Holding the Floor Without Taking Over
You are taking part in a paired speaking task at C2 level. You have two minutes to prepare and four minutes to discuss this motion: 'This company should ban internal email one day a week.' Your partner is confident and speaks quickly. In the first ninety seconds he interrupts you three times, claims that 'research shows email bans improve focus' without giving a source, and asks, 'Don't you agree?' You want to disagree with at least one claim, introduce one condition, and still reach a joint recommendation before the examiner stops the discussion. You also notice that you have lost track of your own argument after the second interruption. The examiner is assessing interaction, not whether you win. You need a plan for turn-taking, conceding, repairing, and closing with a shared decision in the final thirty seconds.
1. Write the exact words you would use to interrupt politely after the second interruption and make one substantive point. Then write a second turn in which you concede one point and qualify another.
Read the worked answer
Interrupting politely after the second interruption: 'Sorry to jump in - I want to pick up your point about focus, because I think the evidence is more mixed than that. Can I finish this one idea and then come back to you?' This acknowledges the partner, signals a bounded turn ('this one idea'), and offers a return. It is assertive without contesting his right to speak.
Concede-and-qualify turn: 'You're right that constant notifications fragment attention; I've seen that in our own team. But a blanket ban assumes email is the main source of interruption. My condition would be: try one team-day first, measure response times and missed handoffs, and only then decide whether to extend it. So I'd support a trial, not a permanent ban.' This concedes a real point, names the assumption, and moves to a testable condition rather than a clash of opinions.
2. You lose track after the third interruption. Describe a repair strategy and give the words you would use.
Read the worked answer
Repair strategy: name the loss, ask for a short recap, and re-enter with a specific point rather than a vague 'where were we?'.
Words: 'I've lost the thread after the last point - could you remind me what you're asking me to agree to? I want to separate the trial idea from the permanent ban before I answer.' This does three things: it admits the problem without apologising excessively, it asks for the partner's version of the question, and it narrows the scope. If the partner gives a long recap, I would summarise it in one sentence and check: 'So the question is whether I support a trial, not whether I support a ban - is that right?' That check protects against answering the wrong question.
3. The examiner signals 30 seconds left. Write a closing turn that states a joint recommendation and acknowledges your partner's point.
Read the worked answer
Closing turn: 'We've disagreed on the permanent ban, and you've made a strong case that constant email damages focus. We both seem to accept that a full ban is too blunt without evidence. So our joint recommendation is a six-week trial in two teams, with response-time and missed-handoff measures, and a review before any permanent policy. That gives us a decision we can defend without pretending we agree on everything.' This states the shared ground, names the remaining disagreement, gives a concrete recommendation, and attributes part of it to the partner. It fits 30 seconds and closes the task rather than reopening it.