What changes between Part 1 and Part 3
The subject stays roughly where Part 2 left it, but the frame moves. Part 1 asks about you; Part 3 asks about people, societies, causes and consequences. The commonest failure on the paper is not noticing that the frame has moved, and answering a question about society with a story about yourself.
| Part 1 | Part 3 | What the shift demands |
|---|---|---|
| Do you use public transport? | Why do some people prefer to drive even when public transport is available? | Generalisation and causes, not your own bus route. |
| Did you enjoy school? | How has the role of a teacher changed in the last thirty years? | Comparison across time, and the perfect and past forms that carry it. |
| Do you read the news online? | Should governments have any role in what news organisations publish? | A position, a counter-argument, and hedging. |
The same subject, asked twice.
Answers here should be longer than Part 1 answers — thirty to forty-five seconds is a reasonable target — but the mechanism is the same. Answer the question, then develop the answer with a reason, an example, or a qualification. The difference is that the reason is now about the world rather than about you.
The five moves that answer almost any Part 3 question
Practising topics for Part 3 is unproductive, because the topics are unpredictable. Practising moves is productive, because they are not. Each of these five is a piece of grammar as much as a rhetorical habit, and each one is exactly the kind of structure the upper bands are looking for.
1 · Generalise
Move from the individual to the pattern, and mark that you are doing it. This is the move that converts a Part 1 answer into a Part 3 one.
In most cities I know… · People tend to… · By and large… · There’s a general assumption that…
2 · Concede, then counter
Grant the obvious objection before you answer it. Concession is the single most reliable way to produce a complex sentence, and it makes a position sound considered rather than stubborn.
It’s often argued that…, although… · That’s true up to a point, but… · Granted, … even so…
3 · Hedge
Soften a claim you cannot fully defend. Hedging is not weakness — it is precision, and it is grammatically rich: modals, adverbs, and impersonal constructions all at once.
It may well be that… · I’d imagine… · arguably · tends to · in some cases at least
4 · Speculate
Answer a question about the future, or about a past that did not happen. This move carries conditionals, and conditionals are where band 7 and band 8 separate.
If that were to happen, … · Had that been introduced earlier, … · I can imagine a situation where…
5 · Compare
Across time, across places, across groups. Comparison is the most demanded and least practised move, and it brings comparatives, perfect aspect and used-to with it.
A generation ago that would have been… · Whereas in …, here… · Nothing like as … as it used to be
What all five have in common
None of them requires you to know anything. You can generalise, concede, hedge, speculate and compare about a subject you first heard of eleven seconds ago — which is precisely the situation Part 3 puts you in.
This is why moves beat topics as preparation.
Sixty Part 3 questions, by theme
Each theme below is one that Part 2 cards feed into naturally. Practise aloud and against a timer, and force yourself to name which of the five moves you used — that is the part that transfers to the test.
Work and the workplace
Feeds from cards about skills, decisions and rules.
- 1Why do people change careers more often than they used to?
- 2Should employers be responsible for training their staff?
- 3What makes some jobs more respected than others?
- 4How might the working week look in fifty years?
- 5Is it realistic to expect to enjoy your work?
- 6What are the disadvantages of working from home?
Cities and where people live
Feeds from cards about places, buildings and journeys.
- 7Why do people continue to move to large cities?
- 8What makes a public space somewhere people actually use?
- 9Should older buildings be protected even when they are inconvenient?
- 10How has the character of city centres changed in your lifetime?
- 11Is it possible to design a city that suits everyone?
- 12What would persuade people to leave the city for a smaller town?
Education and learning
The single most common Part 3 theme.
- 13How has the role of a teacher changed in the last thirty years?
- 14Should schools teach practical skills as well as academic subjects?
- 15Why do some people learn languages more easily than others?
- 16Is it better to learn from mistakes or to be told the right answer?
- 17What should determine whether a subject stays on the curriculum?
- 18Will physical schools still exist in a hundred years?
Technology
Easy to answer badly, because the obvious answers are the ones every candidate gives.
- 19Has technology made people better at communicating, or worse?
- 20Who should be responsible for what appears online?
- 21Why are some people reluctant to adopt new technology?
- 22What has been lost as more of daily life has moved online?
- 23Could a machine ever do a job that requires judgement?
- 24How should children’s use of screens be managed, if at all?
The environment
Prepare vocabulary here properly — it is the theme where imprecision is most visible.
- 25Whose responsibility is it to reduce waste — individuals or governments?
- 26Why do people find it hard to change habits that harm the environment?
- 27Should countries with more money do more?
- 28How effective are laws at changing environmental behaviour?
- 29What would a genuinely sustainable city look like?
- 30Has public concern about the environment increased or decreased where you live?
Media and information
Concession and hedging are almost obligatory here.
- 31How do people decide which sources of news to trust?
- 32Should there be limits on what news organisations publish?
- 33Why do stories about disasters travel faster than stories about progress?
- 34Has the internet made people better informed?
- 35What role should governments have in regulating information?
- 36Is it possible to be genuinely well informed about a distant country?
Family and relationships
Feeds from cards about people, advice and conversations.
- 37How have family structures changed in your country?
- 38Why do people find it harder to make friends as adults?
- 39Should adult children be expected to look after their parents?
- 40What makes a friendship last?
- 41Is it better to live near your family or far from them?
- 42How do people’s priorities change as they get older?
Money and consumption
Quantifiers, comparatives and the language of trend.
- 43Why do people buy things they do not need?
- 44Should there be a limit on advertising aimed at children?
- 45Has shopping become a leisure activity rather than a necessity?
- 46What are the effects of paying for everything by card or phone?
- 47Is it possible to teach people to save?
- 48Why do prices for the same product vary so much between countries?
Health and habits
Modality is the grammar under almost every question here.
- 49Should governments try to change what people eat?
- 50Why is it so difficult to keep a new habit?
- 51Has daily life become more stressful, or does it only feel that way?
- 52What is the best way to encourage people to exercise?
- 53Should employers be involved in their staff’s health?
- 54How much should a society spend on preventing illness rather than treating it?
Culture, art and tradition
Feeds from cards about photographs, buildings, meals and seasons.
- 55Why do some traditions survive and others disappear?
- 56Should governments fund the arts?
- 57What is lost when a language stops being spoken?
- 58Has global culture made places more similar to each other?
- 59Who decides what counts as art?
- 60Is it important for children to learn about their country’s history?
Two answers, taken apart
Whose responsibility is it to reduce waste — individuals or governments?
The answer that stays personal
In my family we recycle everything. My mother is very careful about this and she always tells us to separate the plastic and the paper. So I think individuals are responsible because if everyone does like my family the problem will be solved.
The English is serviceable and the answer is on topic, and it will still not reach the upper bands — because it never leaves the speaker’s kitchen. Part 3 asked about responsibility as a general question; this answers with an anecdote and then generalises from a sample of one. It also uses none of the five moves, and consequently produces no complex structure beyond a single conditional.
The same position, argued generally
I’d say it has to be both, but not equally — and the split is probably the interesting part. Individuals can only make the choices that are actually available to them, so if the packaging on everything in the supermarket is unrecyclable, an individual’s conscientiousness runs out fairly quickly. That said, it would be too easy to conclude that governments should simply legislate and citizens can stop thinking about it, because policies that people resent tend not to survive a change of government. So my sense is that the state’s job is to make the responsible choice the default one — the cheap one, the convenient one — and the individual’s job is to make that politically possible. Had that division been clearer twenty years ago, I suspect we’d be considerably further along than we are.
What this answer does
- It answers before it developsBoth, but not equally is a position, given in the first six words. Part 3 answers that spend twenty seconds getting to a position lose the examiner and often never arrive at one.
- All five moves are presentGeneralise (individuals can only make the choices available to them), concede (That said…), hedge (probably, tend not to, my sense is), speculate (Had that division been clearer…), compare (twenty years ago). None of them is decoration; each one advances the argument.
- The speculation carries an inversionHad that division been clearer is a third conditional with the if removed. It is the single most efficient structure available in Part 3 — one clause, unmistakable evidence of range — and it is worth drilling until it is automatic.
- No memorised phrasesThere is no nowadays, no modern society, no it is a double-edged sword. The connectives that are there (so, that said, because) are the ones real argument uses.
- It is about forty secondsLong enough to develop, short enough that the examiner can ask three more questions in the time available.
Against the four criteria
- Fluency and CoherenceOne argument, developed in a straight line, with the concession in the middle where an argument naturally has one.
- Lexical ResourceConscientiousness, legislate, the default one, politically possible. Abstract vocabulary used exactly — which is what the theme demands and what the weak version could not supply.
- Grammatical Range and AccuracyInverted third conditional, two concessives, a comparative, a purpose clause. Range under control.
- PronunciationThe contrast in both, but not equally only lands if equally takes the stress. Contrastive stress is a Part 3 skill and it is trainable.
Answers of this shape, sustained across Part 3, describe the behaviour typically assessed around band 7.5 to 8. What makes them reachable is that nothing in the answer requires expertise about waste policy — it requires the five moves and the vocabulary of the theme.
What would raise it: The honest weakness is that the argument is slightly tidy. A genuinely expert answer would allow itself to be less sure, and to say so — which sounds paradoxical until you notice that hedging is a higher-level skill than asserting.
Has the internet made people better informed?
Answering a yes/no question that is not really one
Better informed about more things, I’d say, and worse informed about the things that matter to them locally. It’s easy to find out what happened this morning three thousand miles away and surprisingly hard to find out what your own council decided last week, largely because the reporting that used to cover that has mostly gone. So the volume has gone up enormously and the coverage has become oddly uneven. Whether that counts as better informed rather depends on what you think being informed is for — if it’s general awareness, then clearly yes; if it’s being equipped to act on something, then I’m much less sure.
What this answer does
- It refuses the binary, and does so productivelyA question phrased as yes or no is usually an invitation to distinguish. Better informed about X, worse about Y is a stronger answer than either yes or no, and it produces a comparative structure for free.
- It supplies one concrete instance without becoming an anecdoteThe local council example is specific enough to be evidence and general enough to remain a Part 3 answer. This is the balance the weak answer in the previous example missed.
- It ends on a definition, not a verdictDepends on what you think being informed is for — turning the question back into its terms is a sophisticated close, and it carries a conditional pair with it.
- It hedges twice, deliberatelyI’d say, rather depends, much less sure. That is not indecision; it is calibrated confidence, and examiners reward it.
Against the four criteria
- Fluency and CoherenceA single distinction, drawn at the start and held to the end. Nothing restarts.
- Lexical ResourceOddly uneven, equipped to act, general awareness. Precise abstraction without a single memorised phrase.
- Grammatical Range and AccuracyComparative pair, a reason clause, a paired conditional at the end. All accurate.
- PronunciationThe paired conditional needs the intonation of a list — rising on the first, falling on the second. Said flat, the structure disappears.
Both answers on this page do the same thing in different clothes: they take a general question, draw one distinction, support it once, and qualify it. That is a repeatable procedure, and repeatable is what you want under pressure.
What would raise it: Practise this on questions you disagree with. It is easy to sound balanced about something you have no stake in; the skill is conceding a point you do not want to concede, in a language that is not your first.
Practising Part 3 without a partner
This is the part where "find a speaking partner" is the standard advice and the hardest to act on. Three things work without one.
- Two questions a day, aloud, recorded. Pick from the bank above, give yourself no preparation, and speak for forty seconds. Then listen back once and write down only the moment where the answer collapsed. There is always exactly one.
- Name the move. After each answer, say out loud which of the five you used. Most candidates discover they use one of them — usually generalising — and never the other four. The missing ones are your practice list.
- Argue the side you do not hold. Take a question from the bank, answer it in your real opinion, then answer it again from the opposite position. The second answer is where concession and hedging become necessary rather than optional, which is exactly why it is the useful one.