Speaking: arguing a case and presenting

Your recording stays on this page — nobody else can hear it. Compare it with the model using the checklist.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

• I distinguished the announced reason from the evidence that would support it.

• I made cost and time intelligible without imposing a punctuation-to-pause rule.

Your recording stays on this page — nobody else can hear it. Compare it with the model using the checklist.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

• I made both the acknowledged point and the contrasting claim clear.

• I checked whether my own response actually addressed the limitation rather than assuming but refuted it.

Your recording stays on this page — nobody else can hear it. Compare it with the model using the checklist.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

• I kept the qualifications when rehearsing this particular sentence.

• I recognised that in most cases needs supporting evidence and that no dataset is supplied here.

Your recording stays on this page — nobody else can hear it. Compare it with the model using the checklist.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

• The signposts helped identify the sections clearly, with pauses where useful.

• I recognised that the plan works needs support, even after To sum up.

Your recording stays on this page — nobody else can hear it. Compare it with the model using the checklist.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

• I used think and believe when rehearsing this particular pair.

• I recognised I feel the plan is risky as a valid opinion, not a grammar error.

Your recording stays on this page — nobody else can hear it. Compare it with the model using the checklist.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

• I stated a position and relevant support, acknowledging an important limitation.

• I did not repeat solves most of it as an established childcare finding; the model supplies no evidence for it.

• I compared one specific repair across takes without assuming the freer take was better.

Use the written guidance to review intended language choices, and listen to your actual recording for delivery. The text has no calibrated speaking duration. This activity records self-review without an automatic speaking score.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

One possibility: The counts suggest the refill point was used in both observed hours, with more refills on Tuesday. I would consider a longer trial before making it permanent, because we have not measured cost or queue time. Could we collect those details on more days? These are refill events, not necessarily different people, and they do not establish shorter queues or demand throughout the year.

• Use seventeen/Monday and twenty-three/Tuesday as refill counts for the two observed lunchtime hours, not unique users.

• Connect your recommendation to the notes while acknowledging missing cost/queue information and limited observation.

• Give a proportionate next step rather than claim permanent success or an unmeasured benefit.

Use the written guidance to review intended language choices, and listen to your actual recording for delivery. The text has no calibrated speaking duration. This activity records self-review without an automatic speaking score.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

One possibility: Extra access could help the study club, but I understand staffing is available for only two Saturdays. Could we use those for a short trial and review attendance and staffing afterwards? Who would supervise it? A trial is a proposal; the staff member’s statement does not establish permission or staffing for every Saturday.

• Acknowledge two staffed Saturdays rather than assume weekly cover.

• Connect a possible trial or revised plan to the staffing concern, instead of repeating an unrelated benefit.

• Ask a relevant practical question and keep permission/long-term staffing unconfirmed.

Use the written guidance to review intended language choices, and listen to your actual recording for delivery. The text has no calibrated speaking duration. This activity records self-review without an automatic speaking score.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

One possibility: After two weeks, six of ten seeds had sprouted in the sunny position and four of ten in the shaded position. That is a difference in these two trays, but watering was not recorded, so the notes do not isolate sunlight as the cause. We could repeat the comparison while recording and keeping other conditions comparable. Explain this to the audience; signposts do not make the causal claim stronger.

• Keep ten seeds per tray, two weeks and the six/four sprouting counts with the correct positions.

• Distinguish the observed difference from a proven cause, including the missing watering record.

• Explain a possible next investigation in clear audience-appropriate language without claiming it has already happened.

Use the written guidance to review intended language choices, and listen to your actual recording for delivery. The text has no calibrated speaking duration. This activity records self-review without an automatic speaking score.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

One possibility: The trial shows that twenty volunteers borrowed items in that week, but we do not yet know how other users would take part. We could ask those users about interest and practical barriers before extending it. Would a separate optional trial help us check that? The proposal does not establish participation or agreement, and the volunteers cannot stand in for every user.

• Keep twenty volunteers and one week as the observed scope, with no invented findings for other users.

• Answer the question about the missing group rather than use popularity wording as evidence for them.

• Suggest a relevant investigation while distinguishing an offer or proposal from actual participation/approval.

Use the written guidance to review intended language choices, and listen to your actual recording for delivery. The text has no calibrated speaking duration. This activity records self-review without an automatic speaking score.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

One possibility: No. More people attended the second event—nineteen compared with fourteen—but that does not show that everyone reads more. We did not record reading time or books read. We would need appropriate reading measures before making that claim. The two attendance counts also do not establish why attendance changed.

• Keep fourteen at the first event and nineteen at the second as attendance counts for these two Saturdays.

• Correct the unmeasured reading claim and its everyone scope without replacing them with another unsupported outcome.

• Name relevant missing reading evidence and avoid inventing a cause or confirmed audience understanding.

One possible response. Use the checklist to review your own wording.

One possible written repair

In one week, ten volunteers borrowed twenty items. This does not establish annual savings for families. I would replay the group, period and conclusion before making a new claim.

Why it works

It reports the measured item borrowing and limits the conclusion to the available evidence. Cost and time records are missing; clear wording does not fill that gap.

Repair a near miss

“Ten families each saved twenty yuan.” invents families, a currency amount and savings. Restore volunteers, borrowed items and one week; do not turn an item count into money.

Revise

Check the group, period and measured outcome. Then make a spoken retry and compare that actual claim/evidence link. A written repair does not establish spoken intelligibility.

• Retain ten volunteers, twenty borrowed items and one week, with the correct units.

• Do not assert measured money/time savings, families or annual effects.

• Choose a specific claim/evidence link for a spoken replay without inventing understanding or improvement.

Use the written guidance to review intended language choices, and listen to your actual recording for delivery. The text has no calibrated speaking duration. This activity records self-review without an automatic speaking score.

Use your actual external recording for delivery checks. This page cannot access or verify it. Compare the guidance and checklist, and the model if available. This is self-reported review without an automatic speaking score.

Choose your own recommendation. One possibility: Six of the eight club members said they would return after the one-afternoon trial, but that does not tell us whether every student can use the room. I understand that some must catch the early bus. Could we ask them about a different time, such as lunchtime, if space and staff are available? We still need staffing and cost information; this is a proposal rather than an agreed arrangement.

• Keep eight club members, one afternoon, forty extra minutes and six reported intentions within their limited scope.

• Address the early-bus concern without assuming those students can stay or promising a changed bus service.

• Give a proportionate recommendation/question or conditional adjustment, keeping staffing, cost and agreement unconfirmed.

One possible response. Use the checklist to review your own wording.

One possible review plan

The trial counted refills, not queue time. I would replay my conclusion and check that I do not claim the queues became shorter.

Why it works

The note identifies a particular evidence limit and a check that could change the next attempt. It does not invent a recording, an improved retry or a listener’s agreement.

Compare actual takes

If two takes are available, describe one difference you actually hear. A clearer conclusion may coexist with another unclear detail; a faster or freer take is not automatically more accurate.

Next attempt

Use a new proposal or audience and respond to their actual question, or the printed cue when practising alone. A typed plan does not replace speaking.

• Identify a specific claim/evidence relation, limitation or listener need.

• Choose a concrete replay/repair check or compare a real observed feature across takes.

• Avoid inventing a recording, confirmed audience response or evidence of proficiency.