5.
I think location will become less important, but not completely irrelevant. A year of video calls with the Berlin team has actually been quite productive, and the tools will only get better. But the reason I still want to go there is that a year of calls left me knowing what they decide, but not how they decide it, like the arguments before the meeting or the mood in the room. Some work will become completely location-free, and for routine collaboration, location barely matters already. But for trust, creativity, and learning a culture, being in the room still does something a screen can't.
Why this band
FC“But the reason I still want to go there is that a year of calls left me knowing what they decide, but not how they decide it, like the arguments before the meeting or the mood in the room.” — The 6.5 answer explains the missing detail with 'but not how they decide it, like'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers instead use a dash followed by a three-item list, 'the arguments before the meeting, the sketch on a napkin, the mood in the room', a punchier, more itemised structure.
LR“Some work will become completely location-free” — This is plain, functional phrasing. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both use the more vivid, idiomatic 'float free of place entirely', a metaphor suggesting weightlessness rather than a flat compound adjective.
GRA“But for trust, creativity, and learning a culture, being in the room still does something a screen can't.” — This sentence uses a fronted prepositional phrase before the main clause, a moderately complex structure already present at 6.5. The 7.5 answer keeps an almost identical structure, showing this particular grammatical pattern is already well formed even at the lower band, with the main gains elsewhere in the answer.
Band 7.0
The closing sentence, 'My guess is a future where location is optional most weeks and essential a few times a year', gives the ending a confident, specific prediction beyond the vaguer 6.5 closing.
I'd say less relevant, but not irrelevant. A year of video calls with the Berlin team has been genuinely productive, and honestly the tools will only keep improving. But the whole reason I still want to go there is that a year of calls left me knowing what they decide and not really how — the arguments before the meeting, the sketch on a napkin, the mood in the room. Some work will probably float free of place entirely, and for routine collaboration location already barely matters. But for trust, creativity, and actually learning a culture, being physically in the room still does something a screen just can't. My guess is a future where location is optional most weeks and essential a few times a year.
Why this band
FC“But the whole reason I still want to go there is that a year of calls left me knowing what they decide and not really how” — The word 'whole' and the hedge 'really' here add a touch of emphasis and softening not present in the 6.5 or 7.5 versions, showing 7.0 sitting between a flatter statement and the fully unhedged 7.5 version.
LR“the sketch on a napkin” — This vivid, specific detail, absent from the 6.5 answer's more general 'arguments before the meeting', is shared closely with the 7.5 answer, both adding a concrete, memorable image to the list.
GRA“Some work will probably float free of place entirely, and for routine collaboration location already barely matters.” — This sentence hedges with 'probably' before the vivid metaphor, a moderately cautious structure. The 7.5 answer drops 'probably' entirely, 'Some work will float free of place entirely', a more confident, unhedged version of the same claim.
Band 7.5
The compact opening, 'Less relevant, yes; irrelevant, no', uses a semicolon-linked pair of short answers, a bolder structure than the fuller opening sentences used at 6.5 and 7.0.
Less relevant, yes; irrelevant, no. A year of video calls with the Berlin team has been genuinely productive, and the tools will only improve. But the whole reason I want to go there is that a year of calls left me knowing what they decide and not how — the arguments before the meeting, the sketch on a napkin, the mood in the room. Some work will float free of place entirely, and for routine collaboration location already barely matters. For trust, creativity and learning a culture, being in the room still does something a screen can't. My guess is a future where location is optional most weeks and essential a few times a year.
Why this band
FC“Less relevant, yes; irrelevant, no.” — This semicolon-linked pair of two-word answers is the most compact of the three openings, dropping the hedge 'I'd say' used at 7.0 and the fuller explanatory sentence used at 6.5 entirely.
LR“float free of place entirely” — This vivid metaphor matches the 7.0 answer closely, both well beyond the plain 'completely location-free' used at 6.5, showing this image is already locked in by 7.0.
GRA“Some work will float free of place entirely, and for routine collaboration location already barely matters.” — This sentence drops the hedge 'probably' used at 7.0, stating the prediction with full confidence, a slightly more assured grammatical and rhetorical choice than the hedged version above it.
8. Do you think there is a need for international companies to become more environmentally friendly?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Closes with the fuller sentence 'Where I'm a bit sceptical is the gap between what companies announce and what they actually do', without the sharper final contrast used at 7.5.
Yes, I think there is a need, and the pressure is coming from customers and staff just as much as from the law. The German team I work with won't ship anything physical if they can send it digitally instead, and they even questioned whether my exchange trip was worth the flight. That attitude is becoming normal in their market, and companies that ignore it lose both talent and clients. International companies have a bigger impact because of their supply chains and travel, so their choices matter more than most. They also have the money to change first. Where I'm a bit sceptical is the gap between what companies announce and what they actually do.
Why this band
FC“Where I'm a bit sceptical is the gap between what companies announce and what they actually do.” — The 6.5 answer ends here, on this single reflective sentence. The 7.0 answer extends it with a semicolon and an extra observation, 'a lot of green reports just describe business as usual', and 7.5 adds a further two-clause final sentence after that, each version pushing the ending further than the last.
LR“won't ship anything physical if they can send it digitally instead” — This is workable but slightly wordy phrasing with 'if... instead'. The 7.0 and 7.5 answers both trim this to 'won't ship anything physical they can send digitally', a tighter relative clause without the extra conditional structure.
GRA“International companies have a bigger impact because of their supply chains and travel, so their choices matter more than most.” — This sentence uses 'because of' plus 'so', a workable but fairly standard cause-effect structure. The 7.5 answer tightens this to 'International companies have outsized impact through supply chains and travel, so their choices matter more than most', replacing 'a bigger impact because of' with the more compact 'outsized impact through'.
Band 7.0
The closing semicolon sentence, 'a lot of green reports just describe business as usual', extends the ending further than the single sentence used at 6.5.
Yes, and honestly the pressure is coming from customers and staff just as much as from the law these days. The German team I work with won't ship anything physical they can send digitally, and they even questioned whether my exchange trip was really worth the flight — that attitude is becoming pretty normal in their market, and companies that ignore it start losing both talent and clients. International companies have an outsized impact through supply chains and travel, so their choices genuinely matter more than most people's do. They also have the resources to change first, which is a real advantage. Where I'm a bit sceptical, though, is the gap between what companies announce and how they actually behave; a lot of green reports just describe business as usual.
Why this band
FC“that attitude is becoming pretty normal in their market, and companies that ignore it start losing both talent and clients” — This sentence links two clauses with 'and', developed further with the intensifier 'pretty' and the verb 'start losing' rather than the simpler 'lose' used at 7.5, showing a slightly more hedged, gradual framing of the same claim.
LR“an outsized impact” — This precise, slightly technical adjective is shared closely with the 7.5 answer, both more specific than the vaguer 'a bigger impact' used at 6.5.
GRA“Where I'm a bit sceptical, though, is the gap between what companies announce and how they actually behave; a lot of green reports just describe business as usual.” — This sentence uses a semicolon to attach a further supporting observation to the main reflective clause, more developed than the single sentence at 6.5. The 7.5 answer extends this pattern even further with an additional final sentence after this one, showing the ending can keep building in layers as the band rises.
Band 7.5
The final two-part sentence, 'The need is real; whether the response is honest varies enormously', adds a further closing layer beyond the single semicolon sentence used at 7.0.
Yes, and the pressure is coming from customers and staff as much as from law. The German team I work with won't ship anything physical they can send digitally and questioned whether my exchange trip was worth the flight — that attitude is becoming normal in their market, and companies that ignore it lose talent and clients. International companies have outsized impact through supply chains and travel, so their choices matter more than most. They also have the resources to change first. Where I'm sceptical is the gap between announcements and behaviour; a lot of green reports cover business as usual. The need is real; whether the response is honest varies enormously.
Why this band
FC“questioned whether my exchange trip was worth the flight” — This trimmed clause, dropping 'even' and 'really' from the 7.0 equivalent, states the fact with more direct confidence, letting the detail itself carry the weight without extra emphasis.
LR“outsized impact” — This precise adjective matches the 7.0 answer exactly, both clearly more specific than the vaguer 'a bigger impact' used at 6.5, showing this lexical choice is already settled by 7.0.
GRA“The need is real; whether the response is honest varies enormously.” — This final sentence adds a further semicolon-linked contrast after the one already used earlier in the answer, a more layered and rhetorically deliberate closing structure than the single final sentence used to end 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 Place in Another Country Where You Would Like to Work for a Short Time", examiners have asked 8 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.