Module 2: SPEAKING. Tips

🏋️ C1 & C2 Speaking EOI Exam: Health, Habits, and Sports (Fully Developed)

LEVEL C1 (Advanced)

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 (Intro, Arguments, Conclusion). Topic: The "Lifestyle Disease" Epidemic "The biggest public health challenge today is not infectious disease, but lifestyle diseases (diabetes, heart disease), which are largely preventable." You may mention:

• Sedentary Lifestyles: The impact of desk jobs and screen time.

• Corporate Responsibility: The role of the food industry and unhealthy marketing.

• Cost to Healthcare: The financial burden on public health systems.

• Interventions: Proposals for promoting prophylactic care and physical activity.

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

Time: 5-6 minutes. Goal: Reach a consensus / Negotiation. Scenario: You are members of a government Public Health Committee with a €1 Million grant to improve the health of the city's adolescents. You must agree on ONE priority project. Candidate A: The Policy Advocate You want to fund a Sugar Tax on all sweetened beverages, with the revenue ring-fenced for school sports programs. Argument: This directly discourages unhealthy consumption and generates a sustainable, dedicated fund for prophylactic care. Candidate B: The Infrastructure Advocate You want to fund the construction of Outdoor Community Sports Facilities (basketball courts, skate parks, cycling lanes) in underserved neighborhoods. Argument: This addresses systemic barriers by increasing access to free physical activity and promoting exercise as a social habit.

2. TIPS FOR C1 SUCCESS

Vocabulary: Sedentary, prophylactic care, chronic illness, metabolism, public health initiative, sugar tax, systemic barriers, infrastructure, cardiovascular, obesity, morbidity rate. Grammar: Use Conditional III ("If we had focused on preventative care sooner...") and the Passive Voice to sound objective ("The burden is being shouldered by hospitals..."). Dialogue Strategy: Don't just assert your view. Use phrases like: "I see your point about infrastructure, but is the tax not a more immediate deterrent?" or "Let’s prioritize the intervention that addresses both diet and activity..."

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C1 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The "Lifestyle Disease" Epidemic

"Good afternoon. Today, I want to address what I believe is the most significant crisis facing modern healthcare: the epidemic of lifestyle diseases. These chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and cardiovascular conditions, are largely preventable but are rapidly increasing the global morbidity rate.

To begin with, we must acknowledge the rise of the sedentary lifestyle. Desk jobs, commuting, and excessive screen time mean that physical activity is no longer integrated into our daily routines. This change in behavior directly slows our metabolism and increases the risk of obesity.

Secondly, we cannot ignore corporate responsibility. The food industry heavily markets cheap, highly processed goods high in sugar and fat. This disproportionately affects lower-income areas where healthy options are often unavailable or too expensive. It is unfair to blame the consumer when the affordable choices are designed to be addictive.

Regarding the cost, this burden on our public health initiative is unsustainable. Hospitals are overwhelmed treating illnesses that could have been avoided through prophylactic care. If we had invested more in prevention ten years ago, we might have saved billions in treatment costs today.

In conclusion, we need structural change. It is imperative that governments implement policies like a sugar tax to discourage unhealthy consumption and invest heavily in creating accessible infrastructure for physical activity. We must shift the focus from treating illness to promoting wellness."

C1 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Sugar Tax vs. Sports Infrastructure

(A meeting between two Public Health Committee members)

Candidate A (Policy Advocate): "I’m convinced the Sugar Tax is the most responsible use of this €1 million grant. It's a dual-action policy: it acts as an immediate deterrent to unhealthy consumption, and the revenue generated provides a sustainable, dedicated fund for school sports and prophylactic care. It is imperative that we attack the consumption problem at the source."

Candidate B (Infrastructure Advocate): "I understand the appeal of a tax, but I see your point, but consider the logistics: taxes are often regressive, disproportionately affecting the poor. I feel strongly that funding Outdoor Community Sports Facilities is more ethical. This tackles systemic barriers by giving adolescents in underserved neighborhoods free, accessible spaces to exercise and promotes exercise as a social habit."

Candidate A: "I agree that access is vital. However, let’s play devil's advocate: facilities are useless if adolescents are simultaneously addicted to sugar and screen time. A tax changes the financial calculus immediately. We can mitigate the regressive nature by ensuring the tax revenue is specifically funneled back into those same underserved neighborhoods to fund your facilities. This gives us both the incentive and the resource."

Candidate B: "That is a valid point about linking the tax revenue to the facilities. But consider the long-term culture. By investing in infrastructure—like cycling lanes and skate parks—we make physical activity part of the city's DNA. We create a lasting public health initiative that transcends a temporary tax. Isn't it better to fund a legacy that makes the entire city healthier?"

Candidate A: "Okay, let's try to find a middle ground. I acknowledge that infrastructure creates a lasting legacy. What if we allocate 60% of the funds to Building the Facilities (your priority) and 40% to launching a highly visible Social Marketing Campaign that promotes the facilities and advocates for reducing sugar consumption? This addresses both behavior and access."

Candidate B: "A split budget that prioritizes the structural change (facilities) while funding the behavioral change(marketing) is a sustainable compromise. I can get on board with that."

Candidate A: "Agreed. 60% for Infrastructure, 40% for Pro-Health Marketing. A pragmatic balance of steel and psychology."

🏋️ C1 & C2 Speaking EOI Exam: Health, Habits, and Sports (Fully Developed)

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 Psychological and Ethical Dimensions of Performance Analyze the ethical implications of the relentless pursuit of peak human performance, from the use of neuroenhancements to the psychology of elite sports. Discuss:

• Neuroenhancements: The ethics of using pharmaceuticals (or technology) to optimize cognitive function.

• The "Obsession with Metrics": How tracking and quantifying life leads to cognitive dissonance and burnout.

• The Societal Cost of Elitism: Analyzing the extreme pressure on elite athletes and its psychological fallout.

• The Antecedent Condition: Analyzing the sociological roots of high-performance culture.

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

Time: 6-7 minutes. Goal: Debate a controversial policy. Scenario: An international sports committee is drafting new global standards on athlete welfare. Candidate A: The Radical (Pro-Mental Health Parity) You argue for Mandatory Psychological Sabbaticals (6-12 months off competition) for all elite athletes every four years, funded by their national federations. Stance: The extreme pressure constitutes structural violence; mandatory breaks are necessary to preserve their long-term health and dignity. Candidate B: The Traditionalist (Pro-Competitive Integrity) You argue that mandatory breaks violate the autonomy of the athlete and undermine competitive integrity. Stance: Athlete welfare should be managed via improved internal team support, not mandated external absence that interferes with training and fiduciary duties (sponsorships).

2. TIPS FOR C2 SUCCESS

Vocabulary: Prophylactic, endogenous, exogenous, cognitive dissonance, structural violence, affective computing, forensic psychology, moral turpitude, antecedent condition, fiscal prudence, intrinsic value. Style:Use rhetorical questions ("Are we not simply committing cultural theft?") and hedge your assertions ("One might contend that the crux of the problem lies..." or "The matter is arguably the most urgent ethical dilemma..."). Dialogue Strategy: Acknowledge complexity. Concede small, tactical points to reinforce the larger, philosophical argument. Use precise language for negotiation.

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C2 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Psychological and Ethical Dimensions of Performance

"The contemporary obsession with peak human performance, driven by technological optimism, presents us with profound ethical and psychological dilemmas. I would contend that the relentless pursuit of optimization has become an antecedent condition for widespread cognitive dissonance and burnout in society.

Firstly, we must analyze neuroenhancements. The debate over using pharmaceuticals or technology to optimize cognitive function—to create exogenous performance—is critical. It is incumbent upon us to determine if this constitutes a form of moral turpitude, as it fundamentally undermines the intrinsic value of natural achievement and creates an unfair class stratification between those who can afford optimization and those who cannot.

Secondly, the obsession with metrics—quantifying every aspect of our lives—is creating a perpetual state of stress. This affective computing culture turns life into a constant, unwinnable competition, which directly violates the principles of prophylactic care and leads to psychological fallout. .

Furthermore, the pressure on elite athletes often amounts to structural violence, where the institutionalized demands of training and competition inflict severe, long-term psychological harm. Never before has the line between celebrating human capability and exploiting human fragility been so fine.

In conclusion, technological innovation in health is indispensable, but unless we impose rigorous ethical standards, we risk turning the pursuit of performance into a form of self-exploitation."

C2 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Mandatory Sabbaticals vs. Competitive Integrity

(A meeting of the International Sports Committee)

Candidate A (Radical/Pro-Mental Health Parity): "We need to look at the forensic psychology surrounding elite athletes. The current system imposes structural violence—an institutionalized demand that inflicts harm. I maintain that Mandatory Psychological Sabbaticals are the only solution. It is imperative that we guarantee long-term mental health parity, as waiting for a breakdown to occur is a failure of our fiduciary duty to these individuals."

Candidate B (Traditionalist/Pro-Competitive Integrity): "I find the term 'structural violence' highly inflammatory and potentially misleading. I concede that the pressure is extreme, but mandatory breaks infringe upon the athlete's autonomy and violate competitive integrity. Athletes are often beholden to sponsors; a mandatory year off interferes with contracts and endogenous motivation. The solution is not external absence but improved prophylactic carewithin the team structure."

Candidate A: "But internal team support often prioritizes winning over health. That is the core conflict. Let’s play devil's advocate: if we don't mandate a break, athletes will continue until they suffer a career-ending injury or severe depression. The long-term cost to the athlete and the sport's reputation is far higher than the cost of a sabbatical. Isn't it better to proactively manage burnout?"

Candidate B: "That is an astute compromise. But the cost is immense. To synthesize our positions, I propose a two-tiered system: We immediately implement Mandatory Sabbatical Funding (using fines from doping/fraud cases to pay the athletes' salaries). However, the leave itself remains voluntary, but with mandatory, annual psychological screening. This targets the financial barrier to taking a break while preserving the athlete's autonomy."

Candidate A: "Funding the break from fines is an elegant solution. It preserves autonomy while removing the financial barrier—the true antecedent condition preventing rest. I think we have a framework there."

Candidate B: "Agreed. We balance fiscal prudence with the ethical need for prophylactic care."