Fourteen minutes, four parts, two candidates. Nothing on this page is marked, because speaking is not marked by a page. This is the scaffolded mock: under every prompt there is a note telling you the shape of a good answer before you give one. Read the note, record, play it back against the model — then cover the note and record the part again. The second recording is where the improvement is.
The examiner asks you and the other candidate questions in turn. Nobody is trying to catch you out: this part exists to settle you and to let the examiner hear ordinary, unrehearsed English. Answer, then extend — about twenty to thirty seconds each time.
What the examiner is listening for in Part 1: that you answer the question that was asked, that you go past one sentence without being asked twice, and that you stop. Talking for ninety seconds here costs you nothing in marks and costs you time you will want in Part 3.
A strong twenty-five-second answer to “Have you ever been somewhere that was very different from what you expected?”:
“I have, actually — Edinburgh, two years ago. I'd imagined something grey and formal, all castles and rain, and there was rain, but the city itself was full of people shouting in the street about theatre. It turned out we'd arrived in the middle of the festival without knowing. I've never been anywhere that was so much noisier than its photographs.”
Why it works: it takes the present perfect from the question and hands it straight back (I have, actually); it moves cleanly into the past for the story (I'd imagined… it turned out…); it gives one concrete detail rather than a category; and it ends on a sentence that closes rather than trails off.
Three phrases worth owning for Part 1: “I have, actually — …” · “Mostly …, though …” · “The honest answer is …”
Each candidate speaks alone for one minute about two photographs, and then the other candidate answers a short question about the same pictures for about thirty seconds. You are not describing the photographs. You are comparing them and answering the question printed above them — and the question is where the marks are.
The shape of a one-minute long turn. Fifteen seconds of comparison, thirty-five seconds on the question, ten seconds of speculation to finish. If you spend the whole minute describing what is in the pictures you can still only reach the middle band, however accurate your English is — because you have not answered the question.
A strong long turn for the market and the supermarket:
“Both of these are people buying food, but that's about where the similarity ends. The first one is a market on what must be a Saturday — it's packed, it's noisy, people are carrying more than they can manage. The second one is a supermarket at what looks like midnight, and there's exactly one customer in it.
As for why they've chosen these places: the people at the market have probably gone there on purpose. It's slower and it's probably not cheaper, so I'd guess they're there for the food itself — or for the morning out, the talking, the man holding up the fish. Whereas the woman in the supermarket almost certainly hasn't chosen it in the same way. She may well have just finished a shift, and this is the only place open, and she wants to get home. The self-service checkout suggests she'd rather not speak to anyone at all.
So one of them is shopping as a pleasure and the other is shopping as a chore — though I suppose the woman might see it the other way round.”
Why it works: the comparison is over in three sentences; the answer to the question is the body of the turn; and the whole thing is speculative — must be, probably, I'd guess, may well have, almost certainly, suggests. Photographs cannot be known, only guessed at, and modals of deduction are the grammar the task was built to collect. Say she is tired and you have thrown the item away.
Phrases worth owning: comparing — “Both of these …, but that's about where the similarity ends.” · “Whereas in the second one …” · “The obvious difference is …, though what strikes me more is …”. Speculating — “They must have …” · “She can't be enjoying …” · “He may well have …” · “I'd imagine …”. Running out of ideas — “It's hard to say, but if I had to guess …”, which buys you four seconds and sounds like fluency rather than panic.
You are given a question and five written prompts. Talk to each other for about two minutes; then the examiner asks you to make a decision together and you have about one more. This is the part where candidates lose most marks, and almost never for language: they lose them for taking turns instead of having a conversation.
What is actually being marked here is Interactive Communication: whether you invite the other person in, react to what they said rather than to your own next idea, disagree without stopping the conversation, and build something together. A candidate who speaks beautifully for two minutes while their partner waits is marked down, not up.
Thirty seconds of a strong Part 3:
A: Shall we start with the places to stay? That's the one I'd expect to matter most.
B: Go on — why that one?
A: Because if a night costs too much, nothing else on the list gets a chance. You do the walk, you eat at the market, and you go home the same evening.
B: That's true, although — doesn't it depend who the visitors are? If they've come by car for the day, cheaper rooms don't change anything. I'd have said the festival, because it gives people a reason to be there for three days instead of three hours.
A: Fair point. So maybe it's not either-or — it's a reason to stay and somewhere affordable to do it. Which would you say is harder for a town to organise?
B: The festival, easily. Though the walk is free and you could start it next week.
Look at what they are doing: A opens by inviting B in rather than by stating a view. B asks a question instead of taking a turn. B disagrees with a softener (that's true, although) and gives a condition rather than a contradiction. A concedes (fair point) and then reframes, which is the move that lifts a Part 3 out of the middle band. Nobody has made a speech, and both have said something the other could not have said alone.
Phrases worth owning. Inviting: “What do you make of that one?” · “Go on, why that one?” Agreeing and adding: “Yes, and the other thing is …” Disagreeing safely: “I see what you mean, but doesn't that depend on …?” · “I'd have said the opposite, actually.” Deciding: “So shall we say those two, then?” · “Can we agree on the market and leave the second one open?”
The trap: being so polite that neither of you ever disagrees. Two minutes of “yes, I agree, and also…” gives the examiner nothing to mark. Disagreement is the material.
The examiner asks broader questions arising from Part 3, sometimes to one of you, sometimes to both. Answers here are longer than in Part 1 — thirty to forty-five seconds — and they want an opinion with reasons, not a description. If the examiner asks “What do you think?” after your partner has spoken, they are asking you to respond, not to start again.
What lifts Part 4: a position, a reason, an example, and one honest sentence against yourself. Four moves, forty seconds. Candidates who reach the top band here are almost never the ones with the widest vocabulary — they are the ones who organise forty seconds.
A strong Part 4 answer to “Some people say tourists change a place for the worse. Do you agree?”:
“Up to a point. Where I live, the old town has three streets that are now entirely cafés with menus in four languages, and nobody who lives there goes into any of them — so yes, in that sense a place can be changed into something that exists for visitors rather than for itself.
Having said that, the same visitors are the reason the buildings are still standing. Twenty years ago that part of town was empty and falling down, and it was tourism that paid to repair it. So I'd say tourists don't change a place for the worse on their own — it's what the town decides to sell them that does the damage, and that's a choice the town makes.”
Why it works: a position with a limit (up to a point); a concrete example that costs nothing to invent; a turn (having said that) that argues honestly against the first paragraph; and a conclusion that is sharper than the question — it moves the blame from the tourists to the town. Notice how much of it is ordinary vocabulary used precisely. Nothing here is a rare word.
Phrases worth owning: “Up to a point.” · “Having said that, …” · “Partly …, but I think the bigger reason is …” · “It depends what you mean by …” · handing over: “…that's roughly where I stand. Would you see it differently?”
Finally — the recording. Record all four parts with the notes open, then listen back once for content and a second time with your eyes shut, listening only for the gaps. Where you stopped is more useful to you than what you said. Then cover the notes and do it again. The second recording is always better, and the exam is a second recording.
Do it twice. Once with the notes open, alone with the recorder; then once with the notes covered and a partner, in real time, with a clock running. The partner version is the only one that rehearses Part 3, because Part 3 is a conversation and you cannot have one with yourself.
The four criteria are Grammar and Vocabulary · Discourse Management · Pronunciation · Interactive Communication. Three of the four are about how you talk, not what you know — which is why the notes on this page are about shape and not about vocabulary.