Part 3 discussion: one candidate monologues, time runs out
Two candidates, Ana and Piotr, are doing Speaking Part 3. The examiner gives them a page headed Ways to reduce traffic in a city centre, with five prompts: congestion charge, park-and-ride, cycle lanes, car-sharing app, pedestrianised streets. They must discuss which two would be most effective, then decide together in the final minute. Ana speaks first and delivers a 50-second monologue on the congestion charge, with two examples and a statistic. Thirty seconds of the two minutes remain. Piotr has said only 'Yes, I agree' twice. In the decision minute, Piotr thinks the car-sharing app is the most effective and Ana does not.
1. What has gone wrong in the discussion, and what are the three highest-value things Piotr can do in the next 30 seconds?
Read the worked answer
What has gone wrong: the pair have produced a presentation, not an interaction. Interactive communication is assessed on initiating, responding, developing and negotiating. Ana has taken one very long turn; Piotr's 'Yes, I agree' tokens are agreement, not responses - they add nothing for the other candidate to build on. Both are being marked on the pair's discourse, so Piotr's silence damages Ana too.
Piotr's three moves (30 seconds, no interruption needed):
- Enter with a signal, not a contradiction: 'Can I add something to that?' - claims a turn without attacking.
- Open untouched ground: 'What about the park-and-ride? That might be cheaper to start.' - introduces a prompt Ana's monologue left out.
- Hand the turn back with a question: 'Do you think that would work in our town?' - this is what converts a monologue into a conversation and is exactly the behaviour the band descriptors reward.
Do not try to cover all five prompts. Two prompts discussed properly beats five named.
2. They disagree about the car-sharing app. How should they close the decision minute so that the disagreement helps rather than hurts them?
Read the worked answer
The task is to reach a decision, not to win it. The examiner is listening for negotiation, and a decision reached without disagreement looks like no negotiation happened at all - so a genuine difference is an asset if it is managed.
Sequence for the final minute:
- Signal the clock: 'We've got about a minute - shall we decide?' - shows awareness of the task frame.
- Name the criterion, not the preference: 'Which would work fastest, do you think?' Ana and Piotr are not really arguing about apps; they are using different yardsticks (cost vs speed). Surfacing the yardstick is what makes a decision reachable.
- Concede partially, then commit: 'I still think the app has potential, but for a city centre the pedestrian zone is more immediate. So, the pedestrian zone and cycle lanes?'
- Check and close: 'Does that sound right to you?' - an explicit, jointly owned decision.
Failure modes to avoid: Piotr agreeing instantly to be polite after arguing (inconsistent, and wastes the negotiation), and Ana ignoring his point and restating her own (the interaction band drops even if her English is strong).