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 You Wrote a Message and Had to Wait a Long Time for a Reply", examiners have asked 9 follow-up discussion questions, listed above. They move from your personal story to general opinions on the same theme.

Is this cue card still being used?

Yes — it's part of the current exam period (Sep–Dec 2026).

IELTS Speaking Part 2

A Time When You Wrote a Message and Had to Wait a Long Time for a Reply

Most recently asked in Sep–Dec 2026In use now

The cue card

Describe a time when you wrote a message, email or letter to someone, but you had to wait a long time for the person to reply.

You should say:

When this happened
Who you sent the message/email/letter to
Why you wrote to this person
and explain how you felt about waiting a long time for this person to reply.

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

This answer stays close to plain, chronological reporting — sentences like 'She didn't reply for almost a month' state facts directly with little elaboration, and the closing line delivers a simple, stated lesson rather than a developed reflection.

The message I want to talk about is a Zalo message I sent to an old friend from university, Hà, about two years ago. She had moved to Ho Chi Minh City for a new job, and we had lost touch for a while.

I sent it in the spring, just before Tết. I had been thinking about the old days at university in Hanoi, and I found some old photos of our class on my phone. I decided to send her a few of the photos and ask how she was doing.

The reason I wrote to her was simple. We used to be very close, but after graduation we both got busy with work and slowly stopped talking. I missed her, and I thought Tết was a good time to reconnect, since everyone thinks about family and old friends at that time of year.

She didn't reply for almost a month. At first I checked my phone every day, then I stopped expecting anything. I thought maybe she didn't want to talk anymore. Finally, she replied with a long message explaining she had changed jobs and phones and had only just seen it. We talked for hours after that, and now we message every week. I learned that a late reply doesn't always mean something bad.

218 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“I sent it in the spring, just before Tết.” — A short factual sentence gives the timing directly, with "just before Tết" adding one culturally specific but simply-stated detail rather than any elaboration on why the timing mattered. This direct, fact-first approach to answering the cue card's "when" point is exactly the plain, on-topic development the Band 6.5 fluency and coherence target asks for.
LR“She didn't reply for almost a month.” — "Didn't reply" uses the simplest, most common verb available rather than a more specific alternative like "went silent" or "left me hanging," which a higher band might choose to add emotional colour. This restraint, stating the bare fact plainly, is consistent with Band 6.5's preference for everyday vocabulary over more expressive or idiomatic phrasing.
GRA“I thought maybe she didn't want to talk anymore.” — The sentence embeds a reported thought using the basic pattern "I thought (that) + clause," with the "that" dropped as is natural in speech, correctly formed but structurally the simplest way to report an internal thought -- a higher band might use a more hedged or nuanced construction. This is squarely within Band 6.5's "mostly simple sentences plus a few basic complex ones."
FC“I learned that a late reply doesn't always mean something bad.” — The closing sentence states the lesson learned in one direct clause, using the plain verb "learned" rather than more reflective phrasing a higher band might use (e.g. "It taught me not to assume the worst") -- this single, unelaborated takeaway is exactly the modest, functional closing Band 6.5 answers are expected to produce rather than a more developed personal reflection.

Band 7.0

This answer adds a comfortable mix of complex sentences (the 'which was longer than I expected, so...' clause) and one natural collocation ('drifted apart'), while still explaining the wait and reunion in a straightforward, unforced way typical of Band 7.0.

The message I'd like to talk about was a Facebook message I sent to Mai, a close friend from high school, around eight months ago, after we'd more or less lost contact once she moved to Can Tho for university.

It happened just before the Mid-Autumn Festival last year. I'd been going through some old photos on my phone and came across a few pictures of our class trip, which made me think of her straight away. Instead of just letting the memory pass, I decided to message her and see how she was getting on.

I wrote to her mainly because we used to be really close, and I felt a bit guilty that we'd drifted apart without any particular reason — it was just that life got busy and neither of us made the effort to keep in touch. I also thought the festival was a natural moment to reconnect, since it's the kind of time when people tend to think about family and old friends.

She didn't reply for almost three weeks, which was longer than I expected, so I checked my phone more often than I'd like to admit at first, wondering if I'd said something wrong or if she just wasn't interested anymore. Eventually she messaged back with a long explanation — her phone had broken and she'd only just set up a new one, so she hadn't seen anything for weeks.

Once we started chatting again, it felt like no time had passed at all, and we ended up talking for almost two hours that evening. We still message quite regularly now, and looking back, I've realised that a slow reply doesn't necessarily mean someone doesn't care.

283 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“Instead of just letting the memory pass, I decided to message her and see how she was getting on.” — The phrase 'instead of just letting the memory pass' explicitly names the alternative the speaker chose not to take, making the link between finding old photos and deciding to message Mai a deliberate narrative choice rather than an unexplained jump -- the kind of extra linking development the 7.0 fluency descriptor rewards. It reads as natural spoken reasoning rather than a formulaic connector like 'therefore', keeping the story about reconnecting before the Mid-Autumn Festival grounded and personal.
LR“we'd drifted apart” — 'Drifted apart' is a natural collocation for describing a friendship fading without conflict, more precise than a plain equivalent like 'we stopped talking' that a 6.5 answer would likely use, while still being common enough to carry no error risk. This fits the 7.0 descriptor's target of a few flexible, well-chosen phrases layered over otherwise everyday vocabulary, and it accurately captures the passive, no-one's-fault nature of losing touch with Mai after she moved to Can Tho.
GRA“which was longer than I expected, so I checked my phone more often than I'd like to admit” — A non-defining relative clause ('which was longer than I expected') is chained into a result clause with 'so', and the sentence closes with a self-deprecating comparative ('more often than I'd like to admit'), all handled accurately within one flowing spoken sentence. This layering of two subordinate structures without losing control is the comfortable complexity the 7.0 grammar descriptor targets, and the honesty about compulsively checking the phone adds a natural, relatable detail to the three-week wait.
FC“a slow reply doesn't necessarily mean someone doesn't care” — 'Doesn't necessarily mean' hedges the closing generalisation, allowing for exceptions rather than stating an absolute rule like 'a slow reply means someone doesn't care', which is a more nuanced piece of reasoning than a 6.5 answer would typically produce. This hedged reflection is exactly the reason-plus-insight development the 7.0 fluency descriptor rewards, converting the specific story about Mai's three-week silence into a more general, considered lesson.

Band 7.5

The answer builds real narrative tension through pacing devices like the fragmented 'Then nothing. A week, two, four.' and closes on an unexpected, vivid concrete detail (the box of dried squid) rather than a stated moral, both hallmarks of Band 7.5 fluency and lexical control.

The message I'd describe was an email I sent last summer to a type designer in Japan, an elderly man whose typeface I wanted to use for a client's brand, and who took seven weeks to reply.

When it happened was July, in the middle of the seafood branding project I'd been working on since the fish-market shoot. I'd found a typeface online — a slightly rough, handmade-looking script that reminded me of the painted signs on the fishing boats — and discovered it had been drawn thirty years earlier by a designer in Kanazawa who had no website, no agent, and one email address.

Who I wrote to, then, was a man I knew almost nothing about, in a language I don't speak, using a translation tool. I explained who I was, what the brand was, why his letters suited it, and asked what a licence would cost.

Why I wrote was partly professional correctness — using a font without permission is theft, and the studio doesn't do it — and partly that nothing else looked right. I'd tried eleven alternatives. The client, who had never heard of typography, kept pointing at his and saying 'that one'.

Then nothing. A week, two, four. I sent one gentle follow-up at three weeks and got silence again. By week six I'd redesigned the whole brand with a different typeface and was preparing to show it. In week seven, a reply arrived, written in careful English by his daughter, explaining that her father was eighty-one, checked his email roughly once a season, and had been delighted to learn that his letters were wanted for boats in Vietnam. The licence fee, she said, was a box of dried squid, which he'd once eaten in Da Nang in the 1990s and had never forgotten. I sent two. The brand launched with his typeface. We still exchange a message every New Year, and I've learned to wait.

322 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“using a font without permission is theft” — Calling unlicensed font use 'theft' is a deliberately blunt, moralised word choice -- far stronger and more precise than a safer phrase like 'not allowed' or 'against the rules' that a 7.0 answer would likely use -- and it's dropped in as a professional conviction rather than flagged as dramatic. This kind of precise, slightly provocative vocabulary, used naturally and without over-explaining, is exactly what the 7.5 lexical descriptor means by several precise or less-common words deployed with control.
GRA“In week seven, a reply arrived, written in careful English by his daughter” — Fronting the time phrase 'In week seven' for emphasis, then attaching a past-participial clause ('written in careful English by his daughter') to the noun 'reply', packs two distinct grammatical devices into one clean sentence without any errors -- exactly the varied, controlled complexity the 7.5 grammar descriptor asks for, layered on top of the semicolons and relative clauses used elsewhere in the same story. A 7.0 answer would more likely state this information across two plainer sentences.
FC“Then nothing. A week, two, four.” — Breaking the narrative into sentence fragments here -- 'Then nothing', then a bare list of week-counts -- deliberately slows the pacing to mimic the waiting itself, a stylistic choice made possible by confidence rather than a grammatical requirement. This kind of controlled fluency device, used for effect rather than by accident, is characteristic of the reflective, well-shaped delivery the 7.5 fluency descriptor rewards, going beyond the straightforward narration a 7.0 answer would use for the same stretch of silence.
LR“The licence fee, she said, was a box of dried squid” — Stating the payment as 'a box of dried squid' with no further comment lets the surprising, warm detail speak for itself rather than being explained or exclaimed over, which is a subtle control of tone that a 7.0 answer would be less likely to attempt, more likely adding 'which was funny' or similar. This dry, understated delivery of an unexpected concrete fact is exactly the kind of idiomatic control the 7.5 descriptor rewards, and it rewards the listener for following the whole seven-week wait.

How this card was asked, by exam period

Describe a time when you wrote a message, email or letter to someone, but you had to wait a long time for the person to reply.Sep–Dec 2026
Describe a time when you wrote a message, email or letter to someone, but you had to wait a long time for the person to replyMay–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. Why do people sometimes take a long time to reply to messages?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer opens with a direct claim ("There are many reasons") and lists causes one after another with "Other people are... Some people wait...", closing with a personal example.
There are many reasons, from innocent to avoiding the message. A Japanese designer I know replied late because he only checks his email once a season, so nothing in his life feels urgent. Other people are busy with too many messages, and yours is just one of many. Some people wait until they can answer properly instead of quickly, which feels polite but seems like silence. I also have a drafts folder full of replies I am 'thinking about', which is my own way of avoiding messages that need a difficult answer.
Why this band
FC“Other people are busy with too many messages, and yours is just one of many” — This plain sentence, linked with the basic connector "and", states a fact in the most direct way, typical of 6.5's straightforward, unembellished coherence.
LR“Other people are busy with too many messages” — "Busy with too many messages" is plain, functional phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more vivid phrase like "drowning in messages", which the 7.0/7.5 versions use.
GRA“I also have a drafts folder full of replies I am 'thinking about', which is my own way of avoiding messages that need a difficult answer.” — This long sentence links two ideas with a plain "which" clause, a workable but fairly straightforward structure typical of 6.5.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer opens with a fronted phrase, "For reasons ranging from the innocent to the avoidant", and uses the vivid idiom "drowning in messages", a step beyond the flatter, more direct 6.5 opening.
For reasons ranging from the innocent to the avoidant, honestly. The Japanese designer replied late because he checks email once a season, and his life is arranged so that nothing in it is urgent — some people simply live at a different speed. Others are drowning in messages and yours is one of two hundred. Some are waiting until they can answer properly rather than quickly, which is respectful but reads as silence. I have a drafts folder of replies I'm 'thinking about', which is my own version of avoidance — a message that needs a decision gets postponed.
Why this band
FC“For reasons ranging from the innocent to the avoidant, honestly” — The trailing hedge "honestly" attached to the fronted opening phrase is a natural conversational marker the 6.5 answer's plainer, unhedged opening sentence doesn't include.
LR“Others are drowning in messages and yours is one of two hundred” — "Drowning in messages" is a vivid, figurative phrase for being overwhelmed, well beyond the plain "busy with too many messages" used at 6.5.
GRA“which is respectful but reads as silence” — The contrast structure "respectful but reads as silence" is a moderately more developed way of expressing the tension than the plainer "which feels polite but seems like silence" sentence used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses a fronted participial phrase, "his whole life arranged so that nothing in it counts as urgent", and closes with the colon-introduced restatement "my own quiet form of avoidance: anything requiring a decision or an apology just gets postponed indefinitely".
For reasons that range from the entirely innocent to the quietly avoidant. The Japanese designer I correspond with replied late because he checks email once a season, his whole life arranged so that nothing in it counts as urgent — some people simply operate at a different speed altogether. Others are drowning under a backlog and your message is one of two hundred sitting there. Some hold off until they can answer properly rather than quickly, which is well-intentioned but reads, from the outside, as silence. I keep a drafts folder of replies I'm supposedly 'thinking about', my own quiet form of avoidance: anything requiring a decision or an apology just gets postponed indefinitely.
Why this band
FC“my own quiet form of avoidance: anything requiring a decision or an apology just gets postponed indefinitely” — The colon expanding the closing noun phrase into a precise final restatement is a more sophisticated, essay-like move than the plainer "which is my own way of avoiding" clause used at 6.5.
LR“Others are drowning under a backlog and your message is one of two hundred sitting there” — "A backlog" is a precise, slightly technical word for accumulated unanswered messages, a step beyond the plainer "drowning in messages" phrasing used at 7.0.
GRA“his whole life arranged so that nothing in it counts as urgent” — This participial phrase ("his whole life arranged so that...") compresses an entire separate clause into the main sentence, a more economical construction than the coordinated "and his life is arranged so that" clause used at 7.0.
2. What can people do when they don't receive a response to a message?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer opens with a direct recommendation ("I think you should follow up once") and closes with a simple warning introduced by "I think people should avoid".
I think you should follow up once, kindly, and then continue with a plan that does not depend on the reply. I once sent one gentle follow-up after three weeks, thinking my message had been lost, and then made a backup plan so my project was not stuck waiting on a stranger. The reply actually came anyway after that. Checking that the message really arrived is also worth doing, since addresses can change. I think people should avoid sending an angry message, because that can end a relationship that patience might have saved.
Why this band
FC“I think people should avoid sending an angry message, because that can end a relationship that patience might have saved” — This closing sentence, using the plain phrase "I think people should avoid", delivers the final warning in the most direct way, typical of 6.5's unembellished coherence.
LR“Checking that the message really arrived is also worth doing” — "Really arrived" is plain, functional phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more precise word like "actually arrived", used similarly across bands but with more varied surrounding vocabulary at higher bands such as "filters eat things".
GRA“The reply actually came anyway after that.” — This short, separate sentence tacked on after the main example is typical of 6.5-level sentence variety, adding a detail as its own simple statement rather than folding it into a longer sentence.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer opens with the imperative "Follow up once, kindly" instead of a hedged recommendation, and uses the vivid metaphor "hostage to a stranger's inbox", a step beyond the plainer 6.5 phrasing.
Follow up once, kindly, and then get on with a plan that doesn't need the reply, I'd say. I sent one gentle follow-up at three weeks, assuming my message had been lost rather than ignored, and then designed an alternative so that my project wasn't hostage to a stranger's inbox — and the reply came anyway. A second channel sometimes helps too, a call after a message, or a mutual contact. Checking that the message actually arrived is worth doing; addresses change and filters eat things. Beyond that, resist the temptation to send an angry third message, which ends relationships.
Why this band
FC“Follow up once, kindly, and then get on with a plan that doesn't need the reply, I'd say” — Opening with the bare imperative "Follow up once, kindly" before the trailing hedge "I'd say" is a more confident, natural spoken structure than the fuller "I think you should follow up once" sentence used at 6.5.
LR“my project wasn't hostage to a stranger's inbox” — "Hostage to a stranger's inbox" is a vivid, figurative phrase for dependency, well beyond the plain "stuck waiting on a stranger" used at 6.5.
GRA“Checking that the message actually arrived is worth doing; addresses change and filters eat things.” — The semicolon joining two related clauses is a moderately more sophisticated structure than the simpler "since addresses can change" sentence used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses the vivid idiom "filters swallow things whole" and closes with the compact relative clause "which tends to end relationships a little patience would otherwise have kept", showing precise, flexible top-band grammar.
Follow up once, kindly, and then quietly get on with a plan that doesn't depend on the reply arriving at all. I sent one gentle nudge at the three-week mark, choosing to assume my message had been lost rather than ignored, and built an alternative so my project wasn't held hostage to a stranger's inbox — the reply turned up anyway, as it happens. A second channel sometimes helps: a call after the message, or a mutual contact who can nudge things along. It's worth checking the message actually arrived, since addresses change and filters swallow things whole. Beyond that, resist firing off an angry third message, which tends to end relationships a little patience would otherwise have kept.
Why this band
FC“the reply turned up anyway, as it happens” — The trailing fragment "as it happens" is a natural, understated closing touch the 6.5 and 7.0 answers' fuller sentences don't attempt, showing confident economy of expression.
LR“addresses change and filters swallow things whole” — "Swallow things whole" is a genuinely vivid, idiomatic image for messages disappearing, well beyond the plain "eat things" used at 7.0 for the same idea.
GRA“resist firing off an angry third message, which tends to end relationships a little patience would otherwise have kept” — The compressed relative clause "a little patience would otherwise have kept" attached without an explicit connector is a more flexible, economical construction than a fuller "because it can end a relationship that patience might have saved" clause.
3. Is it fair to expect people to reply quickly to messages at all times?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer opens with a direct "No" opinion, gives one plain workplace example, and closes with a simple recommendation introduced by "I think a fairer rule is".
No, although many workplaces act like it is. My studio has an unwritten rule that messages should get a reply within about ten minutes, and the week I turned off my notifications to finish some work, people thought something was wrong. Quick replies make sense during emergencies or for people whose job is to respond fast. But outside of that, expecting instant answers treats everyone's attention like it is public, and this is why many people feel like they are always on duty. I think a fairer rule is to say clearly what is urgent.
Why this band
FC“I think a fairer rule is to say clearly what is urgent” — This closing sentence, using the plain phrase "I think a fairer rule is", delivers the final recommendation in the most direct way, typical of 6.5's unembellished coherence.
LR“expecting instant answers treats everyone's attention like it is public” — "Treats everyone's attention like it is public" is plain, workable phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more precise phrase like "as public property", which the 7.0/7.5 versions use.
GRA“the week I turned off my notifications to finish some work, people thought something was wrong” — This is a fairly simple sentence stating one fact plainly, without the added reflective clause the higher bands attach to develop the same idea further.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer adds the reflective closing phrase "the expectation had become invisible and total" to the example, and closes with the colon-introduced sentence "A fairer norm is clarity: say what's urgent and what isn't", a step beyond the plainer 6.5 phrasing.
No, though a lot of workplaces behave as if it is. My studio has an unwritten rule that messages get a reply within about ten minutes, and the week I turned notifications off to finish a design, people assumed something was wrong — the expectation had become invisible and total. Quick replies are reasonable in an emergency, during agreed hours, and for people whose job is responding. Outside that, expecting instant answers treats everyone's attention as public property, and it's the reason so many people feel permanently on duty. A fairer norm is clarity: say what's urgent and what isn't.
Why this band
FC“people assumed something was wrong — the expectation had become invisible and total” — The dash introducing the reflective aside "the expectation had become invisible and total" is a more developed, essay-like observation than the plain "people thought something was wrong" sentence used at 6.5.
LR“expecting instant answers treats everyone's attention as public property” — "Public property" is a more precise, idiomatic phrase than the vaguer "like it is public" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
GRA“A fairer norm is clarity: say what's urgent and what isn't.” — The colon introducing a compact imperative restatement is a more efficient, developed structure than the plainer "I think a fairer rule is to say clearly what is urgent" sentence used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses the precise phrase "on call" and closes with the extended sentence "flag what's urgent, and accept that a reply within a day still counts as a reply", the kind of compact, evaluative phrasing that marks the top band.
No, though plenty of workplaces carry on as if it were. My studio operates on an unwritten rule that messages get answered within about ten minutes, and the week I switched notifications off to actually finish a design, people assumed something had gone wrong — the expectation had become so invisible it was total. Quick replies make sense in a genuine emergency, during agreed hours, or for whoever's job it literally is to respond. Beyond that, treating instant answers as the default effectively treats everyone's attention as public property, which is exactly why so many people feel permanently on call. A fairer norm would simply be clarity: flag what's urgent, and accept that a reply within a day still counts as a reply.
Why this band
FC“so many people feel permanently on call” — "On call" is a precise, idiomatic phrase borrowed from professional contexts, more vivid and exact than the plainer "on duty" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
LR“the expectation had become so invisible it was total” — The "so... it was..." result construction intensifies the observation beyond the plainer "had become invisible and total" phrasing used at 7.0, showing a modest widening of expressive range.
GRA“A fairer norm would simply be clarity: flag what's urgent, and accept that a reply within a day still counts as a reply” — This closing sentence extends the colon-introduced imperative from 7.0 with an added clause ("and accept that..."), a more fully developed, compact construction than the shorter version used at 7.0.
4. How can people show respect when communicating online?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer opens with one plain example ("The daughter's reply") and lists behaviours with the repeated phrase "This means... It also means... And it means...", a simple additive structure typical of 6.5.
The daughter's reply is a good model for this, a greeting, an apology for the delay, an explanation, thanks, and only then the actual answer. Respect online is mostly about small things that only take a few extra seconds. This means using the person's name, reading the whole message before replying, and actually answering the question that was asked. It also means acknowledging a message you cannot answer yet, so the person is not left wondering. And it means not writing anything you would not say to someone's face.
Why this band
FC“And it means not writing anything you would not say to someone's face” — The repeated plain connector "And it means" opening the final sentence is the most basic way of adding another point, typical of 6.5's straightforward, list-like coherence.
LR“Respect online is mostly about small things that only take a few extra seconds” — "Small things that only take a few extra seconds" is plain, workable phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more precise phrase like "the handful of things that cost a few extra seconds", which the 7.5 version uses.
GRA“This means using the person's name, reading the whole message before replying, and actually answering the question that was asked.” — This sentence lists three actions joined with commas and "and", a basic listing structure rather than the more varied fragment style used at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer breaks the list into short standalone fragments ("Using the person's name. Reading the whole message before replying."), a more stylistically deliberate structure than the 6.5 answer's single listing sentence.
The daughter's reply is my model: a greeting, an apology for the delay, an explanation, thanks for the interest, and only then the answer — respect online is mostly the things that take a few extra seconds. Using the person's name. Reading the whole message before replying. Answering the actual question. Acknowledging a message you can't yet answer, so the other person isn't left guessing. Not writing anything you wouldn't say to their face, and remembering that tone doesn't travel, so a little warmth has to be added on purpose. Most online rudeness is simply speed without care.
Why this band
FC“Most online rudeness is simply speed without care” — This short, aphoristic closing sentence delivers the final generalisation with more punch than the plainer, listing sentences used throughout the 6.5 answer.
LR“respect online is mostly the things that take a few extra seconds” — "The things that take a few extra seconds" is a slightly more natural phrasing than the fuller "small things that only take a few extra seconds" used at 6.5.
GRA“Using the person's name. Reading the whole message before replying. Answering the actual question.” — Breaking the list into short, standalone verb-phrase fragments instead of one long comma-joined sentence is a more stylistically varied structure than the single listing sentence used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer adds the parenthetical aside "it turns out" and closes with the extended reflective phrase "when you get down to it", a small evaluative touch beyond the tidier 7.0 closing sentence.
The daughter's reply is my template for this: a greeting, an apology for the delay, a brief explanation, thanks for the interest, and only then the actual answer — respect online, it turns out, is mostly the handful of things that cost a few extra seconds. Using someone's name. Reading the whole message before firing back a reply. Actually answering the question that was asked. Acknowledging a message you can't yet answer properly, so the other person isn't left guessing in silence. Never writing anything you wouldn't say to their face, and remembering tone simply doesn't travel through text, so a little warmth has to be added on purpose. Most online rudeness, when you get down to it, is really just speed without care.
Why this band
FC“respect online, it turns out, is mostly the handful of things that cost a few extra seconds” — The parenthetical aside "it turns out" inserted mid-sentence is a more natural, reflective discourse move than the plainer dash-linked clause used at 7.0.
LR“firing back a reply” — "Firing back a reply" is a genuinely vivid, idiomatic verb phrase for a quick response, well beyond the plain "replying" used at the lower bands.
GRA“Most online rudeness, when you get down to it, is really just speed without care” — Inserting the parenthetical "when you get down to it" into the closing aphorism is a more developed, flexible construction than the shorter, plainer version of the same sentence used at 7.0.
5. Do people show more respect when communicating with strangers than with their friends?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer gives a direct "In form, yes, but... the opposite" opinion and one plain personal example, closing with a simple sentence about neglect introduced by "But".
In form, yes, but in reality, it is often the opposite. I once wrote eleven careful paragraphs to a stranger in Japan, and that same afternoon replied to my friend Linh's long message with just one letter, 'k'. The stranger got my good manners, and my friend got my trust instead. With strangers we are polite because we do not know the rules yet, and there is no relationship to forgive a mistake. With friends we relax because respect is already assumed, and this usually works. But it can become neglect, when friends get the late replies and sharp words.
Why this band
FC“But it can become neglect, when friends get the late replies and sharp words” — The plain contrast connector "But" opening the final sentence delivers the closing point in the simplest way, typical of 6.5's direct, unembellished coherence.
LR“The stranger got my good manners, and my friend got my trust instead” — "Good manners" is plain, workable phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more precise phrase like "walked away with my manners", which the 7.5 version uses.
GRA“I once wrote eleven careful paragraphs to a stranger in Japan, and that same afternoon replied to my friend Linh's long message with just one letter, 'k'.” — This sentence links two contrasting actions with the basic connector "and", a straightforward coordination rather than the dash-based structure used at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer opens with the semicolon-joined "In form, yes; in substance, often the opposite" and closes with the fronted clause "Where it goes wrong is when...", a step beyond the plainer, fuller sentences of the 6.5 answer.
In form, yes; in substance, often the opposite. I wrote eleven careful paragraphs to a stranger in Japan and, that same afternoon, replied to Linh's long message with the single letter 'k' — the stranger got my manners and my friend got my trust. With strangers we use politeness because we don't know the rules yet, and because there's no relationship to absorb a mistake. With friends we drop the form because the respect is assumed, and mostly that works. Where it goes wrong is when the assumption becomes neglect, and friends get the late replies and cancelled plans.
Why this band
FC“In form, yes; in substance, often the opposite” — The semicolon joining two balanced, parallel fragments delivers the opening contrast with more sophistication than the fuller, comma-joined sentence used at 6.5.
LR“there's no relationship to absorb a mistake” — "Absorb a mistake" is a more vivid, figurative phrase than the plainer "forgive a mistake" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
GRA“Where it goes wrong is when the assumption becomes neglect, and friends get the late replies and cancelled plans.” — Fronting "Where it goes wrong is when..." instead of a plain "But it can become neglect, when..." clause is a moderately more sophisticated construction than the version used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses the vivid verb "curdles" for the moment respect turns bad and closes with the compact participial phrase "friends quietly inheriting the late replies... a stranger would never be risked with", instead of a plain "and" clause.
In form, certainly; in substance, very often the opposite. I once wrote eleven painstaking paragraphs to a stranger in Japan and, that same afternoon, fired off a reply to Linh's long message consisting of the single letter 'k' — the stranger walked away with my manners, and my closest friend got my trust instead. With strangers we deploy politeness because we don't yet know the rules, and there's no relationship built up to absorb a slip. With friends we drop the formality because respect is simply assumed, and most of the time that holds up fine. It curdles, though, the moment that assumption tips into neglect — friends quietly inheriting the late replies, the sharp words, the cancelled plans a stranger would never be risked with.
Why this band
FC“It curdles, though, the moment that assumption tips into neglect” — The vivid verb "curdles" opening this final sentence delivers the turning point with more sophistication than the plainer "Where it goes wrong is" phrasing used at 7.0.
LR“the stranger walked away with my manners, and my closest friend got my trust instead” — "Walked away with" is a genuinely vivid, idiomatic phrase for what someone ends up receiving, well beyond the plain "got" used at the lower bands.
GRA“friends quietly inheriting the late replies, the sharp words, the cancelled plans a stranger would never be risked with” — This participial phrase ("friends quietly inheriting...") compresses an entire final clause into a compact construction, more economical than the plain "and friends get the late replies..." clause used at 7.0.
6. Has modern communications technology made it acceptable to ignore people?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer opens with a direct opinion ("I think it has made ignoring people easier") and closes with a simple, plain restatement of the same idea, using basic vocabulary throughout.
I think it has made ignoring people easier, but also more visible at the same time. The 'seen' mark under a message turns silence from something that might be an accident into something that is clearly a choice, which actually makes people feel more hurt when ignored, not less. On the other hand, because there are so many messages now, people have accepted that not everything can be answered, so some ignoring is forgiven that would have seemed rude before. I think technology has made ignoring normal, without really making it acceptable.
Why this band
FC“I think technology has made ignoring normal, without really making it acceptable” — This closing sentence, opened with the plain phrase "I think", delivers the final restatement in the most direct way, typical of 6.5's unembellished coherence.
LR“which actually makes people feel more hurt when ignored, not less” — "Makes people feel more hurt" is plain, functional phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more precise phrase like "left people more wounded", which the 7.5 version uses.
GRA“On the other hand, because there are so many messages now, people have accepted that not everything can be answered, so some ignoring is forgiven that would have seemed rude before.” — This long sentence chains ideas together with "because" and "so", a workable but somewhat mechanical structure compared to the more varied phrasing at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer opens directly with "It's made ignoring easier" instead of a hedged "I think" opening, and uses the sophisticated "not so much X as Y" contrast, a step beyond the plainer 6.5 phrasing.
It's made ignoring easier and, strangely, more visible at the same time. The 'seen' receipt under a message turns silence from something that might be an accident into something that's clearly a choice, and that has made people more hurt by being ignored, not less — technology hasn't made it acceptable so much as made it undeniable. On the other hand, the sheer volume of messages has produced a quiet consensus that not everything can be answered, and some ignoring is now forgiven that once would have been an insult. I'd say technology has made ignoring people normal without making it acceptable.
Why this band
FC“technology hasn't made it acceptable so much as made it undeniable” — The "not so much X as Y" construction manages the nuanced contrast more elegantly than the plainer "without really making it acceptable" phrase used at 6.5.
LR“the sheer volume of messages has produced a quiet consensus” — "A quiet consensus" is a more precise, abstract phrase than the vaguer "people have accepted" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
GRA“that has made people more hurt by being ignored, not less — technology hasn't made it acceptable so much as made it undeniable” — The dash linking the observation directly to its sharper restatement is a more compact, integrated structure than the separate, comma-heavy sentence used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses the precise verb "legalised" figuratively and closes with the vivid metaphor "a lot of modern hurt lives in that gap", the kind of evaluative, idiomatic phrasing that marks the top band.
It's made ignoring easier and, oddly, far more visible at the same time. The 'seen' receipt sitting under a message turns silence from something that might once have been an accident into something unmistakably a choice, and that shift has left people more wounded by being ignored, not less — technology hasn't so much legalised it as made it impossible to deny. Conversely, the sheer volume of messages now flying around has produced a quiet consensus that not everything deserves an answer, so a certain amount of ignoring gets forgiven that once would have counted as an insult. Technology, I'd say, has normalised ignoring people without ever actually making it acceptable, and a lot of modern hurt lives in that gap.
Why this band
FC“a lot of modern hurt lives in that gap” — The metaphor "lives in that gap" delivering the final generalisation is a more sophisticated, essay-like closing image than the plainer sentences used at the lower bands for the same idea.
LR“technology hasn't so much legalised it as made it impossible to deny” — "Legalised" applied figuratively to a social behaviour is a genuinely less-common, precise word choice, well beyond the plain "made it acceptable" used at the lower bands.
GRA“that shift has left people more wounded by being ignored, not less” — "Left people more wounded" is a more vivid, figurative phrase than the plainer "made people more hurt" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
7. Are body language and tone more important than words when communicating?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer gives a direct "For feeling, yes, but for facts, no" opinion and one plain personal example, closing with a simple contrasting sentence using "But".
For feeling, yes, but for facts, no. I once read seven weeks of silence as rejection, and when the words finally came, they were actually full of warmth. With no tone to guide me, I had imagined one myself, and it was wrong. In person, tone and facial expressions carry most of what people feel, and the same sentence can sound like a joke or a threat depending on someone's face. This is why messages cause so many misunderstandings, the words arrive without any tone. But words still carry the actual information, like the time of a meeting.
Why this band
FC“This is why messages cause so many misunderstandings, the words arrive without any tone” — This sentence links two ideas with a comma rather than a clearer connector, a basic and slightly loose way of linking ideas typical of 6.5.
LR“With no tone to guide me, I had imagined one myself, and it was wrong” — "Imagined one myself" is plain, functional phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more precise phrase like "I'd invented one", which the 7.0/7.5 versions use.
GRA“In person, tone and facial expressions carry most of what people feel, and the same sentence can sound like a joke or a threat depending on someone's face.” — This sentence links two ideas with the basic connector "and", a straightforward coordination rather than the more compressed phrasing used at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer uses the semicolon to balance the opening contrast and the vivid metaphor "the words arrive without the music", a step beyond the plainer, fuller sentences of the 6.5 answer.
For feeling, yes; for facts, no. I read seven weeks of silence as rejection, and when the words finally came they were nothing but warmth — with no tone to go on, I had invented one, and it was wrong. In person, tone and face carry most of what people feel, and the same sentence can be a joke or a threat depending on the eyes. That's why messages cause so many arguments: the words arrive without the music. But words carry the content, and no amount of warm tone tells you what time the meeting is. Where they conflict, people believe the body.
Why this band
FC“That's why messages cause so many arguments: the words arrive without the music” — The colon introducing the metaphor "the words arrive without the music" delivers the explanation with more sophistication than the comma-linked, plainer sentence used at 6.5.
LR“the same sentence can be a joke or a threat depending on the eyes” — "Depending on the eyes" is a more vivid, concrete image than the plainer "depending on someone's face" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
GRA“Where they conflict, people believe the body.” — This short, fronted conditional sentence ("Where they conflict...") is a more compact structure than the fuller sentences used at 6.5 to express similar ideas.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer intensifies the opening contrast with "absolutely... not remotely" and closes with the trailing emphatic fragment "every time", the kind of precise, confident closing touch that marks the top band.
For feeling, absolutely; for facts, not remotely. I once read seven weeks of silence as outright rejection, and when the words finally arrived they turned out to be nothing but warmth — with no tone to work from, I'd simply invented one, and got it badly wrong. In person, tone and face carry most of what people actually feel, and identical sentences can land as a joke or a threat depending purely on the eyes behind them. That's precisely why messages spark so many arguments: the words show up without the music underneath them. But words still carry the content itself, and no amount of warmth in someone's voice tells you what time the meeting starts. Where the two conflict, people believe the body, every time.
Why this band
FC“Where the two conflict, people believe the body, every time” — The trailing fragment "every time" tacked onto the closing sentence delivers the final point with more emphatic confidence than the plainer, unembellished version of the same sentence used at 7.0.
LR“For feeling, absolutely; for facts, not remotely” — "Not remotely" is a genuinely emphatic, idiomatic intensifier, well beyond the plain "no" used at 6.5 for the same contrast.
GRA“identical sentences can land as a joke or a threat depending purely on the eyes behind them” — "Land as" is a precise, figurative verb choice for how a sentence is received, a more economical construction than the plainer "can sound like" or "can be" phrasing used at the lower bands.
8. If people learned to communicate more effectively, could all disagreements be avoided?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer gives a direct "No" answer with one plain example, and closes with a simple final sentence linking two ideas with "and".
No, because a client once understood my typography argument completely and still wanted the design he originally wanted. That was a disagreement about taste, not about communication failing. Better communication would remove many conflicts, because a lot of arguments happen just because two people mean different things by the same word, or react to a tone that was not intended. It would make the remaining disagreements cleaner and kinder. But people genuinely want different things sometimes, like money or different plans for the future, and understanding someone perfectly does not always mean you agree with them.
Why this band
FC“understanding someone perfectly does not always mean you agree with them” — This closing clause, joined to the previous idea with the basic connector "and", delivers the final point in a plain, direct way, typical of 6.5's unembellished coherence.
LR“a lot of arguments happen just because two people mean different things by the same word” — "A lot of arguments" is plain, general vocabulary; a higher band would reach for a more precise phrase like "a surprising share of arguments", which the 7.0/7.5 versions use.
GRA“No, because a client once understood my typography argument completely and still wanted the design he originally wanted.” — This sentence links its ideas with the plain connector "and", a straightforward coordination rather than the more compressed phrasing used at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer uses the dash to link the example directly to its claim and the colon to introduce a compact list ("money, land, different futures..."), a step beyond the plainer, comma-based 6.5 sentence.
No — the seafood client understood my typography argument perfectly and still wanted the one he wanted, and that was a disagreement about taste, not a failure of communication. Better communication would remove a great many conflicts, because a surprising share of arguments are two people meaning different things by the same word, or reacting to a tone that wasn't intended. It would make the remaining disagreements cleaner and kinder. But people genuinely want different things: money, land, different futures for the same country. Perfect understanding of an opponent's position doesn't make you agree with it.
Why this band
FC“No — the seafood client understood my typography argument perfectly and still wanted the one he wanted, and that was a disagreement about taste, not a failure of communication” — The dash linking the specific example directly to the opening "No" is a more compact, integrated structure than the fuller "No, because..." sentence used at 6.5.
LR“a surprising share of arguments are two people meaning different things by the same word” — "A surprising share of" is a more precise, reflective phrase than the vaguer "a lot of" used at 6.5 for the same idea.
GRA“But people genuinely want different things: money, land, different futures for the same country.” — The colon introducing a compact list of examples is a more efficient structure than the fuller "like money or different plans for the future" phrase used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses the vivid verb "dissolve" and closes with the semicolon-joined extra clause "sometimes it only sharpens the disagreement", a small evaluative addition beyond the tidier endings of the lower bands.
No — the seafood client understood my typography argument down to the last detail and still wanted the typeface he'd wanted from the start, and that was a disagreement about taste, not a breakdown in communication. Better communication would dissolve a great many conflicts, since a surprising share of arguments boil down to two people meaning different things by the same word, or reacting to a tone nobody intended. It would leave the remaining disagreements cleaner, at least, and kinder. But people genuinely want incompatible things sometimes — money, land, the last piece of fish, different futures for the same country — and understanding an opponent's position perfectly doesn't make you agree with it; sometimes it only sharpens the disagreement.
Why this band
FC“understanding an opponent's position perfectly doesn't make you agree with it; sometimes it only sharpens the disagreement” — This extra semicolon-joined clause, absent from the lower bands, adds a genuinely paradoxical final observation, showing sophisticated command of tone right to the end.
LR“Better communication would dissolve a great many conflicts” — "Dissolve" is a more vivid, figurative verb than the plainer "remove" used at the lower bands for the same idea.
GRA“the seafood client understood my typography argument down to the last detail and still wanted the typeface he'd wanted from the start” — "Down to the last detail" compresses the idea of complete, thorough understanding into one compact phrase, a more economical construction than the plainer "completely" or "perfectly" used at the lower bands.
9. Will artificial intelligence have a positive or negative effect on communication in the future?
Sep–Dec 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The 6.5 answer opens with a direct "Both" answer and gives two plain contrasting examples, closing with a simple summary sentence using "but".
Both, and I have already experienced both sides of it. A translation tool is the only reason I could write to a man in Kanazawa at all, and that is a real benefit AI has given me, across languages and for people who struggle to express themselves. But the client emails I now get that were clearly written by AI all sound like the same polite stranger, and something is lost when everyone sounds the same. There is a risk that people stop practising how to express themselves. I think it is positive for reaching people, but uncertain for depth.
Why this band
FC“I think it is positive for reaching people, but uncertain for depth” — This closing sentence, opened with the plain phrase "I think" and linked with "but", delivers the final summary in the most direct way, typical of 6.5's unembellished coherence.
LR“something is lost when everyone sounds the same” — "Everyone sounds the same" is plain, workable phrasing; a higher band would reach for a more vivid phrase like "every voice is smoothed to the same finish", which the 7.0/7.5 versions use.
GRA“A translation tool is the only reason I could write to a man in Kanazawa at all, and that is a real benefit AI has given me, across languages and for people who struggle to express themselves.” — This sentence links its ideas with the basic connector "and", a straightforward coordination rather than the more compressed phrasing used at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The 7.0 answer uses the vivid metaphor "a door AI opened" and closes with the compact, semicolon-joined final sentence "Positive for reach; uncertain for depth", a step beyond the fuller, plainer 6.5 sentence.
Both, and I've already felt both. A translation tool is the only reason I could write to a man in Kanazawa at all, and that's a door AI opened that was closed to me before — across languages, for people with disabilities, for anyone who struggles to find words, the gain is enormous. But the client emails I now receive that were clearly drafted by AI all sound like the same polite nobody, and something is lost when everyone's voice is smoothed to the same finish. There's a risk that people stop developing the skill of expressing themselves. Positive for reach; uncertain for depth.
Why this band
FC“Positive for reach; uncertain for depth” — This short, semicolon-joined closing sentence delivers the final judgment with a compact, almost aphoristic rhythm well beyond the fuller "I think it is positive for reaching people, but uncertain for depth" sentence used at 6.5.
LR“the client emails I now receive that were clearly drafted by AI all sound like the same polite nobody” — "The same polite nobody" is a vivid, slightly witty phrase, well beyond the plainer "the same polite stranger" used at 6.5.
GRA“that's a door AI opened that was closed to me before” — The metaphor "a door AI opened that was closed to me before" compresses the idea of newly gained access into one vivid image, a more economical construction than the plainer "a real benefit AI has given me" phrase used at 6.5.
Band 7.5
The 7.5 answer uses the precise verb "prised open" and the vivid phrase "sanded down to the same smooth finish", adding the extra reflective risk about never knowing "whether it's a person or a machine", a small evaluative touch beyond the tidier 7.0 closing.
Both, and I've already lived both sides of it. A translation tool is the sole reason I could write to a man in Kanazawa at all, and that's a door AI prised open that had previously been shut to me — across languages, for people with disabilities, for anyone who struggles to find the right words, the gain is genuinely enormous. But the client emails now landing in my inbox, obviously AI-drafted, all sound like the same polite nobody, and something gets lost when every voice is sanded down to the same smooth finish. There's a real risk people stop developing the skill of expressing themselves, and a risk of never quite knowing whether it's a person or a machine on the other end. Positive for reach; genuinely uncertain for depth.
Why this band
FC“There's a real risk people stop developing the skill of expressing themselves, and a risk of never quite knowing whether it's a person or a machine on the other end” — This extended second risk clause, absent from the 7.0 answer's shorter version, adds a genuinely reflective extra layer, showing sophisticated development of the argument right to the end.
LR“that's a door AI prised open that had previously been shut to me” — "Prised open" is a genuinely vivid, physical verb for forcing something open, well beyond the plainer "opened" used at 7.0 for the same idea.
GRA“something gets lost when every voice is sanded down to the same smooth finish” — "Sanded down to the same smooth finish" compresses the idea of homogenised writing into one vivid, extended metaphor, a more economical and figurative construction than the plainer "smoothed to the same finish" phrase used at 7.0.

Frequently asked questions

How long should my answer to this Part 2 cue card be?: Speak for 1 to 2 minutes. The examiner will stop you at 2 minutes, so aim for roughly 220-300 words that cover every bullet on the card and end with how you feel about it.
What Part 3 questions follow this cue card?: After "A Time When You Wrote a Message and Had to Wait a Long Time for a Reply", examiners have asked 9 follow-up discussion questions, listed above. They move from your personal story to general opinions on the same theme.
Is this cue card still being used?: Yes — it's part of the current exam period (Sep–Dec 2026).