A Rule You Dislike and Would Like to Change

Part 3 follow-up questions

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

1. 1. Is it always wrong to break the law?

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

   Band 6.5

   Gives the position in one plain sentence and lists the exceptions with simple connectors like 'also' and 'but'.

   Not always, but there are not many exceptions. Last year, a driver near my house rode his motorbike on the pavement to get a neighbour's injured child to hospital fast, and nobody I know thinks he did something wrong. A law can be broken if following it would cause much more harm. Some laws are also unfair, and people are sometimes right to break them. But most law-breaking is not heroic — it is just convenient, like riding on the pavement to save two minutes. The reason behind the act matters more than the act itself.

   Why this band

   • FC“Not always, but there are not many exceptions.” — This short opening states the balanced position directly, which is clear but a little abrupt. The 7.0 band softens it with 'to be honest', and 7.5 keeps almost the same words but the surrounding sentence flows into the example more smoothly.
   • LR“it is just convenient” — This is plain, everyday vocabulary for describing minor law-breaking. The higher bands keep the same word but place it inside a longer, more fluent contrast, as in 7.5's 'it's simply convenient, and the driver who cuts across the pavement...'.
   • GRA“A law can be broken if following it would cause much more harm.” — This is a short, simple conditional sentence. The 7.5 version instead uses a dash to attach the same idea directly onto the example sentence, creating one longer, more integrated structure.

   Band 7.0

   Adds the hedge 'to be honest' and folds the exception directly into the example sentence using a dash rather than a separate sentence.

   Not always, to be honest, though the exceptions are narrower than people like to think. Last year a driver on my street rode his motorbike the wrong way down a pavement to get an injured child to hospital, and nobody I know thinks he did anything wrong — a law can reasonably be broken when following it would clearly cause more harm. Unjust laws are another case; there are plenty of people in history who were right to disobey them. But I'd say most law-breaking isn't heroic at all, it's simply convenient, and someone riding on the pavement to save two minutes looks identical to someone saving a child. It's the reason that really matters, not the act.

   Why this band

   • FC“though the exceptions are narrower than people like to think” — This clause, added onto the opening sentence, gives an extra layer of nuance the plainer 6.5 opening lacks. It's close to the 7.5 phrasing, though 7.5 removes the hedge entirely and states the same idea as a flat, confident fact.
   • LR“Unjust laws are another case; there are plenty of people in history who were right to disobey them.” — 'Unjust laws' and 'disobey' are more precise, slightly formal terms than the plainer 'unfair' and 'break' used at 6.5. The 7.5 band uses very similar vocabulary here, showing the two top bands often converge on lexis but differ in sentence architecture.
   • GRA“and nobody I know thinks he did anything wrong — a law can reasonably be broken when following it would clearly cause more harm” — The dash here attaches the general principle directly onto the specific example within one sentence, more ambitious than the separate sentences at 6.5. It's very close to the 7.5 structure, though 7.5 extends the sentence even further with an added clause about the bleeding child.

   Band 7.5

   Closes with a compact semicolon-linked pair, 'The act looks identical from the outside; the reason behind it is everything.'

   Not always, though the exceptions are narrower than people like to imagine. Last year a motorbike driver on my street rode the wrong way down a pavement to get a neighbour's bleeding child to hospital, and nobody I know thinks he did anything wrong — a law can be broken when obeying it would cause a clearly greater harm. Unjust laws are another matter entirely; history is full of people who were right to disobey them. But most law-breaking isn't heroic, it's simply convenient, and the driver who cuts across the pavement to shave two minutes off his journey is technically doing the same thing as the one who saved a child. The act looks identical from the outside; the reason behind it is everything.

   Why this band

   • FC“though the exceptions are narrower than people like to imagine” — Dropping any hedge and stating this qualification as a plain fact, right inside the opening sentence, is more confident than the hedge-heavy openings at 6.5 and 7.0. It signals the whole answer's shape before any example is even given.
   • LR“shave two minutes off his journey” — 'Shave two minutes off' is a more idiomatic, economical phrase than the plainer 'save two minutes' used at 6.5 and 7.0. This kind of small figurative upgrade across the answer is typical of what lifts it into the top band.
   • GRA“The act looks identical from the outside; the reason behind it is everything.” — This closing pair of short balanced clauses, joined by a semicolon, is a deliberately crafted final flourish that neither lower band attempts in this compact a form — both end on a fuller, more explanatory sentence instead. The compression itself signals control.

2. 2. Do you think the main purpose of the law is to protect the weakest members of society?

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

   Band 6.5

   States the opinion directly and lists the law's other purposes as short, separate sentences joined by 'but' and 'and'.

   That's one purpose, and I think it's the best test of a good law. My grandmother kept her flat when a new landlord tried to push her out, because a tenancy law existed and someone helped her use it. That's the law doing what it should — protecting a weak person from a stronger one. But the law also keeps order and makes agreements work, and it punishes harm too. Honestly, some laws protect powerful people more, because they write the rules. I'd say the main purpose is to make life predictable.

   Why this band

   • FC“That's one purpose, and I think it's the best test of a good law.” — This opening states the whole judgement in one plain sentence. The 7.0 band adds 'honestly' for a more conversational tone, and 7.5 extends the same idea into a longer sentence with 'to my mind', showing a wider range of ways to open a nuanced opinion.
   • LR“protecting a weak person from a stronger one” — This is plain, direct phrasing. The higher bands keep almost the same words but embed them inside a longer, more fluent sentence built around a dash, as in 'standing between a strong party and a weak one', a slightly more formal collocation.
   • GRA“But the law also keeps order and makes agreements work, and it punishes harm too.” — This sentence lists three functions of law joined loosely with 'and', accurate but additive. The 7.5 version instead links the same three functions with commas inside one longer sentence, ending on a semicolon before the next idea.

   Band 7.0

   Adds 'honestly I'd say' before the main claim and uses a dash to attach the evaluative point directly onto the grandmother's story.

   That's one of its purposes, and honestly I'd say it's the most important test of whether a law is working. My grandmother kept her flat when a new landlord tried to push her out, simply because a tenancy law existed and someone helped her use it — that's the law standing between a strong party and a weak one, exactly as it should. But the law also exists to keep order, to make agreements enforceable so people can do business, and to punish harm. And to be fair, a lot of law actually protects the powerful, since they have most influence over writing it. I'd say the main purpose is to make life predictable.

   Why this band

   • FC“honestly I'd say it's the most important test of whether a law is working” — The hedge 'honestly I'd say' frames this as a considered personal judgement, more natural than the flatter '6.5' claim. It's close to the 7.5 phrasing 'to my mind the most important test of whether it's working', which is slightly more compact.
   • LR“standing between a strong party and a weak one” — This is a more precise, image-based phrase than the plainer 'protecting a weak person from a stronger one' at 6.5. It is shared almost word for word with the 7.5 version, showing the two top bands converge here in vocabulary.
   • GRA“that's the law standing between a strong party and a weak one, exactly as it should” — The dash attaches this evaluative clause directly onto the grandmother's story within one sentence, more integrated than the separate sentence used at 6.5. It's close to the 7.5 structure, though 7.5 goes on to link a further semicolon clause onto the same sentence.

   Band 7.5

   Uses a semicolon to link two related claims about the law's other functions and closes with a two-part distinction between 'good' and 'merely effective'.

   That's one of its purposes, and to my mind the most important test of whether it's working. My grandmother kept her flat when a new landlord tried to push her out because a tenancy law existed and someone helped her use it — that's the law doing exactly what it should, standing between a strong party and a weak one. But the law also exists to keep order, to make agreements enforceable so people can do business, and to punish harm; and honestly, a great deal of law protects the powerful, since they have the most influence over writing it in the first place. I'd say the main purpose is to make life predictable, and protecting the weak is the measure of whether a law is good rather than merely effective.

   Why this band

   • FC“to my mind the most important test of whether it's working” — This compact hedge, placed mid-sentence rather than as a full opening clause, is a more economical arrangement than the fuller hedges used at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the same judgement delivered with less scaffolding.
   • LR“a great deal of law protects the powerful” — 'A great deal of law' is a more precise, slightly formal quantifier than the plainer 'some laws' at 6.5 and 'a lot of law' at 7.0. This kind of exact calibration is typical of the top band's vocabulary choices.
   • GRA“protecting the weak is the measure of whether a law is good rather than merely effective” — This closing sentence balances 'good' against 'merely effective' in a single controlled clause, more ambitious than the plain final sentence at 6.5 and 7.0. The rather/merely contrast is the kind of compact grammatical flourish that marks the higher band.

3. 3. Why do schools need to have rules?

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

   Band 6.5

   Opens with a plain 'because' clause and lists the benefits of rules in short, separate sentences.

   Because thirty children in one room cannot decide everything themselves every day. My sister teaches secondary school, and her rule that phones go in a box by the door means she doesn't waste every lesson stopping students using their phones. Rules save the energy that would otherwise go into small arguments. They keep children safe, make treatment fair, and teach that a group has expectations. But my sister quietly stopped her rule about raising hands, because it was making shy students too quiet. A good school keeps the rules that help learning and removes the ones that only control children.

   Why this band

   • FC“Because thirty children in one room cannot decide everything themselves every day.” — This opening states the reason in one plain sentence, functional but blunt as a standalone answer opener. The higher bands extend the same idea with an added clause — 'and rules are simply the shortcut' at 7.5 — creating a smoother lead into the example.
   • LR“stopping students using their phones” — This is plain, literal phrasing for what the phone rule prevents. The higher bands upgrade this to the more vivid 'policing screens', a more economical and slightly idiomatic collocation.
   • GRA“But my sister quietly stopped her rule about raising hands, because it was making shy students too quiet.” — This is a plain sentence joined with 'because'. The 7.5 version instead uses 'once she noticed', a participle-style time clause that integrates cause and moment of realisation more tightly into one sentence.

   Band 7.0

   Uses the phrase 'negotiate everything from scratch' and links the transition with 'that said' rather than a plain 'but'.

   Because thirty children in one room can't really negotiate everything from scratch every day. My sister teaches secondary school, and her rule that phones go in a box by the door exists so she doesn't spend each lesson policing screens — rules save the energy that would otherwise go into a hundred small arguments. They keep children safe, make treatment fair and predictable, and teach that a community has expectations of its members. That said, she quietly dropped the rule about raising hands, because honestly it was silencing the shyer students. I'd say a good school keeps the rules that serve learning and cuts the ones that only serve control.

   Why this band

   • FC“negotiate everything from scratch” — This is a more precise, slightly idiomatic phrase than the plain 'decide everything themselves' used at 6.5. It matches the 7.5 phrasing closely, showing the two higher bands share this exact upgrade.
   • LR“policing screens” — This compact, vivid verb-noun pairing replaces the plainer 'stopping students using their phones' at 6.5 with something more economical and image-based. It's identical to the phrasing used at 7.5, showing shared vocabulary across the top two bands.
   • GRA“That said, she quietly dropped the rule about raising hands, because honestly it was silencing the shyer students.” — The discourse marker 'That said' signals a turn in the argument more smoothly than the plain 'But' at 6.5. It's slightly less integrated than the 7.5 version, which folds the same cause into a 'once she noticed' time clause within a longer sentence.

   Band 7.5

   Extends the opening reason with 'and rules are simply the shortcut' and closes with a reflective final sentence about children noticing faster than adults.

   Because thirty children in one room can't negotiate everything from scratch every day, and rules are simply the shortcut. My sister teaches secondary school, and her rule that phones go in a box by the door exists so she doesn't spend each lesson policing screens — rules save the energy that would otherwise go into a hundred small arguments. They keep children safe, make treatment fair and predictable, and teach that a community carries expectations of its members. That said, she quietly dropped the rule about raising hands once she noticed it was silencing the shyer children, which tells you something important: a good school keeps the rules that serve learning and cuts the ones that only serve control. Children, in my experience, can tell the difference faster than adults think.

   Why this band

   • FC“and rules are simply the shortcut” — Adding this clause onto the opening reason creates a tighter, more self-contained opening than the plain single-clause openers at 6.5 and 7.0. It signals the whole argument's direction in the very first sentence.
   • LR“which tells you something important” — This phrase frames the sister's decision as evidence for a wider claim, a more sophisticated rhetorical move than the plain 'That said' transitions used at the lower bands. It shows the anecdote being used deliberately to support an argument.
   • GRA“Children, in my experience, can tell the difference faster than adults think.” — This closing sentence adds a reflective aside ('in my experience') inside the main clause, a more flexible placement than the plainer closing sentences at 6.5 and 7.0. The compact final generalisation rounds off the answer with a genuine evaluative touch.

4. 4. What do you think society would be like if all countries had the same laws?

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

   Band 6.5

   Gives a short opening judgement and lists the arguments for and against in plain, separate sentences.

   Strange, and probably worse, I think. Our German client was shocked by how motorbikes behave here, and I was equally confused that shops in their city must close on Sundays. Each rule makes sense inside its own culture, but would feel strange if it was forced on the other country. The same laws everywhere would make trade and travel easier, and maybe basic human rights should be the same for everyone. But law reflects what a society values, like its religion, climate and history. One single set of laws would either do nothing or fit nobody. Countries also learn from each other's different experiments.

   Why this band

   • FC“Strange, and probably worse, I think.” — This two-word-plus-hedge opening is clear and direct. The higher bands replace 'I think' with the more tentative 'I'd guess', a small but genuine hedging upgrade repeated at both 7.0 and 7.5.
   • LR“One single set of laws would either do nothing or fit nobody.” — This is plain, functional phrasing for the risk of a universal code. The higher bands sharpen this to 'so vague it did nothing, or so specific it fit nobody', a more precise, parallel construction.
   • GRA“Each rule makes sense inside its own culture, but would feel strange if it was forced on the other country.” — This sentence joins two ideas with 'but', accurate but plain. The 7.5 version instead uses 'and would feel absurd if it were imposed on the other', tightening the same contrast with a stronger verb and more formal conditional grammar.

   Band 7.0

   Softens the opening with 'I'd guess' and uses a dash to attach the general claim directly onto the client's reaction.

   Strange, and probably worse, I'd guess. Our German client was genuinely horrified by how motorbikes behave here, and I was equally baffled that shops in their city have to close on Sundays — each rule makes complete sense inside its own culture and would feel absurd if it were forced onto the other. Identical laws everywhere would obviously make trade and travel simpler, and some things, like basic human rights, arguably should be universal. But law reflects what a society actually values and how it lives — its religion, its climate, its history. A single code would either be so vague it did nothing, or so specific it fit nobody. Countries also learn from each other's experiments, and that stops if everyone runs the same one.

   Why this band

   • FC“genuinely horrified” — This pairing is a more vivid, natural collocation than the plain 'shocked' used at 6.5. It matches the 7.5 phrasing 'horrified' exactly, though 7.5 drops 'genuinely' for a slightly more economical sentence.
   • LR“so vague it did nothing, or so specific it fit nobody” — This parallel 'so... it...' construction is more precise than the plainer 'either do nothing or fit nobody' at 6.5. It is shared almost word for word with the 7.5 version, showing convergence in vocabulary at the top two bands.
   • GRA“each rule makes complete sense inside its own culture and would feel absurd if it were forced onto the other” — This sentence links the two clauses with 'and' inside one flowing structure, more integrated than the separated sentences at 6.5. It's close to the 7.5 version, which swaps 'forced onto' for 'imposed on', a marginally more formal verb.

   Band 7.5

   Extends the abstract list ('its religion, its climate, its history') directly into the consequence clause and closes with the vivid 'stops dead the moment...'.

   Strange, and probably worse, I'd guess. Our German client was horrified by how motorbikes behave here, and I was equally baffled that shops in their city must close on Sundays — each rule makes sense inside its own culture and would feel absurd if it were imposed on the other. Identical laws everywhere would undoubtedly make trade and travel simpler, and some things, like basic human rights, arguably should be universal regardless of borders. But law reflects what a society values and how it actually lives — its religion, its climate, its history — and a single code would either be so vague it did nothing or so specific it fit nobody at all. Countries also learn from each other's experiments, a process that stops dead the moment everyone is running the same one.

   Why this band

   • FC“regardless of borders” — This added phrase sharpens the point about universal rights with a precise qualifier that neither lower band includes. It shows a small but deliberate extra layer of meaning being packed into an already dense sentence.
   • LR“stops dead the moment everyone is running the same one” — 'Stops dead' is a more vivid, idiomatic phrase than the plainer 'stops if everyone runs the same one' used at 6.5 and 7.0. This kind of small figurative intensifier is typical of what separates 7.5 from the bands below.
   • GRA“its religion, its climate, its history — and a single code would either be so vague it did nothing or so specific it fit nobody at all” — This sentence uses a dash-marked list followed directly by a coordinated consequence clause, all within one long sentence, more layered than the separated sentences at 6.5 and 7.0. The single continuous structure is what marks the higher grammatical range.

5. 5. What kinds of rules do children usually have to follow at home?

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

   Band 6.5

   Lists the childhood rules as a simple sequence joined by commas and 'and' before summarising them in plain categories.

   In my childhood in Hue, the rules were about respect and time. Greet every adult who came to the house before doing anything else, do homework before watching television, be home when the street lights came on, and never leave rice in the bowl. Those are fairly common rules here — about manners toward elders, about study, about chores and safety. Modern families also add rules about screen time and phone bedtimes, which didn't exist when I was young. Rules usually get looser as children grow up. I still greet every adult who enters a room, which my colleagues find a bit strange.

   Why this band

   • FC“In my childhood in Hue, the rules were about respect and time.” — This is a short, plain topic sentence. The higher bands keep almost the same wording, showing that at this level the opening itself doesn't change much — the difference lies in how the following list is punctuated and extended.
   • LR“which my colleagues find a bit strange” — This is plain, functional phrasing for the colleagues' reaction. The higher bands upgrade it to 'quite quaint' (7.0) and 'quaint... which I can't seem to shake' (7.5), more precise and slightly literary word choices.
   • GRA“Greet every adult who came to the house before doing anything else, do homework before watching television, be home when the street lights came on, and never leave rice in the bowl.” — This list is joined with commas and a final 'and', a straightforward coordinated structure. The 7.5 version instead uses semicolons between each item, a more formal and controlled way of listing parallel rules.

   Band 7.0

   Adds 'I'd say' before the summary of typical rules and uses the concessive 'or at least they should' to qualify the claim about rules loosening.

   In my childhood in Hue the rules were mostly about respect and time. Greet every adult who came into the house properly before doing anything else, homework before television, be home when the street lights came on, and never leave rice in the bowl. Those are fairly typical here, I'd say: rules about manners toward elders, about study, chores and safety. Modern families add screen-time rules and phone bedtimes too, which genuinely didn't exist for me. The rules loosen as children grow, or at least they should, and honestly the best ones come with reasons attached. I still greet every adult who enters a room, which my colleagues find quite quaint.

   Why this band

   • FC“Those are fairly typical here, I'd say:” — The hedge 'I'd say' before the colon softens the generalisation, a more natural spoken move than the flatter '6.5' phrasing 'Those are fairly common rules here'. It's close to the 7.5 version, which drops the hedge for a plainer, more confident colon.
   • LR“quite quaint” — This is a more precise, slightly literary word than the plainer 'a bit strange' at 6.5. The 7.5 version extends the same word further with 'and which I can't seem to shake', adding a self-aware closing detail.
   • GRA“The rules loosen as children grow, or at least they should, and honestly the best ones come with reasons attached.” — This sentence adds a concessive aside ('or at least they should') and coordinates a further clause with 'and', more layered than the two separate short sentences used for the same content at 6.5. It's close to the 7.5 structure but slightly less compact.

   Band 7.5

   Uses semicolons to list the childhood rules and closes with the self-aware final clause, 'which I can't seem to shake'.

   In my childhood in Hue the rules were mostly about respect and time. Greet every adult who came into the house, properly, before doing anything else; homework before television; be home when the street lights came on; and never leave rice in the bowl. Those are fairly typical here: rules about manners toward elders, about study, about chores and about safety. Modern families add screen-time rules and phone bedtimes, which simply didn't exist for me. The rules loosen as children grow, or at least they should, and the best ones tend to come with reasons rather than bare commands. I still greet every adult who enters a room, a habit my colleagues find quaint and which I can't seem to shake.

   Why this band

   • FC“Those are fairly typical here:” — Dropping the hedge 'I'd say' before the colon, unlike the 7.0 version, makes this a more confident, economical transition into the list of categories. It reads as a settled observation rather than a tentative one.
   • LR“rather than bare commands” — 'Bare commands' is a more precise, slightly abstract phrase than anything the lower bands use to describe rule-giving without explanation. It adds a genuinely new contrast that sharpens the point about reasons mattering.
   • GRA“Greet every adult who came into the house, properly, before doing anything else; homework before television; be home when the street lights came on; and never leave rice in the bowl.” — This list uses semicolons between each item instead of commas, a more formal and controlled punctuation choice than the comma-and-'and' list used at 6.5 and 7.0. The consistent semicolon rhythm signals confident control of list structure.

6. 6. Is the biggest challenge for the law keeping up with rapid technological change?

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

   Band 6.5

   States the claim plainly ('It's one of the biggest challenges') and gives the qualification in a short final sentence introduced by 'But'.

   It's one of the biggest challenges, and I've felt this myself. Two years ago, I designed a feature that used people's location, and when I asked what we were legally allowed to store and for how long, nobody — not our lawyer, not the client's — could give a clear answer, because the rules hadn't caught up with the technology. That lag is real, and things like AI, data, and online fraud move faster than governments. But I would hesitate to call it the biggest challenge. Enforcing the laws that already exist fairly, for everyone, is a bigger problem in most countries.

   Why this band

   • FC“It's one of the biggest challenges, and I've felt this myself.” — This opening states the claim and the personal connection in one plain sentence joined by 'and'. The higher bands both add 'I'd say' and 'certainly' respectively, small but genuine hedging upgrades to the same idea.
   • LR“That lag is real” — This is a short, plain summary phrase. The higher bands keep the exact same phrase, showing that at this point the wording itself doesn't need to change — what changes is the sentence built around it.
   • GRA“But I would hesitate to call it the biggest challenge.” — This is a short, simple sentence stating the qualification. The 7.5 version instead extends the equivalent idea into a longer sentence ending with 'strikes me as the bigger problem in most countries — new technology creates gaps...', adding a further explanatory clause.

   Band 7.0

   Adds 'I'd say' and 'felt it from the inside' to frame the claim as personal experience, and uses a colon to list the technologies moving faster than parliaments.

   It's one of the biggest, I'd say, and I've felt it from the inside. Two years ago I designed a feature that used people's location, and when I asked what we were legally allowed to store and for how long, nobody — not our lawyer, not the client's — could give a straight answer, simply because the rules hadn't caught up with the technology yet. That lag is real: AI, data, drones, online fraud all move faster than parliaments can react. But honestly, I'd hesitate to call it the biggest challenge. Enforcing the laws that already exist, fairly and for everyone, strikes me as a bigger issue in most countries.

   Why this band

   • FC“I've felt it from the inside” — This idiomatic phrase for direct personal experience is more vivid than the plainer 'I've felt this myself' at 6.5. It is shared word for word with the 7.5 version, showing convergence in phrasing between the two top bands.
   • LR“AI, data, drones, online fraud all move faster than parliaments can react” — This list, introduced by a colon, names four specific areas rather than the vaguer 'things like AI, data, and online fraud' at 6.5. The added precision of naming 'drones' and 'parliaments' specifically is a small but real lexical upgrade.
   • GRA“simply because the rules hadn't caught up with the technology yet” — Adding 'simply' and 'yet' to this clause gives it a slightly more natural, spoken rhythm than the plainer version at 6.5. It's close to the 7.5 phrasing, which drops 'yet' for a marginally more economical sentence.

   Band 7.5

   Closes with a dash-marked contrast between what 'creates gaps' and what 'creates the sense that the law belongs to someone else'.

   It's one of the biggest, certainly, and I've felt it from the inside. Two years ago I designed a feature that used people's location, and when I asked what we were legally allowed to store and for how long, nobody — not our lawyer, not the client's — could give a straight answer, because the rules simply hadn't caught up with the technology. That lag is real: AI, data, drones and online fraud all move faster than parliaments can legislate. But I'd hesitate to call it the biggest challenge of all. Enforcing the laws that already exist, fairly and consistently for everyone, strikes me as the bigger problem in most countries — new technology creates gaps, while unequal enforcement creates the sense that the law belongs to someone else entirely.

   Why this band

   • FC“It's one of the biggest, certainly, and I've felt it from the inside.” — Replacing the hedge 'I'd say' with the more confident 'certainly' makes this opening firmer than the equivalent line at 7.0. It signals a settled judgement rather than a tentative one from the very first clause.
   • LR“unequal enforcement creates the sense that the law belongs to someone else entirely” — This is a more abstract, precisely worded closing idea than anything the lower bands attempt; neither 6.5 nor 7.0 develops the enforcement point this far. It shows a wider range of abstract vocabulary being used to add genuinely new content.
   • GRA“new technology creates gaps, while unequal enforcement creates the sense that the law belongs to someone else entirely” — This closing sentence balances two parallel 'creates...' clauses joined by 'while', more ambitious than the shorter final sentences at 6.5 and 7.0. The parallel structure itself creates a considered, rounded conclusion.

7. 7. What kinds of penalties are appropriate for minor crimes, such as parking in the wrong place?

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

   Band 6.5

   Opens with a short direct answer ('Fines, I think') and gives the reasoning through a simple comparison joined by 'but'.

   Fines, I think, but scaled to what they mean to the person. A café owner near me pays her parking fines as a monthly cost and parks wherever she wants, but for a delivery driver, one fine is a whole day's pay. The same penalty feels like nothing to one person and a crisis to another, so fines based on income seem fairer to me. Besides money, penalties that fix the harm also work well, like points on a licence or simply towing the car. What isn't appropriate is a penalty that follows someone for years. A parking mistake should cost something, not a future.

   Why this band

   • FC“Fines, I think, but scaled to what they mean to the person.” — This one-word-plus-hedge opening states the answer immediately, clear and economical. Both higher bands keep this exact structure, swapping only the hedge verb, showing that this opening pattern itself is already near the ceiling of what changes across bands.
   • LR“feels like nothing to one person and a crisis to another” — This is plain, direct phrasing for the contrast in impact. The higher bands tighten it to 'a shrug for one and a crisis for the other' (7.0) and 'a shrug for one and a small crisis for the other' (7.5), using the more vivid, economical noun 'shrug'.
   • GRA“What isn't appropriate is a penalty that follows someone for years.” — This is a short, simple sentence stating the final point. The 7.5 version instead extends this into a longer sentence with a dash, adding the closing generalisation 'a parking mistake should cost something, not a future' within the same flowing structure.

   Band 7.0

   Adds 'actually' and 'whereas' to sharpen the contrast between the café owner and the delivery driver.

   Fines, I'd say, but scaled to what they actually mean to the person paying them. A café owner near me pays her parking fines as a monthly business cost and parks wherever she likes, whereas for a delivery driver, a single fine can be a whole day's income. The same penalty is basically a shrug for one person and a crisis for the other, so income-based fines, which some countries already use, seem fairer to me. Beyond money, penalties that fix the harm directly also work well — points on a licence for repeat offences, community service, or simply towing the vehicle. What's inappropriate is anything that follows a person for years over a minor mistake.

   Why this band

   • FC“whereas for a delivery driver” — 'Whereas' creates a tighter formal contrast than the plain 'but' used at 6.5 for the same comparison. It's a step toward the semicolon used at 7.5 for an even more compact version of the same contrast.
   • LR“a shrug for one person and a crisis for the other” — 'A shrug' is a more vivid, economical noun than the plainer 'feels like nothing' used at 6.5. It's nearly identical to the 7.5 phrasing, which adds only the word 'small' before 'crisis'.
   • GRA“What's inappropriate is anything that follows a person for years over a minor mistake.” — This sentence adds the phrase 'over a minor mistake' onto the basic structure used at 6.5, giving slightly more precision. It's still a standalone final sentence, unlike the 7.5 version, which folds the same idea into a longer dash-linked sentence.

   Band 7.5

   Uses a semicolon to contrast the café owner and the delivery driver directly and closes with the compact final line, 'a parking mistake should cost something, not a future.'

   Fines, I'd argue, but scaled to what they actually mean to the person paying them. A café owner near me treats her parking fines as a monthly business cost and parks wherever she likes; for a delivery driver, one fine is a day's income. The same penalty is a shrug for one and a small crisis for the other, so income-based fines, as some countries already use, strike me as considerably fairer. Beyond money, penalties that fix the harm tend to work well too: points on a licence for repeat offences, community service, or simply towing the vehicle so the inconvenience lands where it belongs. What's genuinely inappropriate is anything that follows a person for years — a parking mistake should cost something, not a future.

   Why this band

   • FC“A café owner near me treats her parking fines as a monthly business cost and parks wherever she likes; for a delivery driver, one fine is a day's income.” — The semicolon here replaces the connecting word used at the lower bands ('but' at 6.5, 'whereas' at 7.0), creating a tighter, more compact contrast between the two people. This punctuation choice itself is a marker of confident sentence control.
   • LR“strike me as considerably fairer” — 'Strike me as' is a more natural, slightly idiomatic way of expressing a judgement than the plainer 'seem fairer to me' used at 6.5 and 7.0. Paired with 'considerably', it adds precise calibration that the lower bands don't attempt.
   • GRA“What's genuinely inappropriate is anything that follows a person for years — a parking mistake should cost something, not a future.” — This closing sentence uses a dash to attach the final generalisation directly onto the main clause, more compact than the separate final sentence used at 6.5 and 7.0 for the same idea. The single continuous structure gives the ending more punch.

8. 8. Do children have more rules to follow nowadays than in the past?

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

   Band 6.5

   Opens with the short distinction 'More rules... and less freedom, which is not really the same thing' and lists the two childhoods in separate sentences.

   More rules, I think, and less freedom, which is not really the same thing. My mother's childhood near Hue was mostly running free until dark, with only a few strict rules about the river and respecting elders. My niece's week is scheduled and tracked by phone, with rules about screens, strangers, food and which friends' houses she can visit. Modern parents know more about risks and have fewer children to watch, so they watch them more closely. Some old rules have disappeared, especially about staying silent and obedient. But overall, I think children today live with a more detailed set of expectations.

   Why this band

   • FC“More rules, I think, and less freedom, which is not really the same thing.” — This opening states the key distinction in one plain sentence with a simple hedge. The higher bands keep almost the same wording but add 'honestly' (7.0) and remove the hedge for a flatter, more confident statement (7.5).
   • LR“so they watch them more closely” — This is plain, direct phrasing for the consequence of smaller families and more risk-awareness. The higher bands keep very similar wording here, showing that not every phrase needs to change across bands — the surrounding sentence structure does the work instead.
   • GRA“My mother's childhood near Hue was mostly running free until dark, with only a few strict rules about the river and respecting elders.” — This is a single sentence describing one childhood. The higher bands instead join both childhoods into one long sentence using 'whereas' (7.0) or a semicolon (7.5), creating a direct grammatical contrast rather than two separate descriptions.

   Band 7.0

   Joins the two childhoods into one long sentence with 'whereas' and closes with the hedge 'I'd argue' before the final claim.

   More rules, I'd say, and less freedom, which honestly isn't quite the same thing. My mother's childhood in a village near Hue involved running free until dark with almost no rules beyond a few sharp ones about the river and respect for elders, whereas my niece's week is scheduled, supervised and tracked by phone, with rules about screens, strangers, food, and which friends' houses she may visit. Modern parents simply know more about risks and have fewer children to watch, so they watch them more closely. Some old rules have faded, especially around obedience and silence. But the net effect, I'd argue, is that children today live inside a considerably more detailed set of expectations.

   Why this band

   • FC“which honestly isn't quite the same thing” — Adding 'honestly' and 'quite' softens and personalises the distinction more than the plainer '6.5' version. It's close to the 7.5 phrasing, which drops the hedge for a plain, confident 'isn't quite the same thing'.
   • LR“almost no rules beyond a few sharp ones about the river and respect for elders” — 'Sharp ones' is a more vivid, economical description than the plainer 'a few strict rules' used at 6.5. This kind of small figurative upgrade recurs across the higher-band answers in this set.
   • GRA“involved running free until dark with almost no rules beyond a few sharp ones about the river and respect for elders, whereas my niece's week is scheduled, supervised and tracked by phone” — The 'whereas' clause joins both childhoods into a single long sentence, a direct grammatical contrast the 6.5 band achieves only across two separate sentences. It's close to the 7.5 structure, which uses a semicolon and 'by contrast' instead of 'whereas'.

   Band 7.5

   Uses a semicolon and 'by contrast' to join the two childhoods and closes with the personal, evaluative final clause, 'I'm honestly not convinced they're better off for it.'

   More rules, and less freedom, which isn't quite the same thing. My mother's childhood in a village near Hue involved running free until dark with almost no rules beyond a few sharp ones about the river and respect for elders; my niece's week, by contrast, is scheduled, supervised and tracked by phone, with rules about screens, strangers, food, and which friends' houses she may visit. Modern parents know more about risks and have fewer children to watch, so naturally they watch them more closely. Some old rules have faded, especially around obedience and silence. But the net effect is that children today live inside a far more detailed set of expectations, and I'm honestly not convinced they're better off for it.

   Why this band

   • FC“which isn't quite the same thing” — Dropping the hedge entirely and stating this distinction as a plain fact is more confident than the hedge-led versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It sets a firmer, more settled tone for the whole answer from the first line.
   • LR“I'm honestly not convinced they're better off for it” — This closing phrase is a more personal, precisely hedged evaluation than the plainer 'I think children today live with a more detailed set of expectations' at 6.5. It shows the speaker weighing the evidence rather than just summarising it.
   • GRA“involved running free until dark with almost no rules beyond a few sharp ones about the river and respect for elders; my niece's week, by contrast, is scheduled, supervised and tracked by phone” — The semicolon plus 'by contrast' creates an even more compact join between the two childhoods than the 'whereas' clause used at 7.0. This punctuation-based contrast is a clear marker of higher grammatical control.

9. 9. Do you agree or disagree that almost everyone breaks a law at some point in their life?

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

   Band 6.5

   States agreement directly and lists the personal examples in one sentence joined with commas and a dash.

   I agree, and I'll include myself here. I've ridden on a pavement to escape a flood, photocopied a whole textbook at university, and gone through a red light at two in the morning on an empty road — none of it serious, but all of it illegal. Laws cover so much of daily life that living completely inside them needs either unusual care or unusual luck. Most people break small rules where enforcement is weak and no real harm is done, while still seeing themselves as law-abiding. The real difference isn't between people who break laws and people who don't, but between small breaches and real harm to others.

   Why this band

   • FC“I agree, and I'll include myself here.” — This short opening states the position and the personal stake in one plain sentence. Both higher bands add 'honestly' or repeat the same idea with slightly more natural phrasing, such as 'I'll happily include myself in the count' at 7.5.
   • LR“no real harm is done” — This is plain, direct phrasing for the absence of consequences. The higher bands upgrade this to 'harm seems absent', a slightly more precise and formal phrasing shared by both 7.0 and 7.5.
   • GRA“The real difference isn't between people who break laws and people who don't, but between small breaches and real harm to others.” — This closing sentence uses a 'not... but' contrast, which is accurate but stated as a single flat structure. The 7.5 version extends the same contrast with a semicolon and an added final clause about 'almost everyone... sits firmly in the first group', giving the ending more weight.

   Band 7.0

   Adds 'honestly' before the personal admission and uses 'technically illegal' rather than the plain 'illegal' of the 6.5 band.

   I agree, and honestly I'll include myself in that. I've ridden on a pavement to escape a flood, photocopied an entire textbook at university, and gone through a red light at two in the morning on an empty road — none of it serious, all of it technically illegal. Laws cover so much of daily life that living entirely inside them requires either unusual care or unusual luck. Most people, I'd say, break small rules where enforcement is loose and harm seems absent, while still thinking of themselves, fairly accurately, as law-abiding citizens. The real distinction isn't between people who break laws and people who don't; it's between minor, occasional breaches and genuine harm done to others.

   Why this band

   • FC“all of it technically illegal” — 'Technically' is a small but precise qualifier that neither the 6.5 nor the 7.5 answer includes, subtly softening the claim while keeping it accurate. It's a good example of a single well-placed word doing real work.
   • LR“harm seems absent” — This is a more precise, slightly formal phrase than the plain 'no real harm is done' used at 6.5. It is repeated almost exactly at 7.5, showing the two higher bands converge on this exact vocabulary choice.
   • GRA“The real distinction isn't between people who break laws and people who don't; it's between minor, occasional breaches and genuine harm done to others.” — This closing sentence uses a semicolon to join the two halves of the contrast into one continuous structure, a step up from the single 'not... but' clause used at 6.5. It's very close to the 7.5 version, which adds one further clause naming who falls into the first group.

   Band 7.5

   Opens with the idiomatic 'I'll happily include myself in the count' and closes with a dash-marked final clause naming the speaker as part of the group.

   I agree, and I'll happily include myself in the count. I've ridden on a pavement to escape a flood, photocopied an entire textbook at university, and gone through a red light at two in the morning on an empty road — none of it serious, all of it illegal. Laws cover so much of daily life that living entirely inside them requires either unusual care or unusual luck. Most people break small rules where enforcement is loose and harm seems absent, while thinking of themselves, quite accurately, as law-abiding. The real distinction isn't between people who break laws and people who don't; it's between minor, occasional breaches and harm actually done to others — and almost everyone, myself included, sits firmly in the first group.

   Why this band

   • FC“I'll happily include myself in the count” — 'Include myself in the count' is a more vivid, idiomatic phrase than the plain 'include myself here' at 6.5 or 'include myself in that' at 7.0. It turns a functional admission into a small, self-aware joke.
   • LR“while thinking of themselves, quite accurately, as law-abiding” — Inserting 'quite accurately' as a mid-clause aside is a more compact, natural way of adding the same evaluative point than the fuller phrase 'fairly accurately, as law-abiding citizens' used at 7.0. The trimmed noun 'law-abiding' alone, without 'citizens', is also slightly more economical.
   • GRA“and almost everyone, myself included, sits firmly in the first group” — This final dash-marked clause extends the closing sentence one step further than the 7.0 version, adding a self-inclusive aside and a vivid closing image ('sits firmly'). The extra clause is what gives this ending its rounded, conclusive feel.