Speaking Part 2: interrupting a partner who will not stop
You are in PEIC Level 4 Speaking, Part 2 (interactive task). The scenario card says your student union has €5,000 for one international project and you must choose between (a) a partner-university exchange, (b) a volunteering trip, and (c) a travel fund for international students. Three bullet points must be covered: cost, benefit to students, practical arrangements. You have two minutes to discuss and one minute to agree. Your partner speaks almost continuously for 75 seconds about option (a), repeats the same two points, and has not touched cost or arrangements. At 1:15 the examiner says, 'You have 45 seconds left.' You think option (c) is the only one that fits the budget. Your partner has also claimed the exchange 'costs nothing because it's reciprocal', which you believe is inaccurate: host universities still charge for hosting.
1. At 1:15, what do you actually say, and what are you trying to achieve?
Read the worked answer
You need a purposeful interruption, not a patient one. Waiting for a natural gap is what produced the 75-second monologue.
Say something like: 'Can I come in there, because we've only got 45 seconds and we haven't looked at cost or arrangements yet - could we take those two bullets quickly?' That does four things at once: it signals the interruption politely ('Can I come in'), states a reason the partner cannot reasonably reject (the clock, the bullet points), redirects to the task, and hands the floor back with a question rather than seizing it.
What you are being assessed on is interactive communication: initiating, responding, developing the interaction and completing the task. A candidate who listens politely while the task goes unfinished loses marks for exactly the behaviour that feels well-mannered. Equally, do not simply talk over your partner for the remaining 45 seconds - a monologue in reply is the same failure from the other side. Interrupt once, get agreement on a structure ('cost first, then arrangements'), and share the remaining time.
2. Do you correct the claim that the exchange 'costs nothing because it's reciprocal'? Justify your decision and give the wording.
Read the worked answer
Yes, briefly - but frame it as information for the decision, not as a contradiction to be won.
Wording: 'I'm not sure it's completely free, actually - my understanding is that host universities still charge for hosting, so there'd be some cost even if tuition is waived. If that's right, does it change which option you'd back?'
Three moves are doing the work: the hedge ('I'm not sure… actually') keeps the exchange collaborative; the substantive point is stated in one clause, not a paragraph; and it ends in a question that returns the decision to your partner. That last move is what stops a correction becoming a derailment.
Why correct at all? The error is load-bearing: if the exchange is assumed free, option (a) wins on cost by default, and the whole decision is distorted. Corrections that change the conclusion are worth making; corrections about incidental detail (a name, a date) are not, because they cost time and goodwill. If your partner insists, concede gracefully and move on - the examiner is marking interaction, not the accuracy of your economics.
3. The examiner gives you a final 15 seconds to reach agreement. What do you do with them?
Read the worked answer
Summarise, propose, check - in that order, and in about three sentences.
'OK, so we both think the benefit to students is clear in all three, but on cost the exchange is the riskiest because of hosting fees, and the volunteering trip needs insurance and a staff lead we haven't got. The travel fund is the only one that fits €5,000 with no extra arrangements. Shall we go with that?'
This does several things: it shows you have heard your partner (the shared point comes first), it shows reasoning rather than assertion, it covers all three bullets in compressed form, and it ends with an explicit request for agreement - which is what 'reaching a decision' means in the mark scheme.
Avoid introducing a new argument in the final seconds, and avoid a summary that only represents your own view. If your partner still disagrees, state the disagreement cleanly ('we agree on the benefits but not on cost; I'd go with the travel fund') - a clearly reported split still counts as completing the task, whereas silence or a vague 'yeah, whatever you think' does not.