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 "An Interesting Discussion You Had With Friends", 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

An Interesting Discussion You Had With Friends

Most recently asked in May–Aug 2026

The cue card

Describe an interesting discussion that you had with friends

You should say:

what the discussion was about
what opinions you and your friends expressed
what the result of the discussion was
and explain why you found this discussion interesting

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 states its outcome plainly ('We didn't really reach one final answer, but we agreed that...'), using simple joining words and concrete but unembellished description, characteristic of Band 6.5.

The discussion I remember was with three friends, Huy, An and Nam, at a coffee shop near Han Market one Saturday afternoon. We ended up talking about whether TikTok is good or bad for teenagers.

It started because An's younger cousin spends almost five hours a day on the app, and An was worried it was affecting her studies. That's what got the conversation going.

We each had different opinions. An thought the app was mostly harmful, because teenagers copy trends without thinking and compare their lives to what they see online. Huy disagreed strongly — he said TikTok also teaches useful things, like cooking, language learning, and even design tips, which is how he learns new software tricks. Nam was somewhere in the middle. He said the problem isn't the app itself, but how much time people spend on it without control.

We didn't really reach one final answer, but we agreed that parents should talk to their children about how they use it, instead of just banning it completely. An said she would try to talk to her cousin instead of just complaining.

I found this discussion interesting because we all use the app ourselves, so it wasn't just theory. It made me think more carefully about my own phone habits too.

214 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“It started because An's younger cousin spends almost five hours a day on the app, and An was worried it was affecting her studies.” — The sentence directly explains what triggered the discussion using "because," stating both the concrete fact (five hours a day) and the resulting worry in one unhedged, matter-of-fact statement. This kind of direct cause-and-effect framing, with a specific number to ground it, gives the answer real content while staying structurally simple — exactly the "one clear reason" approach to developing an answer the Band 6.5 fluency descriptor describes, without needing further qualification or reflection at this point in the story.
LR“We didn't really reach one final answer, but we agreed that parents should talk to their children about how they use it, instead of just banning it completely.” — Despite covering a reasonably nuanced idea (a compromise position rather than a clear conclusion), every word in this sentence is common and general — "reach," "final answer," "agreed," "talk to," "instead of" — with nothing approaching a more specific term like "consensus" or "moderation" that a higher band might reach for. This shows that a speaker can express fairly sophisticated content using only plain vocabulary, precisely the ceiling the Band 6.5 lexical resource descriptor describes: clarity through simplicity, not through range.
GRA“I found this discussion interesting because we all use the app ourselves, so it wasn't just theory.” — The sentence chains a "because" clause and a "so" clause onto the main statement, giving two linked pieces of reasoning (why it was interesting, and what that meant) within a single sentence — functional and accurate, but built entirely from the two most common causal connectors in English rather than any more varied subordination. "It wasn't just theory" is a nice, concrete closing phrase that ties the discussion back to the speakers' own lives, but grammatically the sentence stays at the basic complexity level the descriptor associates with Band 6.5.

Band 7.0

The closing reflection - that the talk 'wasn't really about the job at all, once you got past the surface' - shows the answer developing beyond simple description into a reasoned point, linked with natural spoken phrasing, which is what Band 7.0 fluency and coherence expects.

The discussion I remember was with two old university friends, Trang and Viet, over coffee near the Han River back in the spring, and it was about whether I should take a job offer in Ho Chi Minh City.

It came up because I'd just been offered a much better salary at an agency there, but it meant leaving Da Nang, where I'd built up my clients and my routine over several years. I mentioned it almost as a joke, but the conversation ended up going on for nearly two hours.

We each saw it differently. Trang thought I should take it without much hesitation, because she said money and experience early in your career matter more than comfort, and you can always move back later if it doesn't work out. Viet disagreed; he pointed out that I'd spent years building a reputation in Da Nang, and starting again in a much bigger, more competitive city might actually set me back rather than move me forward. I found myself agreeing with both of them at different points, which wasn't very helpful.

We didn't come to a clear conclusion that evening, but talking it through did make me realise what actually mattered to me, which was staying close to my family rather than chasing a bigger salary. In the end, I turned the offer down a few weeks later.

I found the discussion interesting mainly because it wasn't really about the job at all, once you got past the surface - it was about what kind of life each of us actually wanted, and Trang and Viet, without realising it, were describing their own priorities as much as giving me advice.

280 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“We didn't come to a clear conclusion that evening, but talking it through did make me realise what actually mattered to me” — The sentence links the narration, no clear conclusion reached, to a personal realisation, what actually mattered, using "but" plus an emphatic "did make me realise", turning a plain account of an inconclusive evening into a point with a payoff. That move from narration to reasoned realisation is the Band 7.0 fluency pattern — developing an answer with a reason and a short concrete outcome rather than stopping at description.
LR“set me back rather than move me forward” — "Set me back rather than move me forward" pairs two contrasting phrasal expressions in parallel, a natural and flexible way of expressing career risk that goes beyond a plain alternative like "make things worse instead of better". That kind of natural, slightly figurative collocation, used accurately and without strain, is the Band 7.0 vocabulary signature.
GRA“it wasn't really about the job at all, once you got past the surface - it was about what kind of life each of us actually wanted” — This sentence combines negation, a subordinate "once" clause, and a dash-linked clarifying clause with an embedded "what" noun clause, all within a single accurate sentence explaining what the conversation was "really" about. That kind of layered but controlled complexity, several devices working together without losing clarity, is the comfortable range Band 7.0 grammar targets, a step up from the simpler coordinated sentences a 6.5 answer would use for the same idea.

Band 7.5

The final line, 'I left more uncertain than I arrived, which I've come to think is what a good discussion does,' is a genuinely reflective closing move built on a non-defining relative clause, characteristic of Band 7.5 grammatical range and depth.

The discussion I'd describe happened over a long dinner last winter with three friends — Đức and Linh from my studio, and Hà, a developer who works for a bank — and it was about whether artificial intelligence would make our jobs disappear within five years.

What it was about, precisely, was a tool Hà had shown us that afternoon, which produced a complete app design from one paragraph of text in about a minute. It wasn't good. But it was better than the work I'd done in my first year, and that was the point that started the argument.

The opinions were three, and they held for four hours. Đức thought designers would be gone as a profession by 2030, replaced by product managers typing sentences, and that we should all become something else now. Linh thought the opposite: that the tools would take the boring half of the work and leave the half that needs a person, and that designers who understood people would be more valuable, not less. Hà, the developer, was the most interesting, because his job was further along the same road, and he said the truth was neither — that the work wouldn't vanish but the entry point would, and that people like us would be fine while the juniors after us would struggle. I moved between them all evening.

The result was that nobody changed their conclusion, and everybody changed something smaller. We agreed to each learn one AI tool properly in the next three months. Đức has calmed down slightly. Linh has become fiercer. Hà was right about the juniors, so far.

Why I found it interesting was that it was the first argument I'd had in years where nobody was performing. All four of us had something real at stake, and so we listened. I left more uncertain than I arrived, which I've come to think is what a good discussion does.

321 words · about 2 minutes

Why this band

FC“I left more uncertain than I arrived, which I've come to think is what a good discussion does.” — This closing line is a genuinely paradoxical reflection -- framing increased uncertainty as a positive outcome rather than a failure to reach a conclusion -- which goes well beyond simple narration of who said what at dinner, matching the reflective depth the 7.5 descriptor asks for. A Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would more likely end by stating who was right or what was decided. The generalising relative clause ("which I've come to think is...") also elevates the specific dinner conversation into a broader claim about what discussions are for, giving the whole four-person disagreement a unifying takeaway.
LR“All four of us had something real at stake, and so we listened.” — "Something real at stake" is a precise, economical idiomatic phrase for genuine personal investment in an argument's outcome, chosen over a more literal alternative like "we all cared about the topic" that a Band 6.5 or 7.0 answer would likely use instead. The causal link drawn between having stakes and actually listening ("and so we listened") is also a considered observation about group dynamics, not just a description of the evening. It functions as the answer's key insight, explaining why this particular argument felt different from other conversations the speaker has had.
GRA“Đức thought designers would be gone as a profession by 2030, replaced by product managers typing sentences” — A reduced participial clause ("replaced by product managers typing sentences") is attached after the main clause without its own subject or verb tense, efficiently adding a vivid detail about how Đức imagined designers being replaced -- a more economical structure than the fuller relative clause a Band 6.5 or 7.0 speaker would use ("who would be replaced by product managers who type sentences"). The double compression here -- first the participle, then a second embedded participle ("typing sentences") -- shows sustained control across a longer sentence. This grammatical economy also suits the summarising function of the sentence, reporting one person's whole position within a four-hour argument in a single breath.

How this card was asked, by exam period

Describe an interesting discussion that you had with friendsMay–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. How important are good listening skills?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain causal statement about trust lacks the closing antithesis about poor and good listeners that 7.5 adds.
I think listening matters even more than speaking, and that dinner proved it to me. Hà said the least of the four of us, listening for a whole hour before he spoke, but when he did, he reframed the whole argument, because he had really heard what each of us was afraid of. Listening helps you find out what a conversation is really about, which is often not what it seems. It also builds trust, since people know when they are truly being heard. In my job, a client says 'make it pop', and a good listener works out that this really means 'my mother cannot read it'.
Why this band
FC“It also builds trust, since people know when they are truly being heard.” — A plain causal statement. Compare 7.5's version, which adds a closing antithesis about poor and good listeners after making a similar point.
LR“he reframed the whole argument” — A precise verb ("reframed"), matching the higher bands, but the sentence around it is less punctuated than 7.5's dash-separated version of the same idea.
GRA“Hà said the least of the four of us, listening for a whole hour before he spoke, but when he did, he reframed the whole argument, because he had really heard what each of us was afraid of.” — One long sentence chaining several ideas with commas, less punctuated than 7.5's dash-separated version.
Band 7.0
The passive "trust gets built" plus "genuinely" adds a slightly more natural register than 6.5's plainer active version of the same claim.
More important than speaking, honestly, and that dinner proved it. Hà said the least of the four of us — he listened for a full hour before he spoke — and when he finally did, he said the thing that reframed the whole argument, because he'd actually heard what each of us was afraid of. Listening is how you find out what a conversation is really about, which is rarely what it seems on the surface. It's also how trust gets built, since people can tell when they're genuinely being heard. In my job it's basically the whole skill — a client says 'make it pop', and the listener works out that really means 'my mother can't read it'.
Why this band
FC“It's also how trust gets built, since people can tell when they're genuinely being heard.” — The passive "gets built" plus "genuinely" adds a slightly more natural register than 6.5's plainer active version.
LR“he said the thing that reframed the whole argument” — A precise verb shared with 7.5, more developed than 6.5's plainer phrasing of the same moment.
GRA“Hà said the least of the four of us — he listened for a full hour before he spoke — and when he finally did, he said the thing that reframed the whole argument” — A dash-parenthesis embedded mid-sentence, more ambitious than 6.5's simple comma chain.
Band 7.5
The closing semicolon-joined antithesis about poor and good listeners goes beyond the single observation that ends the lower-band answers.
More important than speaking, and that dinner proved it. Hà said the least of the four of us — he listened for an hour before he spoke — and when he did, he said the thing that reframed the whole argument, because he'd actually heard what each of us was afraid of. Listening is how you find out what a conversation is really about, which is rarely what it's about on the surface. It's how trust is built, since people can tell when they're being heard. In my job it's the whole skill: a client says 'make it pop' and the listener finds out that means 'my mother can't read it'. Poor listeners argue with what they expected to hear; good ones answer what was actually said, and it's rarer than it sounds.
Why this band
FC“and it's rarer than it sounds” — An evaluative closing touch that reframes the whole answer, going beyond the single observation that ends the 7.0 and 6.5 answers.
LR“argue with what they expected to hear” — A vivid, contrast-based phrase, more figurative than the plainer explanations at the lower bands.
GRA“Poor listeners argue with what they expected to hear; good ones answer what was actually said” — A semicolon-joined antithetical sentence, more controlled than the single-clause sentences at 6.5 and 7.0.
2. How easy is it for people to improve their communication skills?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain separate closing sentence about Đức lacks the generalising reflection 7.5 folds into the same sentence.
I think it is easier than people expect, but slower than they would like. At that dinner, Đức kept interrupting everyone, until Linh finally pointed it out, and since then he has practised a three-second pause before speaking. It really has made him a different person to talk to. Communication is really just a set of habits, like listening fully, asking before assuming, and saying less, and each one can be practised. What is hard is that most people do not know what they do wrong, because nobody tells them. Anyone can improve, but very few people actually try, because it means hearing something uncomfortable first.
Why this band
FC“It really has made him a different person to talk to.” — A plain, separate closing sentence. Compare 7.5's tighter dash version, which folds a generalising comment ("one habit, noticed and worked on, changed a lot") into the same sentence.
LR“a set of habits, like listening fully, asking before assuming, and saying less” — A three-item list, less developed than 7.5's four-item list, which adds "matching tone."
GRA“At that dinner, Đức kept interrupting everyone, until Linh finally pointed it out, and since then he has practised a three-second pause before speaking.” — A single long coordinated sentence, less punctuated than 7.5's dash-separated version.
Band 7.0
The inserted "honestly" mid-sentence gives natural spoken emphasis, more fluent than 6.5's plainer separate sentence making the same point.
Easier than people think, honestly, and slower than they'd like. Đức interrupted everyone that evening — Linh finally pointed it out — and he's since practised a three-second pause before speaking that has made him, honestly, a different person to talk to. Communication really is a set of habits: listening fully, asking before assuming, matching tone, saying less. Each one can be practised, and feedback from an honest friend speeds it up a lot. What's hard is that most people don't know what they do wrong, since nobody tells them. Recording yourself or simply asking 'how did that come across?' both work — anyone can improve, but very few people actually decide to.
Why this band
FC“he's since practised a three-second pause before speaking that has made him, honestly, a different person to talk to” — The inserted "honestly" gives natural spoken emphasis mid-sentence, more fluent than 6.5's plainer separate sentence.
LR“matching tone” — A more specific communication skill added to the list of habits than 6.5's shorter three-item list.
GRA“Recording yourself or simply asking 'how did that come across?' both work — anyone can improve, but very few people actually decide to.” — A dash-linked closing pair, less layered than 7.5's three-item list plus separate two-sentence closing.
Band 7.5
Splitting the final idea into two short sentences gives the ending more rhetorical punch than the single flowing sentence at the lower bands.
Easier than people think and slower than they'd like. Đức interrupted everyone that evening — Linh finally pointed it out — and he has since practised a three-second pause before speaking that has made him, honestly, a different person to talk to; one habit, noticed and worked on, changed a lot. Communication is a set of habits: listening fully, asking before assuming, matching tone, saying less. Each can be practised, and feedback from an honest friend speeds it up enormously. What's genuinely hard is that most people don't know what they do wrong, because nobody ever tells them. Recording yourself, taking a course, or simply asking 'how did that come across?' all work. Anyone can improve. Very few people decide to, because it means hearing something uncomfortable first.
Why this band
FC“Anyone can improve. Very few people decide to, because it means hearing something uncomfortable first.” — Splitting the final idea into two short sentences gives the ending more rhetorical punch than the single flowing sentence at 7.0.
LR“Recording yourself, taking a course, or simply asking 'how did that come across?'” — A three-item list, richer than 7.0's two-item version of the same idea.
GRA“he has since practised a three-second pause before speaking that has made him, honestly, a different person to talk to; one habit, noticed and worked on, changed a lot” — A semicolon adding a generalising reflection onto the sentence, more layered than 7.0's version without it.
3. Why are some people much better at persuading others to change their behaviour?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The abstract, generic "which approach will work" lacks the concrete metaphor 7.5 uses for the same idea.
I think it is because persuasive people start with the other person, not with their own argument. Linh got me to learn a new AI tool by asking what I was afraid of, and then answering that fear. Đức lectured me on the same subject for an hour, and it just bounced off, even though his facts were better. Persuasive people listen first, so they know which approach will work. People trust them, because they have been honest before. They also make the change feel small and possible, not big and shameful. They use stories, which people remember, instead of statistics, which people often ignore.
Why this band
FC“Persuasive people listen first, so they know which approach will work.” — A plain causal claim. Compare 7.5's more evocative metaphor, "they know which door is open."
LR“which approach will work” — Generic, abstract phrasing. Contrast 7.5's concrete metaphor "which door is open."
GRA“Linh got me to learn a new AI tool by asking what I was afraid of, and then answering that fear.” — A single coordinated sentence, less compact than 7.5's semicolon-joined version with the added contrast about Đức.
Band 7.0
The intensifier "genuinely" adds natural emphasis, more fluent than 6.5's plainer "even though his facts were better."
Because they start from the other person rather than the argument, honestly. Linh got me to learn the AI tool by asking what I was afraid of and then simply answering that; Đức lectured me on the same subject for an hour, and it bounced straight off, even though his facts were genuinely better. Persuasive people listen first, so they know which door is actually open. They're trusted, because they've been honest before and don't seem desperate for you to agree. They make the change feel small and possible rather than large and shaming, and they lean on stories, which people remember, over statistics, which people tend to dismiss.
Why this band
FC“even though his facts were genuinely better” — The intensifier "genuinely" adds natural emphasis, more fluent than 6.5's plainer "even though his facts were better."
LR“which door is actually open” — A metaphor with "actually" added, similar to 7.5's version but slightly less economical.
GRA“They make the change feel small and possible rather than large and shaming, and they lean on stories, which people remember, over statistics, which people tend to dismiss.” — A long coordinated sentence combining two parallel contrasts, less separated than 7.5's version, which splits this into distinct sentences.
Band 7.5
The short, aphoristic closing sentence reframes the whole answer as a moral claim, beyond the more descriptive endings of the lower bands.
Because they start from the other person rather than from the argument. Linh got me to learn the AI tool by asking what I was afraid of and then answering that; Đức lectured me on the same subject for an hour and it bounced off, though his facts were better. Persuasive people listen first, so they know which door is open. They're trusted, because they've been honest before and because they don't seem to need you to agree. They make the change small and possible rather than large and shaming. They use stories, which people remember, over statistics, which people dismiss. And they let the other person feel the decision is their own. It's less a talent than a habit of respect.
Why this band
FC“It's less a talent than a habit of respect.” — A short, aphoristic closing sentence that reframes the whole answer as a moral claim, beyond the more descriptive endings of 6.5 and 7.0.
LR“which door is open” — A compact metaphor, more figurative than 6.5's literal "which approach will work."
GRA“They're trusted, because they've been honest before and because they don't seem to need you to agree.” — A sentence with two parallel because-clauses, more balanced than 7.0's single because-clause version.
4. What kinds of jobs require excellent communication skills?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The vague evaluation "a high level of communication" lacks the specific, vivid comparison 7.5 uses for the same idea.
I think it is more than the obvious jobs like teachers, lawyers, and salespeople. The nurse on our hospital project can explain a diagnosis in one sentence that a frightened seventy-year-old can understand, and that is a high level of communication. My friend Hà spends his days explaining computer bugs to bank managers who do not know what a database is. Doctors, managers, diplomats, and customer service workers all need this skill too. My own job is mostly explaining why something is designed the way it is. Even engineers need to explain their work clearly, or it does not get used.
Why this band
FC“Even engineers need to explain their work clearly, or it does not get used.” — A plain closing claim. Compare 7.5's more dramatic phrasing, "engineers and scientists live or die by whether they can make their work understood."
LR“a high level of communication” — A vague, generic evaluation. Contrast 7.5's "communication of a higher order than most speeches," a more specific and vivid comparison.
GRA“Doctors, managers, diplomats, and customer service workers all need this skill too.” — A simple four-item list with a repeated tag ("all need this skill too"), less compact than 7.5's dash-free five-item list.
Band 7.0
The dash-extended list ending in the tag "really" is more fluent than 6.5's flatter four-item list.
More than the obvious list of teachers, lawyers and salespeople, honestly. The nurse on our hospital project explains a diagnosis in one sentence that a frightened seventy-year-old can actually hold onto, and that's communication of a higher order than most speeches. Hà spends his days explaining bugs to bank managers who don't know what a database is. Doctors, managers, diplomats, journalists, customer service — anyone who leads a team, really. My own job is mostly explaining why something is designed the way it is. Even engineers and scientists live or die by whether they can make their work understood.
Why this band
FC“Doctors, managers, diplomats, journalists, customer service — anyone who leads a team, really.” — A dash-extended list ending in a generalising tag ("really"), more fluent than 6.5's flatter four-item list.
LR“communication of a higher order than most speeches” — A precise, elevated comparison, matching 7.5 but without the final extending clause about shrinking jobs.
GRA“a frightened seventy-year-old can actually hold onto” — The added intensifier "actually" and idiom "hold onto" give this clause more texture than 6.5's plainer "can understand."
Band 7.5
The added closing sentence about shrinking jobs extends the argument into the future, beyond the single present-tense observation at the lower bands.
More than the obvious list of teachers, lawyers and salespeople. The nurse on our hospital project explains a diagnosis in one sentence that a frightened seventy-year-old can hold, and that's communication of a higher order than most speeches. Hà spends his days explaining bugs to bank managers who don't know what a database is. Doctors, managers, diplomats, journalists, customer service, anyone who leads a team. My own job is mostly explaining why something is designed the way it is. Even engineers and scientists live or die by whether they can make their work understood. The jobs that don't require it are shrinking, since machines now handle the work that needs no explanation at all.
Why this band
FC“The jobs that don't require it are shrinking, since machines now handle the work that needs no explanation at all.” — An added closing sentence extending the argument into the future, going beyond the single present-tense observation that ends 6.5 and 7.0.
LR“The jobs that don't require it are shrinking” — Figurative economic framing of skill demand, beyond 7.0's simple list of professions.
GRA“Even engineers and scientists live or die by whether they can make their work understood.” — A stark, idiomatic conditional-style clause ("live or die by"), more dramatic than 6.5's plain "need to explain their work clearly."
5. What kinds of things do children usually have strong opinions about?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The flat repetition of "strong" throughout lacks the vivid, varied vocabulary the higher bands use for the same idea.
I think children have strong opinions about fairness first, and then about anything that touches their own life. My nephew has a very strong opinion about the correct order of his bedtime routine, and he will not change his mind. My niece, who is eleven, has strong views on which animals should be pets, and thinks school starts too early. Small children care a lot about rules and fairness, because they are learning the rules and want them followed. They also have opinions about food, clothes, and who is their friend today. As children grow older, their opinions expand to teachers, music, and what is cool.
Why this band
FC“and he will not change his mind” — A plain, direct statement. Compare 7.5's more vivid "and will not be moved," a slightly more forceful, idiomatic verb choice.
LR“very strong opinion” — Repeats "strong" rather flatly. Contrast 7.5's "furious position," a more vivid, precise noun-adjective pairing.
GRA“As children grow older, their opinions expand to teachers, music, and what is cool.” — A plain sentence with a short list, less developed than 7.5's version, which extends the list further and adds a closing clause about certainty.
Band 7.0
The vivid noun "position" plus the intensifier "simply" are more developed than 6.5's plainer "very strong opinion... will not change his mind."
Fairness, first, honestly, and then anything that touches their own life. My nephew has a furious position on the correct order of the bedtime routine and simply will not be moved; my niece at eleven has strong views on which animals deserve to be pets and why school starts too early. Small children care intensely about rules, turns and what's fair, because they're learning the rules and want them kept. They have opinions about food, clothes, bedtime, siblings, and who is and isn't their friend today. As they grow, the opinions expand to teachers, music, what's cool, and eventually the injustices of the world, held with a certainty adults have usually lost.
Why this band
FC“My nephew has a furious position on the correct order of the bedtime routine and simply will not be moved” — The vivid noun "position" and added intensifier "simply" are more developed than 6.5's plainer "very strong opinion... will not change his mind."
LR“held with a certainty adults have usually lost” — A precise, reflective closing phrase, slightly less confident than 7.5's "adults have long since lost."
GRA“the opinions expand to teachers, music, what's cool, and eventually the injustices of the world, held with a certainty adults have usually lost” — A long sentence building a five-item list toward a reflective closing clause, more ambitious than 6.5's short, plain sentence.
Band 7.5
The two short closing sentences reframe the whole answer as a claim about value, going beyond the single descriptive sentence at the lower bands.
Fairness, first, and then anything that touches their own life. My nephew has a furious position on the correct order of the bedtime routine and will not be moved; my niece at eleven has strong views on which animals deserve to be pets and why school starts too early. Small children care intensely about rules, turns and what's fair, because they're learning the rules and want them kept. They have opinions about food, clothes, bedtime, siblings, and who is and isn't their friend today. As they grow, the opinions expand to teachers, music, what's cool, and, by early adolescence, the injustices of the world, held with a certainty adults have long since lost. Children rarely have mild opinions. That's what makes them worth listening to.
Why this band
FC“Children rarely have mild opinions. That's what makes them worth listening to.” — Two short punchy closing sentences that reframe the whole answer as a claim about value, going beyond the single descriptive sentence that ends 6.5 and 7.0.
LR“furious position” — A vivid, precise noun-adjective pairing, more developed than 6.5's flat repetition of "strong."
GRA“the opinions expand to teachers, music, what's cool, and, by early adolescence, the injustices of the world, held with a certainty adults have long since lost” — A five-item list with an embedded time phrase ("by early adolescence"), more layered than 7.0's version without that insertion.
6. Do you think parents should always take their children's opinions into account?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The separate hedge-ended sentence "Both were right, I think" is plainer than 7.5's tighter integration of the same claim.
I think parents should always listen, but not always do what the child wants, and my sister shows this well. On the same day, I watched her ask her eleven-year-old's opinion about which flat to rent, seriously, and then decide about bedtime without asking at all. Both were right, I think. Listening to a child's opinion shows them they matter, and it can reveal something the parent missed. But children do not have enough information or a long view of life, so a parent who always obeys the child is not really respecting them. I think the rule should be: always ask, always explain, and then decide.
Why this band
FC“Both were right, I think.” — A short, hedge-ended sentence set apart. Compare 7.5's tighter integration, "both were right," folded directly into the flow of the previous sentence without a separate hedge.
LR“always listen, but not always do what the child wants” — Plain, literal phrasing. Contrast 7.5's more elegant abstraction, "Into account, always; into effect, not always."
GRA“But children do not have enough information or a long view of life, so a parent who always obeys the child is not really respecting them.” — A single "so" clause, less layered than 7.5's version which adds the sharper contrast "they're abandoning the job."
Band 7.0
The semicolon-and-dash opening built on ellipsis is more fluent and compact than 6.5's fuller, plainer opening sentence.
Into account, always, honestly; into effect, not always — and my sister manages that difference well. On the same day, I watched her ask her eleven-year-old's opinion on which flat to rent, seriously, and then overrule her on bedtime without much discussion at all — both were right, in their own way. Listening to a child's view teaches them that they matter and often reveals something the parent missed. But children lack information and long views, and a parent who obeys every opinion isn't really respecting the child, they're abandoning the job. The weight should grow with age and the stakes involved.
Why this band
FC“Into account, always, honestly; into effect, not always — and my sister manages that difference well.” — A semicolon-and-dash opening built on ellipsis, more fluent and compact than 6.5's fuller, plainer opening sentence.
LR“isn't really respecting the child, they're abandoning the job” — A sharp contrast, matching 7.5 closely but keeping "really," a slightly softer intensifier.
GRA“The weight should grow with age and the stakes involved.” — A short, general closing sentence, less developed than 7.5's version, which adds two concrete contrasting examples after the colon.
Band 7.5
The two concrete, contrasting closing examples go beyond the general principle that ends the lower bands.
Into account, always; into effect, not always, and my sister manages the difference well. On the same day I watched her ask her eleven-year-old's opinion on which flat to rent, seriously, and then overrule her on bedtime without discussion — both were right. Listening to a child's view teaches them that they matter and often reveals something the parent missed. But children lack information and long views, and a parent who obeys every opinion isn't respecting the child, they're abandoning the job. The weight should grow with age and with the stakes: a teenager's opinion on their own future deserves a great deal; a four-year-old's opinion on sugar deserves affection and a no.
Why this band
FC“a teenager's opinion on their own future deserves a great deal; a four-year-old's opinion on sugar deserves affection and a no” — Two concrete, contrasting examples closing the answer, going beyond the general principle that ends 6.5 and 7.0.
LR“they're abandoning the job” — A blunt, idiomatic closing phrase, sharper than 6.5's softer, more explanatory version.
GRA“The weight should grow with age and with the stakes: a teenager's opinion on their own future deserves a great deal; a four-year-old's opinion on sugar deserves affection and a no.” — A colon-introduced sentence with two semicolon-joined contrasting examples, the most structurally ambitious sentence of the three bands.
7. How optimistic should we be that people will realise the importance of changing their behaviour for the good of the planet?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The plain because-clause ending lacks the colon-introduced two-part structure 7.5 uses for the same closing idea.
I would say cautiously optimistic, and I can see the gap clearly. The beach cleanups in Da Nang now bring hundreds of volunteers every month, which would have been impossible ten years ago, but the plastic still arrives with every storm. So awareness has grown much faster than behaviour. I think people do realise the problem, because surveys everywhere show they care. What is missing is the link between caring and acting, because taking action is inconvenient and the results are hard to see. I am hopeful because young people treat this issue as obvious, not something to argue about.
Why this band
FC“So awareness has grown much faster than behaviour.” — A plain causal summary. Compare 7.5's tighter dash-integrated version of the same claim within a longer sentence.
LR“cautiously optimistic” — A plain compound adjective. Contrast 7.5's structural opening, "Cautiously, and with a clear view of the gap," which drops the adjective for a sharper adverb-led sentence.
GRA“I am hopeful because young people treat this issue as obvious, not something to argue about.” — A single because-clause, less layered than 7.5's colon-introduced two-part list closing with the antithesis "pessimistic path... hopeful one."
Band 7.0
The semicolon-joined pair with a natural hedge is more fluent than 6.5's separate two-sentence version of the same claim.
Cautiously, I'd say, with a clear view of the gap. The beach cleanups in Da Nang now draw hundreds of volunteers every month, which would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and the plastic still arrives with every storm — awareness has clearly grown faster than behaviour. People do realise, honestly; polls everywhere show they care. What's missing is the link between caring and acting, because the actions are inconvenient and the results are largely invisible. My optimism rests on two things: young people, who treat the issue as obvious rather than debatable, and the fact that behaviour changes fast once systems change.
Why this band
FC“People do realise, honestly; polls everywhere show they care.” — A semicolon-joined pair with a natural hedge, more fluent than 6.5's separate two-sentence version.
LR“unthinkable a decade ago” — A precise, vivid phrase, matching 7.5, though 7.0's answer lacks the closing antithesis that extends the idea further.
GRA“My optimism rests on two things: young people, who treat the issue as obvious rather than debatable, and the fact that behaviour changes fast once systems change.” — A colon-introduced two-part list, more developed than 6.5's simpler single-clause explanation.
Band 7.5
The two short, balanced closing sentences form a final antithesis, going beyond the single explanatory sentence at 7.0.
Cautiously, and with a clear view of the gap. The beach cleanups in Da Nang now draw hundreds of volunteers every month, which would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and the plastic still arrives with every storm — awareness has grown far faster than behaviour. People do realise; polls everywhere show they care. What's missing is the link between caring and acting, because the actions are inconvenient and the results invisible. My optimism rests on two things: young people, who treat the issue as obvious rather than debatable, and the fact that behaviour changes fast when systems change — when the clean choice becomes the easy one. Waiting for individuals to change on their own is the pessimistic path. Changing what's easy is the hopeful one.
Why this band
FC“Waiting for individuals to change on their own is the pessimistic path. Changing what's easy is the hopeful one.” — Two short, balanced closing sentences forming a final antithesis, going beyond the single explanatory sentence that ends 7.0.
LR“when the clean choice becomes the easy one” — A precise, almost aphoristic phrase extending the idea of systemic change beyond 7.0's plainer "once systems change."
GRA“My optimism rests on two things: young people, who treat the issue as obvious rather than debatable, and the fact that behaviour changes fast when systems change — when the clean choice becomes the easy one.” — A colon-introduced list extended further by a dash-appended restatement, more layered than the equivalent sentence at 7.0.
8. At what age do young children start to develop their own opinions?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The vague deferral in the final sentence lacks the specific age-by-age breakdown 7.5 uses to answer the question directly.
I think preferences come first, and real opinions come later. A regular at my friend Vy's café brings her two-year-old, who will only sit on the red chair and screams if it is taken, which is a preference with no real reason behind it. Real opinions, with a reason attached, usually start around age four, when children begin explaining why the neighbour's dog is bad. By seven or eight, children start judging adults' behaviour, sometimes harshly. Truly independent opinions, ones that disagree with the family and are still defended, belong to early adolescence. So it really depends on what you mean by an opinion.
Why this band
FC“So it really depends on what you mean by an opinion.” — A plain, general closing statement. Compare 7.5's fuller three-part breakdown, which answers the question with actual ages rather than a vague deferral.
LR“a preference with no real reason behind it” — Plain phrasing. Contrast 7.5's more vivid "a preference held with total conviction and absolutely no argument behind it."
GRA“Real opinions, with a reason attached, usually start around age four, when children begin explaining why the neighbour's dog is bad.” — A single sentence with one embedded example, less developed than 7.5's version, which adds a second example.
Band 7.0
The dash-framed definition embedded in a long sentence is more developed than 6.5's plainer, shorter version of the same claim.
Preferences come first, honestly, then positions. A regular at Vy's café brings her two-year-old, who will only sit on the red chair and screams if it's taken — a preference held with total force and no argument behind it. Real positions, with a 'because' attached, tend to show up around four, when children start explaining why the neighbour's dog is bad or why rice beats noodles. By seven or eight they judge grown-ups' behaviour, sometimes harshly. Genuinely independent views — ones that contradict what the household believes and are defended anyway — belong to early adolescence, when my sister's students suddenly have theories about everything.
Why this band
FC“Genuinely independent views — ones that contradict what the household believes and are defended anyway — belong to early adolescence, when my sister's students suddenly have theories about everything.” — A dash-framed definition embedded in a long sentence, more developed than 6.5's plainer, shorter version of the same claim.
LR“a preference held with total force and no argument behind it” — A more vivid, precise phrase than 6.5's plain "a preference with no real reason behind it."
GRA“Real positions, with a 'because' attached, tend to show up around four, when children start explaining why the neighbour's dog is bad or why rice beats noodles.” — A sentence with two embedded examples joined by "or," more developed than 6.5's single-example version.
Band 7.5
The colon-introduced three-part chronological breakdown actually answers the question with specific ages, going beyond both lower bands.
Preferences arrive first, then positions. A regular at Vy's café brings her two-year-old, who will only sit on the red chair and screams the moment it's taken — a preference held with total conviction and absolutely no argument behind it. Real positions, the kind with a 'because' attached, tend to appear around four, when children start explaining why the neighbour's dog is bad or why rice beats noodles. By seven or eight they're judging grown-ups' behaviour, sometimes harshly. Genuinely independent views — the kind that contradict what the household believes and get defended anyway — belong to early adolescence, when my sister's students suddenly seem to have theories about everything. So it depends what counts: liking arrives in infancy, reasoning in preschool, and disagreement waits at the door of the teenage years.
Why this band
FC“So it depends what counts: liking arrives in infancy, reasoning in preschool, and disagreement waits at the door of the teenage years.” — A colon-introduced three-part chronological breakdown that actually answers the question with specific ages, going well beyond 6.5's vague deferral and even 7.0's version, which lacks this closing summary.
LR“a preference held with total conviction and absolutely no argument behind it” — An intensified version of 7.0's phrase, adding "absolutely" for extra emphasis.
GRA“Genuinely independent views — the kind that contradict what the household believes and get defended anyway — belong to early adolescence, when my sister's students suddenly seem to have theories about everything.” — A dash-framed definition matching 7.0's structure but with the added hedge "seem to," giving it a slightly more reflective tone.
9. How successful are government campaigns in persuading people to change their behaviour, such as adopting a healthy lifestyle or protecting the environment?
May–Aug 2026
Compare Band 6.5 / 7.0 / 7.5 for this question
Band 6.5
The single-reason closing sentence lacks the second reason and sharper final antithesis 7.5 adds.
I think campaigns work well when they change the rules, but not when they only change the posters. Vietnam's motorbike helmet law changed the country's roads in about a month, because it came with fines. But the anti-plastic-bag posters that have been in markets for years have changed nothing, because the bags are still free and everywhere. Campaigns that only give information assume people do not know something, but usually they already do. What actually works is making the good behaviour easy, cheap, or required, and the bad behaviour inconvenient or costly. Campaigns can still help a little, because they explain the reason for a rule.
Why this band
FC“Campaigns can still help a little, because they explain the reason for a rule.” — A plain, single-reason closing statement. Compare 7.5's fuller version, which adds a second reason and the sharper final antithesis about being "the weakest tool... the one it reaches for first."
LR“give information assume people do not know something” — Wordy, imprecise phrasing. Contrast 7.5's tighter "only inform assume people don't know."
GRA“Vietnam's motorbike helmet law changed the country's roads in about a month, because it came with fines.” — A simple because-clause, less layered than 7.5's semicolon-joined contrast sentence pairing the helmet law with the plastic-bag posters.
Band 7.0
The dash-extended sentence with two supporting points is more developed than 6.5's single-reason version.
Successful when they change the rules, honestly, and weak when they only change the posters. Vietnam's motorbike helmet law transformed the country's roads in about a month, because it came with fines; the anti-plastic-bag posters that have hung in markets for years have changed almost nothing, since the bags are still free and everywhere. Campaigns that only inform tend to assume people don't know, and mostly they already do. What works is making the desired behaviour easy, cheap or required, and the undesired one inconvenient or costly. Campaigns do help at the margins — they explain the reason for a rule, and can shift what's socially normal over years, as with smoking.
Why this band
FC“Campaigns do help at the margins — they explain the reason for a rule, and can shift what's socially normal over years, as with smoking.” — A dash-extended sentence with two supporting points, more developed than 6.5's single-reason version.
LR“transformed the country's roads” — A more dramatic verb than 6.5's plainer "changed."
GRA“Vietnam's motorbike helmet law transformed the country's roads in about a month, because it came with fines; the anti-plastic-bag posters that have hung in markets for years have changed almost nothing, since the bags are still free and everywhere.” — A semicolon-joined contrast sentence, more controlled than 6.5's two separate sentences.
Band 7.5
The sharp, ironic closing antithesis goes beyond 7.0's more neutral concluding sentence about campaigns helping at the margins.
Successful when they change the rules and weak when they only change the posters. Vietnam's motorbike helmet law transformed the country's roads in about a month, because it came with fines; the anti-plastic-bag posters that have hung in markets for years have changed nothing, because the bags are still free and everywhere. Campaigns that only inform assume people don't know, and mostly they do. What works is making the desired behaviour easy, cheap or required, and the undesired one inconvenient or costly. Campaigns help at the margins: they explain the reason for a rule, which builds acceptance, and they can shift what's socially normal over years, as with smoking. On their own, though, they're the weakest tool a government has, and the one it reaches for first.
Why this band
FC“On their own, though, they're the weakest tool a government has, and the one it reaches for first.” — A sharp, ironic closing antithesis, going beyond 7.0's more neutral concluding sentence about campaigns helping "at the margins."
LR“they're the weakest tool a government has” — A vivid, evaluative metaphor, more developed than 7.0's plainer description of campaigns helping "at the margins."
GRA“Campaigns help at the margins: they explain the reason for a rule, which builds acceptance, and they can shift what's socially normal over years, as with smoking.” — A colon-introduced sentence adding a third clause ("which builds acceptance") beyond 7.0's two-part version.

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 "An Interesting Discussion You Had With Friends", 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.