Speaking: The Plastic Ban Group Discussion
Four candidates are in a 10-minute group discussion. The prompt is: 'Should our university ban single-use plastic bottles on campus?' Candidate A opens with a campus audit from 2019: 18,000 bottles are discarded weekly. Candidate B has prepared three points about marine pollution. Candidate C has spoken for two minutes without interruption about a beach clean-up she joined, repeating 'it's obvious' and 'everyone knows.' Candidate D says a ban would hurt small cafeteria vendors and cites a 2023 vendors' association letter. At the four-minute mark, Candidate A has not spoken since the opening, and the group has not defined 'ban.' You are Candidate A. Your notes include a 2022 pilot at a sister campus where refill stations reduced bottle sales by 22%, but only after six months. You have 45 seconds to intervene, then must help the group reach a recommendation in the final 30 seconds. The examiner scores interaction, not just content.
1. Write your 45-second intervention. Use a polite interruption, define the agenda, and introduce one piece of evidence.
Read the worked answer
Sorry, could I come in here for a moment? I want to make sure we're answering the actual question. We haven't defined what 'ban' means: a full ban on sales, a ban on plastic bottles only, or a phased restriction with refill stations? If it's the third, there is a relevant pilot. A sister campus installed refill stations and bottle sales fell by 22%, but only after six months. That suggests a ban and refill infrastructure need to be discussed together. Could we spend the next two minutes defining the policy and then compare the audit figure with the vendor concern?
2. Candidate C repeats 'everyone knows.' How should you respond without sounding hostile?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the point, then ask for the warrant: 'I agree plastic waste is a problem, and I don't doubt the clean-up was real. But everyone knows isn't evidence we can test. Can you link it to campus behaviour: do we know whether students would switch to refillables if stations were available?' This separates the value claim from the factual claim, keeps C included, and moves the group toward the 2022 pilot. It also avoids a shouting match. In MUET speaking, challenging the evidence rather than the speaker earns interaction marks and protects group cohesion.
3. Write your final 30-second recommendation. Include a condition and a concession.
Read the worked answer
Our recommendation is a phased restriction rather than an immediate full ban. We accept Candidate D's point that small vendors need transition support, so the first phase should exempt existing stock and fund two refill stations per faculty. The 2022 pilot suggests a 22% reduction is plausible, but it took six months, so we should review after one semester. This is not the strongest possible ban, but it is the most defensible one given the evidence and the vendor constraint.