C1 Advanced · Speaking · Module 5, Lesson 3

Part 3: Collaborative Task

You and your partner discuss a written question and five short prompts, then negotiate an actual joint conclusion. At C1, "discuss" means weighing the extent of something, not just picking a favorite.

~4 min total Discuss, then decide One abstract question + 5 prompts Both candidates together
Learn

What this part really tests

You and your partner get a written discussion question together with five short prompts, and you discuss it before reaching a decision — you don't have to use every prompt. At C1, the question usually asks about the extent to which something helps or harms — not simply which option you personally prefer — and the final decision needs to be a genuinely negotiated, nuanced conclusion.

The examiner's method

  1. You'll get about 15 seconds to look at the question and the five prompts — use it to pick two or three you can genuinely analyze, not just describe.
  2. Address the abstract dimension of the question explicitly — extent of benefit or harm, not just personal preference.
  3. Build on your partner's points explicitly ("Building on what you said…", "That connects to…").
  4. Use hedging and nuance language for sophisticated negotiation (to some extent, on balance, arguably, it's worth noting that).
  5. When the interlocutor asks the follow-up decision question, reach a genuinely joint, negotiated conclusion in the final minute — you won't lose marks for failing to fully agree, but you will for not really trying.

Traps that cost marks

Two monologues
Stating separate opinions with no real engagement is just as damaging at C1 as at B2 — if anything, it's more conspicuous given the higher expectations.
Staying concrete
Only describing the prompts instead of engaging with the abstract "extent" question under-realizes the task at C1 level.
Under-range negotiation
Agreeing or disagreeing with only simple language ("I agree" / "I don't agree") instead of nuanced hedging misses a chance to show C1 range.
No real resolution
One person simply overriding the other, or running out of time with no joint conclusion, both fail the negotiation half of this task.

Worked example

The discussion card looks like this — a question plus five short written prompts, not pictures:

Some people think technology has improved communication between generations, and other people disagree. Here are some things to think about:

video calls everyone on their own phone learning apps together letters versus texting sharing photos across generations

Task: discuss the extent to which each helps or harms family communication, then agree on which represents the biggest risk.

Weak: A: "I like the video calls one." B: "I like the learning-apps one." (Two separate preferences, no engagement with "extent," no negotiated decision.)

Strong: A: "For me, everyone being on their own phone is the clearest risk — on balance, it shows technology replacing communication rather than enabling it." B: "That's fair, though I'd argue the risk there is more about habit than the technology itself. Building on that, though, maybe the bigger long-term risk is actually the learning-apps one, if it becomes the only way generations interact." A: "That's a good point, and arguably it's more insidious because it looks like connection while still being quite shallow. Shall we say that one, then, since it's the risk most likely to go unnoticed?" B: "Agreed."

  1. The strong exchange engages the abstract "extent of risk" question directly, not just which prompt is liked best.
  2. B explicitly builds on A's point ("building on that") rather than simply offering a competing preference.
  3. The negotiation genuinely shifts the conclusion — they don't end on A's first suggestion, but on a refined, jointly-reasoned one.
  4. The weak version never engages the abstract dimension and never negotiates anything at all.
Try

Spot the weakness

Each clip is two candidates discussing the prompts described in the transcript. Listen, then decide which of the four criteria is the exchange's biggest problem.

Try score: 0 / 3
Now it's your turn — scroll down to Apply for a timed practice discussion with a real discussion card, a self-check, and a full model exchange.
Apply

Timed practice

This isn't machine-scored. With a partner (or thinking through both sides yourself), discuss the card below, engaging with the extent question, then agree on a joint answer before the timer runs out.

Here's a discussion card like the one you'd see in the real test. Discuss it with a partner, then decide together.

Some people think companies are doing enough to reduce their environmental impact, and other people disagree. Here are some things to think about:

solar panels electric delivery vehicles office recycling programs tree-planting events sustainable packaging

Now decide together which of these approaches would have the biggest long-term impact.

03:00

Complete the timed practice above to unlock the self-check and model answers.

Self-check

Discourse Management
Interactive Communication
Grammar & Vocabulary
Interactive Communication

This self-check is a reflection tool, not a score. Speaking is assessed by a person against these four criteria across the whole test, not per answer.

Model exchanges

Strong example
Ready

A: I'd argue the solar panels have the biggest long-term impact, simply because they keep generating a benefit for decades with no ongoing effort required. B: On balance I agree, though I'd say the packaging change might actually scale faster, since it can be adopted across an entire supply chain almost immediately, whereas panels require real capital investment upfront. A: That's a fair distinction — maybe it's less about which is bigger and more about timeframe: packaging for quick, wide-reaching change, and solar for slower but deeper impact. B: Exactly, so could we say those two together, for that reason? A: Agreed, that covers both the short and long term.

Genuinely engages the "extent" and "timeframe" dimensions rather than just picking favorites, uses real hedging language, and negotiates toward a joint, nuanced conclusion rather than a simple vote.
Weak example
Ready

A: I like the solar panels one. B: I like the recycling one. A: The tree planting is nice too. B: The packaging one is good for the environment. A: Okay, let's say solar panels then.

Purely preference-based with no engagement with "long-term impact" at all, and the "decision" at the end is really just A restating a personal favorite with no negotiation from B. This treats a C1 abstract task as if it were a simple B2 preference discussion.
Saved. Your progress on the course map will update the next time you visit it.