Expressing Opinions
Ninety seconds of argument with no picture, no options and nobody to persuade. The hardest task to fill, and the one where sitting on the fence carries a ceiling.
The task, and what makes it hard
Task 7 is Expressing Opinions: 30 seconds of preparation and 90 seconds of recording, text only. A short question asks what you think about an everyday issue. Whether high schools should start later. Whether children's sports teams should keep score. Whether employers should be able to contact staff after hours.
What makes it difficult is not the topic, which is always ordinary. It is that there is nothing to lean on. Task 5 gives you options on screen and a person to persuade. Tasks 3, 4 and 8 give you a picture that cannot run out. Task 7 gives you a sentence, and then ninety seconds, which is the longest recording on the test alongside Task 1.
Ninety seconds is about 200 to 230 words. Candidates who have not planned typically deliver their position and two thin reasons in forty seconds and then spend fifty seconds restating. The planning window is only thirty seconds long, which means the structure has to be something you already know before you read the prompt.
Take a side, and take it early
The task asks what you think. Presenting both sides evenly and never landing is indecision rather than balance, and it caps Content and Coherence at 7. It is also the most common way strong speakers hold themselves at a middle band, because from the inside an even handed survey feels more sophisticated than a position.
Commit in the first sentence, before any justification. No, I do not think they should, and the reason is simpler than it sounds. Six seconds, and now every sentence that follows is support rather than deliberation.
You do not have to believe it. Nothing asks you to be sincere, nobody checks, and choosing the side you have more to say about is a legitimate strategy. If you genuinely hold a nuanced view and the nuance is costing you the answer, argue the simpler version. A well developed position you half hold will outscore a sincere one you cannot build anything on.
Two reasons on different axes, not five on one
Five reasons across ninety seconds gives each of them about eighteen seconds, which is a sentence and a half. That is a list, and Content and Coherence rewards development rather than count.
Two reasons, properly built, with one concrete example between them, will fill the time better and score higher. What makes two reasons feel like range rather than thinness is choosing axes that are genuinely different. On a question about later school start times, teenagers sleep badly and teenagers are tired in the morning is one reason said twice. Teenagers sleep badly and the current timetable was designed around parents' commutes rather than learning are two different kinds of argument, one biological and one institutional.
A reliable pair of axes that works on most everyday issues: one argument about the people directly affected, and one about the system or the incentives around them. They rarely overlap, and having two different kinds of argument in the same answer is itself evidence of range.
The concession, and why it is the top band move
The clearest separator between a solid Task 7 answer and a high one is whether it concedes. Not of course some people disagree, which concedes nothing, but stating the strongest argument against your position honestly and then answering it.
The real objection is cost, and it is a serious one: changing the timetable means changing the bus contracts, and in a rural district that is not trivial. But the buses already run twice, and the second run is the one that would move. That names a genuine problem, acknowledges its weight, and then responds with something specific.
This move does three things at once. It demonstrates that you understood the issue rather than memorised a side, which is a Content marker. It generates the hedging and certainty modulation that the top bands are described in terms of: it is a serious one, not trivial, the one that would move. And it reliably fills fifteen to twenty seconds with new content at exactly the point in the answer where most candidates start repeating themselves.
Choose two reasons on genuinely different axes, one about the people affected and one about the system around them. Two versions of the same argument is a single reason with a ceiling on how far it can be developed.
Making it sound reasoned rather than rehearsed
There is a particular flavour of Task 7 answer that is fluent, well structured, and somehow hollow. It usually comes from a memorised frame: Firstly, I would like to say. Secondly, another important point is. In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned above. That is essay furniture spoken aloud, and it is the wrong register for a task that asks what you think.
Spoken argument sounds different from written argument. It reaches for a specific person rather than a general claim. It corrects itself slightly. It uses phrases like I mean, the thing is, to be fair, which is probably the bigger issue. It arrives at its conclusion rather than announcing it.
The cheapest way to sound reasoned is to put one real person in the answer. My brother in law manages a warehouse and he says the after hours messages are mostly from other managers who are also not being paid for them. A named human with a specific situation does more for Content and Coherence than any amount of structural signposting, and it cannot come from a memorised frame because it is yours.
Two answers, same question, ninety seconds each
The question: should children's sports teams stop keeping score?
Answer A, the fluent hollow one. In my opinion this is a very important topic in modern society. Firstly, I believe that competition is a natural part of life and children must learn about it from an early age. Secondly, another important point is that keeping score motivates children to improve themselves. On the other hand, some people say that losing is bad for confidence, which is also a valid point of view. In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned above, I think both sides have merit and it depends on the situation. Fluent, accurate, well organised, and it ends without a position. Content and Coherence caps at 7.
Answer B. No, I would keep the score. I coached an under nines team for two seasons, and the year we stopped announcing results the kids kept score anyway, in their heads, and argued about it in the car park. So the choice was never between scoring and not scoring, it was between a score everyone agreed on and eleven private ones. The serious objection is the child who is always on the losing side, and that is real, I have watched it happen. But the fix for that is squad rotation, not pretending nobody won. And there is something slightly dishonest about the alternative: children can tell when adults are managing their feelings, and they trust you less afterwards.
Answer B commits in four words, uses a specific personal example, concedes the strongest counter-argument, answers it, and finishes on an abstract point about trust. It is also messier than A, and that is part of why it sounds like thinking.
Put one real, specific person into the answer. A named situation you actually know does more for Content and Coherence than any amount of firstly and secondly, and it is the part of an answer that cannot be memorised in advance.
Practise it
Five judgement questions on arguing a position for ninety seconds without a picture to lean on.