Task
Follow-up discussion on technology.
- Do you think older people find new technology harder to use than young people do?
- Should schools teach children how to use technology responsibly?
- How might technology change the way we work in the next twenty years?
Task
Part 3 is an abstract discussion, not a personal one. The examiner is testing whether you can generalise, speculate and disagree with a premise. Answers should be longer than Part 1 and should hedge rather than assert.
Model answer(231 words)
Do you think older people find new technology harder to use than young people do?
That's the usual assumption, though I'd question it slightly. What older people often lack isn't the ability but the exposure — younger users have simply failed at more interfaces and learned that nothing breaks. Where I'd agree is that most software is designed by people in their twenties and tested on people like themselves, so the difficulty may be built into the product rather than into the user.
Should schools teach children how to use technology responsibly?
I'd say they have very little choice. Children are online long before anyone formally teaches them anything about it, so the question isn't whether they learn but who from. The difficulty is that responsible use isn't really a subject — it's judgement, and judgement is much harder to timetable than a set of rules about passwords.
How might technology change the way we work in the next twenty years?
It's genuinely hard to predict, but I'd expect the change to be less dramatic than people assume. Most previous waves removed particular tasks rather than whole jobs, and what tended to happen was that the role reshaped itself around whatever the machine couldn't do. If that pattern holds, the jobs that survive best will be the ones where the difficult part is dealing with other people rather than processing information.
Why this answer scores well
The first answer challenges the premise instead of accepting it — "That's the usual assumption, though I'd question it slightly". Examiners reward this heavily at Band 8: it shows you can engage with an idea rather than just supply content.
Speculation is properly marked. "I'd expect", "if that pattern holds", "it's genuinely hard to predict" — this is the language of Part 3, where you are explicitly being asked to hypothesise. Stating a confident prediction as fact would actually score lower.
Coherence: each answer follows a claim → qualification → reason shape, and the third one reasons from a historical pattern to a conclusion, which is a genuinely complex move to make aloud.
Lexical Resource: "exposure", "built into the product", "timetable" used as a verb, "reshaped itself around". The last is precise and unusual without being obscure — exactly the flexible usage Band 8 asks for.
Grammatical Range: conditional speculation ("If that pattern holds, the jobs that survive best will be"), a fronted concessive ("Where I'd agree is that"), and a cleft ("what tended to happen was that"). These are hard to produce spontaneously and are strong band evidence.
Length is right too: noticeably longer than Part 1, but still a spoken answer rather than a lecture.
Grammar used here
Studifor is not affiliated with or endorsed by IELTS, the British Council, IDP or Cambridge. All practice material here is written by Studifor.