A Story You Like That Has Animals in It

Part 3 follow-up questions

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

1. 1. What kinds of animals are often in children's stories?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct opinion with simple listed examples, joined by plain connectors like "because" and "and", and closes with a flat restatement of the idea.

   Children's stories usually use animals like rabbits, bears, foxes and tigers, because each animal already has a personality people know, so the fox is clever and the tortoise is slow. I checked my niece's bookshelf and found a tiger, a water buffalo and even a cricket. Soft animals are popular for very young children, and dangerous animals are often the bad character. In Vietnam we also have animals like the buffalo and the crane. I think animals are used because they can represent people in an easy and simple way.

   Why this band

   • FC“I checked my niece's bookshelf and found a tiger, a water buffalo and even a cricket.” — This sentence just lists the findings with "and", one fact after another, rather than folding the list into a reflective or evaluative sentence. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would attach a comment to the list (such as what it shows) instead of leaving it as a flat report.
   • LR“an easy and simple way” — "Easy" and "simple" are near-synonyms placed side by side, which is a common 6.5 habit of doubling up plain words instead of choosing one precise term. A higher band would pick a single, more exact word or phrase for the same idea.
   • GRA“because each animal already has a personality people know” — This is a single, accurate because-clause with no further embedding, which is grammatically correct but structurally basic. A 7.5 answer would likely compress the same idea into a dash-linked phrase or a participial construction instead.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer opens with the spoken hedge "Honestly" and uses a which-clause ("which shows how wide the range actually is") to comment on its own example, giving a bit more reflection than a flat list.

   Honestly, it's usually animals that already come with a built-in personality, so writers don't have to explain much — the fox is automatically clever, the tortoise is automatically slow. When I counted my niece's shelf, there were rabbits, bears, a tiger, a water buffalo and even a cricket, which shows how wide the range actually is. Soft, round animals tend to dominate for the youngest readers, while predators are cast as villains or, these days, as misunderstood characters. Vietnamese stories add their own regular cast, like the buffalo and the crane. I'd say the real reason is that animals let a story talk about human behaviour without pointing at anyone directly.

   Why this band

   • FC“Honestly, it's usually animals that already come with a built-in personality” — The spoken discourse marker "Honestly" opens the answer as a natural conversational hedge, something a 6.5 answer would rarely use and a 7.5 answer might replace with a more idiomatic opener still. It signals reflection rather than a flat statement of fact.
   • LR“a built-in personality” — "Built-in" is a mild, natural collocation rather than the plain phrasing a 6.5 answer would use, such as "a personality people know". It is not yet as distinctive as the figurative choices a 7.5 answer would reach for.
   • GRA“there were rabbits, bears, a tiger, a water buffalo and even a cricket, which shows how wide the range actually is” — The list is followed by a non-restrictive which-clause that comments on the list itself, a moderately complex structure beyond the simple coordination a 6.5 answer would use. A 7.5 answer might compress this further into a single fronted or appositive construction.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer opens with the vivid, compact image "a personality already attached" and closes with the evaluative summary "Animals, in short, let a story discuss people without ever naming one," a small closing flourish absent from the plainer bands.

   Children's stories tend to reach for animals that arrive with a personality already attached, so the character work is essentially done before the plot even starts — the fox is sly, the tortoise plods, no explanation required. A quick census of my niece's shelf turned up rabbits, bears, a tiger, one water buffalo and, improbably, a cricket. Soft, round creatures dominate the youngest end of the market, while predators get cast as villains or, more recently, as misunderstood outsiders. Vietnamese folk tales add a homegrown cast of their own — the buffalo, the carp, the crane. What's conspicuously absent, though, is an animal simply being an animal; a story cow is invariably a person in a cow costume. Animals, in short, let a story discuss people without ever naming one.

   Why this band

   • FC“no explanation required” — This clipped, fragment-like closing to the opening sentence is an economical, idiomatic way of finishing a thought, something a 6.5 answer would instead spell out as a full clause. It shows a comfort with compressed grammar that lower bands avoid.
   • LR“improbably, a cricket” — "Improbably" is a genuinely less-common word choice used as a sentence adverb, more precise and knowing than a plain phrase like "and even a cricket" at 6.5. It signals a wider, more deliberately chosen vocabulary.
   • GRA“What's conspicuously absent, though, is an animal simply being an animal” — This is a fronted cleft construction ("What's ... is ...") that inverts normal word order for emphasis, a flexible structure well beyond the simple subject-verb-object sentences typical of 6.5 and the moderate complexity of 7.0. It lets the sentence highlight its point before stating it plainly.

2. 2. Should children learn about animals at school?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer states a direct opinion ("Yes, I think so") with one simple reason and one short example, using the plain connector "because" and closing with a flat "So" summary.

   Yes, I think so, because children learn better when they can see real things. At my primary school in Hue, we kept silkworms in the classroom, and watching them eat and spin taught me more than the pictures in the book. Learning about animals also teaches children about nature and where food comes from. City children especially might never see an animal that is not a pet. So schools should teach it, but they should show the real facts and not only cute animals.

   Why this band

   • FC“So schools should teach it, but they should show the real facts and not only cute animals.” — The caveat about honesty is tacked on as its own short sentence at the very end rather than woven into the point it qualifies. A 7.5 answer would fold this nuance into the sentence that raises the idea instead of adding it afterward.
   • LR“teaches children about nature and where food comes from” — "Teaches...about" is plain, general phrasing rather than a more specific collocation such as "a doorway into". It gets the meaning across without any distinctive word choice.
   • GRA“because children learn better when they can see real things” — This is a single because-clause with a simple comparative ("learn better"), accurate but structurally basic. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would likely replace it with a dash-linked example or a more compressed construction.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer uses the natural spoken connector "honestly" and a dash to attach an unexpected memory to its opinion, then closes with the mild qualifier "I'd just say" instead of a flat rule.

   Yes, and honestly the best lessons I remember weren't from a textbook at all — my primary school in Hue kept trays of silkworms in the classroom for a whole term, and watching them actually eat and spin taught me far more than any diagram did. Beyond basic biology, animals are a natural way into bigger ideas like ecology, responsibility and where food really comes from, especially for city children who might otherwise only meet an animal as a pet or a meal. I'd just say the lessons need to stay honest, showing the ordinary animals as well as the cute ones.

   Why this band

   • FC“honestly the best lessons I remember weren't from a textbook at all” — The spoken connector "honestly" plus the negative framing ("weren't ... at all") gives the opinion a reflective, conversational quality that a 6.5 answer's plain "I think so" would not carry. It is not yet as compact as the idiomatic openers a 7.5 answer would use.
   • LR“a natural way into bigger ideas like ecology, responsibility and where food really comes from” — "A natural way into" is a moderately elevated collocation, more specific than the plain "teaches...about" a 6.5 answer would use, though still short of the more distinctive imagery a 7.5 answer might reach for.
   • GRA“especially for city children who might otherwise only meet an animal as a pet or a meal” — The relative clause "who might otherwise only meet an animal as a pet or a meal" is embedded onto the noun it modifies, a moderately complex structure beyond the simple coordinated sentences of 6.5.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the precise image "a living animal somewhere in the room rather than just a diagram of one" and the compact aphorism "a lesson stocked only with adorable animals misleads just as much as one with none at all" as an evaluative closing touch.

   Definitely, and preferably with a living animal somewhere in the room rather than just a diagram of one. My primary school in Hue kept trays of silkworms in the classroom for a term, and watching them eat and spin taught me more than any textbook page ever managed — children absorb how living things work by watching them actually live. Beyond biology, animals offer an easy doorway into weightier subjects: ecology, responsibility, and the fact that the world wasn't arranged for our convenience. City-raised children especially risk never meeting an animal that isn't a pet or a meal. The one caveat is honesty — a lesson stocked only with adorable animals misleads just as much as one with none at all.

   Why this band

   • FC“children absorb how living things work by watching them actually live” — This restates the point as a small, generalised principle rather than a plain personal claim, a slightly more analytical move than the direct "I think so" of a 6.5 answer. It reads as reflection rather than a bare fact.
   • LR“animals offer an easy doorway into weightier subjects” — "A doorway into weightier subjects" is a genuinely idiomatic, image-based collocation replacing the plainer "a way into bigger ideas" a 7.0 answer might use, showing a wider and more deliberate vocabulary range.
   • GRA“The one caveat is honesty — a lesson stocked only with adorable animals misleads just as much as one with none at all” — A short fronted noun phrase ("The one caveat is honesty") is followed by a dash-linked explanatory clause, a compact, flexible construction rather than a full separate sentence with "but" as a 6.5 answer would use.

3. 3. Is it a good idea to take children to see animals in zoos?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer states its position in three words ("It depends on the zoo") and supports it with one simple story told in short, coordinated sentences joined by "and".

   It depends on the zoo. My niece and I went to a small zoo near Da Nang and saw a bear walking the same three steps again and again. She asked why it was walking wrong, and I did not know what to say. A good zoo, with enough space and good information, can teach children about animals in a real way. But a bad zoo just shows animals for people to look at. So I would take children to a good zoo, or better, let them see animals in nature.

   Why this band

   • FC“So I would take children to a good zoo, or better, let them see animals in nature.” — The conclusion is a short, separate sentence introduced by "So", directly restating the opinion rather than integrating it into the story that came before. A 7.5 answer would more likely close on an image or a pointed remark instead of a plain restatement.
   • LR“walking the same three steps again and again” — This is a plain, literal description built from repetition ("again and again") rather than a single precise verb. A higher band would likely reach for a more specific word like "pace" instead.
   • GRA“She asked why it was walking wrong, and I did not know what to say.” — Two short clauses are joined with "and" in a simple coordinated sentence, accurate but structurally plain. A 7.0 or 7.5 answer would likely turn this into a single sentence with an embedded clause instead.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer adds the reflective aside "which I honestly couldn't answer properly" and uses the mild collocation "pace the same three steps", giving the story a more natural spoken texture than the 6.5 version.

   It really depends on the zoo, and my niece taught me that without meaning to. At a small zoo near Da Nang, she watched a bear pace the same three steps for ages and asked why it was 'walking wrong', which I honestly couldn't answer properly. Good zoos, with space, conservation work and honest information, can make animals feel real in a way no screen ever could, and children who've stood close to an elephant tend to actually care about elephants afterwards. Bad zoos just teach that animals exist for our entertainment. I'd take children to a good one, or to the wild if possible.

   Why this band

   • FC“which I honestly couldn't answer properly” — This non-restrictive clause adds a spoken, self-aware comment onto the main sentence, using "honestly" the way a 6.5 answer's flat "I did not know what to say" does not. It shows reflection folded into the sentence rather than stated separately.
   • LR“pace the same three steps for ages” — "Pace" plus the informal intensifier "for ages" is a more natural collocation than the plain repetition ("again and again") a 6.5 answer would use, though it is less precise than a 7.5 answer's more exact phrasing.
   • GRA“children who've stood close to an elephant tend to actually care about elephants afterwards” — A relative clause ("who've stood close to an elephant") is embedded as the subject of the main verb, a moderately complex structure beyond the coordinated clauses of a 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer opens with the compact appositive "a lesson my niece handed me without meaning to" and closes on the pointed, idiomatic "skip anything that prompts that particular question" rather than a flat restatement of the opinion.

   It depends entirely on the zoo, a lesson my niece handed me without meaning to. At a small zoo near Da Nang, she watched a bear pace the same three steps for ten minutes straight and asked why it was 'walking wrong' — a question I had no good answer for, though it taught her something the zoo certainly hadn't intended. A well-run zoo, with genuine space, conservation work and honest signage, can make an animal real in a way no screen manages, and a child who's stood near an elephant tends to go on caring about elephants. A poorly run one simply teaches that animals exist for our amusement. Take children to a good zoo, take them to the wild where you can, and skip anything that prompts that particular question.

   Why this band

   • FC“a lesson my niece handed me without meaning to” — This appositive fragment reframes the opening statement as an unfolding realisation rather than a flat fact, a vivid, idiomatic framing device beyond the plain openers of a 6.5 or 7.0 answer.
   • LR“pace the same three steps for ten minutes straight” — "Pace" combined with the precise duration and the intensifier "straight" is a more exact, idiomatic collocation than the vaguer "for ages" of a 7.0 answer, showing a genuinely less-common word choice for the same idea.
   • GRA“a question I had no good answer for, though it taught her something the zoo certainly hadn't intended” — A compressed appositive ("a question I had no good answer for") is followed by a concessive clause introduced by "though", a flexible, layered construction well beyond the simple coordination typical of lower bands.

4. 4. How popular is having animals as pets in your country?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct opinion supported by one plain contrast (old dog vs. new poodle) and closes with a simple "So" summary, using modest, everyday vocabulary throughout.

   Pets are becoming more popular in my country, and the type of pet is changing too. In the past, my parents kept a dog outside to guard the house and eat leftovers. Now, near my flat, I often see a woman with a small poodle in a pram. Young people in the city like small dogs and cats that live inside, have names and even go to the vet. Older men still like fish and birds. In villages, animals are mostly for farm work. So pets are more popular now, especially with young city people.

   Why this band

   • FC“So pets are more popular now, especially with young city people.” — This closing sentence, introduced with "So", just restates the opening claim rather than adding anything new, a typical plain wrap-up at this band. A 7.5 answer would more likely end on an image or observation instead.
   • LR“kept a dog outside to guard the house” — This is plain, literal vocabulary describing the dog's role without any figurative colour. A higher band would likely use a more vivid or precise description of the same idea.
   • GRA“Young people in the city like small dogs and cats that live inside, have names and even go to the vet.” — A single relative clause ("that live inside, have names and even go to the vet") lists three items with "and", accurate but not structurally varied. A 7.0 answer would likely break this into a more layered sentence.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer opens with "honestly" and uses the mild collocation "useful, but not exactly family" to reflect on its own example before drawing a slightly figurative conclusion at the end.

   Pets are increasingly popular, and honestly the whole idea of what counts as a pet has shifted. My parents used to keep a dog in the yard just to bark at strangers and eat leftovers — useful, but not exactly family. These days, a regular at the café near my flat brings her poodle along in a pram, which says a lot about the new model: small dogs and cats that live indoors, have names, vets and even social media accounts. Fish and birds still suit older men, while in the villages animals remain mostly livestock. I'd say pets haven't just grown more common, they've moved from the yard to the bed.

   Why this band

   • FC“honestly the whole idea of what counts as a pet has shifted” — The spoken connector "honestly" introduces a reflective generalisation rather than a plain factual statement, something a 6.5 answer's flat "pets are becoming more popular" would not include.
   • LR“useful, but not exactly family” — This short contrastive phrase is a mild, natural collocation that packs a judgement into few words, more precise than a plain description like "kept outside to guard the house" at 6.5.
   • GRA“a regular at the café near my flat brings her poodle along in a pram, which says a lot about the new model” — A non-restrictive which-clause is added onto the main sentence to comment on it, a moderately complex link between example and analysis that a 6.5 answer's plain listing would not attempt.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the compressed appositive "the traditional Vietnamese pet: useful, outdoor, not quite family" and closes with the idiomatic image "drifted from the yard to the bed" instead of a plain restatement.

   Increasingly popular, and it's the kind of pet that's really changed. My parents kept a dog in the yard purely to bark at strangers, fed on leftovers — the traditional Vietnamese pet: useful, outdoor, not quite family. Now a regular at the café near my flat wheels her poodle along in a pram, and that's the newer model taking over: small indoor dogs and cats with names, vets, outfits and, occasionally, their own social media accounts, especially among young urban people not yet raising children. Fish and birds remain a fixture among older men, while village animals stay firmly livestock. Pets, in other words, have never been more popular, and the very idea of one has drifted from the yard to the bed.

   Why this band

   • FC“Pets, in other words, have never been more popular” — The idiomatic discourse phrase "in other words" is used mid-sentence to restate the opening claim with more force, a rhetorical move a 6.5 or 7.0 answer's plainer closing would not attempt.
   • LR“the very idea of one has drifted from the yard to the bed” — "Drifted from the yard to the bed" is a genuinely idiomatic, image-based collocation standing in for a plain description like "pets are now kept indoors", showing a distinctly wider vocabulary range.
   • GRA“My parents kept a dog in the yard purely to bark at strangers, fed on leftovers — the traditional Vietnamese pet: useful, outdoor, not quite family.” — A dash introduces a compressed appositive fragment ("the traditional Vietnamese pet: useful, outdoor, not quite family") standing in for a full clause, a flexible construction well beyond the simple sentences of lower bands.

5. 5. Should people who live in cities not have pets?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct opinion ("should be allowed to"), one plain example, and a short, blunt judgement ("That is not fair to the dog") before closing with a simple "So" rule.

   I think people in cities should be allowed to have pets, but they need to think carefully first. My upstairs neighbour keeps a husky in a small flat, in a city where it is very hot, and only walks it once a day. That is not fair to the dog. Cities can be fine for cats or small dogs if the owner has time. But a big, active animal in a small space is not a good match. So the real rule should not be about the city, but about choosing the right animal for the right life.

   Why this band

   • FC“That is not fair to the dog.” — This short, blunt sentence states a plain moral judgement directly with no hedging, typical of the direct style at this band. A 7.0 answer would more likely fold this judgement into the sentence describing the example instead of stating it separately.
   • LR“a big, active animal in a small space is not a good match” — This is a plain descriptive phrase using ordinary adjectives ("big, active") without any distinctive collocation. A higher band would likely choose a more vivid or specific way of expressing the same mismatch.
   • GRA“My upstairs neighbour keeps a husky in a small flat, in a city where it is very hot, and only walks it once a day.” — This sentence strings several facts together with commas and "and", grammatically correct but repetitive in structure. A 7.5 answer would likely compress this into a dash-linked phrase instead.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer softens its opinion with "honestly" and the collocation "a pet chosen for how it looks rather than what it needs", then uses a longer but-linked sentence to weigh both sides before its conclusion.

   They should be allowed to, but honestly a lot of people don't think it through properly. My upstairs neighbour keeps a husky — a snow dog — in a thirty-square-metre flat in a city that's thirty-five degrees for half the year, walked just once a day, and it's clearly a pet chosen for how it looks rather than what it needs. Cities can suit cats and small dogs, especially with an owner who has time to walk them properly, but they can't really suit a large, active animal in a cramped space with nobody home all day. I'd say the rule shouldn't be about the city at all; it should be about matching the animal to the life.

   Why this band

   • FC“honestly a lot of people don't think it through properly” — The spoken hedge "honestly" introduces a generalising, reflective remark rather than the flat direct claim a 6.5 answer would open with, giving the opinion a more conversational feel.
   • LR“a pet chosen for how it looks rather than what it needs” — This rather-clause contrast is a moderately elevated way of expressing the idea a 6.5 answer states plainly as "not a good match", showing more precise, judgement-carrying vocabulary.
   • GRA“Cities can suit cats and small dogs, especially with an owner who has time to walk them properly, but they can't really suit a large, active animal in a cramped space with nobody home all day.” — This long compound-complex sentence joins two contrasted clauses with "but", each containing its own embedded detail, a more ambitious structure than the short separate sentences of a 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the vivid verb "crammed" and the fronted construction "what they can't suit is..." for emphasis, ending with a pointed comparison rather than a flat rule.

   They should be allowed to, though plenty of people clearly haven't thought it through. My upstairs neighbour keeps a husky — a snow dog, no less — crammed into a thirty-square-metre flat in a city that hits thirty-five degrees for half the year, walked once a day; it's a pet chosen for its looks, and the animal is the one paying for that choice. Cities can suit cats, small dogs, and owners with the time to walk them properly; what they can't suit is a large, restless animal in a cramped space with an owner out at work for ten hours. The rule, then, shouldn't really be about cities at all — it should be about matching the animal to the life on offer. A flat with a cat and an attentive owner beats a village yard with a dog on a chain.

   Why this band

   • FC“it's a pet chosen for its looks, and the animal is the one paying for that choice” — This closing remark uses a parallel structure to deliver a pointed judgement, a compact, evaluative move beyond the plain sentence ("That is not fair to the dog") a 6.5 answer would use for the same idea.
   • LR“crammed into a thirty-square-metre flat” — "Crammed" is a vivid, precise verb choice in place of the plain "kept ... in" a 6.5 or 7.0 answer would use, immediately conveying discomfort through word choice alone.
   • GRA“what they can't suit is a large, restless animal in a cramped space with an owner out at work for ten hours” — This fronted cleft construction ("what they can't suit is...") inverts normal word order for emphasis, a flexible structure the simpler but-linked sentences of a 6.5 or 7.0 answer would not attempt.

6. 6. How might older people benefit from having a pet?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer opens with a general claim ("Pets can help older people in many ways") and supports it with one everyday example told in short, plainly connected sentences.

   Pets can help older people in many ways. My grandmother has a cat, and it makes her get out of bed at six every morning and walk to the market to buy fish. It also gives her something to talk about with the neighbours. Doctors say pets can lower blood pressure and stop older people feeling lonely, and I believe this is true. But there are some problems too, like a big dog that could make someone fall over. Still, for most older people, a cat or small dog is good company.

   Why this band

   • FC“But there are some problems too, like a big dog that could make someone fall over.” — This additional point is introduced with the plain connector "But" and listed directly, a typical simple way of adding a second idea at this band. A 7.5 answer would more likely weave this concern into the surrounding sentence instead of stating it separately.
   • LR“Doctors say pets can lower blood pressure and stop older people feeling lonely” — The plain reporting verb "say" and simple verbs ("lower", "stop") deliver the idea with no elevated vocabulary. A higher band would likely use a more precise verb than "stop... feeling" for the same meaning.
   • GRA“it makes her get out of bed at six every morning and walk to the market to buy fish” — This is a simple causative structure ("makes her") with two coordinated verbs joined by "and", grammatically accurate but structurally basic. A 7.0 answer would likely turn this into a list of three effects instead of two coordinated verbs.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer opens with the short spoken response "Quite a lot, actually" and lists three effects before summarising them in one dash-linked phrase, adding reflection the plainer 6.5 version lacks.

   Quite a lot, actually. My grandmother's cat gets her out of bed at six every morning, gives her a reason to walk to the market for fish, and gives her something to complain about to the neighbours — three things doctors recommend for people over eighty, delivered by one small animal. Pets generally give older people structure, gentle exercise and a living presence in a house that's often gone quiet, and studies suggesting lower blood pressure and less loneliness don't surprise me at all. There are limits, of course — a big dog can easily pull someone over — but for most older people, a cat or small dog is company that never asks how they're feeling and always wants dinner.

   Why this band

   • FC“Quite a lot, actually.” — This short, natural spoken opener directly answers the implicit question before elaborating, a conversational rhythm a 6.5 answer's flatter opening statement would not use.
   • LR“gives her something to complain about to the neighbours” — This is a mildly wry, natural collocation describing a small daily pleasure, more textured than the plain "gives her something to talk about" a 6.5 answer would use.
   • GRA“three things doctors recommend for people over eighty, delivered by one small animal” — A compressed appositive phrase ("delivered by one small animal") is tacked onto the list without repeating the subject and verb, a moderately complex construction beyond the simple coordination of a 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer opens with the compact claim "my grandmother is proof of it" and the vivid verb "hauls", then closes with the fronted "there's the nagging worry of who takes the animal in" before its final evaluative line.

   Quite substantially, and my grandmother is proof of it. Her cat hauls her out of bed at six every morning, gives her a reason to walk to the market for fish, and supplies a running subject to complain about to the neighbours — three things doctors recommend for the over-eighties, delivered by a single animal. Pets more broadly give older people structure, gentle exercise and a living presence in houses that have often gone quiet, and the studies pointing to lower blood pressure and less loneliness ring entirely true to me. There are real limits — a large dog can easily topple someone, and there's the nagging worry of who takes the animal in if its owner falls ill — but for most older people, a cat or small dog is company that never asks how you're feeling and always wants feeding.

   Why this band

   • FC“Quite substantially, and my grandmother is proof of it.” — This compact opener both answers the question and previews the example in one economical sentence, an idiomatic move beyond the simpler "Quite a lot, actually" of a 7.0 answer.
   • LR“Her cat hauls her out of bed at six every morning” — "Hauls" is a vivid, less-common verb choice compared to the plain "gets" a 6.5 or 7.0 answer would use for the same action, immediately adding character to the sentence.
   • GRA“there's the nagging worry of who takes the animal in if its owner falls ill” — This existential construction ("there's the nagging worry of...") embeds a conditional clause within a noun phrase, a flexible structure well beyond the simple sentences a 6.5 answer would use to raise the same concern.

7. 7. Are animals just as intelligent as humans?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct position ("different way from humans") with one example and one main reason (language), using the plain connectors "but" and "so" throughout.

   Animals are intelligent, but in a different way from humans. I once saw a crow on the road drop a snail so a car would break it open, which shows it can plan and use tools. Dolphins and elephants are also very clever animals. But humans have language, and this lets us pass knowledge from one generation to the next. This is why humans can build cities and crows cannot. So animals are smart in their own way, but not as smart as humans in every way.

   Why this band

   • FC“So animals are smart in their own way, but not as smart as humans in every way.” — This closing sentence uses "so" and "but" to restate the opening claim in almost the same words, a plain contrastive wrap-up typical of this band. A 7.5 answer would likely close on a sharper, more original line instead.
   • LR“Dolphins and elephants are also very clever animals.” — The generic adjective "clever" with the intensifier "very" is basic, everyday vocabulary. A higher band would use more varied, specific verbs to describe what these animals actually do.
   • GRA“I once saw a crow on the road drop a snail so a car would break it open, which shows it can plan and use tools.” — A single relative clause ("which shows it can plan and use tools") is tacked onto a simple narrative sentence, accurate but not particularly varied in structure.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer hedges its opening claim with "I'd say" and builds a longer cumulative sentence ("Dolphins... and elephants... so...") before naming the one difference it thinks actually matters.

   Differently intelligent, I'd say, which isn't quite the same as equally. I once watched a crow on the Sơn Trà road drop a snail onto the road and wait for a car to crack it open — that's planning, tool use and a real grasp of cause and effect. Dolphins recognise each other by name-like calls, and elephants seem to mourn, so on their own problems, some animals clearly think as well as we do. What humans have that nothing else really does is language that carries ideas across generations, so each of us starts with everything the last generation learned. That's the difference that actually matters.

   Why this band

   • FC“I'd say, which isn't quite the same as equally” — This hedge is inserted right after the opening claim as a brief spoken qualification, softening a direct statement in a natural conversational way that a 6.5 answer's flat opening would not include.
   • LR“a real grasp of cause and effect” — This is a moderately elevated collocation ("grasp of cause and effect") rather than the plain description a 6.5 answer would give, such as "it can plan".
   • GRA“Dolphins recognise each other by name-like calls, and elephants seem to mourn, so on their own problems, some animals clearly think as well as we do.” — This sentence chains two clauses with "and" before drawing a conclusion with "so", a moderately complex cumulative structure beyond the short separate sentences of a 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer lists three varied examples (dolphins, octopuses, elephants) with precise verbs, then closes with the compact fragment "a difference in kind rather than degree" as its evaluative point.

   Differently intelligent, which isn't the same thing as equally. I once watched a crow on the Sơn Trà road drop a snail onto the tarmac and simply wait for a passing car to crack it open — a plan, complete with a tool and a working grasp of cause and effect. Dolphins address each other by something like names, octopuses solve puzzles, elephants appear to mourn their dead; on their own terms, plenty of animals think as well as we do. What sets humans apart is language capable of carrying ideas across generations, so each of us inherits everything the last generation figured out. That's why we build cities and crows don't, a difference in kind rather than degree. Animals, in the end, are far cleverer than we once assumed, and still nowhere near us on the things we happen to value.

   Why this band

   • FC“That's why we build cities and crows don't, a difference in kind rather than degree.” — This closing judgement appends a fragment after a comma instead of a full second clause, an economical, idiomatic construction beyond the plain "but not as smart as humans in every way" a 6.5 answer would use.
   • LR“octopuses solve puzzles, elephants appear to mourn their dead” — This tricolon uses three precise, varied verbs ("address", "solve", "mourn") across its list rather than the one generic adjective "clever" a 6.5 answer relies on, showing a wider vocabulary range.
   • GRA“What sets humans apart is language capable of carrying ideas across generations” — This fronted cleft construction ("What sets humans apart is...") combined with a reduced relative ("capable of carrying..." instead of "which is capable of") is compact and flexible, well beyond the simple relative clauses of lower bands.

8. 8. Why have many people's attitudes towards animals changed in recent years?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer lists several causes one by one, each introduced with "Also" or a new short sentence, and closes with a plain "So" summary of the pattern it sees.

   I think several things have caused this change. Near my old flat, a restaurant stopped selling dog meat because young customers stopped going there, and this happened without any new law. Also, people now have more money, so they do not need animals for work, and they can see them as friends instead of tools. Pets are now part of the family, with names and photos. Films and social media also show people how animals think and feel. So attitudes are changing fastest when an animal becomes a companion, not just something useful.

   Why this band

   • FC“So attitudes are changing fastest when an animal becomes a companion, not just something useful.” — This short concluding sentence, signalled with "So", restates the pattern plainly rather than developing it further. A 7.5 answer would more likely turn this into a balanced, parallel closing sentence instead.
   • LR“people now have more money” — This is plain, everyday vocabulary for an economic idea that a higher band would likely name with a more precise, abstract term.
   • GRA“a restaurant stopped selling dog meat because young customers stopped going there, and this happened without any new law” — Two clauses are joined with "and" in straightforward coordination, grammatically correct but structurally plain compared to the dash-linked constructions of higher bands.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer inserts the reflective aside "and I've actually seen one happen" and names the abstract cause "Prosperity" before explaining it, giving more shape to the list of reasons than the 6.5 version.

   A few things at once, I think, and I've actually seen one happen. A restaurant near my old flat quietly took dog meat off the menu because younger customers had simply stopped coming, and that shift happened in about a decade without a single new law. Prosperity plays a part too — people who no longer depend on animals for work or survival can afford to see them as individuals rather than tools. Pets have moved into the family, so they now have names and faces, and documentaries and social media have shown people what farms and wild animals' minds actually look like. Attitudes seem to change fastest once an animal becomes a companion rather than a resource.

   Why this band

   • FC“I think, and I've actually seen one happen” — This spoken reflective aside is inserted mid-sentence to signal personal involvement, a natural conversational move a 6.5 answer's flatter opening would not include.
   • LR“Prosperity plays a part too” — "Prosperity" is a more abstract, precise noun replacing the plain phrase "people now have more money" a 6.5 answer would use for the same idea.
   • GRA“people who no longer depend on animals for work or survival can afford to see them as individuals rather than tools” — A relative clause ("who no longer depend on animals for work or survival") governs the subject of the main verb, a moderately complex structure beyond the simple coordination of a 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer uses the extended image "thrown open the doors of farms and the minds of wild animals" and closes with a balanced, parallel sentence contrasting "a resource" with "a companion".

   Several things at once, I'd say, and I've watched one of them unfold. A restaurant near my old flat quietly dropped dog meat from the menu once younger customers simply stopped showing up — an attitude shift achieved in a decade with no new law behind it at all. Prosperity is part of the story: people no longer dependent on animals for work or survival can afford to see them as individuals rather than resources. Pets have migrated into the family proper, acquiring names and faces along the way, while documentaries and social media have thrown open the doors of farms and the minds of wild animals for anyone to see. A generation raised on films with animal heroes, too, finds cruelty harder to shrug off. Attitudes shift fastest once an animal stops being a resource and becomes a companion.

   Why this band

   • FC“Attitudes shift fastest once an animal stops being a resource and becomes a companion.” — This closing sentence uses a balanced, parallel contrast as a rhetorical flourish, more idiomatic than the plainer "So attitudes are changing fastest when..." a 6.5 answer would use to make the same point.
   • LR“documentaries and social media have thrown open the doors of farms and the minds of wild animals” — "Thrown open the doors" is a vivid extended metaphor standing in for a literal description like "have shown people", demonstrating a distinctly wider and more deliberate vocabulary range.
   • GRA“Pets have migrated into the family proper, acquiring names and faces along the way” — A main clause is followed by a participial phrase ("acquiring names and faces along the way") instead of a second finite clause joined by "and", a more compact grammatical choice than lower bands would make.

9. 9. Do animals deserve to have the same rights as humans?

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

   Band 6.5

   The 6.5 answer gives a direct position ("not exactly the same rights ... but real rights") supported by one simple example and closes with a plain qualifying sentence using "but".

   I do not think animals should have exactly the same rights as humans, but they deserve some real rights. For example, the right not to suffer for no reason, and to live in a natural way. Humans have rights with duties too, like voting, and a buffalo cannot do this. But we still use animals, like the buffalo that pulls the plough near Tam Kỳ, and most people eat meat. I do not think this is always wrong, but it should be done in a kind way.

   Why this band

   • FC“But we still use animals, like the buffalo that pulls the plough near Tam Kỳ, and most people eat meat.” — This is a plain listing sentence joined with "and", presenting facts directly with little hedging or reflection. A 7.0 answer would likely add a spoken aside to soften or comment on the same list.
   • LR“in a kind way” — This is a simple, generic adjective phrase rather than a more precise term for the idea, which a higher band would likely name more specifically.
   • GRA“the right not to suffer for no reason, and to live in a natural way” — Two infinitive phrases are joined by "and" in straightforward parallel listing, accurate but structurally plain compared to higher bands.

   Band 7.0

   The 7.0 answer hedges its position with "I'd say" and uses the natural collocation "eat meat without thinking twice", adding a mildly reflective, spoken texture to the same basic argument as the 6.5 answer.

   Not the same rights as humans, but real ones, I'd say. There's a cricket story I love that basically argues even insects deserve not to be tormented, and I think that's about the right line — a right not to suffer needlessly, to live as their nature intends, to be treated with some basic respect. The same rights as humans doesn't quite make sense, since rights come bundled with duties, and a buffalo can't exactly vote or stand trial. Where it gets uncomfortable is how we actually use animals: the buffalo still pulls the plough near Tam Kỳ, and most of us eat meat without thinking twice.

   Why this band

   • FC“but real ones, I'd say” — This brief spoken hedge attached to the opening claim softens a direct statement in a natural conversational way, something the flatter opening of a 6.5 answer would not include.
   • LR“eat meat without thinking twice” — This is a natural idiomatic collocation rather than the plain statement "most people eat meat" a 6.5 answer would use, adding a touch of judgement through word choice alone.
   • GRA“rights come bundled with duties, and a buffalo can't exactly vote or stand trial” — The metaphorical verb "bundled with" is followed by a coordinated clause, a slightly more textured construction than the plain listing of a 6.5 answer.

   Band 7.5

   The 7.5 answer treats the quoted phrase 'The same rights as humans' as its own grammatical subject and closes with the compact, ellipted line "the manner of it very often is," a more economical evaluative touch than the plainer bands.

   Not the same rights as humans, but real ones nonetheless. There's a cricket story I'm fond of that argues, in the end, that even an insect deserves not to be tormented, and I think that's roughly the right line to draw — a right not to suffer needlessly, to live as its nature intends, to be treated with some basic dignity. 'The same rights as humans' doesn't really hold together, since rights arrive bundled with duties, and a buffalo can hardly vote or stand trial. Where things get uncomfortable is in how we actually use animals: the buffalo still pulls the plough near Tam Kỳ, and most of us eat meat without a second thought. None of that strikes me as automatically wrong, but the manner of it very often is.

   Why this band

   • FC“None of that strikes me as automatically wrong, but the manner of it very often is.” — This closing sentence ends with an ellipted clause ("but the manner of it very often is [wrong]"), a compact, idiomatic construction more economical than the fuller closing sentence a 6.5 answer would spell out in full.
   • LR“a buffalo can hardly vote or stand trial” — "Can hardly" is a precise, slightly wry collocation, more idiomatic than the flat negative "cannot do this" a 6.5 answer would use for the same point.
   • GRA“'The same rights as humans' doesn't really hold together, since rights arrive bundled with duties” — This sentence treats a quoted phrase as its own grammatical subject, a flexible, compact construction well beyond the simple sentences typical of lower bands.