Module 2: SPEAKING. Tips

1. EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1: MONOLOGUE (Long Turn)

• Time: 3-4 minutes speaking time. (Preparation: 10-15 mins).

• Task: Discuss the statement below. Structure your ideas logically.

Topic: The Sedentary Crisis: Combating Inactivity in the Digital AgeModern life, dominated by desk jobs, cars, and screens, has created a health crisis centered on physical inactivity.You may mention:Societal Impact: The link between sedentary habits and major chronic diseases.Technology Paradox: How apps and wearables encourage movement but often increase screen time.Workplace Responsibility: What measures companies should implement (standing desks, gym subsidies).Simple Solutions: The power of incorporating daily, low-effort activity (stairs, walking meetings).

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

• Time: 5-6 minutes.

• Goal: Reach a consensus / Negotiation.

• Scenario: You are members of a local government committee tasked with allocating €400,000 to improve public health. You must agree on ONE primary investment.

Candidate A: The Infrastructure Advocate You want to spend the money on building new outdoor, multi-generational sports facilities (calisthenics parks, senior activity zones).Argument: Promotes social cohesion, offers free access, and is a long-term, visible asset.Candidate B: The Mental Health & Prevention Advocate You want to spend the money on establishing subsidized stress-management workshops and easy access to community therapy for anxiety and burnout.Argument: Mental health is inextricably linked to physical health; preventing stress is cheaper than treating stress-related diseases.

2. TIPS FOR C1 SUCCESS

• Vocabulary: Chronic diseases, sedentary lifestyle, caloric expenditure, subsidized, mental fatigue, burnout, cardiovascular health, public health mandate.

• Grammar: Use Modal Verbs extensively to give recommendations and express obligation (should, ought to, must). Use Advanced Conditionals ("If companies were to invest...").

• Dialogue Strategy: Control the negotiation. Use phrases like: "I appreciate your dedication to... but we must prioritize...", or "Could we possibly defer the cost of the facilities and focus on the short-term benefit?"

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C1 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Sedentary Crisis

"Good afternoon. I’d like to begin by discussing what I believe is the most insidious public health threat of our age: the sedentary crisis. Modern life has made physical inactivity the norm, rather than the exception.

Firstly, the societal impact is devastating. We know that a sedentary lifestyle is a direct precursor to major chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. The economic cost of treating these illnesses, which are largely preventable, places an unsustainable burden on our national healthcare systems. It's a classic case where prevention is undeniably cheaper than cure.

Secondly, we live in a technological paradox. We have apps, smartwatches, and fitness trackers that are supposed to motivate us, yet they often chain us to our screens, replacing actual physical activity with screen time. While these wearables are excellent for tracking caloric expenditure, they don't solve the core problem: being forced to sit for eight hours a day at a desk. We must use technology as a tool, not a crutch.

Regarding workplace responsibility, I believe companies have a moral obligation to promote activity. They should be heavily subsidizing standing desks, encouraging walking meetings, and offering gym membership discounts. In fact, many successful Scandinavian companies have proven that an active workforce leads to increased productivity and fewer sick days. It is a win-win situation.

In conclusion, combating this crisis requires a multi-pronged approach. While policy changes and corporate investment are essential, individuals must also make small, conscious decisions—taking the stairs instead of the lift, or getting off the bus one stop early. We must actively fight the urge to remain inactive for the sake of our collective future health."

C1 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Community Health Funding (Sports vs. Mental Health)

(A meeting between two government committee members)

Candidate A (Infrastructure): "I believe our €400,000 budget must be used to create tangible, lasting assets. Therefore, my proposal is to construct new outdoor sports facilities, specifically calisthenics parks and designated senior zones. If people don't have safe, accessible, and free places to exercise, they simply won't. This promotes social cohesion and provides a long-term benefit."

Candidate B (Mental Health): "While the visual impact of a new park is appealing, I must strongly disagree on prioritization. Physical health is inextricably linked to mental health. Our community currently faces skyrocketing rates of anxiety and burnout. If people are too stressed or depressed to leave the house, a new calisthenics park is useless. I propose investing in subsidized community therapy and stress-management workshops."

Candidate A: "I acknowledge the severity of the mental health crisis, but your proposal focuses solely on treating existing issues. Physical activity is a preventative measure. Exercise is proven to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression more effectively than many medications, without the side effects. We would be spending money on infrastructure that acts as free, daily therapy for years to come."

Candidate B: "That's a clever reframing, but consider the elderly and the low-income workers. They often can’t use complex gym equipment. They need accessible mental health support and basic education on stress management and healthy sleeping habits. Your parks are a long-term asset, but the need for mental health support is immediate and acute."

Candidate A: "We could design the parks to be multi-generational, including low-impact stations for seniors. However, I agree that completely ignoring the mental health aspect would be a failure of our mandate. Let's consider a compromise: What if we allocate €300,000 to the park, ensuring it gets built, and use the remaining €100,000 to establish a Mental Health First Aid training program across all our community centers? This provides immediate educational outreach."

Candidate B: "A Mental Health First Aid program is an excellent idea, but €100,000 is insufficient for meaningful, long-term therapeutic access. How about this counter-offer? We split the budget 50/50. We build one smaller, strategically located park (€200,000), and the other half funds a year-long program offering 10 free therapy sessions per person for essential workers, addressing the root cause of burnout."

Candidate A: "Splitting the funding 50/50 dilutes the impact of both. However, funding essential workers' therapy is a crucial step. Final offer: €250,000 for the multi-generational park (enough to secure the land and equipment) and €150,000 dedicated to the mental health program, focusing on high-risk groups like essential workers and single parents. This ensures we leave a tangible legacy."

Candidate B: "Agreed. The compromise secures both the physical asset and addresses the immediate crisis of mental fatigue among the most vulnerable."

LEVEL C2 (Mastery)

1. EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1: MONOLOGUE (Long Turn)

• Time: 4-5 minutes speaking time.

• Task: Deliver a monologue analyzing the nuance and complexity of the topic.

Topic: The Optimized Body: Ethics and the Pursuit of Peak PerformanceModern science is pushing the limits of human biology through technology and pharmacology. This has led to the medicalization and commodification of the human body.Discuss:The 'Quantified Self': The ethical implications of using wearables and implants to track and 'optimize' every biological process (sleep, heart rate, hormones).Fairness in Sport: Where is the moral line between natural talent, permissible training technology, and bio-hacking (e.g., genetic enhancement)?The Longevity Obsession: Does the pursuit of extreme longevity benefit society, or does it merely exacerbate wealth inequality and strain resources?Body Dysmorphia: How the quest for optimization links to mental health issues and unrealistic physical standards.

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

• Time: 6-7 minutes.

• Goal: Debate a controversial funding policy and negotiate a manifesto.

• Scenario: You are high-ranking officials in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Sport. You must decide how to distribute a £100 million budget: funding for Elite Professional Sports vs. Preventative Public Health Care.

Candidate A: The Sport & National Prestige Advocate You argue that 90% of the budget should go to funding elite training programs, talent scouting, and hosting international events.Stance: Elite athletes are role models; their success inspires the public to be active and promotes national unity and prestige.Candidate B: The Public Health & Prevention Advocate You argue that 90% of the budget should be directed towards mass-market health programs, subsidies for preventative care, and anti-obesity campaigns.Stance: Spending on the top 0.001% is economically inefficient; the budget must serve the 99.999% to reduce long-term healthcare costs.

2. TIPS FOR C2 SUCCESS

• Vocabulary: Anthropogenic, pharmacological, ethical quagmire, intrinsic value, longevity, systemic inequality, exacerbation, moral imperative, sedentary burden.

• Grammar: Use Inversion for emphasis ("Rarely have we faced such a moral dilemma"). Use complex relative clauses and nominalization ("The commodification of well-being...").

• Dialogue Strategy: Use rhetorical hedging ("While I am sympathetic to that viewpoint, we must consider the systemic implications..."). Maintain high register even under disagreement.

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C2 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Optimized Body

"The World Health Organization defines health as complete well-being, but in our era, this pursuit has become less about balance and more about optimization. I would argue that we are witnessing the complete commodification and medicalization of the human body, transforming life from a journey to a meticulously tracked project.

Let’s start with the 'Quantified Self' phenomenon. We wear devices that constantly monitor our sleep, heart rate, and caloric intake. This is not health; it is an incessant push for efficiency. This obsession creates a profound ethical dilemma: are we truly seeking better health, or are we succumbing to the pressure to achieve an impossible standard of biological perfection? This constant tracking can easily segue into orthorexia or anxiety, pathologizing perfectly normal variations in human physiology.

This quest for perfection directly impacts elite sports. Where exactly do we draw the moral line between permissible training technology and outright bio-hacking? Is it fairer to allow an expensive prosthetic than a cheaper pharmacological enhancement? The very definition of sport—a test of intrinsic human limits—is threatened by genetic editing or advanced neural implants. If victory is bought in a lab rather than earned through sweat, we erode the integrity of the discipline.

Furthermore, consider the longevity obsession. Is the pursuit of extreme life extension a moral imperative, or does it merely exacerbate existing wealth inequality? Only the extremely wealthy can afford the personalized medical interventions and lifestyle changes required to reach 120 years. This not only strains public resources but also raises uncomfortable questions about what kind of society we are creating—one where the rich live forever and the poor die sooner.

In conclusion, while science offers incredible tools, we must step back. We need a societal consensus on what constitutes a 'good' life versus a merely 'optimized' one. The ultimate ethical challenge is ensuring that the pursuit of health remains a human right, not a metric determined by market forces or technological availability."

C2 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Elite Sports vs. Public Health

(A negotiation between two Ministry Officials)

Candidate A (Sport Advocate): "Good morning. I must state upfront that diverting 90% of this £100 million budget to mass market programs would be a catastrophic error of judgment. Elite sports are not a luxury; they are a vital investment in national identity and public health inspiration. These athletes are our most powerful role models; their success on the world stage inspires millions of children to leave the couch. £90 million must go to talent scouting, elite training, and hosting international events."

Candidate B (Public Health Advocate): "With all due respect, I find that argument highly romanticized and economically indefensible. We are talking about £100 million in health funding. Spending 90% on the top 0.001% of the population—the athletes—is the definition of systemic inequality. The budget must serve the 99.999%. £90 million invested in preventative care, anti-obesity campaigns, and subsidized local sports leagues would drastically reduce the long-term sedentary burden on our health service."

Candidate A: "But Mr./Ms. B, you are ignoring the intangible benefit! When our national team wins gold, participation in local clubs soars. That investment in national prestige pays for itself tenfold through indirect public health gains and tourism. Moreover, our elite programs lead to genuine sports science innovation that eventually trickles down to public physiotherapy and rehabilitation."

Candidate B: "The trickle-down effect is too slow and unreliable. We have an immediate moral imperative to address the fact that half our population is overweight. We need a direct intervention. We could fund 500 new community trainers or subsidize healthy cooking classes for every single primary school. That is a guaranteed return on investment for health, unlike funding an Olympic athlete who may or may not succeed."

Candidate A: "I am sympathetic to the preventative argument, but cutting the elite budget so severely would cripple our international standing. We cannot sacrifice the legacy of our athletes entirely. I propose a tiered compromise that protects both. How about a 60/40 split? £60 million for high-impact public health programs, and £40 million ring-fenced for elite talent development, with strict metrics requiring athletes to spend time in schools."

Candidate B: "A 60/40 split is moving in the right direction, but £40 million is still a very generous amount for a population of 500 people. Let's formalize this: We must dedicate 75% (£75 million) to preventative public health programs to attack the obesity crisis. The remaining 25% (£25 million) can be used for elite sports, but that £25 million must be conditional on the athletes dedicating at least 30 working days a year to public, grassroots coaching and mentorship programs."

Candidate A: "I agree to the 75/25 split, recognizing the gravity of the public health deficit. However, I insist that the £25 million for elite sport be protected from future reallocation. It is non-negotiable. It's a small price to pay for the inspiration and national pride it generates."

Candidate B: "Agreed. 75% for preventative measures, 25% for elite sport, conditional on mandatory grassroots engagement. We have reached a consensus."