Thirty seconds to decide, ninety seconds to support
Task 7 asks a “Do you think...?” question. You have 30 seconds to prepare and 90 seconds to speak. The current official study pack recommends reading carefully, deciding yes or no quickly, giving about three reasons, supporting each one with specific detail, and using a logical order with transitions.
The strongest position is the one you can develop under the timer. It does not have to match every belief you hold outside the test. Once you choose, keep the main position stable. You may acknowledge a limitation or counterpoint, but the listener should never have to guess which side you support.
Position control, idea development, language range, and relevance
Content/Coherence includes a clear position, enough ideas, specific support, and a logical progression. Vocabulary includes precise language for the topic and transitions that express addition, cause, contrast, and consequence accurately. Listenability includes intelligible pronunciation, fluent rhythm, grammatical control, and sentence variety. Task Fulfillment includes answering the exact question, remaining relevant, using the time effectively, and adopting an appropriate speaking style.
Complexity comes from development, not from choosing a controversial topic or using inflated vocabulary. A familiar policy can support a strong response when you explain who is affected, how the change works in practice, and why its benefits outweigh a real limitation.
Transitions should reveal reasoning. “As a result” needs a consequence, while “however” needs a genuine contrast. Accurate connections make a modest idea easier to follow than a speech filled with decorative linking words.
Prepare P + three R → D chains
- Position.Answer the question directly in the first sentence and identify your overall reason.
- Reason.Give one distinct basis for the opinion: access, cost, fairness, safety, learning, efficiency, community, or long-term effect.
- Development.Add a concrete example, mechanism, comparison, or consequence that proves why the reason matters.
- Counterpoint.If useful, recognize one genuine concern and answer it without changing sides.
- Conclusion.Restate the recommendation in light of the developed reasons, not by repeating the opening word for word.
Notes should remain compact: YES bike storage; use → commuters daily; security/weather → fewer thefts/damage; space → racks serve many; visitors concern → keep accessible spots; recommend pilot.
Develop one community policy without drifting
Original practice prompt: An apartment building is considering converting two visitor parking spaces into secure bicycle storage for residents. Do you think the building should make this change? Explain your opinion.
30-second notes: yes; daily use/commute; secure + dry; efficient space; visitors lose 2 but keep accessible/short-term; six-month pilot.
Model response:
Yes, I think the building should convert two visitor spaces into secure bicycle storage because the change would support daily transportation for many residents. First, several people can store bicycles in the area used by only two cars. Residents who cycle to work would gain a practical place to keep their bikes instead of carrying them through hallways or leaving them on balconies.
Second, secure indoor storage would protect bicycles from theft and bad weather. That could encourage more residents to use bikes for short trips, which may also reduce demand for regular parking.
I understand that visitors still need convenient spaces, especially people with limited mobility. The building should preserve all accessible parking and keep several short-term visitor spaces near the entrance. It could also test the bicycle room for six months before making the change permanent.
Overall, the conversion uses a small area more efficiently while keeping reasonable access for visitors, so I would support a carefully monitored trial.
Why it works: The response holds one position, develops use, security, and space benefits, answers a real access concern, and ends with a practical recommendation.
What weakens a 90-second opinion
- Taking too long to choose. Preparation ends with no reason plan.
- Contradicting the opening. Later reasons support the other side without a clear counterpoint structure.
- Listing abstract benefits. “It is better, useful, and important” gives no mechanism or example.
- Using unsupported absolutes. Claims such as “everyone will save money” are broader than the reasoning proves.
- Giving a counterpoint more time than the position. The response becomes an argument against itself.
- Repeating transitions mechanically. “Firstly, secondly, thirdly” cannot replace logical connections inside each reason.
- Drifting to a nearby debate. A building-storage question becomes a general speech about climate policy.
- Ending without a recommendation. The response stops after the final example and leaves the action unstated.
Record both sides, but never mix them
Use the bicycle-storage question. Record one 90-second “yes” response and one 90-second “no” response. Reuse the same criteria—resident use, security, space, and visitor access—but connect them to the opposite conclusion.
Reveal the self-check
For each recording, write the position at the top and label every reason R and every support sentence D. Check that each D actually strengthens the stated side. If a counterpoint appears, underline the sentence that answers it and returns to the position.
Check whether every part supports one answer
- Did I answer the exact question near the beginning?
- Did I keep one position throughout the response?
- Did I develop about three distinct reasons?
- Does each reason include a specific example, mechanism, or consequence?
- Did my transitions express the real relationship between ideas?
- Did I handle any counterpoint briefly and fairly?
- Did I stay on topic and avoid unsupported absolutes?
- Did the conclusion make a clear recommendation?