IELTS Speaking Part 2

A Problem You Had With Some Technology

Most recently asked in Sep–Dec 2026In use now

The cue card

Describe a problem you had with some technology, for example a computer or a phone.

You should say:

  • what the technology was
  • what problem you had
  • whether you fixed the problem
  • and explain how you felt about this problem you had with some technology.

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

Concrete but plain description ('the internet light on the router kept blinking red') and a simple but-clause keep the narrative clear without added complexity, Band 6.5 level.

The technology I want to talk about is my home Wi-Fi router. This happened about six months ago, on a Sunday evening. I work from home sometimes, and I needed to send some design files to a client before Monday morning.

The problem was that the router just stopped working. There was a big storm that night, with a lot of rain and thunder, and I think the power went off and on very quickly. After that, the internet light on the router kept blinking red, and no device in my apartment could connect. I tried turning it off and on again many times, but nothing changed.

I didn't fix it myself, actually, because I don't know much about routers. I called my colleague Khánh, and she told me to go to a twenty-four-hour coffee shop near Dragon Bridge, which has free and fast Wi-Fi. So I packed my laptop and worked there until almost midnight, and I managed to send the files on time.

Did I fix the real problem? Not that night. The next day I called the internet company, and a technician came and changed the router for a new one. It has worked well since then, but now I always keep a backup 4G data plan on my phone, just in case it happens again.

219 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

  • GRA“I tried turning it off and on again many times, but nothing changed.” — Two simple clauses are joined with "but," a basic and completely accurate coordinating structure that contrasts the attempted fix with its failure. There's no subordination here at all, no because, when, or relative clause, which keeps this squarely within the mostly-simple-sentences profile the 6.5 grammar descriptor describes. It's a natural way to report a frustrating, repetitive troubleshooting attempt, even if the sentence-building itself stays basic.
  • FC“now I always keep a backup 4G data plan on my phone, just in case it happens again.” — The answer resolves with a plain statement of the new habit adopted, without any reflection on what the incident taught the speaker more broadly about relying on a single connection. A 6.5 response is allowed to end this directly, giving one clear resolution rather than a developed insight; a 7.0 or 7.5 version might add a short evaluative comment about how the storm exposed a hidden weakness. It matches the story's overall practical, matter-of-fact tone.
  • LR“the internet light on the router kept blinking red” — This is concrete, visual, everyday vocabulary — "light," "blinking," "red" — describing exactly what the speaker saw, without reaching for a more technical term like "signal indicator" or "fault light." It's accurate and easy to picture, which is all 6.5 needs, but it stays at the plainest available wording rather than the flexible, topic-specific phrase a 7.0 answer might use instead. It also grounds the otherwise abstract "router stopped working" claim in a specific, observable detail.
Band 7.0

The listed sequence 'show the logo, go black, and then start up again, on a loop that never actually finished' plus the reflective aside 'which I'm slightly ashamed to admit' show natural, accurate development typical of Band 7.0.

The technology I want to talk about is my smartphone. This happened about eight months ago, not long after I'd updated the operating system to the newest version, which in hindsight was probably a mistake.

The problem was that, a couple of days after updating, my phone suddenly got stuck restarting itself over and over — it would show the logo, go black, and then start up again, on a loop that never actually finished. I tried holding down the buttons to force restart it several times, which is usually my go-to fix for most phone problems, but nothing worked this time.

It was a fairly stressful evening, to be honest, because I had important messages and some work files saved only on that phone, and I hadn't backed anything up recently, which I'm slightly ashamed to admit.

I didn't manage to fix it myself in the end. I took it to a repair shop near my office the next morning, and the technician explained that the update had likely corrupted some system files. He was able to reset the phone and recover most of my data, although a few recent photos were lost for good.

Since then, I've become a lot more careful — I now back my phone up to the cloud automatically every night, and I wait at least a couple of weeks before installing any new software update, just to see whether other people run into problems first. It was an annoying experience at the time, but it did teach me a lesson I probably needed to learn anyway.

263 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

  • GRA“it would show the logo, go black, and then start up again, on a loop that never actually finished” — The sentence lists three coordinated actions and then attaches a relative clause, "on a loop that never actually finished," describing the pattern as a whole, combining coordination and subordination in one accurate structure. This is the comfortable complex-sentence mix the 7.0 descriptor calls for, more ambitious than a plain list but not layering in a conditional or cleft sentence the way a 7.5 answer might. It also mimics the repetitive, frustrating nature of the boot loop it's describing, since the sentence itself cycles through the same three actions.
  • FC“which I'm slightly ashamed to admit” — This short aside adds a personal, slightly self-deprecating comment about not backing up the phone, rather than just stating the fact and moving on. It's the kind of natural spoken interjection that develops the answer emotionally, which is what the 7.0 fluency descriptor asks for beyond plain narration; a 6.5 answer would likely just state "I hadn't backed anything up" without commentary. It also foreshadows the more careful backup habit described later in the answer.
  • LR“corrupted some system files” — "Corrupted system files" is a topic-specific collocation from everyday tech vocabulary — not rare, but more precise than a vaguer phrase like "something went wrong inside the phone" — used accurately in the mouth of the repair technician being quoted. This fits the 7.0 target of a few flexible, topic-specific words rather than only high-frequency ones; a 6.5 speaker might avoid the technical phrase altogether and just say "broke." It's also plausible reported speech, since it's exactly the kind of explanation a real technician would give.
Band 7.5

The hyperbolic 'the worst icon in the world' and the cleft sentence 'What I actually fixed was myself' show the lexical and grammatical sophistication of Band 7.5.

The problem I'd describe happened with my laptop, about a year ago, at eleven o'clock the night before the biggest client pitch our studio had that year. I was doing a final pass on the presentation, the screen froze, and when I restarted it I got a small grey folder with a question mark on it, which anyone who's owned that kind of laptop will recognise as the worst icon in the world.

The problem, I found out later, was that the solid-state drive had simply died — no warning, no strange noises, just a component that decided its time was up. Everything on that machine was unreachable: the presentation, the design files, the notes I'd made after three meetings with the client.

What I did first was panic quietly for about ten minutes, then think. The design files were synced to the cloud, and I was fairly sure the deck was too, though I hadn't checked in days. So at midnight I walked to a twenty-four-hour café on Bạch Đằng street, borrowed a laptop from a friend who I woke up with a phone call, and logged into everything from there. The deck was in the cloud, but the version from that afternoon, missing my evening's work. I rebuilt those slides between one and four in the morning, drinking coffee I didn't need, with a taxi driver asleep at the next table.

Did I fix it? The pitch, yes — we presented at nine, on my friend's laptop, and we won the project. The laptop, no; the drive was replaced a week later at a repair shop and the old data was gone for good. What I actually fixed was myself. I now back up automatically, every hour, to two places, and I check that it's working, which is the part I'd skipped before. I also learned that the café makes surprisingly good coffee at three in the morning, which is knowledge I hope never to need again.

329 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

  • GRA“What I actually fixed was myself.” — This is a cleft sentence built around "What I actually fixed was...", a structure that isolates and emphasises the unexpected answer (himself, not the laptop) far more forcefully than a plain statement would -- exactly the kind of sophisticated, less-common structure the 7.5 grammar descriptor names specifically (a cleft sentence). Its brevity is also part of its effect: four words land as the turning point of the whole story, immediately after the preceding rhetorical question-and-answer about the pitch and the laptop. A Band 6.5 or 7.0 speaker would be unlikely to attempt this structure at all, defaulting instead to straightforward statement.
  • LR“the worst icon in the world” — This is a deliberately hyperbolic, idiomatic exaggeration rather than a literal claim, used for comic effect about a small grey folder icon signalling a dead hard drive -- a register move a Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would be unlikely to risk, more probably describing the icon neutrally. The humour also does real communicative work: it signals to the listener that this is a moment of dark comedy in an otherwise stressful story, matching the tone the speaker keeps throughout (the taxi driver asleep at the café, the coffee "I didn't need"). Its casual superlative form also mimics natural spoken exaggeration rather than sounding written or formal.
  • FC“with a taxi driver asleep at the next table” — Rather than simply stating the time and place of the emergency laptop repair, this small, oddly specific detail -- a stranger asleep nearby at 3am -- develops the narrative with a vivid, memorable image that adds atmosphere without advancing the plot, exactly the kind of fluency-building detail the 7.5 descriptor rewards over plain description. A Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would likely omit incidental details like this in favour of just reporting the sequence of actions. It also reinforces the late-night, slightly surreal mood of the whole crisis, which pays off in the closing joke about the café's coffee.

How this card was asked, by exam period

  • Describe a problem you had with some technology, for example a computer or a phone.Sep–Dec 2026
  • Describe a problem you had with some technology, for example a computer or a phoneMay–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. 1. What types of modern technology do many people use in their homes?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with a plain general claim and lists examples with simple connectors like 'and' and 'also', giving one concrete household example throughout.

    People use a lot of technology at home now. My parents' flat in Hue has a smart TV they mostly use for karaoke, a rice cooker with an app my father has never opened, and a robot vacuum they call 'the dog'. Nobody in the house really understands the router either. Most homes now have phones and a laptop, a smart TV, and kitchen machines that are more powerful than old computers. Many people also have smart speakers, cameras, and lights, plus air conditioning with a remote. Most of this technology is only used a little, which says something.

    Why this band

    • FC“Nobody in the house really understands the router either.” — This separate additive sentence, with 'either' tacked on at the end, adds a point without linking it grammatically to the sentences around it.
    • LR“which says something” — This is a plain, generic closing phrase. A higher band would extend it with a more specific evaluative tag rather than leaving it this bare.
    • GRA“Most homes now have phones and a laptop, a smart TV, and kitchen machines that are more powerful than old computers.” — This is a simple listing sentence built with commas and 'and', the most basic way of presenting several items.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with 'Honestly, far more than most people realise' and closes with the hedge 'I'd say', showing more natural reflection than the 6.5 answer's flatter listing.

    Honestly, far more than most people realise until they actually list it out. My parents' flat in Hue has a smart TV they mainly use for karaoke, a rice cooker with an app my father has never once opened, and a robot vacuum they've nicknamed 'the dog' — and nobody in the household really understands the router. That's fairly typical of an ordinary home now: phones and a laptop at the centre, a television that's really a computer, kitchen appliances with more processing power than my first PC. Increasingly there are smart speakers, cameras and bulbs too. Most of it, I'd say, gets used at a fraction of its real capability.

    Why this band

    • FC“That's fairly typical of an ordinary home now” — This transition sentence steps back to generalise from the specific example, organising the answer more deliberately than the 6.5 answer's flat listing.
    • LR“kitchen appliances with more processing power than my first PC” — This is a moderately vivid comparison, more specific and natural than the plain phrasing used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“a robot vacuum they've nicknamed 'the dog' — and nobody in the household really understands the router” — The dash links two ideas into a single longer sentence, a more complex structure than the separate short sentences typical of 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer uses the more formal phrase 'pressed into service' for the TV's use, a long appositive-heavy sentence, and closes with the reflective tag 'which says something in itself', showing its most compressed, idiomatic style.

    Far more than people tend to realise until they actually sit down and list it. My parents' flat in Hue alone has a smart TV pressed into service mainly for karaoke, a rice cooker with an app my father has never once opened, and a robot vacuum the household has affectionately nicknamed 'the dog' — with nobody quite understanding the router. That's more or less the norm now: phones and a laptop at the centre of everything, a television that's basically a computer, and kitchen appliances boasting more processing power than the first PC I ever used. Smart speakers, cameras and bulbs are creeping in too, alongside remote-controlled air conditioning and electric motorbikes charging in the hallway. Most of it runs at a fraction of its real capability, which says something in itself.

    Why this band

    • FC“which says something in itself” — This reflective evaluative closing tag echoes but extends the plainer 6.5 closing, adding a self-aware final beat to the answer.
    • LR“pressed into service mainly for karaoke” — This idiomatic phrase is more vivid and less common than the plain 'mostly use for karaoke' used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“a smart TV pressed into service mainly for karaoke, a rice cooker with an app my father has never once opened, and a robot vacuum the household has affectionately nicknamed 'the dog'” — This long appositive list, built from parallel noun phrases, compresses three separate ideas into a single flowing sentence, more complex than the simple listing sentence used at 6.5.

  2. 2. Why do people often want to buy the latest technology for their homes?

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

    The 6.5 answer states the main reason directly and lists further reasons with simple connectors like 'And' and 'also', giving one plain concrete example.

    It's rarely because the old device stopped working. My cousin replaced a television that still worked well last year, just because his brother-in-law bought a bigger one. Status is a big reason — a new device shows that you are doing well. Sometimes there is a real improvement too, like a better phone camera, and companies are very good at making this feel necessary. Some people also just enjoy new things, like opening the box. And devices are made to become old, with slow software and batteries that stop working well, so 'latest' often just means 'working properly'.

    Why this band

    • FC“And devices are made to become old, with slow software and batteries that stop working well, so 'latest' often just means 'working properly'.” — This final point, added with 'And', is a plain, tacked-on additive structure rather than being integrated with the surrounding argument.
    • LR“a new device shows that you are doing well” — This is plain phrasing for describing status signalling, functional but not particularly vivid.
    • GRA“My cousin replaced a television that still worked well last year, just because his brother-in-law bought a bigger one.” — This is a simple sentence built around a single 'because' clause, the most basic way of giving a reason.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with 'Rarely, honestly' and adds the reflective aside 'and he'll admit that if you push him on it', showing more natural personal commentary than the 6.5 version.

    Rarely, honestly, because the old one actually stopped working. My cousin replaced a perfectly good television last year purely because his brother-in-law had bought a bigger one, and he'll admit that if you push him on it. Status seems to be a major driver — a new device signals that you're doing well. There's genuine improvement too, of course; a sharper phone camera really does make life a little better, and marketing is remarkably good at making that improvement feel essential. Devices are also designed to age, with software that slows and batteries that fade, so 'latest' often just means 'actually still works'.

    Why this band

    • FC“and he'll admit that if you push him on it” — This reflective personal aside, added mid-sentence, goes beyond the plain factual statement used for the same anecdote at 6.5.
    • LR“marketing is remarkably good at making that improvement feel essential” — This is a natural, more fluent collocation than the plainer phrasing used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“a sharper phone camera really does make life a little better, and marketing is remarkably good at making that improvement feel essential” — This sentence coordinates two independent clauses with 'and', each internally complex, a longer structure than the simple sentences typical of 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer uses the vivid phrase 'age gracefully out of usefulness' and closes with the compressed asyndetic list 'Need, status, pleasure and planned obsolescence, roughly in that order of honesty', showing its most idiomatic, economical phrasing.

    Rarely because the old one gave up, honestly. My cousin replaced a perfectly good television last year purely because his brother-in-law had bought a bigger one, something he'll happily admit if you press him on it. Status is a significant driver here — a new device is essentially a quiet signal that you're doing well. There's genuine improvement mixed in too: a sharper phone camera or a quieter air conditioner genuinely does make life better, and marketing is remarkably skilled at making that improvement feel indispensable. Some people simply enjoy novelty for its own sake; unboxing is a small, harmless pleasure. And devices are engineered to age gracefully out of usefulness, with software that slows and batteries that fade, so 'latest' often just means 'still works as advertised'. Need, status, pleasure and planned obsolescence, roughly in that order of honesty.

    Why this band

    • FC“Need, status, pleasure and planned obsolescence, roughly in that order of honesty.” — This compact closing list summarises the whole answer's argument in a single phrase, a synthesising move not attempted at the lower bands.
    • LR“engineered to age gracefully out of usefulness” — This is a vivid, idiomatic phrase, more striking than the plain 'made to become old' used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“something he'll happily admit if you press him on it” — This non-restrictive appositive clause, modifying the previous noun phrase, is a compressed structure more flexible than the coordinated sentence used for a similar idea at 7.0.

  3. 3. Is it possible to live without a computer at home?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with a direct 'Yes, it is possible' and lists supporting points with simple connectors like 'but' and 'because', giving one clear personal example.

    Yes, it is possible, and quite common, if we don't count a phone as a computer, which is a bit of a stretch. My grandmother has never owned a computer and manages fine, but her phone does her banking, video calls, and news, and it is actually more powerful than the computer I used to study. Without any computer or phone, life is getting harder every year, because forms, tickets, and school notices now expect you to be online. For someone retired with family nearby, this is fine. But for a student or working adult, it is almost impossible today.

    Why this band

    • FC“For someone retired with family nearby, this is fine.” — This is a short, separate sentence stating a simple conclusion, typical of the plain, step-by-step style at 6.5.
    • LR“it is actually more powerful than the computer I used to study” — This is plain comparative phrasing, functional but not especially vivid.
    • GRA“Without any computer or phone, life is getting harder every year, because forms, tickets, and school notices now expect you to be online.” — This uses a single simple 'because' clause to explain the claim, the most basic tool for giving a reason.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with the hedge 'as long as you don't count a phone as a computer — which, honestly, is a bit of a stretch' and closes with the reflective claim about the computer being 'how most of ordinary life arrives', more natural than the 6.5 version's plainer phrasing.

    Possible, and fairly common, as long as you don't count a phone as a computer — which, honestly, is a bit of a stretch. My grandmother has never owned one and manages perfectly well, but her phone handles her banking, video calls and news, and it's arguably a more powerful computer than the one I studied on. Without any computing device at all, though, it gets harder every year: forms, tickets, school notices and appointments increasingly assume you're online. For someone retired with family close by, it works fine. For a student or a working adult, it's close to impossible — the computer isn't really a luxury in the home anymore, it's how most of ordinary life arrives.

    Why this band

    • FC“which, honestly, is a bit of a stretch” — This mid-sentence spoken hedge acknowledges a definitional issue in passing, showing more reflection than the flat statement used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • LR“it's arguably a more powerful computer than the one I studied on” — This is a moderately more natural comparative phrasing, using the hedge 'arguably' to soften the claim.
    • GRA“Without any computing device at all, though, it gets harder every year: forms, tickets, school notices and appointments increasingly assume you're online.” — This colon-linked list clause, with a mid-sentence 'though', is more complex than the simple 'because' clause used at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer uses the vivid imperative-style opening 'Strip away any computing device entirely, though, and life gets harder', and closes with the extended metaphor of the computer as 'the door through which most of ordinary life now arrives', showing its most vivid, idiomatic phrasing.

    Possible, and reasonably common, provided you don't count a phone as a computer, which is admittedly a bit of a stretch. My grandmother has never owned one and gets by perfectly well, yet her phone handles her banking, video calls and news, and it's arguably a more powerful computer than the one I studied on years ago. Strip away any computing device entirely, though, and life gets harder with every passing year: forms, tickets, school notices and appointments increasingly assume you're already online. For someone retired with family nearby, that's a perfectly workable arrangement. For a student or a working adult, it's close to unimaginable — the computer isn't a luxury tucked away in the home anymore; it's the door through which most of ordinary life now arrives.

    Why this band

    • FC“Strip away any computing device entirely, though, and life gets harder with every passing year” — This imperative-style conditional opening ('Strip away...and...') is a more dramatic framing device than the plain 'Without...' phrasing used for the same idea at 6.5 and 7.0.
    • LR“gets by perfectly well” — This is a natural, idiomatic phrase, more vivid than the plain 'manages fine' used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“it's the door through which most of ordinary life now arrives” — This relative clause uses a fronted preposition ('through which'), a more formal, compressed structure than the simpler equivalent clause used at 7.0.

  4. 4. What are the benefits for students of using technology in education?

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

    The 6.5 answer gives a direct claim ('the biggest benefit is that technology can adapt to each student') and lists further points with 'also' and 'It', a simple additive structure.

    I think the biggest benefit is that technology can adapt to each student. My niece learns fractions from an app, and when she gets one wrong, it gives her three more of the same type. My own teacher in Hue taught forty of us at the same speed and just hoped it worked. Technology also gives access to things a school cannot provide, like lectures from anywhere or dangerous experiments done safely as a simulation. It makes practice cheap and fast, which is how most skills are really learned. It also prepares students for a working life that uses screens all the time.

    Why this band

    • FC“It also prepares students for a working life that uses screens all the time.” — This separate additive sentence, starting with 'It also', is tacked onto the list rather than integrated into a longer, more complex structure.
    • LR“just hoped it worked” — This is plain, informal phrasing, functional but not particularly precise.
    • GRA“My niece learns fractions from an app, and when she gets one wrong, it gives her three more of the same type.” — This combines a simple coordinated 'and' clause with a basic 'when' clause, standard tools at this band.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with 'Honestly, the biggest benefit' and uses 'whereas' to build its central contrast, a more complex structure than the 6.5 answer's separate sentences for the same comparison.

    Honestly, the biggest benefit is that it can adapt to the individual learner. My niece learns fractions from an app that notices when she gets one wrong and quietly gives her three more of the same type, whereas my own teacher in Hue taught forty of us at one fixed speed and simply hoped for the best. Technology also opens up material a school could never stock on its own — lectures from anywhere, simulations of things too dangerous or expensive to try in real life, languages spoken with a genuine accent. It makes practice cheap and instant, which is really how most skills get built. And it prepares students for a working life that will be mediated almost entirely by screens.

    Why this band

    • FC“And it prepares students for a working life that will be mediated almost entirely by screens.” — This closing sentence, beginning with 'And', extends the point with more elaborate phrasing than the plain equivalent sentence used at 6.5.
    • LR“quietly gives her three more of the same type” — This natural adverb-plus-verb phrasing is more fluent than the plain wording used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“whereas my own teacher in Hue taught forty of us at one fixed speed and simply hoped for the best” — The subordinating conjunction 'whereas' builds an explicit contrast clause, more complex than the separate sentences used for the same comparison at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer uses the vivid phrase 'unlocks material no school could ever stock on its own shelves' and closes with the compact contrastive sentence naming 'the feedback loop', showing its most idiomatic, tightly organised phrasing.

    The biggest benefit, honestly, is that it can adapt to the individual learner rather than the average one. My niece learns fractions from an app that quietly notices when she gets one wrong and serves up three more of the same type, whereas my own teacher in Hue taught forty of us at a single fixed speed and simply hoped for the best. Technology also unlocks material no school could ever stock on its own shelves — lectures from anywhere, simulations of things too dangerous or expensive to attempt for real, languages spoken with a genuine accent rather than a textbook one. It makes practice cheap and instant, which is how most skills actually get built. It also readies students for a working life that will be mediated almost entirely by screens. The real benefit, ultimately, isn't the device itself; it's the feedback loop the device makes possible.

    Why this band

    • FC“The real benefit, ultimately, isn't the device itself; it's the feedback loop the device makes possible.” — This semicolon-linked closing sentence explicitly names and contrasts the true cause, a more sophisticated synthesising move than the additive closings used at 6.5 and 7.0.
    • LR“unlocks material no school could ever stock on its own shelves” — This vivid, idiomatic verb phrase is more striking than the plainer 'gives access to'/'opens up material' phrasing used at 6.5 and 7.0.
    • GRA“languages spoken with a genuine accent rather than a textbook one” — This parallel elliptical contrast, omitting the repeated noun 'accent' in its second half, is a more compressed grammatical structure than the plain listing used at the lower bands.

  5. 5. Can technology have a negative effect on communication between students?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with 'Yes, it can' and lists points with simple connectors like 'but' and 'also', giving one plain example throughout.

    Yes, it can, and I have seen this happen. A group project I helped with had six students who talked only by chat and met in person just once, and that meeting went badly because nobody had practiced disagreeing face to face. Screens make talking easier but also less deep, because messages are quick to send but easy to misunderstand. Students who message instead of talk can miss skills like reading a face or waiting for their turn. Phones in a classroom also split people's attention, which teachers notice easily. But the same tools also let shy students join in more, so it isn't always bad.

    Why this band

    • FC“But the same tools also let shy students join in more, so it isn't always bad.” — This final contrasting point, added with 'But', is a separate tacked-on sentence rather than being woven into the argument.
    • LR“make talking easier but also less deep” — This is plain adjective phrasing ('less deep'), less vivid than the higher bands' 'shallower' for the same contrast.
    • GRA“and that meeting went badly because nobody had practiced disagreeing face to face” — This combines a simple coordinated clause with one 'because' clause, the standard toolkit at this band.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with the hedge 'I'd say' inserted mid-sentence and closes with the reflective repetition of 'though', showing more natural spoken qualification than the 6.5 answer's plainer statements.

    Yes, and I've watched it happen. A group project I helped a younger friend with had six students who coordinated entirely through chat and met in person exactly once — and that one meeting was a disaster, because nobody had practised disagreeing face to face. Screens make communication easier and shallower at the same time, I'd say: quick to send, easy to misread, simple to avoid altogether. Students who message rather than talk can end up missing skills like reading a face or handling a bit of awkwardness. It isn't inevitable, though — the same tools let shy students contribute more than they otherwise would. Without deliberate in-person effort, though, something real does tend to get lost.

    Why this band

    • FC“It isn't inevitable, though — the same tools let shy students contribute more than they otherwise would.” — This dash-linked contrastive sentence shows more deliberate organisation than the plain 'But' sentence used for the same contrast at 6.5.
    • LR“quick to send, easy to misread, simple to avoid altogether” — This tricolon list is more polished and rhythmic than the plain description used for the same idea at 6.5.
    • GRA“Screens make communication easier and shallower at the same time, I'd say: quick to send, easy to misread, simple to avoid altogether.” — This colon-linked list follows a mid-sentence hedge, a more complex structure than the simple sentences used at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer uses the idiomatic verb 'dodge' for avoiding messages, an embedded dash-clause mid-sentence, and closes with the vivid personification 'it rarely announces itself as it goes', showing its most idiomatic and compressed phrasing.

    Yes, and I've watched it happen firsthand. A group project I helped a younger friend with involved six students who coordinated entirely by chat and met in person exactly once, a meeting that turned into something of a disaster because nobody had practised disagreeing face to face. Screens make communication easier and shallower in equal measure: quick to send, easy to misread, simple to dodge altogether. Students who message rather than talk risk missing the skills of reading a face, waiting for a turn, or sitting through a little awkwardness. It isn't inevitable — the very same tools let shy students contribute in ways they otherwise wouldn't — but without deliberate in-person work, something genuinely valuable slips away, and it rarely announces itself as it goes.

    Why this band

    • FC“but without deliberate in-person work, something genuinely valuable slips away” — This concessive 'but' clause, following an embedded dash-aside, integrates contrast and conclusion more tightly than the separate sentences used at 6.5 and 7.0.
    • LR“simple to dodge altogether” — 'Dodge' is an idiomatic, less common verb, more vivid than the plainer 'avoid' used for the same idea at 7.0 and 6.5.
    • GRA“the very same tools let shy students contribute in ways they otherwise wouldn't — but without deliberate in-person work, something genuinely valuable slips away” — This dash-embedded clause, nested inside a longer sentence with a concessive 'but', is a more compressed structure than the separate sentences used at 6.5.

  6. 6. Will online learning eventually replace face-to-face classroom teaching?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with 'I think it will support...not replace it' and connects reasons with simple 'but' and 'because' clauses, giving one clear personal example.

    I think it will support classroom teaching, not replace it. My sister taught secondary school during the pandemic year, with better technology than existed just five years before, but her students actually learned less than in a normal term. It wasn't because the content was worse — a fourteen-year-old alone in a bedroom just doesn't learn the same way as one in a room with twenty-nine classmates and a teacher watching. Online learning works well for motivated adults and for things like lectures or revision. But it can't yet give the pressure and social support that keep most learners going. I think we will end up with a mix of both.

    Why this band

    • FC“I think we will end up with a mix of both.” — This short, plain closing conclusion states the final position with minimal elaboration.
    • LR“with better technology than existed just five years before” — This is plain comparative phrasing, functional but not particularly striking.
    • GRA“But it can't yet give the pressure and social support that keep most learners going.” — This simple sentence contains one relative clause, a basic structure for adding detail.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with the compact hedge 'Supplement, I'd say, not replace' and closes with the reflective 'My guess is a permanent blend', showing more natural personal framing than the 6.5 version's plainer statements.

    Supplement, I'd say, not replace. My sister taught secondary school through the pandemic year, with noticeably better tools than existed even five years earlier, and her students still learned measurably less than in a normal term — not because the content was worse, but because a fourteen-year-old alone in a bedroom simply doesn't learn the way one does in a room with twenty-nine classmates and an adult watching. Online learning works well for motivated adults and for straightforward content delivery: lectures, practice, revision. What it can't yet provide is the pressure, attention and social fabric that keep most learners going. My guess is a permanent blend, with the online share growing for older students and staying small for children.

    Why this band

    • FC“Supplement, I'd say, not replace.” — This compact two-word contrast opener, with an embedded hedge, is tighter than the full sentence used for the same claim at 6.5.
    • LR“What it can't yet provide is the pressure, attention and social fabric that keep most learners going.” — This cleft-like sentence structure uses the moderately vivid noun phrase 'social fabric' for the idea plainer bands would call 'support'.
    • GRA“not because the content was worse, but because a fourteen-year-old alone in a bedroom simply doesn't learn the way one does in a room with twenty-nine classmates and an adult watching” — This long correlative 'not...but because' structure, with an embedded comparative clause, is more complex than the simple sentences used at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer opens with the compressed dash-linked claim 'Supplement, not replace — that's my honest read on it' and uses the precise verb 'swelling' for growth, showing its most idiomatic, compact phrasing.

    Supplement, not replace — that's my honest read on it. My sister taught secondary school through the pandemic year, armed with noticeably better tools than had existed even five years earlier, and her students still learned measurably less than in a normal term, not because the content was worse but because a fourteen-year-old alone in a bedroom simply doesn't absorb material the way one does in a room with twenty-nine classmates and an adult keeping watch. Online learning does the job well enough for motivated adults and for plain content delivery — lectures, practice, revision — but what it can't yet supply is the pressure, attention and social fabric that keep most learners actually showing up. My best guess is a permanent blend, the online share swelling for older students while staying negligible for children.

    Why this band

    • FC“that's my honest read on it” — This dash-linked personal evaluative tag, directly following the compact opening claim, is tighter than the 7.0 answer's simpler hedge for the same idea.
    • LR“the online share swelling for older students while staying negligible for children” — The precise, less common verb 'swelling' and adjective 'negligible' are more vivid than the plainer 'growing'/'staying small' phrasing used at 7.0.
    • GRA“armed with noticeably better tools than had existed even five years earlier” — This past-participial phrase ('armed with...') modifies the subject, a compressed non-finite structure not used at the lower bands.

  7. 7. Would it be desirable to use technology for medical treatment instead of doctors and nurses?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with a direct claim ('Alongside doctors, yes, but not instead of them') and connects points with simple 'But' and 'so', giving one concrete personal example.

    Alongside doctors, yes, but not instead of them. When my father had a scan last year, the computer found a kidney stone in seconds, faster than a tired doctor might. But then the doctor spent twenty minutes explaining it in a way that stopped my father from being scared, and no machine can do that yet. I think technology should do the pattern-finding, the monitoring, and the paperwork, so doctors have more time for difficult decisions and real care. A hospital with only machines would work well, but it would also feel a bit frightening.

    Why this band

    • FC“But then the doctor spent twenty minutes explaining it in a way that stopped my father from being scared, and no machine can do that yet.” — This new sentence, starting with 'But', is an additive contrast rather than a structure fused into the previous sentence.
    • LR“the computer found a kidney stone in seconds” — This uses the plain verb 'found', less precise than the more specific verb 'flagged' used for the same idea at the higher bands.
    • GRA“A hospital with only machines would work well, but it would also feel a bit frightening.” — This simple coordination with 'but' produces a basic contrastive sentence, the standard tool at this band.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with the semicolon-balanced 'Alongside them, yes; instead of them, no' and closes with the balanced phrase 'efficient, and honestly a little terrifying', a more compressed structure than the 6.5 version's plainer sentences.

    Alongside them, yes; instead of them, no. When my father had a scan last year, the software flagged a kidney stone within seconds — faster, and probably more reliably, than a tired radiologist might manage. But the doctor then spent a good twenty minutes explaining it in a way that stopped him being frightened, and no system does that yet, or is really trusted to. I'd say technology should take over the pattern-recognition, the monitoring and the paperwork, and hand humans back the time for what actually needs a human: judgement in ambiguous cases, and genuine care. A hospital staffed only by machines would be efficient, and honestly a little terrifying.

    Why this band

    • FC“Alongside them, yes; instead of them, no.” — This semicolon-balanced parallel opener is a tighter, more economical framing than the full sentence used for the same claim at 6.5.
    • LR“faster, and probably more reliably, than a tired radiologist might manage” — This is natural, moderately precise comparative phrasing, more fluent than the plainer version of the same comparison at 6.5.
    • GRA“hand humans back the time for what actually needs a human: judgement in ambiguous cases, and genuine care” — This colon-linked clause specifies the previous noun phrase, a more complex structure than the simple sentences used at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer intensifies the opening balance with 'absolutely not', uses the precise verb 'shoulder' for taking on responsibility, and closes with the compressed evaluative phrase 'more than a little terrifying', showing its most idiomatic phrasing.

    Alongside them, yes; instead of them, absolutely not. When my father had a scan last year, the software flagged a kidney stone within seconds, faster and probably more reliably than a tired radiologist might have managed. But the doctor then spent a good twenty minutes talking him through it in a way that stopped him being frightened, and no system does that yet, or is trusted enough to. Technology, I'd argue, should shoulder the pattern-recognition, the monitoring and the paperwork, handing humans back the time for whatever genuinely needs a human touch: judgement in ambiguous cases, and care that actually feels like care. A hospital staffed entirely by machines would be efficient and, frankly, more than a little terrifying.

    Why this band

    • FC“Alongside them, yes; instead of them, absolutely not.” — This intensified semicolon-balanced opener is sharper than the plain 'no' used for the same structure at 7.0.
    • LR“Technology, I'd argue, should shoulder the pattern-recognition, the monitoring and the paperwork” — 'Shoulder' is a precise, less common verb, more vivid than the plainer 'take over' used for the same idea at 7.0.
    • GRA“handing humans back the time for whatever genuinely needs a human touch” — This present-participial phrase ('handing...') functions as a connector between clauses, a more compressed non-finite structure than the coordinated 'and hand' clause used at 7.0.

  8. 8. To what extent is technology likely to cause mass unemployment in society?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with a hedged claim ('there will be some unemployment, but it will not affect everyone equally') and connects points with simple 'but' and 'So', a plain step-by-step structure.

    I think there will be some unemployment, but it will not affect everyone equally. My studio had four junior designers three years ago, and now we only have one, because AI does most of the basic work they used to learn from. The jobs did not disappear completely, but the easy way in did. History shows that technology usually creates as many jobs as it destroys, and I mostly believe that, but the new jobs often come slowly and in different places. So I don't think there will be mass unemployment everywhere, but I do think some groups will be badly affected. The question is whether we help them or ignore the problem.

    Why this band

    • FC“So I don't think there will be mass unemployment everywhere, but I do think some groups will be badly affected.” — This summarising sentence, starting with 'So', gives a plain sequential conclusion rather than a more integrated final synthesis.
    • LR“the easy way in did” — This is plain, informal phrasing, functional but not particularly precise.
    • GRA“because AI does most of the basic work they used to learn from” — This simple 'because' clause is the most basic tool for explaining a cause.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with the compact fragment 'Some, and the pain will be unevenly shared, I think' and links ideas with a dash-based aside, a more complex structure than the 6.5 version's step-by-step sentences.

    Some, and the pain will be unevenly shared, I think. Our studio had four junior designers three years ago and now has just one, because AI does most of the production work they used to learn on — the jobs didn't exactly vanish, but the entry point did, and that's roughly the pattern I'd expect elsewhere: fewer roles at the bottom, more pressure in the middle. History says technology creates about as many jobs as it destroys, and I mostly buy that, but the new jobs tend to arrive slowly and in different places from the old ones. Mass unemployment across the whole of society seems unlikely to me; mass disruption of particular groups seems close to certain. The real question is whether we cushion that or simply pretend it isn't happening.

    Why this band

    • FC“The real question is whether we cushion that or simply pretend it isn't happening.” — This closing rhetorical framing, naming 'the real question', is a more deliberate synthesising move than the plain 'So' sentence used at 6.5.
    • LR“mass disruption of particular groups seems close to certain” — This is moderately precise, formal phrasing, more polished than the plainer equivalent claim at 6.5.
    • GRA“the jobs didn't exactly vanish, but the entry point did, and that's roughly the pattern I'd expect elsewhere: fewer roles at the bottom, more pressure in the middle” — This long sentence combines coordination, a colon-linked list, and an embedded comparative point, more complex than the short sentences used at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer uses the vivid idiom 'cut their teeth on' for junior designers learning the job, the more formal 'as I see it', and closes with the compact phrase 'cushion that blow', showing its most idiomatic phrasing.

    Some, and the pain will be unevenly distributed, I suspect. Our studio had four junior designers three years ago and now has just one, because AI absorbs most of the production work they used to cut their teeth on — the jobs themselves didn't vanish so much as the entry point did, and that's roughly the pattern I'd expect more broadly: fewer roles at the bottom, more squeeze in the middle. History suggests technology creates about as many jobs as it destroys, and I mostly buy that argument, but the new jobs tend to arrive slowly and in altogether different places from the old ones. Mass unemployment across society at large seems unlikely; mass disruption of particular groups seems close to certain. The real question, as I see it, is whether we cushion that blow or simply pretend it isn't happening.

    Why this band

    • FC“The real question, as I see it, is whether we cushion that blow or simply pretend it isn't happening.” — The mid-sentence parenthetical 'as I see it', inserted into the closing rhetorical framing, is more elaborate than the equivalent sentence used at 7.0.
    • LR“used to cut their teeth on” — This is a vivid, idiomatic phrase, more striking than the plainer 'used to learn on' used for the same idea at 6.5 and 7.0.
    • GRA“the jobs themselves didn't vanish so much as the entry point did” — This 'not so much as' comparative construction is a more sophisticated, compressed structure than the simple coordination used for the same idea at 6.5.

  9. 9. Could artificial intelligence that is capable of complex decision-making pose a threat to humanity?

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

    The 6.5 answer opens with 'Yes, I think it could' and connects reasons with simple 'But' and a short question-answer structure, giving one concrete workplace example.

    Yes, I think it could, but maybe not in the way films show it. A bank client once asked us to design a screen for a loan system where AI made the decision. When I asked what a customer would see if they were rejected, nobody could explain the reason — only the machine knew. I think that is the real danger: important decisions made faster than people can check, by systems that nobody really understands, controlled by whoever owns them. Whether a machine could actually want to hurt us is a different question. But whether we give it power before we understand it is a real question, and so far the answer seems to be yes.

    Why this band

    • FC“But whether we give it power before we understand it is a real question, and so far the answer seems to be yes.” — This new sentence, starting with 'But', is a plain final point tacked onto the discussion rather than woven into it.
    • LR“only the machine knew” — This is plain, simple phrasing for expressing the same idea the higher bands render with parallel clauses.
    • GRA“When I asked what a customer would see if they were rejected, nobody could explain the reason — only the machine knew.” — This simple sentence combines one 'if' clause with a dash addition, a basic structure for this band.
    Band 7.0

    The 7.0 answer opens with 'though the threat I actually worry about is quieter than the films suggest' and uses a colon-linked list to define 'the danger as I see it', a more complex structure than the 6.5 version's plainer sentences.

    It could, though the threat I actually worry about is quieter than the films suggest. A bank client once asked us to design the screen for a loan system where an AI made the decision, and when I asked what a customer would see if they were rejected, nobody could really explain why — the machine knew, and no human did. That's the danger as I see it: decisions of real consequence made faster than anyone can properly check, by systems whose reasoning stays opaque, in the hands of whoever happens to own them. Whether a machine could ever actually want to harm us is a philosophical question; whether we'd hand it that power before we understood it is a practical one — and so far, the answer has been yes.

    Why this band

    • FC“That's the danger as I see it” — This compact framing tag introduces the colon-linked explanation that follows, more deliberate than the plain 'I think that is the real danger' phrasing used at 6.5.
    • LR“systems whose reasoning stays opaque” — This is precise, moderately less common phrasing, more specific than the plainer description used at 6.5.
    • GRA“Whether a machine could ever actually want to harm us is a philosophical question; whether we'd hand it that power before we understood it is a practical one” — This semicolon-linked pair of parallel clauses is a more complex, balanced structure than the two separate sentences used for the same distinction at 6.5.
    Band 7.5

    The 7.5 answer intensifies the closing claim with 'an unambiguous yes', uses the precise adverb 'stubbornly' for opaque reasoning, and closes with the balanced semicolon structure for the philosophical/practical distinction, showing its most idiomatic, compressed phrasing.

    It could, though the threat that actually worries me is quieter than anything the films suggest. A bank client once asked us to design the screen for a loan system where an AI made the final call, and when I asked what a rejected customer would actually see, nobody in the room could explain the reasoning — the machine knew, and no human did. That, to my mind, is the real danger: decisions of genuine consequence made faster than anyone can properly check, by systems whose reasoning stays stubbornly opaque, sitting in the hands of whoever happens to own them. Whether a machine could ever want to harm us is a philosophical question; whether we'd hand it the power to before we'd understood it is a practical one, and so far the answer has been an unambiguous yes.

    Why this band

    • FC“and so far the answer has been an unambiguous yes” — This intensified closing claim is sharper and more evaluative than the plainer 'the answer has been yes' used at 7.0.
    • LR“reasoning stays stubbornly opaque” — The precise, less common adverb 'stubbornly' is more vivid than the plainer phrasing used for the same idea at 7.0.
    • GRA“sitting in the hands of whoever happens to own them” — This present-participial phrase ('sitting in...') functions as a modifier, a compressed non-finite structure more flexible than the prepositional phrase used for the same idea at 7.0.

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 Problem You Had With Some Technology", 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?
Yes — it's part of the current exam period (Sep–Dec 2026).