Module 5: SPEAKING. Tips

📚 EOI ORAL EXAM: Social Problems & Inequality

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 Illusion of Meritocracy "Meritocracy is largely an illusion. Success in modern society is primarily determined by inherited wealth and systemic advantage, not hard work alone." You may mention:

• The Role of Inherited Wealth: How starting capital affects life outcomes.

• Educational Disparity: Unequal access to quality schooling and resources.

• The Poverty Trap: Why escaping low-income cycles is so difficult.

• Policy Solutions: Proposals like minimum wage hikes or targeted education funding.

  
  

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

Time: 5-6 minutes. Goal: Reach a consensus / Negotiation. Scenario: You are members of a City Council committee with a mandate to spend a €5 Million grant to reduce inequality. You must agree on ONE priority project. Candidate A: The Relief Advocate You want to allocate the funds to providing Universal Basic Services (UBS) like subsidizing public transport and childcare for low-income residents. Argument: This immediately lowers the cost of living and breaks the poverty trap; it’s fast and functional. Candidate B: The Structural Advocate You want to allocate the funds to launching a Mandatory, High-Quality Mentorship and Tutoring Program for the poorest 10% of high school students. Argument: This is a long-term investment in human capital that directly attacks the root cause of inequality: unequal access to opportunity.

2. TIPS FOR C1 SUCCESS

Vocabulary: Poverty trap, social exclusion, meritocracy, systemic bias, socio-economic factors, functional relief, financial disparity, wealth redistribution, upward mobility, inherited wealth. Grammar: Use Conditional III ("If we had focused on housing first...") and the Passive Voice to sound objective ("Inequality is being exacerbated...").Dialogue Strategy: Don't just assert your view. Use phrases like: "I see your point about immediate relief, but doesn't that only treat the symptom?" or "Let’s prioritize the interventions that offer the most sustainable outcome..."

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C1 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Illusion of Meritocracy

"Good afternoon. I believe it is time to admit a harsh truth: the notion of meritocracy—the idea that hard work alone leads to success—is largely an illusion. While individual effort is important, the reality is that inherited wealth and systemic bias are the primary determinants of life outcomes today.

To begin with, we must look at financial disparity. A person born into wealth benefits from immediate access to resources: better schooling, zero debt, and initial capital for investment. This creates a compounding advantage that is almost impossible for someone escaping the poverty trap to overcome. The system simply isn't designed for genuine upward mobility.

Secondly, systemic bias is pervasive in areas like education. Schools in low-income areas often lack the funding, resources, and experienced teachers found in wealthier districts. This creates an inequality of opportunity from the very start. If we had addressed this funding gap decades ago, we might have seen a much fairer playing field today.

Regarding solutions, we need more than charity; we need structural change. It is imperative that governments implement policies that offer functional relief, such as Universal Basic Services to lower the cost of living. Furthermore, we need to look at wealth redistribution through highly progressive taxation to ensure that those who benefit most from the system contribute proportionately.

In conclusion, we have been sold a false narrative. We must stop blaming the poor for their circumstances and acknowledge that until we dismantle the systemic advantages enjoyed by the wealthy, the promise of equal opportunity will remain out of reach for the majority."

C1 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Relief vs. Structure

(A meeting between two city councillors)

Candidate A (Relief Advocate): "I believe the Universal Basic Services (UBS) approach is the most responsible use of this €5 million grant. We are facing an immediate crisis. Subsidizing public transport and childcare offers functional relief that instantly lowers the cost of living for thousands. It is imperative that we attack the poverty trap directly by freeing up discretionary income, rather than waiting years for results."

Candidate B (Structural Advocate): "I understand the urgency of immediate relief. However, I see your point, but consider the logistics: while UBS offers temporary comfort, it only treats the symptom. We need to focus on a structural change. Investing the €5 million in a Mandatory Mentorship Program for high school students is an investment in human capital. This directly addresses the root cause: the inequality of opportunity that blocks upward mobility."

Candidate A: "But consider the timeline. A mentorship program won't show results for a decade. What about the struggling families right now? The UBS is a quick, effective fix that gives people a breathing room. We can't tell hungry people to wait ten years for an education program to pay off. Isn't that ethically questionable?"

Candidate B: "That is a valid point about ethics and urgency. But let's play devil's advocate: If we spend the entire €5 million on subsidies this year, we haven't created a single new opportunity. We've simply kicked the can down the road. We need a long-term structural solution to end the cycle. If we invest strategically, the future generation won't need the subsidies."

Candidate A: "Okay, let's try to find a middle ground. I acknowledge that long-term structural change is essential. What if we scale back the UBS project to cover only childcare subsidies, which is perhaps the single biggest barrier to parents working? And with the majority of the remaining funds, we launch your mentorship pilot program."

Candidate B: "A split budget that prioritizes an immediate relief barrier (childcare) while committing the bulk of the money to structural change (mentorship) is a sustainable compromise. I can get on board with that. It demonstrates both compassion and fiscal prudence."

Candidate A: "Agreed. Childcare subsidies for immediate relief, and Mentorship for long-term upward mobility."

📚 EOI ORAL EXAM: Social Problems & Inequality

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 Ethics of Structural Violence and Plutocracy Analyze how unchecked economic stratification leads to structural violence and political corruption. Discuss:

• Erosion of the Social Contract: When trust in institutions collapses due to visible inequality.

• The Gini Coefficient and Plutocracy: Analyzing the economic data and its political outcome.

• Moral Imperative vs. Fiscal Prudence: Balancing the ethical duty to redistribute with economic stability.

• The "Systemic Exclusion" of Groups: Analyzing how multiple factors compound disadvantage.

  
  

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

Time: 6-7 minutes. Goal: Debate a controversial policy. Scenario: An international policy meeting debating structural solutions to income disparity. Candidate A: The Radical (Pro-UBI) You argue that implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the only viable structural solution against future automation and endemic poverty. Stance: UBI guarantees a baseline of dignity and acts as a buffer against technological unemployment. Candidate B: The Traditionalist (Pro-Jobs) You argue that UBI is an exercise in fiscal imprudence and fundamentally undermines the dignity of work. Stance: Investment should be focused entirely on massive public works and job creation programs to maintain labor participation.

2. TIPS FOR C2 SUCCESS

Vocabulary: Structural violence, epistemic crisis, class stratification, to be beholden to, fiduciary duty, moral turpitude, antecedent condition, fiscal prudence, endemic poverty, plutocracy. Style: Use rhetorical questions ("Is this not a wholesale abdication of our societal contract?") 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: Structural Violence and Plutocracy

"The climate of widening economic stratification that defines our age is, in my view, the direct consequence of a broken social contract. I would contend that the most corrosive effect of the ever-widening Gini coefficient is the destruction of trust in our institutions, leading inexorably to the rise of plutocracy.

Firstly, we must tackle the ethical issue of structural violence. This is harm that is not inflicted overtly, but is inherent in the policies and systems that maintain stratification—for example, the deliberate underfunding of schools in low-income districts. It is incumbent upon us to recognize that this is not accidental; it is a wholesale abdication of responsibility toward the citizens. This leads to the systemic exclusion of groups, trapping them in endemic poverty.

Secondly, the political ramifications are severe. When citizens are incapable of believing that the law applies equally to all—when tax evasion is rampant among the wealthy—democratic accountability collapses. This fosters cognitive dissonance where citizens assume the system is inherently corrupted. Never before has the line between wealth and political power been so transparently thin.

Furthermore, the discussion around fiscal prudence is critical. While some argue that massive wealth redistribution is fiscally reckless, I argue that allowing stratification to continue is the true recklessness. The societal cost of structural violence—in terms of healthcare, policing, and lost human capital—vastly outweighs the cost of progressive taxation.

In conclusion, technological optimism has failed to bridge the gap. Unless we impose radical reforms that challenge the very nature of inherited wealth and power, we will continue to subsidize the erosion of the shared societal foundation necessary for a just society."

C2 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: UBI vs. Jobs

(A debate at an International Policy Meeting)

Candidate A (Radical/Pro-UBI): "We need to look at the antecedent conditions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Automation is causing unprecedented dislocation in the labor market. I maintain that implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the only viable structural solution against future technological unemployment and endemic poverty. It is imperative that we guarantee a baseline of dignity and act as a safety net for the millions who will be rendered obsolete."

Candidate B (Traditionalist/Pro-Jobs): "I find the term 'rendered obsolete' highly misleading. UBI is an exercise in fiscal imprudence and fundamentally undermines the dignity of work. We are approaching this with technological fatalism. I concede that automation is rapid, but the solution is not to pay people to stay home. Not only is the cost exorbitant, but it also ignores the intrinsic value that labor participation provides to society. We should focus entirely on public works and green infrastructure to maintain high employment."

Candidate A: "I agree that work has intrinsic value, but we cannot gamble the stability of our entire social welfare system on the hope that there will be enough jobs for everyone. We are approaching a tipping point. UBI is a containment measure against structural violence. We can mitigate your concern by funding UBI through a highly progressive wealth tax, ensuring the cost is borne by those who benefited most from the current economic model."

Candidate B: "A progressive wealth tax is a necessary component, regardless of UBI. However, let's play devil's advocate: UBI removes the incentive to acquire the skills needed for the very green jobs you propose. We risk creating a permanently unskilled underclass. To synthesize our positions, I propose that instead of UBI, we mandate Universal Paid Education Leave (UPEL)—a grant for re-skilling every 5 years—funded by the wealth tax. This acknowledges the reality of automation but maintains the dignity of work."

Candidate A: "That is an astute compromise. UPEL addresses the antecedent condition (the lack of skills) while maintaining labor participation. It provides a strategic, proactive buffer. I think we have a framework there. It targets opportunity rather than just income."

Candidate B: "Agreed. We have established a framework that balances fiscal prudence with the ethical need for structural reform."