C1 Advanced · Speaking · Module 5, Lesson 4

Part 4: Discussion

The examiner broadens the Part 3 topic into general, more analytical questions for both of you. At C1, that means weighing genuine trade-offs, not just picking a side.

~5 min Broader, evaluative questions Both candidates together Weighing trade-offs, not simple opinions
Learn

What this part really tests

The examiner asks both of you broader questions related to the Part 3 theme — here, environmental responsibility. At C1, these questions are usually genuinely evaluative: weighing cost against responsibility, or individual against corporate accountability, not questions with an obvious single right answer.

The examiner's method

  1. Acknowledge the complexity or trade-off before giving a stance ("There's a real tension between…, but on balance I'd say…").
  2. Engage substantively with your partner's argument — agree partially, extend it, or respectfully counter with a reason.
  3. Use precise, higher-register vocabulary and varied structures rather than falling back to safe, simple grammar.
  4. Don't oversimplify a genuinely complex issue into a one-line opinion — that under-realizes the task at this level.

Traps that cost marks

Oversimplifying
Giving a simple opinion with no acknowledgment of the trade-offs involved under-develops Discourse Management at C1.
Ignoring the partner's argument
Restating your own opinion regardless of what your partner just argued misses a genuine chance to interact.
Playing it safe
Falling back on simple, safe grammar throughout, even if accurate, under-demonstrates the range C1 examiners expect.

Worked example

Question: "Who do you think bears more responsibility for tackling climate change — individuals or large companies?"

Weak: "Companies. They pollute more."

Strong: A: "There's a real tension here, because companies obviously produce far more emissions, but on balance I'd still say individual choices matter, since consumer demand is ultimately what drives corporate behavior." B: "That's a fair point, though I'd push back slightly — individuals rarely have meaningful alternatives when a whole industry is structured around a particular product, so the responsibility feels asymmetric to me." A: "That's true, and maybe the honest answer is that neither side can act meaningfully without the other — individual pressure and corporate change probably have to happen together."

  1. The strong answer explicitly names the tension before taking a position ("there's a real tension here"), rather than jumping straight to a simple verdict.
  2. B engages substantively with A's actual reasoning and offers a genuine counter, not just a competing opinion.
  3. A's final turn synthesizes both views into a more sophisticated conclusion, which is exactly the kind of evaluative thinking C1 Part 4 rewards.
  4. The weak answer collapses a genuinely complex issue into a two-word verdict with no acknowledgment of the trade-off at all.
Try

Spot the weakness

Each clip is a real discussion answer on an environmental-responsibility question. Listen, then decide which of the four criteria is the answer's biggest problem.

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

Timed practice

This isn't machine-scored. Discuss all three questions below out loud (with a partner if you can), acknowledging trade-offs and engaging with any partner's argument, before the timer runs out.

Discuss these questions out loud, weighing genuine trade-offs rather than giving simple opinions.

  1. Who do you think bears more responsibility for tackling climate change — individuals or large companies?
  2. Do you think environmentally friendly products are usually worth their higher price?
  3. Should governments require companies to publicly disclose their environmental impact?
02:30

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 answers

Strong example
Ready

Q: Should governments require companies to publicly disclose their environmental impact? A: I'd say yes, on balance, though I recognize it does add a genuine administrative burden, especially for smaller companies without the resources larger corporations have. B: That's a fair concession, but I'd argue transparency is actually more valuable precisely because it's difficult — if it were easy, companies might already be doing it voluntarily. A: That's a good point, actually. Maybe the answer is disclosure requirements scaled to company size, so the burden is proportionate rather than uniform.

Acknowledges a real trade-off, engages directly and substantively with the partner's counter-argument, and arrives at a more sophisticated, synthesized conclusion rather than a simple yes/no.
Weak example
Ready

Q: Should governments require companies to publicly disclose their environmental impact? A: Yes, I think so. B: I also think yes. A: Good, we agree.

A genuinely complex, evaluative question is reduced to a two-line agreement with zero acknowledgment of any trade-off or counter-argument — a clear under-realization of what C1 Part 4 is testing.
Saved. Your progress on the course map will update the next time you visit it.
You've completed every lesson in the Speaking module — nice work. Head back to the course map to continue.