Part 3 discussion: hedging an unsourced figure
Speaking test, Part 3: a four-minute discussion with the examiner. Topic: whether schools should ban smartphones. You have already given your view - broadly in favour of bans during lessons, against a full-day ban. The examiner now says: 'Some parents argue that phones are a safety necessity - children need to reach them in an emergency. How would you answer that?' You have a statistic memorised from a blog post, '90% of students are distracted in class', but you cannot name the source or the year. The examiner follows up: 'But doesn't a ban simply push phone use underground?' You have a habit of agreeing with every challenge, and you sometimes stop after one sentence and wait. About three minutes remain.
1. How should you handle the memorised '90%' statistic?
Read the worked answer
Use it, but frame the claim so it matches what you actually know. The risk is not the number; it is presenting an unsourced figure as established fact, which invites a challenge you cannot answer and makes everything after it sound rehearsed.
Workable phrasing: 'I've seen figures suggesting something like nine in ten students report being distracted - I'm not sure of the study, so I'd treat that as indicative rather than exact.' That supplies content, demonstrates calibration, and keeps your turn alive.
Alternative if the number feels too shaky: substitute a reasoned claim - 'even if the distraction effect is smaller than people say, the design problem is that a phone in a pocket still competes for attention.' Examiners assess communicative effectiveness, not the size of your evidence base.
Avoid reciting the statistic as a memorised chunk with dropped intonation. It is heard as a set piece, and your flexibility rating suffers. A hedged, slightly imprecise claim delivered as your own thinking is worth more than a confident statistic you cannot defend.
2. The examiner says: 'But doesn't a ban simply push phone use underground?' How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as a genuine question, not an attack. The move Part 3 rewards is concede one part, then extend.
Structure:
- Concede: 'That's a fair objection - bans that are just rules, with no explanation, do get evaded.'
- Distinguish: 'The difference is enforcement and teaching, not the rule itself.'
- Extend with an example: 'A school that teaches phone hygiene and keeps phones in lockers during lessons is doing something different from one that simply confiscates.'
Do not agree with everything. Saying 'yes, you're right' to every challenge leaves nothing to discuss and the interaction collapses into interview-style answers. Equally, do not dismiss the point: contradicting without acknowledgement reads as inflexible and reduces your interactive score.
Useful language: 'I'd accept that up to a point, but…'; 'That's true where X, whereas in the case I'm thinking of Y.' Keep each turn to 20–40 seconds so the examiner can come back in - the score depends on the exchange, not on your monologue.
3. How do you manage the four minutes, and what do you do if you finish your point early?
Read the worked answer
Treat the four minutes as roughly five or six exchanges of 30–45 seconds each. Every turn needs a claim, a reason and, where possible, an example - enough to be developed, short enough to leave space.
If you dry up after one sentence, use a bridge rather than stopping: 'The reason I'd say that is…' or 'A concrete example would be…'. Silence invites the examiner to fill the gap, which shortens your speaking time and narrows the range of language you display.
If you finish a point before the examiner speaks, add a condition or a contrast: 'Though I'd add that this depends on the age group.' That holds the floor without opening a new topic.
Listen for the examiner's wording and reuse it - picking up 'push it underground' shows you are responding to what was said, not delivering a prepared speech. And do not rush to fill every silence: a two-second pause before a well-formed sentence is not a weakness, whereas a rushed, tangled sentence is.