Lesson 13, Task 7: Expressing Opinions

30 seconds to prepare · 90 seconds to speak

What this task asks you to do

You’re given a statement or a proposal and asked whether you agree. You take a side and defend it.

At 90 seconds, this is one of the two longest answers on the test, and it’s the one where conviction in your voice earns the most. A well-argued opinion delivered flatly scores worse than a slightly weaker one delivered with genuine energy.

How this task is scored

• A clear position, stated immediately and restated at the end. Fence-sitting destroys coherence.
• Developed reasons, not just claims. Every argument needs support, an example, a consequence, an explanation.
• Range of contrast and conclusion language. This task naturally invites connectors; repeating “however” three times is a visible ceiling.
• Expressive delivery. Debate register, not report register.

Commit to one side, even if you don’t have one

The most common self-inflicted wound here is genuine balance. “There are good points on both sides, and it depends…” reads as indecision, and there’s nowhere for the argument to go.

Pick a side in your first five seconds. You are not being scored on the sincerity or wisdom of your opinion. You are being scored on how well you defend it in English.

If you truly have no view, pick whichever side you can generate two reasons for fastest.

The STAND frame

At 90 seconds, three arguments is safer than two. Two well-developed reasons can fill the time, but many students find themselves at 60 seconds with nothing left to say. Plan three; drop the weakest if you’re running long.

Bring some fire to it

This is the task built for passion. The source coaching is blunt about it: monotone delivery undercuts an opinion answer more than any other task type.

Practical ways to sound convinced:

• Raise your volume on the adjectives: deeply unfair, genuinely damaging, enormously beneficial
• Use short, punchy sentences occasionally among the longer ones for emphasis
• Let a rhetorical question in: “And who ends up paying for that? The employees.”
• Debate power phrases (see the bank below), they carry conviction on their own

Model answer

Question: Some people believe employers should allow all office staff to work from home permanently. Do you agree or disagree?

“I feel quite strongly about this one, and I’d say I firmly agree, employers should absolutely allow permanent remote work for office staff.

Firstly, the productivity argument has essentially been settled. For years the assumption was that people at home would slack off, but what actually happened was the opposite: without a two-hour commute draining them and constant interruptions across the desk, most people got considerably more done. It’s hard to argue with results like that.

Secondly, and I think this matters even more, remote work opens the door to people who were quietly shut out before. Parents with young children, people with disabilities, anyone living far from a major city, all of them were effectively excluded from good jobs by geography alone. Forcing everyone back into an office rebuilds that barrier for absolutely no benefit.

Now, some would argue that collaboration suffers, and that’s a fair concern. Nevertheless, I’d say it’s a solvable one, a well-run team that meets in person once a month collaborates perfectly well, whereas an exhausted employee sitting in traffic for ten hours a week helps nobody.

So overall, I’d say the case is close to indisputable: permanent remote work is better for productivity, considerably fairer, and there’s simply no compelling reason to reverse it.”

Why this scores well

• Position stated in the first sentence and restated in the last, a clean frame.
• Three developed arguments, each with reasoning rather than assertion.
• Handles the counter-argument (“some would argue…”) and defeats it, this is a high-level move that shows range.
• Varied contrast language: but, nevertheless, whereas - not “however” three times.
• Debate register: it’s hard to argue with, close to indisputable, absolutely no benefit, helps nobody.
• Emphatic adjectives for the voice to land on: considerably, absolutely, quietly, exhausted, compelling.

The same answer at Level 6, and how to fix it

“I think it depends. Some people like working from home and some people like the office. Working from home is good because you don’t travel. However, some people are lonely at home. However, the office is good for meetings. However, it takes a long time to go there. So both are good in different ways. It is a difficult question. I think companies should decide.”

Rater’s diagnosis

Estimated level: 6.

The upgrade path

The pattern: commit to a side in the first sentence, turn each claim into an argument with a consequence, handle the objection once (deliberately, not by accident), and restate your position at the end.

Grammar watch-list for this task

Grade your own answer

• Clear position stated in the first 10 seconds
• Position restated at the end
• Three developed arguments (or two plus a handled counter-argument)
• Every argument has an example or consequence, not just a claim
• Handled one objection deliberately (“some would argue… nevertheless…”)
• Four or more different contrast/conclusion connectors
• Never used “however” more than once
• Gender-neutral throughout
• No invented statistics or named studies
• Audible conviction, volume rising on key adjectives
• Finished between 84 and 88 seconds

9+ ticks = Level 9 territory. All 11 = you’re competing for 11–12.

Plug-and-play template

Template A, the full STAND with counter-argument (aim: Level 11–12)

“I feel quite strongly about this one, and I’d say I firmly [agree / disagree]: [restate the position in your own words].

Firstly, [argument 1]. [Explanation]. [Example or consequence]. It’s hard to argue with [that].

Secondly, and I think this matters even more, [argument 2]. [Explanation]. As a result, [consequence].

Now, some would argue that [the obvious counter-argument], and that’s a fair concern. Nevertheless, I’d say it’s [a solvable / an overstated] one, [rebuttal], whereas [your side’s advantage].

So overall, I’d say the case is close to indisputable: [reason 1 in a phrase], [reason 2 in a phrase], and there’s simply no compelling reason to [the opposite view].”

Template B, the three-argument variant (no counter-argument)

Easier to deliver if handling an objection feels risky under pressure.

“For me, there’s really only one sensible answer here, I’d come down clearly on the side of [position].

The first reason is [argument 1]. [Explanation]. [Consequence].

Secondly, [argument 2], which means [consequence]. [Brief example].

And the third point I’d make is [argument 3]. [Explanation].

All things considered, therefore, I’d say [restate position]: it’s [adjective], it’s [adjective], and the alternative simply doesn’t hold up.”

Two small errors worth fixing now

1. Gender assumptions. Use they/them or his or her rather than defaulting to “he.” It’s an easy, avoidable slip.
2. Over-specific evidence. Avoid invented statistics and named studies (“a 2019 Harvard study found 87%…”). They sound copied and can’t be verified. General trends are safer and score identically.

Three more sample answers

Two of these argue against the proposition and one argues for it, a reminder that the side genuinely doesn’t matter.

Sample 2, banning cars from downtown (agreeing)

“I’ll be upfront: I think banning private cars from city centers is one of the better ideas of the last decade, and I’d support it without much hesitation.

Firstly, the space argument is simply overwhelming. An enormous proportion of any downtown is given over to storing stationary vehicles, and the moment you reclaim it you get wider pavements, outdoor seating, and cycle lanes. Every city that’s tried it has seen footfall rise rather than fall, which is the opposite of what opponents predicted.

Secondly, and I think this matters even more, there’s the air. Children walking to school in a city center are breathing genuinely harmful concentrations of exhaust, and that’s not a minor inconvenience, it’s a measurable health cost we’ve simply grown used to.

Now, some would argue that businesses suffer, and that’s a fair concern. Nevertheless, the evidence tends to point the other way: people who arrive on foot or by transit visit more often and stay longer.

So overall, I’d say the case is close to indisputable.”

Sample 3, later school start times (disagreeing)

“I feel fairly strongly about this, and I’d actually come down against it, I don’t think shifting school start times later is the right fix.

The first reason is practical. School hours aren’t just about students; they’re the backbone of how working parents structure their day. Push the start to nine-thirty and you create a childcare gap that falls hardest on exactly the families least able to absorb it.

Secondly, the problem being solved isn’t really the timetable. Teenagers are short of sleep largely because they’re awake at midnight on their phones, and moving the start time simply moves the bedtime with it. You’d get the same tired students an hour later.

Admittedly the research on adolescent sleep cycles is genuine, and I don’t dismiss it. Even so, I’d argue we’d get considerably more benefit from tackling screens at night than from rebuilding the entire school day around them.

All things considered, therefore, I’d leave the timetable alone and address the actual cause.”

Sample 4, employers monitoring work computers (disagreeing)

“For me there’s really only one sensible answer here, I’m firmly against employers monitoring what staff do on work computers.

Firstly, it fundamentally misunderstands what produces good work. Monitoring measures activity, not output, and the predictable result is that people learn to look busy rather than be effective. You end up optimising for the appearance of work.

Secondly, and more seriously, the line between work and personal life on a work laptop is now hopelessly blurred. People check a medical result, message a partner, look at their bank balance. Monitoring all of that isn’t oversight, it’s surveillance, and it corrodes trust in a way that’s very hard to rebuild.

The usual objection is that companies need to protect sensitive data, and that’s entirely legitimate. But that argument justifies security controls on files, not keystroke logging on people. The two aren’t the same thing.

So overall, I’d say monitor the data, not the person.”

Notice across all three: position in the first sentence, restated at the end, one counter-argument deliberately handled, and contrast words rotated, never “however” twice.

Common mistakes

Your practice

Open one set on Celpora and put today’s lesson to work.

Practice Task 7: Expressing Opinions. 30s prep · 90s speaking · AI feedback