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

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

What Part 3 questions follow this cue card?

After "A Time When Someone You Know Found a Clever Solution to a Problem", examiners have asked 9 follow-up discussion questions, listed above. They move from your personal story to general opinions on the same theme.

Is this cue card still being used?

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

IELTS Speaking Part 2

A Time When Someone You Know Found a Clever Solution to a Problem

Most recently asked in May–Aug 2026

The cue card

Describe a time when someone you know found a clever solution to a problem

You should say:

Who the person is
What the problem was
What the person did
And explain why you think this was a clever solution to the problem

Sample answers: Band 6.5, 7.0 & 7.5

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

Band 6.5

The explanation of the problem and solution is simple and literal, with one plain closing reason ('it turned something messy... into something short'), typical of Band 6.5.

The person I want to talk about is Nam, a colleague at my studio who works on the same client projects as me.

The problem was that our overseas clients often sent feedback as long voice messages on Zalo, sometimes at strange hours because of the time difference between countries. We would listen once, forget half of it, and then have to play the message again and again just to find what they actually wanted changed.

What Nam did was quite simple, really. After listening to a voice message, he would immediately write three or four short lines in our shared document, like a small list of the real changes needed, with the date next to it. He did this every single time, without skipping it.

I think it was a clever solution because it turned something messy, a long spoken message, into something short and easy to check later. Nobody else thought to do something so simple so quickly. Now the whole team copies his habit, and we waste much less time replaying old messages.

176 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“he would immediately write three or four short lines in our shared document” — The sentence uses entirely concrete, functional vocabulary — 'write', 'short lines', 'shared document' — to describe exactly what Nam did, with the adverb 'immediately' the only word doing any real evaluative work by signalling promptness rather than delay. A higher-band answer might instead use a more specific term for the practice, but here plain description is sufficient to make the habit fully clear, which is exactly what the 6.5 lexical target rewards — clarity over range.
GRA“We would listen once, forget half of it, and then have to play the message again and again” — Three actions share the same subject ('we') and are chained with commas and 'and', tracking a repeated cycle of frustration (listen, forget, replay) in the order it actually happens, using 'would' to mark it as a habitual past pattern. This coordination-based structure is accurate and easy to follow but doesn't attempt to compress the cycle into a more economical construction, such as a participial phrase describing the repeated replaying, the way a 7.0 answer might. It matches the 6.5 grammar target's preference for simple, correctly sequenced clauses over structural compression.
FC“I think it was a clever solution because it turned something messy, a long spoken message, into something short and easy to check later.” — The 'because' clause gives exactly one explanation for why the solution was clever — the messy-to-organised transformation — reinforced by the appositive 'a long spoken message' restating what 'something messy' refers to for clarity. The sentence doesn't go further to compare this solution against alternatives or reflect on why nobody else had thought of it, keeping the development to a single supported reason, which is the 6.5 Fluency & Coherence ceiling — one clear reason, directly stated, is sufficient.

Band 7.0

The answer explains the mechanism of the fix in one extra layer of detail (parking early-leavers' bikes near the gate based on the list) and closes with a reflective generalisation about simple fixes, giving fuller development than 6.5's flatter description while staying less structurally varied than the 7.5 answer.

The person I'd talk about is Mr. Bình, the caretaker of the apartment building where I live, who's worked here for around ten years and knows pretty much everyone by name.

The problem was our building's tiny parking area, which was never designed for the number of motorbikes people actually own now. Every morning there'd be at least one bike blocking someone else's, and whoever needed to leave first would end up banging on doors trying to find the owner, sometimes at six in the morning, which understandably annoyed a lot of residents.

What Mr. Bình did was surprisingly low-tech. He put up a large whiteboard by the entrance with every apartment number listed on it, and asked residents to write down roughly what time they'd normally leave in the morning next to their number. Nothing fancy, just a rough guide in marker pen that gets updated whenever someone's schedule changes. He also started parking the "early leavers'" bikes nearer the gate himself each night, based on that same list.

Why I think it was a clever solution is that it solved a people problem with a people-sized fix, rather than something complicated like an app or a booking system, which honestly nobody in our building would have bothered using properly anyway. It cost him almost nothing except a whiteboard and a bit of extra effort every evening, and it worked immediately because it matched how residents actually think and behave. The number of angry knocks on doors dropped to almost zero within a week, and a few of my neighbours have said they wish more problems in life had such a simple fix.

274 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“solved a people problem with a people-sized fix” — This is a natural, slightly playful collocation built around repeating "people" for rhetorical effect, more inventive than a plain phrase like "found a simple solution," while still staying well within everyday, unpretentious vocabulary. This fits the 7.0 lexical target of going a step beyond plain vocabulary without tipping into genuine idiom. It also crystallizes the argument of the whole paragraph, that a low-tech, human-scale fix worked better than a complicated app would have.
GRA“He put up a large whiteboard by the entrance with every apartment number listed on it, and asked residents to write down roughly what time they'd normally leave” — This coordinates two main actions, putting up the whiteboard and asking residents to write times, while embedding a prepositional phrase and an indirect question, "what time they'd normally leave," inside the second clause, handling multiple pieces of information accurately in one sentence. It's the comfortable, accurate complex grammar the 7.0 descriptor describes, doing real descriptive work by explaining exactly how the caretaker's low-tech system functioned. A 6.5 answer would likely split this into two or three shorter, simpler sentences.
FC“a few of my neighbours have said they wish more problems in life had such a simple fix” — This reflective closing generalisation extends the specific parking story into a broader observation about simple solutions in general, rather than just restating that the whiteboard system worked. That's the kind of development beyond plain description the 7.0 descriptor rewards; a 6.5 answer would likely end with "now everyone knows when to move their bike." Attributing the observation to neighbours rather than stating it as the speaker's own opinion also adds a light touch of reported, communal validation to the conclusion.

Band 7.5

The parallel contrast built around the semicolon ('Everyone else had been trying... Đức made the system speak the client's language instead') shows the sentence variety and precise phrasing typical of Band 7.5.

The person I'd talk about is Đức, a colleague at my studio who's been a designer for about the same time as me and who has a talent for solving problems sideways.

The problem was one every design studio knows. Clients would receive versions of a design — version one, version two, version three, then 'final', then 'final-final', then 'final-really' — and within a week nobody, including us, could remember which one had been approved. We'd present a screen, the client would say 'but that's not what we agreed', and we'd spend half an hour digging through emails. It wasted time, and worse, it made us look careless in front of the people paying us.

Everyone had tried the obvious fixes. Better file naming, a shared folder, a document tracking approvals. None of it stuck, because clients don't follow our systems; they follow their own memory.

What Đức did was stop naming files after our process and start naming them after the client's. Every version was labelled with the date and name of the meeting where the client had seen it — 'after the Tuesday call with Ms Lan', 'shown at the March review'. Nothing else changed. But clients remember meetings; they don't remember numbers. Suddenly, when someone said 'we agreed the blue one', we could say 'the blue one from the March review', and everyone knew exactly what was meant.

Why I think it was clever is that it cost nothing and touched nothing technical. Everyone else had been trying to make clients better at using our system; Đức made the system speak the client's language instead. He'd noticed that the problem wasn't files, it was memory, and memory works by events. The studio adopted it in a week, and two years later I still hear people from other companies asking how we keep our versions so clear. I tell them a colleague renamed some files. They never believe that's all it was.

324 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“Đức made the system speak the client's language instead” — This figurative phrase personifies the filing system as something capable of "speaking a language," a precise and idiomatic way of describing a design choice (renaming files after client meetings rather than internal version numbers) that a Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely state literally ("Đức changed how the files were named so clients could understand them"). The metaphor also captures the exact insight the story is building toward -- that the fix worked because it adapted to how clients think, not how designers think. It's reinforced later in the same paragraph ("memory works by events"), showing the image isn't a one-off flourish but the organising idea of the whole account.
GRA“Everyone else had been trying to make clients better at using our system; Đức made the system speak the client's language instead.” — The semicolon joins two grammatically parallel but contrasting clauses without a connecting word, relying on the structural mirroring itself (both clauses share the pattern subject + verb + object) to signal the contrast -- a controlled, wide-ranging grammatical choice beyond the simpler coordination with "but" a Band 6.5 or 7.0 speaker would use instead. The past perfect continuous in the first clause ("had been trying") also correctly marks an ongoing failed effort before Đức's different approach, adding a layer of aspectual precision. This sentence functions as the analytical turning point of the whole story, so the grammar is carrying the argument's central contrast, not just describing events in sequence.
FC“He'd noticed that the problem wasn't files, it was memory, and memory works by events.” — This is an analytical, near-cleft insight that reframes the practical problem (confusing file versions) as an abstract one (how human memory works), a genuine piece of interpretive reasoning rather than a plain description of what Đức did -- exactly the reflective coherence the 7.5 descriptor highlights. A Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely stop at describing the renaming system itself without this underlying explanation of why it worked. The repeated structure ("the problem wasn't X, it was Y") also builds toward the final, almost aphoristic claim ("memory works by events"), giving the answer's conclusion real intellectual weight rather than a flat summary.

How this card was asked, by exam period

Describe a time when someone you know found a clever solution to a problemMay–Aug 2026

Part 3 follow-up questions

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

1. Do you think children are born clever, or do they learn to be clever?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
States the opening claim and its evidence in one short, plain sentence, without the extra framing the higher bands add.
Both, I think, and my sister's children are proof. They have the same parents and the same house, but one takes apart clocks while the other takes apart arguments, so each was born with something different. But what they do with it depends on what's around them — the clock child had a grandfather with tools, and the arguing child had a mother who debated at dinner. So children are born with different abilities, and being clever happens when that ability meets a chance. Without books or attention, a quick child can look ordinary by ten.
Why this band
FC“Both, I think, and my sister's children are proof.” — This opening states the position and evidence together in one short, plain sentence, fitting 6.5's style. 7.0 extends this with 'my evidence', and 7.5 adds 'for it', both giving the same claim a slightly more considered, personal framing.
LR“a mother who debated at dinner” — This is plain, functional phrasing. 7.5 extends it slightly to 'a mother who debated at the dinner table', a marginally fuller and more natural image for the same idea.
GRA“Without books or attention, a quick child can look ordinary by ten.” — A short fronted conditional, correct and clear. 7.5 extends a very similar idea into a longer sentence with a relative clause, showing more developed modification.
Band 7.0
Adds the hedge 'Honestly' and reuses the phrase 'my evidence' to give the opening a more personal, spoken framing.
Honestly, I think it's both, and my sister's children are my evidence. They have the same parents, the same house and the same school, yet one takes apart clocks while the other takes apart arguments — there's clearly something each of them arrived with. But what they've done with it depends entirely on what was around them: the clock child had a grandfather with tools, while the arguing child had a mother who debated at dinner. I'd say children are born with different raw abilities, and cleverness is really what happens when that ability meets an opportunity. A quick child with no books or attention will look pretty ordinary by ten.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, I think it's both, and my sister's children are my evidence.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 reaches a similar effect by adding 'for it' at the end instead of the hedge, a subtly more compact way of framing the same claim.
LR“there's clearly something each of them arrived with” — This is a precise, slightly abstract phrase for innate ability, reused identically at 7.5. It shows that at the top two bands a well-chosen phrase can recur while the surrounding sentence structure grows more demanding.
GRA“the clock child had a grandfather with tools, while the arguing child had a mother who debated at dinner” — This clause uses 'while' to balance two parallel examples, correct and fluent. 7.5 keeps the same parallel content but replaces 'while' with a semicolon, a marginally tighter and more formal way of joining the same balanced contrast.
Band 7.5
Closes with a semicolon-linked metaphorical pair, 'Talent is the seed; everything else is weather', that neither lower band attempts.
Both, I'd say, and my sister's children are my evidence for it. They share the same parents, the same house and the same school, and yet one takes apart clocks while the other takes apart arguments — there's clearly something each of them arrived with. What they've done with it, though, depends entirely on what was around them: the clock child had a grandfather with tools; the arguing child had a mother who debated at the dinner table. I'd say children are born with different raw abilities and different appetites, and cleverness is essentially what happens when an appetite meets an opportunity. A quick child raised in a home with no books and no attention will look thoroughly ordinary by ten. Talent is the seed; everything else is weather.
Why this band
FC“Talent is the seed; everything else is weather.” — This closing uses a semicolon to join two short, metaphorical statements into one compact, almost proverbial line, giving the ending real rhetorical shape. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 attempts this kind of figurative, balanced final image.
LR“different raw abilities and different appetites” — This adds the precise word 'appetites' alongside 'abilities', distinguishing inborn skill from inborn drive, a more nuanced pairing than the plainer 'different abilities' used at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the kind of exact vocabulary expected at 7.5.
GRA“the clock child had a grandfather with tools; the arguing child had a mother who debated at the dinner table” — This sentence uses a semicolon to balance two parallel clauses with identical grammatical shape, a more sophisticated punctuation choice than the 'while' clause at 7.0. That controlled parallelism is a hallmark of the grammatical range expected at 7.5.
2. How important are schools in helping children become more clever?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Closes with a short, direct sentence, unlike the higher bands' more developed final structures.
Very important, though not always in the way schools think. A maths teacher in Hue taught us to guess the answer before calculating it, so we would notice if a result was wrong, and that one habit has helped me more than anything else in the syllabus. Schools also give children things a home can't, like peers to compete with. The problem is that most schooling rewards memory and following rules, which isn't cleverness, and school can make a bright child duller instead of sharper. I think the teacher matters more than the school itself.
Why this band
FC“Very important, though not always in the way schools think.” — This opening gives the qualified answer in one plain sentence, suiting 6.5's direct style. Both higher bands add 'themselves' to sharpen the target of the qualification, and 7.5 pairs it with the stronger opening adverb 'genuinely'.
LR“that one habit has helped me more than anything else in the syllabus” — This is a clear, functional claim. 7.5 intensifies it to 'served me better than anything else in the whole syllabus', a slightly more emphatic and idiomatic version of the same statement.
GRA“I think the teacher matters more than the school itself.” — A short, simple closing sentence, correct and direct. 7.5 rephrases the same closing with an inserted hedge and a comparative phrase, showing a more developed final structure.
Band 7.0
Adds 'themselves' to the opening qualifier, sharpening what exactly is being qualified beyond 6.5's plainer version.
Honestly, very important, though not always in the way schools themselves think. A maths teacher in Hue taught us to guess the answer before calculating it, so we'd notice when a result seemed absurd — and that single habit has served me better than anything else in the syllabus. Schools also give children things a home can't: peers to compete with, subjects parents don't know, and someone who notices a talent the family missed. The limit is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, which aren't really cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one. I'd say the teacher matters more than the institution.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, very important, though not always in the way schools themselves think.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more spoken, personal quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 achieves a similarly considered tone without the hedge, using 'rarely' instead of 'not always', a marginally more precise adverb.
LR“someone who notices a talent the family missed” — This is a clear, functional relative clause. 7.5 extends the same idea with 'missed entirely', a small intensifier that sharpens the same point without changing the core vocabulary.
GRA“The limit is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, which aren't really cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one.” — This sentence uses a relative clause plus a comparative 'just as easily as' structure, correct and fluent. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but replaces 'which aren't really' with 'neither of which is actually', a marginally more formal and precise variant.
Band 7.5
Closes with an inserted hedge and a comparative phrase, 'matters rather more than the institution around them', extending the plainer closings below.
Genuinely important, though rarely in the way schools themselves imagine. A maths teacher in Hue once taught us to guess the answer before calculating it, so we'd notice the moment a result looked absurd — and that single habit has served me better than anything else in the whole syllabus. Schools also hand children things a home simply can't provide: peers to compete against, subjects parents have never heard of, and someone who notices a talent the family missed entirely. The catch is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, neither of which is actually cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one. The teacher, I'd argue, matters rather more than the institution around them.
Why this band
FC“The teacher, I'd argue, matters rather more than the institution around them.” — The inserted hedge 'I'd argue' and the phrase 'the institution around them' give this closing more rhetorical weight and precision than the plainer versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more deliberately argued final claim.
LR“hand children things a home simply can't provide” — 'Hand children things' is a slightly more vivid, active verb choice than the plain 'give children things' used at the lower bands, and 'provide' adds a note of formality. It shows the kind of precise, natural phrasing that marks 7.5 vocabulary.
GRA“The catch is that most schooling rewards memory and obedience, neither of which is actually cleverness, and a school can dull a bright child just as easily as it sharpens one.” — This sentence uses 'neither of which' instead of 'which aren't', a more formal and precise relative construction. That small but deliberate grammatical refinement within an otherwise shared structure is characteristic of the top band's control.
3. Do you agree or disagree that very clever children are usually happy?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
States the disagreement plainly with 'I' included, unlike the higher bands' more compressed openings.
I disagree, or at least I doubt the word 'usually'. There was a boy at my school two years ahead, and I remember him eating lunch alone; every time he was moved up to be challenged, he lost the friends he'd made. Very clever children see problems others don't notice, get bored by lessons made for average students, and feel lonely among people who share nothing with them. Adults add pressure too. Some clever children are happy, especially if their family values them for more than results, but intelligence and happiness are different things.
Why this band
FC“I disagree, or at least I doubt the word 'usually'.” — This opening states the disagreement and its limit plainly, suiting 6.5's style. Both higher bands drop 'I' before 'doubt' for a slightly more compressed, confident opening, and 7.5 adds 'rather strongly' at the end for extra emphasis.
LR“get bored by lessons made for average students” — This is plain, functional wording. 7.5 upgrades this to 'lessons pitched at the average student', a more precise and idiomatic verb choice for the same idea.
GRA“Some clever children are happy, especially if their family values them for more than results, but intelligence and happiness are different things.” — This sentence uses 'especially if' and 'but' to add a condition and a contrast, correct and reasonably developed. 7.5 extends a similar sentence further with an added clause about social cleverness and a final result clause, showing a longer, more layered structure.
Band 7.0
Drops the second 'I' before 'doubt' for a more compressed, confident opening than 6.5's fuller version.
Honestly, I'd disagree, or at least doubt the word 'usually'. There was a boy at my school two years ahead of everyone in every subject, and I mostly remember him eating lunch alone; each time he was moved up a class to be challenged, he lost the few friends he'd managed to make. Very clever children often notice problems others don't, get bored by lessons built for the average student, and can end up lonely among people who don't share their interests. Adults also pile expectations onto them. Some are perfectly happy, especially where the family values them for more than just results — but intelligence and happiness really are separate gifts.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, I'd disagree, or at least doubt the word 'usually'.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 achieves a similarly weighed tone without the hedge, adding 'rather strongly' at the end instead, a marginally more emphatic closing touch.
LR“he lost the few friends he'd managed to make” — 'Managed to make' is a natural, idiomatic verb phrase suggesting effort. 7.5 varies this to 'only just made', a slightly different but equally natural way of emphasising how recently and fragile those friendships were.
GRA“Some are perfectly happy, especially where the family values them for more than just results — but intelligence and happiness really are separate gifts.” — This sentence uses 'especially where' and a dash-linked contrast, a fluent, well-developed structure. 7.5 extends a very similar sentence with an added clause about social cleverness before the dash, and closes with a further result clause, showing a more elaborate version of the same frame.
Band 7.5
Adds a final consequence clause, 'having one doesn't guarantee the other', giving the closing a more complete, rounded-off conclusion.
I'd disagree, or at least doubt the word 'usually' rather strongly. There was a boy at my school two years ahead of everyone in every subject, and I mostly remember him eating lunch alone; every time he was moved up a class to be challenged, he lost the handful of friends he'd only just made. Very clever children often notice problems that pass everyone else by, get bored by lessons pitched at the average student, and can end up genuinely lonely among people who share none of their interests. Adults, meanwhile, tend to pile expectations onto them. Some are perfectly happy, especially where their cleverness is social as well as academic and the family values them for more than results — but intelligence and happiness are simply different gifts, and having one doesn't guarantee the other.
Why this band
FC“but intelligence and happiness are simply different gifts, and having one doesn't guarantee the other” — This closing adds a final consequence clause onto the claim, giving the answer a more complete, rounded-off conclusion. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 extends the closing this far; both stop at the simpler statement that the two are 'different'.
LR“problems that pass everyone else by” — 'Pass everyone else by' is a vivid, idiomatic way of describing something others fail to notice, more natural than the plain 'problems other people don't notice' used at 6.5. It shows the kind of precise, image-based vocabulary that marks 7.5.
GRA“Some are perfectly happy, especially where their cleverness is social as well as academic and the family values them for more than results — but intelligence and happiness are simply different gifts, and having one doesn't guarantee the other.” — This sentence adds an extra coordinated condition before the dash and a further result clause after it, managing more layers of qualification than either lower band. That capacity to keep extending a sentence with precisely judged detail is a hallmark of 7.5 grammar.
4. Why may a person be very good at one thing, but not another?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Chains three clauses with plain 'and... so' connectors, unlike the higher bands' tighter subordination.
Đức can find the flaw in a complicated system in seconds, but he can't remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction. Brains are separate abilities, not one skill. Some of it is wiring — spatial, verbal, and social skills use different parts of the mind and grow differently. Much is practice, since people excel at what they've done often and stay clumsy at what they've avoided. Interest decides where the practice goes, and attention is limited, so being deep in one area often costs you in another.
Why this band
FC“Đức can find the flaw in a complicated system in seconds, but he can't remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction.” — This opening presents the contrast and its interpretation in one plain, direct sentence, suiting 6.5's style. Both higher bands drop the explicit contrastive 'but' in favour of an 'and' plus a dash-linked interpretation, giving the same idea a slightly more integrated flow.
LR“Some of it is wiring — spatial, verbal, and social skills use different parts of the mind and grow differently.” — This is a clear, functional list. 7.5 extends the same list to include 'musical' skills and upgrades the verb to 'draw on', a wider and more precise vocabulary choice for the identical idea.
GRA“Interest decides where the practice goes, and attention is limited, so being deep in one area often costs you in another.” — This sentence chains three clauses with 'and' and 'so', correct but loosely coordinated. 7.5 tightens a similar idea with 'since' instead, and replaces 'costs you in' with the more precise 'bought with neglect of', showing tighter subordination and vocabulary.
Band 7.0
Adds 'Honestly' and a dash-linked interpretation instead of 6.5's explicit 'but', giving the opening more integrated flow.
Honestly, Đức can spot the flaw in a complicated system within seconds and cannot reliably remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction — brains seem to be a collection of separate abilities rather than one general engine. Some of it is wiring: spatial, verbal and social skills use different parts of the mind and develop unevenly. Much of it, though, is practice; people get very good at what they've done a thousand times and stay clumsy at whatever they've avoided. Interest decides where the practice actually goes, and since attention is limited, depth in one area is often bought with neglect of another.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, Đức can spot the flaw in a complicated system within seconds and cannot reliably remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's really a contradiction” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 drops the hedge but intensifies the ending with 'at all', achieving a similarly emphatic effect through a different device.
LR“people get very good at what they've done a thousand times” — 'A thousand times' is a strong, natural intensifier. 7.5 pushes this further to 'ten thousand times', an even more emphatic and idiomatic exaggeration for the same idea of extensive practice.
GRA“Much of it, though, is practice; people get very good at what they've done a thousand times and stay clumsy at whatever they've avoided.” — This sentence uses a semicolon to join two closely related clauses, a more advanced structure than 6.5's looser coordination. 7.5 keeps an almost identical semicolon structure but adds the adverb 'quietly' before 'avoided', a small but deliberate refinement within the same frame.
Band 7.5
Closes with a deliberately paradoxical, aphoristic line summarising the whole answer, which neither lower band attempts.
Đức can spot the flaw in a complicated system within seconds and cannot reliably remember where he parked his motorbike, and I don't think that's a contradiction at all — brains seem to be a collection of separate abilities rather than one general engine. Some of it is simply wiring: spatial, verbal, musical and social skills draw on different parts of the mind and develop unevenly. Much of it, though, is practice; people get remarkably good at what they've done ten thousand times and stay clumsy at whatever they've quietly avoided. Interest decides where the practice goes, and since attention is finite, depth in one area is usually bought with neglect of another. A person good at everything is usually good at nothing in particular.
Why this band
FC“A person good at everything is usually good at nothing in particular.” — This closing uses a deliberately paradoxical, aphoristic structure to sum up the whole answer in one memorable line. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 reaches for this kind of compact, paradoxical closing statement; both end on the more literal point about neglect.
LR“draw on different parts of the mind” — 'Draw on' is a precise, natural verb for how different skills use different mental resources, a small but noticeable step up from the plainer 'use' at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the kind of careful, exact word choice expected at 7.5.
GRA“Interest decides where the practice goes, and since attention is finite, depth in one area is usually bought with neglect of another.” — This sentence uses 'since' to subordinate the reason clause tightly within the sentence, more compact than 6.5's looser 'and... so' chain. That tighter subordination, combined with the precise phrase 'bought with neglect of', is characteristic of the grammatical and lexical range expected at 7.5.
5. Why does society need people with different types of intelligence?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Uses a plain 'since... and' chain to link two examples, unlike the higher bands' tighter colon structure.
Because problems don't all look the same. Our studio put four brilliant designers on a project, and it stalled for months; it was rescued when a plain-spoken project manager joined who wasn't a designer but could read people and keep a schedule. Society needs engineers and nurses, people who see patterns and people who see faces. A team of similar minds has similar blind spots. Different intelligences also check each other, since the careful person catches the dreamer's mistakes and the dreamer sees what the careful person can't imagine. Valuing only one kind wastes talent.
Why this band
FC“Because problems don't all look the same.” — This short, direct opening states the reason plainly, in keeping with 6.5's simple style. Both higher bands intensify this to 'don't come in one shape', a more precise and idiomatic image for the identical claim.
LR“A team of similar minds has similar blind spots.” — 'Similar' is a plain, general adjective repeated twice here. Both higher bands replace it with 'identical', a more precise and emphatic word that sharpens the same observation.
GRA“Different intelligences also check each other, since the careful person catches the dreamer's mistakes and the dreamer sees what the careful person can't imagine.” — This sentence uses 'since' plus two coordinated clauses, correct and reasonably fluent. Both higher bands restructure the same content with a colon introducing two parallel clauses instead, a tighter and more rhythmic way of presenting the same contrast.
Band 7.0
Restructures the checking-each-other idea with a colon introducing two parallel clauses, tighter than 6.5's 'since... and' chain.
Honestly, because problems simply don't come in one shape. Our studio once staffed a project with four brilliant designers and it stalled for months; it was rescued only when a plain-spoken project manager joined who was no designer but could read people and keep a schedule — the missing intelligence was social and practical, not creative. A society needs engineers and nurses, people who see patterns and people who see faces. A team of identical minds has identical blind spots. Different intelligences also check each other: the analyst catches the dreamer's errors, the dreamer sees what the analyst can't imagine. Valuing only one kind, usually the academic kind, wastes much talent.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, because problems simply don't come in one shape.” — The hedge 'Honestly' plus the intensifier 'simply' gives this opening more conviction than 6.5's plainer statement. 7.5 achieves a nearly identical effect but moves a similar hedge to the end of the sentence, a subtly more natural placement.
LR“the missing intelligence was social and practical, not creative” — This is a precise, functional contrast. 7.5 varies this slightly to 'turned out to be social and practical, not creative', adding a note of discovery that gives the same claim a touch more narrative colour.
GRA“Different intelligences also check each other: the analyst catches the dreamer's errors, the dreamer sees what the analyst can't imagine.” — This sentence uses a colon to introduce two parallel clauses with matching grammatical shape, a tight and rhythmic structure. 7.5 keeps this identical structure but adds 'simply' to the final clause, a small intensifier within an otherwise shared frame.
Band 7.5
Extends the closing claim with 'in any given population', giving it a broader, more universal scope than the narrower endings below.
Because problems simply don't come in one shape, if I'm honest. Our studio once staffed a project with four genuinely brilliant designers and it stalled for months; it was rescued only when a plain-spoken project manager joined who was no designer at all but could read people and keep a schedule — the missing intelligence turned out to be social and practical, not creative. A society needs engineers and nurses, judges and comedians, people who spot patterns and people who read faces. A team of identical minds inevitably has identical blind spots. Different intelligences also check each other: the analyst catches the dreamer's errors, the dreamer sees what the analyst simply can't imagine. Valuing only one kind, usually the academic kind, wastes most of the talent in any given population.
Why this band
FC“Valuing only one kind, usually the academic kind, wastes most of the talent in any given population.” — This closing extends the claim with the phrase 'in any given population', giving the conclusion a broader, more universal scope than the narrower versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more sweeping, confidently argued final judgement.
LR“people who spot patterns and people who read faces” — 'Spot' and 'read' are more precise, active verbs than the plainer 'see... see' repeated at 6.5 and 7.0 for the same pairing. It shows the kind of varied, exact vocabulary expected at 7.5.
GRA“A team of identical minds inevitably has identical blind spots.” — The added adverb 'inevitably' turns this from a simple observation into a claim about necessity, a small but deliberate grammatical intensification beyond the plainer versions at 6.5 and 7.0. This kind of precise adverbial modification for rhetorical effect is characteristic of 7.5 writing.
6. Do you think people can become very good at anything if they try hard enough?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with a compact semicolon pair that both higher bands keep almost unchanged, showing this structure already works well at 6.5.
Good, yes; very good, not at everything. I practised guitar for three years and became competent, but my sister picked one up for three months and played music — effort took me a long way and no further, while something in her went further. Trying hard is necessary, though most stop before finding it. But limits do exist, and they're different for every person and every skill — not everyone can become a top athlete or mathematician no matter what they do. So effort makes anyone decent at anything, but mastery needs something you can't choose.
Why this band
FC“Good, yes; very good, not at everything.” — This opening uses a semicolon to give a compact, two-part answer right away, a strong and economical structure already at 6.5. Both higher bands keep this exact opening, showing that a good structural choice can recur across bands while the surrounding argument grows more developed.
LR“effort took me a long way and no further” — This is a clear, functional way of describing a limit. Both higher bands replace 'a long way' with 'a fair distance', a slightly more measured and natural phrase, and 7.5 adds 'and stalled there', a more vivid image for the same idea.
GRA“But limits do exist, and they're different for every person and every skill — not everyone can become a top athlete or mathematician no matter what they do.” — This sentence uses a dash to add an example after the main claim, correct and reasonably developed. Both higher bands replace 'limits' with 'ceilings', a more precise metaphor, and restructure the ending with a colon instead of a dash.
Band 7.0
Adds 'Honestly' to the already compact semicolon opening, a slightly more spoken framing than 6.5's version.
Honestly, good, yes; very good, not at everything. I practised guitar for three years and became competent, while my sister picked one up for three months and somehow played actual music — effort took me a fair distance and no further, whereas something in her went further, faster. Trying hard is necessary, and most people give up long before they've found their ceiling, so they never learn where it was. But ceilings do exist, and they differ by person and by skill: not everyone can become a top-level athlete or mathematician whatever they do. So effort makes almost anyone respectable at almost anything, and mastery needs effort plus something you can't choose.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, good, yes; very good, not at everything.” — Adding 'Honestly' before the already compact semicolon opening gives it a slightly more spoken, personal framing than 6.5's version. 7.5 drops the hedge and instead adds 'if I'm honest' at the very end of the sentence, a subtly more natural placement of the same idea.
LR“my sister picked one up for three months and somehow played actual music” — 'Somehow' adds a note of genuine surprise to this observation. 7.5 keeps this exact word but adds 'almost effortlessly' later in the sentence, extending the same sense of effortless talent with an additional descriptive phrase.
GRA“But ceilings do exist, and they differ by person and by skill: not everyone can become a top-level athlete or mathematician whatever they do.” — This sentence uses a colon to introduce the supporting example after the main claim, a fluent and controlled structure. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but adds a comma before 'whatever they do', a small punctuation refinement within the same shared frame.
Band 7.5
Closes by framing the conclusion as 'the honest version', giving the final synthesis a more reflective, considered quality.
Good, yes; very good, not at everything, if I'm honest. I practised guitar seriously for three years and became competent, no more; my sister picked one up for three months and somehow produced actual music — effort took me a fair distance and stalled there, whereas something in her went further, faster, almost effortlessly. Trying hard is the necessary part, and most people give up long before they've even found their ceiling, so they never quite learn where it was. But ceilings genuinely exist, and they differ by person and by skill: not everyone can become a top-level athlete or mathematician, whatever they do. The honest version, I'd say, is that effort makes almost anyone respectable at almost anything, while mastery needs effort plus something you can't simply choose to have.
Why this band
FC“The honest version, I'd say, is that effort makes almost anyone respectable at almost anything, while mastery needs effort plus something you can't simply choose to have.” — This closing frames the whole answer's conclusion as 'the honest version', giving it a more reflective, considered quality than the plainer closings at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a deliberately weighed final synthesis of the whole argument.
LR“further, faster, almost effortlessly” — This three-part list, ending in the vivid adverb 'effortlessly', is more developed and evocative than the two-part 'further, faster' used at 6.5 and 7.0 for the same comparison. It shows the kind of layered, precise vocabulary expected at 7.5.
GRA“effort took me a fair distance and stalled there, whereas something in her went further, faster, almost effortlessly” — This sentence uses the verb 'stalled' to give the first clause a vivid, self-contained image before the 'whereas' contrast, more developed than the plainer 'and no further' used at 6.5. This kind of precise, image-driven main clause within a larger contrastive sentence is characteristic of 7.5 grammar.
7. Why are so many processes now controlled by computers rather than people?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Gives the reason as a full sentence rather than the compressed single-word structure the higher bands prefer.
Because computers are cheaper, faster, and more consistent at anything that can be reduced to rules. Our studio's invoicing used to take one person two days a month and produced occasional mistakes; the software does it in a minute, error-free. Once you've seen that, it's hard to justify going back. Machines don't tire or need holidays, and they scale — one system handles a thousand transactions as easily as one. There's also a record kept automatically, while a person only leaves a memory. The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can explain a decision.
Why this band
FC“Because computers are cheaper, faster, and more consistent at anything that can be reduced to rules.” — This opening gives the reason directly as a full sentence, suiting 6.5's style. Both higher bands compress 'that can be reduced to rules' into the single word 'reducible', a more economical and precise way of expressing the same idea.
LR“Once you've seen that, it's hard to justify going back.” — This is a plain, functional closing observation. 7.5 intensifies the equivalent phrase to 'hard to justify with a straight face', a vivid, idiomatic way of expressing the same difficulty.
GRA“There's also a record kept automatically, while a person only leaves a memory.” — This sentence uses 'while' to contrast two ideas, correct and clear. Both higher bands restructure this into a colon-introduced pair, a tighter, more rhythmic parallel structure.
Band 7.0
Compresses 'that can be reduced to rules' into the single word 'reducible', a tighter version of the same opening reason.
Honestly, because computers are cheaper, faster and more consistent at anything reducible to rules. Our studio's invoicing used to take one person two days a month and produced occasional errors; the software now does it in a minute and has never been wrong, and once you've seen that, going back is genuinely hard to justify. Machines don't tire or need holidays, and they scale effortlessly — one system handles a thousand transactions as easily as one. There's also traceability: a computer leaves a record, a person leaves a memory. The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's argued with an automated system knows.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, because computers are cheaper, faster and more consistent at anything reducible to rules.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 achieves a similar effect by adding 'essentially' at the end of the sentence instead, a subtly different but equally natural placement.
LR“going back is genuinely hard to justify” — 'Genuinely' is a precise, natural intensifier here. 7.5 replaces the whole phrase with the more vivid idiom 'hard to justify with a straight face', a noticeably more figurative way of expressing the same idea.
GRA“The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's argued with an automated system knows.” — This sentence adds a final relative clause to support the claim with shared experience, a fairly advanced structure. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but adds 'ever' and 'all too well', small intensifiers that sharpen the same closing observation.
Band 7.5
Adds a final summarising sentence, 'the case is overwhelming', which neither lower band includes.
Because computers are cheaper, faster and more consistent at anything reducible to rules, essentially. Our studio's invoicing used to take one person two days a month and still produced a small error every quarter; the software now does it in a minute and has never once been wrong, and once you've witnessed that, going back is hard to justify with a straight face. Machines don't tire, forget or need holidays, and they scale effortlessly — one system handles a thousand transactions as easily as one. There's also traceability: a computer leaves a record, a person merely leaves a memory. The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's ever argued with an automated system knows all too well. But for repetitive work, the case is overwhelming.
Why this band
FC“But for repetitive work, the case is overwhelming.” — This final sentence steps back from the specific examples to state a general conclusion about repetitive work, giving the whole answer a clear sense of arriving somewhere. Neither 6.5 nor 7.0 includes this kind of summarising final judgement; both end on the point about rigidity.
LR“hard to justify with a straight face” — This is a vivid, idiomatic expression for something being difficult to defend without appearing insincere, well beyond the plain 'hard to justify' used at 6.5 and 7.0. It shows the kind of natural, figurative vocabulary that marks 7.5.
GRA“The cost is that processes become rigid and nobody can quite explain a decision, as anyone who's ever argued with an automated system knows all too well.” — This sentence extends the relative clause used at 7.0 with the added intensifiers 'ever' and 'all too well', packing more emphasis into an already complex shared structure. This kind of incremental layering within a familiar frame is characteristic of the top band's control.
8. Which do you think is of greater value to society: machine intelligence or human intelligence?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Uses the plain phrase 'changing fast' rather than the more vivid physical metaphor the higher bands reach for.
Human, though the answer is changing fast. Đức's fix to the version problem is my reason — no system would rename files after the client's memory, because that needed noticing the problem, and noticing is human. Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data, like reading scans or translating languages, and it grows. But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem really means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands those over has stopped being a society. Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is for.
Why this band
FC“Human, though the answer is changing fast.” — This short opening gives the position and a qualifier in one plain sentence, fitting 6.5's style. Both higher bands intensify this to 'shifting under us', a more vivid, almost physical metaphor for the same idea of rapid change.
LR“Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data, like reading scans or translating languages” — This is a clear, functional example list. Both higher bands replace it with the tighter, more technical noun list 'diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics', a more precise and professional register for the same content.
GRA“But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem really means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands those over has stopped being a society.” — This sentence lists three parallel noun clauses before the main claim, correct and reasonably developed. 7.5 extends a very similar sentence with the added phrase 'in effect' and 'at all', showing marginally more careful qualification within the same basic structure.
Band 7.0
Upgrades 'changing fast' to the more vivid 'shifting under us', giving the opening claim more physical, dynamic imagery.
Honestly, human, though the answer is shifting under us. Đức's solution to the version problem is my reason — no system managing files would rename files after the client's memory, because that needed noticing the problem, and noticing is still very much a human thing. Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data — diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics — and their value to society in those areas is immense and growing. But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands them over stops being one. Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is for.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, human, though the answer is shifting under us.” — The hedge 'Honestly' gives this opening a more personal, spoken quality than 6.5's flatter version. 7.5 drops the hedge but adds 'visibly' before 'shifting', achieving a similarly emphatic effect through a more precise adverb instead.
LR“noticing is still very much a human thing” — 'Very much' is a natural, functional intensifier. 7.5 replaces it with the more vivid 'stubbornly', a precise adjective that personifies the resistance of this human quality to automation, showing wider figurative range.
GRA“Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data — diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics — and their value to society in those areas is immense and growing.” — This sentence uses a dash-set list embedded within the main clause, a fairly advanced structure. 7.5 keeps an almost identical structure but adds 'only' before 'growing', a small but deliberate intensifier within the same shared frame.
Band 7.5
Adds the single word 'even' to the closing semicolon-pair, sharpening the final claim into something closer to a challenge.
Human, though the answer is visibly shifting under us. Đức's fix to the version problem is my reason for saying so — no system optimising our file management would ever have thought to rename files after the client's memory, because that required noticing what the problem actually was, and noticing remains a stubbornly human thing. Machines are now better at anything with clear rules and enough data — diagnosis from scans, translation, logistics — and their value to society there is immense and only growing. But deciding what's worth doing, what a problem genuinely means, and what's fair are human judgements, and a society that hands those over has, in effect, stopped being a society at all. Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is even for.
Why this band
FC“Machines make us more capable; humans decide what capable is even for.” — The added word 'even' at the very end of this closing semicolon-pair sharpens the final claim into something closer to a challenge, giving the ending more rhetorical bite than the identical structure used at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more pointed, confident final line.
LR“noticing remains a stubbornly human thing” — 'Stubbornly' is a vivid, personifying adjective for a quality that resists automation, well beyond the plain 'still... a human thing' used at 6.5 and 'still very much' at 7.0. It shows the kind of natural, figurative vocabulary that marks 7.5.
GRA“and a society that hands those over has, in effect, stopped being a society at all” — This clause inserts the parenthetical 'in effect' mid-sentence and adds the intensifier 'at all' at the end, packing more qualification into an already complex shared structure than either lower band. That incremental, carefully placed layering is characteristic of the top band's grammatical control.
9. Do you agree or disagree that there is a limit to human intelligence?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
Opens with a compact semicolon pair that both higher bands keep almost unchanged, showing the structure already works well here.
For one person, yes; for humans together, I'm less sure. My grandmother does mental arithmetic faster than I can reach a calculator, and there's maths neither of us fully understands — so every mind has a limit, set by biology, memory, and time. But human intelligence has always been shared, since we write things down, build on each other, and use tools, and that has kept growing for centuries. Now machines extend it further. So a person is limited, clearly, but humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it knows.
Why this band
FC“For one person, yes; for humans together, I'm less sure.” — This opening uses a semicolon to give a compact, two-part answer right away, an already strong structure at 6.5. Both higher bands keep this exact structure, showing that a good opening move can recur across bands while the surrounding argument becomes more developed.
LR“human intelligence has always been shared” — This is plain, functional wording. Both higher bands upgrade this to 'always been collective', a more precise and academic word for the identical idea, and 7.5 adds 'at heart' for extra emphasis.
GRA“So a person is limited, clearly, but humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it knows.” — This closing sentence uses 'but' to join two contrasting claims, correct and clear. 7.5 replaces 'but' with a semicolon and adds 'already' before 'knows', a marginally tighter and more precise version of the same final contrast.
Band 7.0
Adds 'Honestly' and 'genuinely' to the compact opening, a more spoken, emphatic framing than 6.5's plainer version.
Honestly, for one person, yes; for humans together, I'm genuinely less sure. My grandmother does mental arithmetic faster than I can reach a calculator, and there are areas of mathematics neither of us fully understands — every mind has a ceiling, set by biology, memory and time. But human intelligence has always been collective, in a sense: we write things down, build on each other, and use tools, and that combined intelligence has kept growing for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight. Now machines extend it further. So a person is limited, clearly, but humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it knows.
Why this band
FC“Honestly, for one person, yes; for humans together, I'm genuinely less sure.” — Adding 'Honestly' and 'genuinely' to the already compact semicolon opening gives it a more spoken, emphatic quality than 6.5's plainer version. 7.5 drops 'Honestly' but keeps 'genuinely' and adds 'collectively' in place of 'together', a marginally more precise, formal word choice.
LR“that combined intelligence has kept growing for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight” — 'No obvious wall in sight' is a vivid, natural idiom for the absence of a limit. 7.5 keeps this exact phrase, showing that at the top two bands a well-chosen idiom can recur while the surrounding argument grows more refined.
GRA“But human intelligence has always been collective, in a sense: we write things down, build on each other, and use tools, and that combined intelligence has kept growing for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight.” — This long sentence uses a colon to introduce a three-part list before continuing into a further coordinated clause, a fairly advanced structure. 7.5 keeps a nearly identical structure but replaces 'in a sense' with 'at heart' and 'use tools' with 'lean on tools', small but deliberate refinements within the same frame.
Band 7.5
Replaces 'a person' with the more formal 'an individual' and joins the closing contrast with a semicolon instead of 'but'.
For one person, yes; for humans collectively, I'm genuinely less sure. My grandmother does mental arithmetic faster than I can reach for a calculator, and there are branches of mathematics that neither she nor anyone alive fully understands — every single mind clearly has a ceiling, set by biology, memory and time. But human intelligence has always been collective at heart: we write things down, build on each other's work, and lean on tools, and that combined intelligence has kept expanding for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight. Now we're building machines that extend it further still. So an individual is plainly limited; humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it already knows.
Why this band
FC“So an individual is plainly limited; humanity as a whole seems limited mainly by how well it shares what it already knows.” — This closing replaces 'a person' with the more formal 'an individual' and joins the two halves with a semicolon instead of 'but', giving the final contrast a tighter, more polished rhythm than the looser versions at 6.5 and 7.0. It reads as a more confidently structured final judgement.
LR“collective at heart” — 'At heart' is a precise, idiomatic intensifier suggesting something is fundamentally or essentially true, more natural than the plainer 'in a sense' used at 7.0. It shows the kind of exact, native-like phrasing expected at 7.5.
GRA“we write things down, build on each other's work, and lean on tools, and that combined intelligence has kept expanding for thousands of years with no obvious wall in sight” — This sentence keeps the same three-part list structure as 7.0 but replaces 'build on each other' with the fuller 'build on each other's work' and 'use tools' with 'lean on tools', adding small but precise grammatical completions throughout. This kind of consistent, fine-grained refinement across a shared structure is characteristic of the top band's control.

Frequently asked questions

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