The Interrupted Argument
You are in Speaking Part 3. The examiner gives you a card: 'To what extent should private cars be banned from city centres?' You have two minutes to prepare and make notes: 'ban = good; pollution; congestion; economy; disabled people'. In the discussion you begin a prepared 40-second monologue on pollution. After about 20 seconds the examiner interrupts: 'But what about deliveries and people who cannot use public transport?' You say, 'Sorry, I didn't finish,' and repeat your point more loudly. The examiner waits, then asks, 'So you would ban all cars?' You speak faster and say, 'As I said before, cars are bad.' Your notes still include 'economy' and 'disabled people'. The discussion lasts four minutes. You are being assessed on interactive communication, discourse management, and the ability to develop a position rather than deliver a speech.
1. What interactional problem is the examiner probing, and why is 'Sorry, I didn't finish' costly?
Read the worked answer
The examiner is testing whether you can treat an interruption as a resource for developing the argument rather than as an attack on your turn. 'Sorry, I didn't finish' frames the exchange as a floor fight and repeats content the examiner has already heard; it uses time without adding propositional content. It also ignores the substance of the question - deliveries and disabled people - which is exactly the nuance the prompt invites. At C2, interactive communication includes responding to a challenge, conceding a point, and integrating it. Repeating a monologue more loudly signals a prepared speech, not a discussion. The cost is double: you lose the chance to show range, and you confirm that your position cannot accommodate counter-examples.
2. How could you respond to the interruption so that it counts as development rather than retreat?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the point, then refine the position: 'That's a fair challenge - I wouldn't ban delivery vehicles outright, because city-centre businesses depend on them. The ban I'd argue for is on private through-traffic at peak hours, with exemptions for disabled drivers and essential deliveries.' This does three things: it accepts a qualification, it narrows the claim, and it keeps the original argument alive. It does not simply capitulate ('OK, no ban') or stonewall ('As I said...'). The follow-up 'So you would ban all cars?' tests whether you can distinguish all from some; the answer should explicitly reject the absolute. Using the notes on disabled people and economy gives you concrete categories for the exemption.
3. How would you use the 'disabled people' note to add nuance without turning it into a list?
Read the worked answer
Do not read the note as a separate bullet. Attach it to a principle: 'The reason I'd exempt disabled drivers isn't just compassion - it's that a ban which removes their access would make the policy unjust, and a policy that loses public consent won't survive.' That turns a list item into a criterion (access and consent) and connects it to the economy note: deliveries and disability access both expose the difference between banning cars and banning through-traffic. Then return to the main claim: 'So the extent matters: I'd ban private cars from the core, not from the whole centre.' This shows you can subdivide the prompt's 'to what extent' rather than treating it as a yes/no question.