One silent choice, one new comparison, one persuasive response
Task 5 has two parts. In Part 1, you receive 60 seconds to understand a situation, compare two options, and select one. You do not speak. In Part 2, another person proposes a newly revealed third option. You have 60 seconds to prepare and 60 seconds to persuade that person that your original choice is better.
The response is not a memory test about all three options. During Part 2, focus on your selected option and the new proposal shown beside it. The official study pack recommends using specific language, explaining why your choice is better, and expanding on rather than merely reading the information displayed.
Decision making, parallel comparison, audience awareness, and tone
Content/Coherence includes a clear recommendation, several relevant comparisons, and reasons developed around the situation. Vocabulary includes accurate comparative language and context-specific words for cost, timing, access, features, and benefit. Listenability includes controlled sentence structure, steady delivery, and clear emphasis. Task Fulfillment includes addressing the named person, defending the option selected in Part 1, comparing it with the new option, and maintaining a friendly but persuasive tone.
You can acknowledge one strength of the other proposal without surrendering your position. A sentence such as “The workshop would be creative, but its higher fee may exclude larger families” shows fair comparison and keeps the recommendation firm.
Use C → C → B → A
- Choice.State your selected option and its main advantage immediately. Address the named listener.
- Criteria.Compare both options through the same two or three lenses: schedule, total cost, access, included features, group fit, or risk.
- Benefit.Explain what each difference means for the people in the scenario. Do not stop at numbers or labels.
- Acknowledge and ask.Recognize one reasonable feature of the new option, answer it, and close with a direct recommendation.
In Part 1, choose the option you can support most easily, not the one you would always prefer in real life. In Part 2, notes can be a two-column comparison: film / pottery; $6 / $12; Friday / Saturday; 120 seats / 24 seats; all ages / hands-on. Add the listener benefit beside each difference.
Turn a fact table into reasons for Alex
Original Part 1 situation: Your neighbourhood association wants one spring social activity. Choose either a community film night on Friday at 7:00 p.m. for $6 per person in a 120-seat hall, or a guided river walk on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. for $4 per person with 30 outdoor places. You choose the film night.
Original Part 2 proposal: Alex suggests a pottery demonstration on Saturday at 2:00 p.m. It costs $12 per person, is held indoors, includes materials, and has 24 places.
60-second notes: Alex + film; cost 6 vs 12 → families; capacity 120 vs 24 → whole area; Friday evening vs Sat aft → weekend free; pottery creative but limited; choose film.
Model response:
Alex, I understand why the pottery demonstration sounds creative, but I think the community film night would work better for our neighbourhood. First, the film costs only six dollars per person, which is half the pottery fee. That lower price would make it easier for families to bring more than one person.
The hall also has 120 seats, while the demonstration can accept only 24 participants. Since this is supposed to be a community-wide social event, the larger capacity matters more than having materials included for a small group.
Finally, a Friday evening event leaves Saturday open for errands and family plans. The pottery session would be enjoyable for the people who get a place, but it is more expensive and much more limited. Let's choose the film night so the event is affordable and genuinely open to the whole neighbourhood.
Why it works: The response compares price, capacity, and schedule in parallel, translates each difference into a community benefit, acknowledges the new option, and ends with a clear request.
What weakens the comparison or the persuasion
- Changing the Part 1 choice. The response promotes the newly revealed option instead of defending the selected one.
- Comparing unrelated features. Price for one option is matched against location for the other, so no clear trade-off emerges.
- Reading the screen aloud. Facts are repeated without explaining why they matter.
- Attacking the other choice. An aggressive or dismissive tone ignores the relationship with the listener.
- Claiming an absolute advantage. “Everyone will prefer it” overstates what the visible information supports.
- Giving many shallow reasons. Six features are listed, but none becomes a developed benefit.
- Forgetting the audience. The response sounds like a report instead of persuasion directed to a person.
Record two versions from the same facts
Use the film-night and pottery options above. First record a 60-second response defending the film night. Then reset and defend the pottery demonstration as though it had been your Part 1 choice. Use the same three criteria in both versions.
Reveal the self-check
Underline every comparison and circle the benefit that follows it. Check that both options are judged by the same criterion in each comparison. Listen for one acknowledgement, a direct address to Alex, and a final recommendation. If the second version feels impossible, you may be reading facts as fixed advantages instead of connecting them to different priorities.
Check whether the listener receives a fair, useful case
- Did I defend the option selected in Part 1?
- Did I address the named listener directly?
- Did I state my recommendation near the beginning?
- Did I compare both visible options through the same criteria?
- Did I turn facts into benefits for the people in the situation?
- Did I develop two or three strong reasons?
- Did I acknowledge the other option without losing my position?
- Was my tone friendly, confident, and persuasive?