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 You Needed to Use Your Imagination", 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 You Needed to Use Your Imagination

Most recently asked in May–Aug 2026

The cue card

Describe a time you needed to use your imagination

You should say:

When it was
Why you needed to use imagination
How difficult or easy it was

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 answer reports the dragon-design task in plain, direct sentences ('I had never designed anything for young children before') and ends with a simple stated lesson, typical of solid but modest Band 6.5 language.

The time I needed to use my imagination was last year, when my studio was designing a mobile app for children who are learning to read. I was asked to create a dragon character who guides the child through the story.

I needed imagination because I had never designed anything for young children before. Most of my work is for adults, with simple colours and clean lines. For this app, I had to imagine how a six-year-old sees the world, what makes them laugh, and what might frighten them instead. A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin.

It was quite difficult at first. I drew maybe twenty versions of the dragon, and most of them looked wrong somehow, too serious or too strange. My colleague Phương, who has a small son, gave me feedback after showing the drawings to him, which helped a lot.

In the end, it became easier once I stopped thinking like a designer and just tried to remember what I liked as a child myself, like cartoons on TV in Hue. The final dragon was round, orange, and a little clumsy, and the client loved it. It taught me that imagination is not only for artists, it is something you can practise.

215 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

LR“I had never designed anything for young children before” — "I had never designed anything for young children before" states the challenge in the plainest possible terms — common verbs, no attempt to characterise what was actually hard about it (the unfamiliar audience, the shift in visual language). That bare factual statement, accurate but undeveloped, is the Band 6.5 profile: the fact is established, but the vocabulary doesn't yet do the work of explaining why it mattered.
GRA“A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin.” — "A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin" is two ideas joined by a single coordinating "and", with one modest descriptive clause tacked on at the end — no subordination, no relative clause doing extra work. That's accurate, correctly punctuated Band 6.5 grammar, but it's coordination rather than the embedding a 7.0 answer would more likely use, for instance turning "the line... is very thin" into a clause modifying "dragon" directly.
FC“It taught me that imagination is not only for artists, it is something you can practise.” — The closing sentence delivers the lesson through the flat formula "it taught me that X", stating the takeaway directly without connecting it back to a specific moment from the story, such as the twenty dragon sketches or Phương's son's reaction. That direct, unembellished wrap-up is a typical Band 6.5 move — the lesson is clear, but it isn't earned through detail the way a higher-band closing would tie it back to a particular image from the story.

Band 7.0

The answer develops the struggle-to-solution arc with a comfortable complex sentence ('which meant imagining...') and one flexible word choice ('creepy'), landing on a slightly more developed closing reflection than Band 6.5 without reaching for anything unusual.

The time I really needed to use my imagination was about a year ago, when my design studio took on a project to create a mascot for a children's learning app — a small elephant that would guide kids through maths exercises.

I needed a lot of imagination for this because almost all my previous work had been for adult clients, where the style is usually clean and minimal. This time, I had to think like a child rather than a designer, which meant imagining what would make a six- or seven-year-old feel curious rather than bored, and what kind of face would seem friendly instead of a bit odd or even frightening.

It was fairly difficult at the start, to be honest. I went through something like fifteen different sketches, and quite a few of them just didn't feel right — some looked too serious, and one version actually looked a little creepy, which obviously wasn't the goal. My colleague, who has a seven-year-old nephew, showed a few drawings to him directly, and his reactions turned out to be more useful than any feedback from adults in the office.

What made it easier in the end was that I stopped overthinking it as a professional task and instead tried to remember what I actually enjoyed as a kid myself, like the cartoons I used to watch on television. Once I did that, the character came together fairly naturally — round, a bit clumsy-looking, and friendly rather than impressive.

The client was happy with the final design, and the experience taught me that imagination isn't just something artists are born with; it's more like a skill you can build up by practising and paying attention to how other people, especially children, actually see the world.

295 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

GRA“This time, I had to think like a child rather than a designer, which meant imagining what would make a six- or seven-year-old feel curious rather than bored” — A non-defining relative clause ('which meant imagining...') extends the initial contrast ('like a child rather than a designer') into a second, more detailed point within the same sentence, handled accurately and without strain -- the comfortable complex-sentence range the 7.0 grammar descriptor describes. A 6.5 answer would likely split this into two shorter sentences, while the single flowing sentence here mirrors the mental shift the designer describes making for the children's maths-app mascot.
LR“one version actually looked a little creepy, which obviously wasn't the goal” — 'Creepy' is a slightly informal, precise word for describing a failed mascot design, chosen over a safer, blander synonym like 'strange' or 'not good' that a 6.5 answer would default to, which is exactly the flexible, topic-appropriate vocabulary the 7.0 lexical descriptor rewards. The follow-up 'which obviously wasn't the goal' adds a light, natural self-aware touch that keeps the admission of a failed sketch sounding like genuine spoken reflection rather than a formal critique.
FC“What made it easier in the end was that I stopped overthinking it as a professional task” — The cleft structure 'What made it easier...was that...' explicitly marks a turning point in the story, connecting back to the difficulty described in the previous paragraph and signalling a shift in strategy, which is the kind of clear, developed linking the 7.0 fluency descriptor rewards over a simple chronological list of events. It also sets up the answer's key insight about imagination requiring the designer to stop thinking professionally, rather than leaving that connection implicit.
LR“imagination isn't just something artists are born with; it's more like a skill you can build up” — 'Build up a skill' is a natural collocation that frames imagination as something practised rather than innate, offering more developed phrasing than a plain 6.5 equivalent like 'you can learn it', while the semicolon linking the two clauses also lets the sentence state and then reframe the claim in one breath. This combination of a well-chosen collocation with a controlled sentence link is the kind of comfortably-developed closing the 7.0 descriptors reward, generalising the mascot story into a broader statement about creativity.

Band 7.5

The answer is built around one sustained metaphor (taping over the glasses to imagine someone else's limitations) and closes with the paradoxical, reflective line 'It looked obvious, which is what imagination is for,' both signalling genuine Band 7.5 sophistication.

The time I'd describe was last spring, during the hospital app project, when I had to design the screen on which patients see their test results — and the patients the hospital cared most about were in their seventies, with poor eyesight, little experience of phones, and a great deal of fear.

Why I needed imagination was that I'm thirty-four, I see well, and I've spent my adult life inside screens. Every instinct I have about what's clear or easy is wrong for that user. Research helps, and we did interviews, but a sixty-minute conversation with someone's grandmother doesn't put you inside her hands on a Tuesday night when a number on a screen might mean cancer. I had to imagine being her, not just know about her.

So I did something slightly ridiculous. For a week I taped over half of each lens of a pair of glasses, used the prototype only with my left hand, and read every result as if it were my own father's. I also imagined the room: a kitchen in Hue, the television on, a daughter at work who couldn't be called. Every design decision went through that imagined person. Could she find the one number that mattered? Would the word 'abnormal' in red make her call an ambulance? What would she do if the screen froze?

How difficult it was: harder than any technical problem in the project. Imagining someone else's fear is tiring, and I kept sliding back into my own competence and had to force myself out again. The result was a screen that says the important thing in one large sentence, in plain Vietnamese, with a button that calls a nurse. In testing, an old man read it, nodded, and said 'so I'm fine', which was the whole point. I'd used more imagination on that one screen than on anything I'd drawn before, and none of it looked imaginative. It looked obvious, which is what imagination is for.

328 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

GRA“Every instinct I have about what's clear or easy is wrong for that user.” — The sentence packs a relative clause ('what's clear or easy') inside the subject of a short, blunt main claim, achieving real complexity in very few words rather than through length -- precise, economical control that sits above the more comfortable-but-plainer complexity a 7.0 answer would show for the same idea. Its bluntness also performs the reflective self-critique the 7.5 fluency descriptor wants, admitting the designer's own instincts are unreliable for this elderly user group.
LR“I taped over half of each lens of a pair of glasses” — Describing the exact, slightly odd method -- taping over half of each lens -- gives a precise, sensory concrete detail rather than a vague summary like 'I tried to simulate poor eyesight' that a 7.0 answer would likely settle for. This specificity is what the 7.5 fluency descriptor means by developing the answer with a vivid, memorable detail, and it makes the designer's empathy exercise for elderly hospital patients concrete and credible rather than abstract.
FC“It looked obvious, which is what imagination is for.” — The paradox here -- that the imaginative work resulted in something that looks unimaginative -- reframes the whole story's meaning in its final line rather than simply restating that imagination was needed, which is the genuine reflective insight the 7.5 fluency descriptor rewards over a flat closing statement. A 7.0 answer would more likely end on something safer like 'the design turned out well', missing this deeper point about what good design work actually looks like.

How this card was asked, by exam period

Describe a time you needed to use your imaginationMay–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. What kinds of games do children play which use imagination?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing sentence 'Basically, the child has to imagine what isn't really there' sums up the idea directly, with no embellishment.
I think the games with the least in them need the most imagination. My nephew runs a shop under the table and sells leaves as if they were coins, and sometimes the floor of the room becomes lava. Classic imaginative games include pretend play, like playing house or doctor, and building games with blocks where a pile becomes a castle. Storytelling games are also good, where children make up characters. Even hide-and-seek needs imagination, because you have to think about where someone else would look. Basically, the child has to imagine what isn't really there.
Why this band
FC“I think the games with the least in them need the most imagination.” — A plain topic sentence stating the position directly, typical of 6.5. 7.0 inserts the hedge 'Honestly' before the same claim, and 7.5 drops the hedge but tightens the phrasing into a punchier fragment.
LR“sells leaves as if they were coins” — A functional, literal description, adequate but plainer than 7.5's more compact and vivid 'sells leaves for pebbles'.
GRA“Even hide-and-seek needs imagination, because you have to think about where someone else would look.” — A simple sentence with one 'because' clause, typical of plain 6.5 grammar, compared with the more compact 'in a sense, since' construction used at 7.0.
Band 7.0
The dash-linked observation 'the emptier the game, the more the child has to invent' shows a more natural, reflective way of stating the thesis.
Honestly, I think the games with the least in them need the most imagination. My nephew runs a shop under the dining table that sells leaves instead of coins, and my sister's living-room floor regularly turns into lava — the emptier the game, the more the child has to invent. Pretend play is the obvious example: house, school, doctor, shopkeeper, anything with roles to act out. Building games with blocks or sand, where a pile becomes a castle, work the same way, as do storytelling games where children invent characters and argue about what happens next. Even hide-and-seek counts, in a sense, since it means imagining where someone else would think to look. What all of these share is that the child has to supply what isn't actually there.
Why this band
FC“the emptier the game, the more the child has to invent” — This comparative 'the... the...' construction links the two examples to the argument fluidly, a more developed cohesive device than 6.5's separate topic sentence.
LR“sand, where a pile becomes a castle” — The phrase 'becomes a castle' adds a small vivid touch beyond 6.5's flatter 'blocks where a pile becomes a castle' framing, foreshadowing the fuller imagery used at 7.5.
GRA“Even hide-and-seek counts, in a sense, since it means imagining where someone else would think to look.” — The inserted hedge 'in a sense' plus a 'since' clause shows more controlled qualification than 6.5's plain 'because' sentence.
Band 7.5
The compact opening fragment 'The ones with almost nothing in them, mostly' and the vivid 'sells leaves for pebbles' give the answer an economical, idiomatic edge.
The ones with almost nothing in them, mostly. My nephew runs a shop under the dining table that sells leaves for pebbles, and my sister's living-room floor is regularly lava — the less a game contains, the more imagination it demands. Pretend play is the classic case: house, school, doctor, shopkeeper, anything built around a role. Building games with blocks or sand, where a heap becomes a castle, work on the same principle, as do storytelling games where children invent characters and squabble over what happens next. Drawing, dressing up, and the long private games children play alone with a handful of toys and a whole invented world all belong here too. Even hide-and-seek runs on imagination, since it means picturing where someone else would think to look. What every one of these shares is that the child supplies what simply isn't there.
Why this band
FC“The ones with almost nothing in them, mostly.” — This compact sentence fragment opens the answer directly, without a hedge word, showing an economical fluency beyond 7.0's fronted 'Honestly, I think'.
LR“sells leaves for pebbles” — This compact, near-idiomatic phrase is more vivid and precise than 7.0's plainer 'sells leaves instead of coins'.
GRA“children invent characters and squabble over what happens next” — The verb 'squabble' adds idiomatic colour to an otherwise ordinary coordinated clause, showing wider lexical-grammatical control than 7.0's plainer 'argue about what happens next'.
2. Which needs more imagination, reading stories or watching cartoons?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain contrast 'A book only gives you an outline... but a cartoon gives you the whole picture already finished' states the comparison directly, without hedging.
I think reading needs more imagination, and my niece is a good example. After I read her a book, she always asks questions, like what colour the house was. But after watching a cartoon, she doesn't ask anything, because the screen already shows everything. A book only gives you an outline, so you have to imagine the picture yourself, but a cartoon gives you the whole picture already finished. Cartoons aren't completely useless — they can still make children want to play afterwards, and they help very young children who can't read yet. But watching definitely needs less imagination than reading.
Why this band
FC“I think reading needs more imagination, and my niece is a good example.” — A plain statement with the example tacked on via 'and', typical of 6.5's directness. 7.0 instead uses the hedge 'I'd say' and builds the example into the same sentence more fluidly, and 7.5 drops the hedge altogether for a leaner opening.
LR“doesn't ask anything” — A plain, literal phrase, adequate but flatter than 7.0's more natural 'asks nothing at all' or 7.5's vivid 'peppers me with questions' used for the opposite case.
GRA“A book only gives you an outline, so you have to imagine the picture yourself, but a cartoon gives you the whole picture already finished.” — A long but simply coordinated sentence joined with 'so' and 'but', with no deeper embedding, typical of plain 6.5 grammar.
Band 7.0
The hedge 'To be fair' before conceding a point about cartoons shows more balanced, natural spoken reasoning.
Reading, I'd say, and my niece showed me exactly why. After a book, she always asks questions — what colour was the house, was the dog big — because the story leaves gaps she has to fill in herself; after a cartoon she asks nothing at all, since the screen has already answered everything before she even had time to wonder. Basically, words give the reader an outline and leave them to draw the rest, whereas a cartoon hands over the finished picture and the viewer's job is just to watch. To be fair, cartoons can still spark imagination afterwards, in the playground, and for very young children who can't read yet, they're a real way into stories. But the act of watching genuinely asks less of a child than the act of reading does.
Why this band
FC“Reading, I'd say, and my niece showed me exactly why.” — The hedge 'I'd say' is folded into the opening claim itself, a more natural integration than 6.5's separate justification clause.
LR“asks nothing at all, since the screen has already answered everything” — This is a more precise and natural phrasing of the contrast than 6.5's flatter 'doesn't ask anything, because the screen already shows everything'.
GRA“words give the reader an outline and leave them to draw the rest, whereas a cartoon hands over the finished picture and the viewer's job is just to watch” — A long sentence built around the contrastive connector 'whereas', showing more controlled subordination than 6.5's simpler 'so... but' structure.
Band 7.5
The idiomatic verb 'peppers me with questions' and the parallel closing image 'never having built a single picture from words alone' give the answer a vivid, evaluative finish.
Reading, and my niece showed me exactly why. After a book she peppers me with questions — what colour was the house, was the dog big — because the story left gaps she had to fill herself; after a cartoon she asks nothing, because the screen answered everything before she could even start wondering. Words hand the reader an outline and leave them to sketch in the rest; a cartoon hands over the finished picture, and the viewer's only job is to watch. Cartoons can still spark imagination afterwards, out in the playground, and for children too young to read they're a genuine door into stories. But the sheer act of watching demands less than the act of reading, and a child raised purely on screens can arrive at school never having built a single picture from words alone.
Why this band
FC“Reading, and my niece showed me exactly why.” — This lean opening drops the hedge entirely and moves straight to the position and the example, showing a more confident, economical fluency than 7.0's 'Reading, I'd say'.
LR“peppers me with questions” — This vivid, idiomatic verb phrase is far more natural and precise than 7.0's plainer 'always asks questions'.
GRA“Words hand the reader an outline and leave them to sketch in the rest; a cartoon hands over the finished picture, and the viewer's only job is to watch.” — The semicolon-linked antithesis packs the contrast into two balanced clauses, a tighter and more sophisticated structure than 7.0's single long 'whereas' sentence.
3. How important is it for teachers to encourage children to use their imagination?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing 'there should still be space to imagine' states the position directly, with no idiom or rhetorical flourish.
I think it's very important, and I had experience of both kinds of teacher. One art teacher in Hue didn't let us copy the drawing on the board and instead made us draw the room from our own corner, but another teacher only gave good marks for copying accurately. Ten years later, I still remember the first teacher's lessons much better. If children are never asked to invent anything, they learn that school is only about copying. Imagination is also useful outside art, because it helps you solve problems that nobody has solved for you before. Of course a curriculum needs facts too, but there should still be space to imagine.
Why this band
FC“I think it's very important, and I had experience of both kinds of teacher.” — A plain statement with the supporting example tacked on via 'and', typical of 6.5's directness, compared with 7.0's more reflective 'I'd say' and 7.5's confident, hedge-free opener.
LR“didn't let us copy” — A plain verb phrase, functional but less precise than the more formal, exam-appropriate 'forbade us from copying' used at higher bands.
GRA“If children are never asked to invent anything, they learn that school is only about copying.” — A simple conditional sentence with one clause of consequence, typical of plain 6.5 grammar, compared with the more layered sentences at 7.0 and 7.5.
Band 7.0
The observation 'children... quietly learn that school is where you reproduce, not create' shows more reflective, developed reasoning than a plain statement.
I'd say it's very important, and I had both kinds of teacher myself. One art teacher in Hue forbade us from copying the model drawing on the board and made us draw the room from a corner nobody had chosen, while another graded us on how accurately we reproduced hers. Imagination is a habit, and children who are never asked to invent anything learn that school is where you reproduce, not create. It matters well beyond art, too, since imagination is how you solve a problem nobody has solved for you, which is apparently what employers say they want and schools often don't teach. A curriculum needs facts and skills, but a teacher who leaves no room to wonder is teaching children to wait for instructions.
Why this band
FC“I'd say it's very important, and I had both kinds of teacher myself.” — The hedge 'I'd say' softens the claim naturally, a more developed opening move than 6.5's flat 'I think it's very important'.
LR“forbade us from copying” — This more formal, precise verb phrase is a step up from 6.5's plainer 'didn't let us copy'.
GRA“It matters well beyond art, too, since imagination is how you solve a problem nobody has solved for you, which is apparently what employers say they want and schools often don't teach.” — A long sentence with a 'since' clause and a non-defining relative clause stacked together shows more complex subordination than 6.5's single conditional sentence.
Band 7.5
The one-word opener 'Very,' and the closing 'training children to wait for instructions' give the answer a compact, pointed edge.
Very, and I had both kinds of teacher, which is probably why I feel so strongly about it. One art teacher in Hue forbade us from copying the model drawing on the board and made us draw the room from a corner nobody had chosen; the next graded us purely on how accurately we reproduced hers. Ten years later, I can tell you exactly which lessons stuck. Imagination is a habit, and children who are never asked to invent anything quietly learn that school is where you reproduce, not create. It matters well beyond art: imagination is how you solve a problem nobody has solved for you, which happens to be exactly what employers claim to want and schools mostly fail to teach. A curriculum obviously needs facts and skills too. But a teacher who leaves no space to wonder is, in effect, training children to wait for instructions.
Why this band
FC“Very, and I had both kinds of teacher, which is probably why I feel so strongly about it.” — This single-word opening fragment, extended with a self-reflective relative clause, is more economical and confident than 7.0's fuller sentence-initial hedge.
LR“the next graded us purely on how accurately we reproduced hers” — The adverb 'purely' sharpens the contrast more precisely than 7.0's plainer 'simply graded us on how accurately'.
GRA“a teacher who leaves no space to wonder is, in effect, training children to wait for instructions” — The parenthetical 'in effect' inserted mid-clause shows more flexible grammatical control than 7.0's plainer final sentence with 'really teaching'.
4. What are some jobs that require a good imagination?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing 'the jobs that don't need imagination are the ones being replaced by machines' states the conclusion simply.
More jobs than the obvious creative ones, I think. Mine is one example — as a designer, I have to imagine a stranger's hands and mind when I design something. Writers, architects, chefs and filmmakers obviously need imagination too. But so does a nurse, who has to imagine what a frightened patient isn't saying, and an engineer, who has to imagine every way a bridge could fail before it's built. A good teacher needs to imagine being nine years old and not understanding something. Even lawyers and doctors need imagination, to guess what might happen. I think the jobs that don't need imagination are the ones being replaced by machines.
Why this band
FC“More jobs than the obvious creative ones, I think.” — A short opening statement with the hedge 'I think' tacked on at the end, typical of 6.5's plain style, compared with 7.0's mid-sentence 'I'd say' and 7.5's hedge-free confident fragment.
LR“to guess what might happen” — A vague, general phrase, less precise than the specific verbs used for each profession at higher bands, such as 'imagine causes they can't see'.
GRA“I think the jobs that don't need imagination are the ones being replaced by machines.” — A simple relative clause sentence with no further embedding, typical of plain 6.5 grammar.
Band 7.0
The comparative aside 'which is arguably a rarer kind of imagination than mine' adds a reflective, self-aware evaluation.
More than just the obvious creative ones, I'd say. Mine's a clear example — a designer's whole job is imagining a stranger's hands and mind. Writers, architects, chefs and filmmakers need it too. But so does the nurse, who has to imagine what a frightened patient isn't saying, which is arguably a rarer kind of imagination than mine. An engineer has to imagine every way a bridge could fail before it's built, and a good teacher has to imagine being nine and not understanding something. Lawyers imagine what the other side will argue, doctors imagine causes they can't directly see, and even accountants have to imagine what could go wrong. The jobs that need no imagination are the ones being handed to machines.
Why this band
FC“More than just the obvious creative ones, I'd say.” — The hedge 'I'd say' is placed at the end of the opening statement, a slightly more natural spoken rhythm than 6.5's version of the same structure.
LR“which is arguably a rarer kind of imagination than mine” — This precise comparative judgement is more developed and specific than 6.5's vaguer closing evaluation.
GRA“Lawyers imagine what the other side will argue, doctors imagine causes they can't directly see, and even accountants have to imagine what could go wrong.” — A triple-parallel sentence with three separate subject-verb-object clauses coordinated by commas and 'and', more complex listing than 6.5's shorter, disconnected sentences.
Band 7.5
The idiom 'all the usual suspects' and the compact fragments 'Mine, clearly' give the answer an economical, vivid rhythm.
More than the obvious creative ones, by quite some margin. Mine, clearly — a designer's whole job is imagining a stranger's hands and mind. Writers, architects, chefs, filmmakers, all the usual suspects. But the nurse on a hospital project I worked on imagines what a frightened patient isn't saying, which is imagination of a kind I'd call rarer than mine. The engineer imagines every way a bridge could fail before it's ever built. A good teacher imagines being nine and not understanding. Lawyers imagine what the other side will argue, doctors imagine causes they can't see, and entrepreneurs imagine a business that doesn't exist yet — even accountants have to imagine what could go wrong. The jobs that genuinely need no imagination, it seems to me, are exactly the ones being quietly handed to machines.
Why this band
FC“by quite some margin” — This compact intensifying tag replaces a full hedge clause, showing more economical fluency than 7.0's fuller 'I'd say' construction.
LR“all the usual suspects” — This idiomatic phrase for a predictable list is more vivid and natural than 7.0's plainer 'need it too, obviously'.
GRA“entrepreneurs imagine a business that doesn't exist yet — even accountants have to imagine what could go wrong” — The dash-linked clause extends the parallel list with an extra, understated final item, a slightly more flexible construction than 7.0's comma-and-'and'-joined triple list.
5. Do scientists need to use their imagination in their work?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing 'without imagination, science would really just be description' states the conclusion directly, with a simple connector.
Yes, definitely, and a researcher I met at the hospital changed my mind about this. I used to think science was mostly careful measuring, but she told me the measuring is actually the easy part — the hard part is imagining what question to ask in the first place. Every big theory started with someone imagining something nobody had seen yet, like atoms or evolution. Scientists imagine what would happen if something were true, and then they test it. The difference between science and just imagining things is that the scientific idea has to survive being tested. So without imagination, science would really just be description.
Why this band
FC“Yes, definitely, and a researcher I met at the hospital changed my mind about this.” — A plain, front-loaded answer with the example added by 'and', typical of 6.5's directness, compared with 7.0's and 7.5's more integrated 'a researcher... corrected an assumption I'd had' framing.
LR“changed my mind about this” — A general, everyday phrase, less specific than the more precise 'corrected an assumption I'd had about this' used at higher bands.
GRA“So without imagination, science would really just be description.” — A short simple sentence with the connector 'so', typical of plain 6.5 grammar, compared with the imperative-plus-consequence construction used at 7.5.
Band 7.0
The precise phrase 'imagination disciplined by evidence' shows more developed reasoning than a plain restatement.
Absolutely, and a researcher at the hospital corrected an assumption I'd had about this. I'd always pictured science as careful measurement, but she told me the measurement is actually the easy part — the hard part is imagining what question to ask and what experiment would even answer it, which is really imagination disciplined by evidence. Every theory began, after all, as someone picturing something nobody had ever seen: atoms, evolution, germs, black holes. Scientists imagine what would happen if a thing were true, then go and check; they imagine explanations for surprising results, and imagine how they might be wrong. What separates science from fantasy isn't a lack of imagination, then — it's that the imagined thing has to survive testing.
Why this band
FC“Absolutely, and a researcher at the hospital corrected an assumption I'd had about this.” — The more precise verb 'corrected' plus 'an assumption I'd had' is a more developed, natural opening than 6.5's vaguer 'changed my mind about this'.
LR“imagination disciplined by evidence” — This precise, almost technical collocation is more developed than 6.5's plainer explanation of the same idea.
GRA“What separates science from fantasy isn't a lack of imagination, then — it's that the imagined thing has to survive testing.” — A cleft-style sentence with a dash-linked correction ('isn't X — it's that Y') shows more complex structure than 6.5's simple 'so' sentence.
Band 7.5
The imperative construction 'Take the imagination away, and science would just be very accurate description' gives the closing a vivid, rhetorical punch.
Absolutely, and a researcher at the hospital corrected an assumption I'd been carrying around for years. I'd pictured science as careful measurement, and she told me the measurement is the easy part — the hard part is imagining what question to ask and what experiment would answer it, which is pure imagination disciplined by evidence. Every theory began as someone picturing something nobody had ever seen: atoms, evolution, germs, black holes. Scientists imagine what would happen if a thing were true, then check; they imagine explanations for surprising data, and imagine how they could be wrong. What separates science from fantasy isn't the absence of imagination, then; it's that the imagined thing has to survive testing. Take the imagination away, and science would just be very accurate description.
Why this band
FC“an assumption I'd been carrying around for years” — The extended phrase 'carrying around for years' adds a vivid, idiomatic touch to the same idea expressed more plainly at 7.0 as 'an assumption I'd had about this'.
LR“pure imagination disciplined by evidence” — The intensifier 'pure' sharpens the same collocation used at 7.0, making it slightly more vivid and emphatic.
GRA“Take the imagination away, and science would just be very accurate description.” — An imperative-plus-consequence construction gives the closing sentence a rhetorical, spoken-argument shape, more flexible than 7.0's plainer cleft sentence.
6. Do you agree or disagree that imagination is the quality employers value most in their staff?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain contrastive statement 'Imagination matters more at the top of a company, but for most staff, being reliable matters more' closes the answer directly.
I disagree, even though employers often say the opposite. Our studio's job adverts always say 'creative' and 'imaginative', but in the real interview meetings, the main question is always 'will they actually deliver the work?' Most jobs are really about doing agreed tasks well and on time, without needing to be watched all the time. An imaginative employee who can't do that is more of a problem than a benefit. I think what employers value most is actually judgement — knowing when to be creative and when to just follow instructions. Imagination matters more at the top of a company, but for most staff, being reliable matters more.
Why this band
FC“I disagree, even though employers often say the opposite.” — A plain statement of position with a simple 'even though' concession, typical of 6.5's directness, compared with 7.0's more integrated 'I'd disagree, actually' and 7.5's confident, hedge-free 'Disagree, though'.
LR“more of a problem than a benefit” — A plain comparative phrase, functional but less vivid than 7.0's 'a liability rather than an asset', which uses more precise business vocabulary.
GRA“An imaginative employee who can't do that is more of a problem than a benefit.” — A simple relative-clause sentence, typical of plain 6.5 grammar, compared with the semicolon and colon constructions used at higher bands.
Band 7.0
The colon-introduced definition 'judgement: knowing when to invent something new and when to simply follow the process' shows more developed explanation.
I'd disagree, actually, even though employers claim otherwise. Our studio's job adverts always say 'creative' and 'imaginative', yet in the hiring meetings, the question that decides things is 'but will they deliver?' — so employers say they value imagination and then hire for reliability. Most jobs run on doing agreed things well, on time, without needing constant supervision, and an imaginative employee who can't manage that becomes a liability rather than an asset. What employers value most is judgement: knowing when to invent something new and when to simply follow the process. Imagination matters more at the top, and in a handful of professions, and more as routine work goes to machines. But for most staff, most of the time, being someone you can rely on matters more.
Why this band
FC“I'd disagree, actually, even though employers claim otherwise.” — The hedge 'actually' inserted mid-sentence integrates the concession more naturally than 6.5's separate 'even though' clause tacked on afterward.
LR“becomes a liability rather than an asset” — This precise business-register collocation is more developed and idiomatic than 6.5's plainer 'more of a problem than a benefit'.
GRA“What employers value most is judgement: knowing when to invent something new and when to simply follow the process” — The colon introduces an explanatory clause, a more sophisticated construction than 6.5's plain relative-clause sentence.
Band 7.5
The idiom 'a headache rather than an asset' and the closing 'being someone people can count on' give the answer a vivid, natural finish.
Disagree, though they'll say otherwise if you ask them directly. Our studio's job adverts always say 'creative' and 'imaginative', and yet in the actual hiring meetings, the question that decides things is 'but will they deliver?' — employers say they value imagination and then hire for reliability every time. Most jobs run on doing agreed things well, on time, without needing to be chased, and an imaginative employee who can't manage that is a headache rather than an asset. What employers value most, in my experience, is judgement: knowing when to invent and when to fall in line. Imagination matters at the top, and in a handful of professions, and it will matter more still as routine work gets handed to machines. But for most staff, most of the time, the quality that's actually prized is being someone people can count on.
Why this band
FC“though they'll say otherwise if you ask them directly” — This conditional aside is folded into the opening fragment itself, a more compact and confident move than 7.0's separate 'even though employers claim otherwise' clause.
LR“a headache rather than an asset” — This idiomatic, slightly humorous phrase is more vivid and natural than 7.0's plainer 'a liability rather than an asset'.
GRA“the quality that's actually prized is being someone people can count on” — The cleft construction with the idiom 'count on' shows a more flexible, natural closing structure than 7.0's plainer 'being someone you can rely on matters more'.
7. Do you think most adults might be able to learn to use their imagination more?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing 'I think 'I'm not a creative person' is usually more about someone's life than about who they really are' restates the point directly.
Yes, I think so. Our studio's accountant started joining the Friday drawing sessions as a joke, and a year later she suggested an idea for a client that actually won the project — nothing about her had changed except that she had permission and practice. Adults often lose their imagination because they're afraid of looking silly, or because their job punishes any mistake, or because their free time is always full. The way back is quite simple, really: playing, being bored sometimes, visiting new places, and doing things badly without anyone watching. I think 'I'm not a creative person' is usually more about someone's life than about who they really are.
Why this band
FC“Yes, I think so.” — A very short, plain opening answer with no elaboration, typical of 6.5's directness, compared with 7.0's more developed 'I do think so, honestly' and 7.5's confident, unhedged 'I do'.
LR“afraid of looking silly” — A basic, everyday phrase, adequate but plainer than the more formal 'a fear of looking foolish' used at higher bands.
GRA“Adults often lose their imagination because they're afraid of looking silly, or because their job punishes any mistake, or because their free time is always full.” — A repeated 'because' structure used three times in a row, a simple but slightly repetitive construction, compared with the varied noun-phrase list used at 7.0 and 7.5.
Band 7.0
The dash-linked reframing 'imagination doesn't really disappear in adults, it just stops being asked for' adds a reflective, spoken quality to the opening.
I do think so, honestly — imagination doesn't really disappear in adults, it just stops being asked for. Our studio's accountant started joining the Friday sketching sessions as a joke, and a year later she proposed a client idea that won the project, though nothing had changed except permission and practice. Adults tend to lose imagination to a fear of looking foolish, to jobs that punish any deviation from the norm, and to habits that fill up every empty minute of the day. The way back is almost embarrassingly simple: play, boredom, new places, 'what if' questions, and doing things badly with nobody watching. Some people are naturally more imaginative, as with any ability. But 'I'm not creative' is usually a description of someone's life rather than the person themselves.
Why this band
FC“imagination doesn't really disappear in adults, it just stops being asked for” — This dash-linked reframing develops the position beyond a bare 'yes', showing more reflective cohesion than 6.5's minimal opening answer.
LR“a fear of looking foolish” — This slightly more formal phrase is a small step up in precision from 6.5's plainer 'afraid of looking silly'.
GRA“Adults tend to lose imagination to a fear of looking foolish, to jobs that punish any deviation from the norm, and to habits that fill up every empty minute of the day.” — A triple noun-phrase list joined by repeated 'to', more varied and controlled than 6.5's repeated 'because' clauses.
Band 7.5
The compact closing antithesis 'a description of a life, not a verdict on a person' gives the answer a pointed, aphoristic finish.
I do — imagination doesn't disappear in adults, it just stops being asked for. Our studio's accountant started joining the Friday sketching sessions as a joke, and a year later she proposed a client idea that won a project; nothing had really changed about her except permission and a bit of practice. Adults lose their imagination to a fear of looking foolish, to jobs that punish any deviation, and to habits that quietly fill every spare minute. The ways back are almost embarrassingly simple: play, boredom, new places, the question 'what if', and doing things badly for a while with nobody watching. Some people are naturally more imaginative, as with any ability, granted. But 'I'm not creative' is usually a description of a life, not a verdict on a person.
Why this band
FC“I do —” — This two-word answer, immediately extended with a dash, is the most economical and confident opening of the three bands, more compact than 7.0's fuller 'I do think so, honestly'.
LR“quietly fill every spare minute” — The adverb 'quietly' adds a subtle, vivid touch beyond 7.0's plainer 'fill up every empty minute of the day'.
GRA“'I'm not creative' is usually a description of a life, not a verdict on a person” — The parallel antithesis 'a description of a life, not a verdict on a person' is a tighter, more polished construction than 7.0's looser 'a description of someone's life rather than the person themselves'.
8. Do you agree or disagree that computers have the potential to be more imaginative than people?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing sentence about the word's meaning states the conclusion directly, without an idiomatic flourish.
Partly agree, and a project at the hospital taught me where the line is. An AI tool generated forty layouts for a results screen in a minute, some arranged better than mine — so in producing variations quickly, computers are already better than us. But none of the forty designs understood the old man's fear of the results, because the tool has never actually imagined being seventy-five years old in a kitchen in Hue, since it has never actually been anyone. Imagination, I think, is partly picturing what it's like to be someone else. Computers might become more inventive than people, but whether they're more imaginative depends on what the word means.
Why this band
FC“Partly agree, and a project at the hospital taught me where the line is.” — A plain, complete-sentence opener joined with 'and', typical of 6.5's directness, compared with 7.0's and 7.5's shorter, more fragmented openings.
LR“computers are already better than us” — A blunt, general phrase, less precise than the more specific 'computers are already beyond us' used at 7.5, or 7.0's more qualified 'computers are already ahead of us'.
GRA“But none of the forty designs understood the old man's fear of the results, because the tool has never actually imagined being seventy-five years old in a kitchen in Hue, since it has never actually been anyone.” — A long sentence stacking two 'because'/'since' clauses one after another, a slightly repetitive construction compared with the tighter colon-based sentence used at 7.5.
Band 7.0
The qualifying phrase 'as humans use the word' shows more careful, reasoned hedging around the definition of imagination.
Partly agree, and a hospital project taught me exactly where the line is. An AI tool generated forty layouts for that screen in under a minute, several arranged better than mine — so in producing variations and combining things nobody had combined, computers are already ahead of us. What none of the forty designs had, though, was the old man's fear about the results, because the tool had never imagined being seventy-five in a kitchen in Hue — it had never, in fact, been anyone. Imagination, as humans use the word, is partly the ability to picture what it's like to be someone else, which seems to require having actually been someone. Computers may well become more inventive than people. Whether they become more imaginative depends on what the word ends up meaning.
Why this band
FC“What none of the forty designs had, though, was the old man's fear about the results” — This cleft construction ('What... had... was...') foregrounds the contrast more fluently than 6.5's plainer 'But none of the forty designs understood'.
LR“computers are already ahead of us” — This is a more measured, precise phrase than 6.5's blunter 'computers are already better than us', though less vivid than 7.5's 'already beyond us'.
GRA“it had never, in fact, been anyone” — The parenthetical 'in fact' inserted mid-clause shows more flexible grammar than 6.5's plainer stacked 'because... since' sentence.
Band 7.5
The parallel fragments 'in producing variations, in combining things nobody had combined' and the closing 'the part with a person inside' give the answer a vivid, idiomatic finish.
Partly, and the hospital screen taught me where the line is. An AI tool generated forty layouts for that results screen in a minute, several of them better arranged than mine — in producing variations, in combining things nobody had combined, computers are already beyond us. What none of the forty had was the old man's fear: the tool had never imagined being seventy-five in a kitchen in Hue, because it had never been anyone. Imagination, as humans use it, is partly the ability to picture what it's like to be someone else, and that seems to require having been someone. Computers may well become more inventive than people. Whether they become more imaginative depends entirely on what the word means, and I'd personally keep the word for the part with a person inside.
Why this band
FC“in producing variations, in combining things nobody had combined, computers are already beyond us” — The repeated parallel fragments 'in producing... in combining...' build fluent rhetorical momentum before the main clause, more developed than 7.0's single 'when it comes to' clause.
LR“already beyond us” — This compact, vivid phrase is more idiomatic and forceful than 7.0's plainer 'already ahead of us'.
GRA“I'd personally keep the word for the part with a person inside” — This closing clause uses the compact idiom 'the part with a person inside' as its object, a more flexible and vivid grammatical choice than 7.0's plainer closing sentence about what the word 'ends up meaning'.
9. Do you think imagination will continue to have such an important role in future societies?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain closing 'the need for it will keep growing' states the conclusion directly, without an idiomatic flourish.
I think it will become even more important, because it's the part that machines can't do. My job's routine part — producing, arranging things — is going to machines, and what's left starts with imagining what it's like to be someone else, which machines find very hard. Future societies will also face new problems, like climate change and an ageing population, needing people who can imagine a different world. Imagination is also part of how people stay human, through art and play. The risk is people only watching imagination on screens instead of practising it. But overall, I think the need for it will keep growing.
Why this band
FC“I think it will become even more important, because it's the part that machines can't do.” — A plain statement with a single 'because' clause of reasoning, typical of 6.5's directness, compared with 7.0's and 7.5's more layered openings.
LR“machines find very hard” — A basic, everyday phrase, adequate but plainer than 7.5's more precise 'machines find hardest to fake'.
GRA“But overall, I think the need for it will keep growing.” — A short, simple closing sentence, typical of plain 6.5 grammar, compared with the more rhetorically shaped closings at 7.0 and 7.5.
Band 7.0
The semicolon-linked reflection 'it's where art, play and meaning tend to come from' adds a more developed, reasoned observation.
More important, I'd say, because it's basically the part that's left. The routine half of my job — producing, arranging, polishing — is going to machines, and what remains is the half that starts with 'imagine being her', which is exactly the half machines find hardest. Societies will also face problems with no real precedent — climate change, an ageing population, new technologies — needing people who can picture a genuinely different world. Imagination is also how people stay human in a world full of automated answers; it's where art, play and meaning tend to come from. The risk is a culture that consumes imagination from screens rather than practising it. But the demand for it, in work and in life, seems only to be rising.
Why this band
FC“More important, I'd say, because it's basically the part that's left.” — The hedge 'I'd say' is inserted mid-sentence rather than as a separate clause, a more natural spoken rhythm than 6.5's fuller two-clause opener.
LR“machines find hardest” — This superlative phrasing is more precise than 6.5's plainer 'machines find very hard', though less vivid than 7.5's 'machines find hardest to fake'.
GRA“Imagination is also how people stay human in a world full of automated answers; it's where art, play and meaning tend to come from.” — A semicolon-linked pair of clauses shows more controlled cohesion than 6.5's separate, shorter sentences on the same idea.
Band 7.5
The idiom 'draining away' and the vivid contrast 'consumes its imagination pre-packaged from a screen rather than exercising its own' give the answer a sharp, evaluative edge.
More important, if anything, because it's the part that's left over once the machines have taken the rest. The routine half of my job — producing, arranging, polishing — is quietly draining away to automation year by year, and what remains is the half that starts with 'imagine being her', which is precisely the half machines find hardest to fake. Future societies are going to run into problems with no real precedent — climate, an ageing population, technologies nobody's lived with yet — and answering those calls for people who can picture a world genuinely unlike this one. Imagination is also how people stay human amid a flood of automated answers; it's where art, play and meaning actually come from. The real risk is a culture that consumes its imagination pre-packaged from a screen rather than exercising its own. But the demand for the real thing, in work and in life alike, only seems to be climbing.
Why this band
FC“if anything,” — This compact hedge inserted right after the opening claim is more economical than 7.0's fuller 'I'd say' placed in the same position, showing tighter integration.
LR“quietly draining away to automation” — This vivid, idiomatic verb phrase is more precise and evocative than 7.0's plainer 'is going to machines'.
GRA“a culture that consumes its imagination pre-packaged from a screen rather than exercising its own” — The parallel contrast between 'pre-packaged' and 'exercising its own' shows more flexible, compact grammar than 7.0's plainer 'a culture that consumes imagination from screens rather than actually practising it'.

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 You Needed to Use Your Imagination", 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.