Tags:
Share:
2. TOEFL iBT Speaking Question 2: Ultimate Step-by-Step Interactive Practice & Model Answers (Campus Issue Task) | LingExam
-
August 7, 2025
TOEFL iBT Speaking Question 2: Ultra-Interactive Tutorial (LingExam | Integrated: Campus Issue & Conversation)
12 Pro Steps to Nail TOEFL Speaking Q2
Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template (Click to Copy)
The notice/announcement states that the university will [state the change] to [official reason].
[Conversation – stance + Reason A]
In the conversation, the student [agrees/disagrees] with this plan. First, [state Reason A], because [short explanation]. For example, [tiny evidence], so [mini-result].
[Reason B]
Second, [state Reason B]. In particular, [tiny evidence or scenario], which means [another clear result].
[Conclusion – 1 sentence]
Therefore, while the university aims to [restate purpose], the student [supports/opposes] it due to [Reason A] and [Reason B].
Quick Practice Prompts (1-liners to rehearse pacing)
• The university will introduce weekend parking permits to manage congestion. The student disagrees because commuters already pay weekday fees and weekend events make access unpredictable, so the fee feels unfair and impractical.
• The university will extend lab hours for first-year courses. The student agrees because beginners need supervised practice and upper-level students can book later slots, so conflicts should decrease.
TOEFL iBT Speaking Question 2 — Full Practice Task
Follow the sequence: Reading (45s) → Listening → Preparation (30s) → Answer (60s + auto recorder). Each panel appears in order. Hover any paragraph for a soft glow.
Reading (Campus Announcement) — 45 seconds
University Notice: Starting next month, the Library will require evening reservations (after 6:00 p.m.) for all group study rooms. The change is intended to reduce last-minute conflicts and ensure that each group receives a full, uninterrupted time slot. Students can make bookings up to two weeks in advance using the online portal. Walk-ins will still be allowed before 6:00 p.m., but after that time, rooms will be available by reservation only.
Reading Time
Listening (Conversation) — Play once
Context: Two students discuss the Library’s new evening reservation policy.
Student A (Maya): Honestly, I don’t like the new reservation rule. I usually study after my evening shift, and making a reservation in advance is hard when my hours change every week.
Student B (Liam): I get that, but I actually support it. Last semester, my group kept losing rooms to walk-ins who jumped in right before us. With reservations, we’d know our slot is protected.
Maya: But unexpected assignments pop up. If I can’t book the same day, I’ll end up roaming around for a corner seat that’s too noisy for group work.
Liam: The notice says walk-ins still work before 6 p.m. Evenings are the crowded times. If people reserve, staff can manage demand better—fewer arguments at the desk.
Maya: My main issue is fairness. Students who commute or work evenings will always be at a disadvantage, because we can’t predict our schedules two weeks out.
Liam: True, but at least now the process is transparent. If your shift changes, you can adjust online. It beats waiting in line only to find a group took the room five minutes earlier.
Narration (implied): In short, Liam supports the policy because reservations protect planned study sessions and reduce conflicts, while Maya opposes it due to unpredictable schedules and fairness concerns.
Listening Status
Preparation — 30 seconds
Plan your 60-second response: 1) Paraphrase the notice (change + purpose). 2) Pick one student’s stance. 3) Give two distinct reasons with tiny examples and clear results. 4) End with a one-line echo.
Preparation Time
Answer — 60 seconds (Auto recorder ON)
Prompt: Using the information from the announcement and the conversation, summarize the university’s policy and explain why one student supports or opposes it. Include two reasons with brief examples.
Answer Time
Your Recording
Submit Your Recording to LingExam
Part 3 — Band 100+ Sample Answers & Guided Mastery
Study two high-scoring responses: one that supports the policy and one that opposes it. Each sample includes a non-downloadable audio (🟢 add your links), a step-by-step rationale, and instant-answer checks to lock in the structure and logic used by top scorers.
Sample A — Supports the Reservation Policy
Model Response (≈60s): The university will require evening reservations for all group study rooms in order to reduce last-minute conflicts and give each group an uninterrupted time slot. In the conversation, the male student supports this change. First, he explains that his team repeatedly lost rooms to walk-ins last semester, so reservations would protect scheduled sessions and help them start on time. Second, he points out that evenings are the most crowded hours, and with a booking system, staff can manage demand more fairly, which should lead to fewer arguments at the front desk. In short, while the policy restricts walk-ins after six, it makes access predictable and prevents conflicts, which is why he agrees with it.
Why this works — Step-by-Step (for Band 26–30)
- Purpose-first opening: It begins with the policy and its official purpose, anchoring the rater immediately.
- Explicit stance: The speaker names the student’s support once, then focuses on reasons.
- Reason A (protection): States the logic (reservations secure slots), gives a micro-example (lost rooms), and ends with a visible result (start on time).
- Reason B (management/fairness): Switches angle (crowding→fair allocation), cites staff management, and predicts fewer conflicts.
- Conciseness: Clauses are short; verbs are precise (require, protect, manage).
- Cohesion: Uses “first/second/in short” to make structure transparent.
- Pronunciation pacing: Four voice paragraphs: policy → reason A → reason B → echo.
- Paraphrase control: No copying; synonyms (require→booking system; reduce conflicts→prevent arguments).
- Time discipline: Enough detail without drifting into the dialogue storyline.
- One-line echo: Mirrors the task: change + purpose + stance + two reasons.
Check Yourself on Sample A
1) Which sentence best captures the core function of Reason A in the sample?
Answer: B. Reason A demonstrates the protective function of reservations through a past problem—losing rooms to walk-ins—which directly threatened scheduled teamwork. This reason does not express personal taste; it links policy to a mechanism (bookings prevent displacement) that leads to a result (on-time starts). It also shows topic development by presenting cause→effect rather than vague support. The micro-example supplies credibility without over-narrating. By avoiding emotional language and favoring operational logic, the response achieves both coherence and lexical precision. The concise framing keeps pronunciation steady and prevents clause sprawl. The evidence is proportionate to the 60-second limit. It also aligns with fair-use academic tone expected in integrated tasks. Finally, it prepares the listener for Reason B by closing the first causal loop cleanly.
2) Why is the reference to staff “managing demand more fairly” effective as Reason B?
Answer: A. Strong Q2 responses diversify the logic: if Reason A is about protecting your slot, Reason B should shift to systemic outcomes (fairness, conflict reduction). This prevents redundancy and improves coherence. The phrasing connects the policy to a process (capacity management) and an outcome (fewer desk disputes), which raters can verify quickly. It encodes prediction language (“should lead to”) that is cautious, academic, and appropriate. The vocabulary stays functional (manage, allocate, conflicts), prioritizing control over flourish. By keeping the example small and the result explicit, the speaker preserves time for a clean echo. This technique is a hallmark of band-30 Topic Development because it aligns evidence with different facets of the problem and supports logical completeness.
Sample B — Opposes the Reservation Policy
Model Response (≈60s): The announcement says the library will require evening reservations for group rooms to reduce conflicts. In the talk, the female student opposes the change. First, she works unpredictable evening shifts, so booking in advance is impractical; as a result, she might lose access exactly when group work is most necessary. Second, she argues the rule is unfair to commuters and students with irregular schedules, who can’t plan two weeks ahead, meaning they’ll be pushed into noisy open areas where collaboration is ineffective. Overall, because the policy disadvantages students with limited flexibility, she disagrees with it.
Why this works — Step-by-Step (for Band 26–30)
- Task alignment: One sentence for reading → then stance → two reasons.
- Reason A (predictability gap): Highlights scheduling uncertainty and connects it to lost access at peak need times.
- Concrete consequence: “Might lose access” is a measurable outcome, not a feeling.
- Reason B (fairness to subgroups): Targets commuters/shift workers—broadens relevance beyond one person.
- Environment shift: Noisy open areas as the likely fallback—clear mechanism for performance loss.
- Lexical precision: Unpredictable, impractical, disadvantages—formal, accurate, non-emotive.
- Pronunciation pacing: Balanced clause lengths prevent rush at the end.
- Paraphrase: Uses synonyms (require→booking; reduce conflicts→avoid clashes).
- Concise echo: Ends with clear stance linked to both reasons.
- No personal opinion: Reports the student’s view objectively, as required.
Check Yourself on Sample B
1) Which statement best explains how Reason A functions in this answer?
Answer: C. In strong Q2 performances, Reason A typically ties a constraint to a negative outcome. Here, irregular shifts cause planning failures, which threaten access at the exact time collaboration is needed. This is classic cause→effect logic, not a personal opinion. The phrasing focuses on mechanisms (“booking in advance is impractical”), which raters can validate quickly. Predictive language (“might lose access”) signals consequence without exaggeration. The idea is compact enough to preserve time for Reason B. It also avoids storytelling, staying within report style. Finally, it sets up equity concerns naturally, allowing the second reason to operate on a broader fairness axis.
2) Why does the mention of “noisy open areas” strengthen Reason B?
Answer: A. High-band responses justify their claims with plausible mechanisms. “Noisy open areas” is not drama; it’s an environmental constraint that impairs collaborative tasks (audibility, coordination, resource access). This detail keeps the focus on task achievement rather than personal feelings. It also broadens the fairness argument: even organized students with irregular schedules could be systematically disadvantaged. The phrase is concise, time-efficient, and academically neutral. By naming a concrete consequence, the speaker allows the rater to visualize and verify the predicted performance loss. This clarity supports Topic Development and reduces the need for extra clauses elsewhere.
Part 4 — Hardest Words & Phrases from the Sample Answers
Review the toughest vocabulary used by high-scoring speakers. Hover each card for a soft glow. Use the patterns to build native-like sentences in your own 60-second response.
From Sample A — Supports the Reservation Policy
Top 5 Words
Top 5 Phrases/Expressions
From Sample B — Opposes the Reservation Policy
Top 5 Words
Top 5 Phrases/Expressions
You May Also Like
-
Sep 25, 2025
-
Sep 25, 2025
-
Sep 25, 2025
-
Sep 25, 2025