Loading
This lesson explains how to answer the part. It is not a timed practice set. A spoken survey answer: position, two reasons, a brief concession, then restate. Same skeleton as Writing Task 2, spoken.
One sentence. What you think should happen, not a tour of both sides.
The strongest argument, grounded in a believable everyday case.
A second angle, then one honest limit of your view, without giving the position away.
Close on the same side you opened on. No new policy in the last line.
Prompt
Should employers require people to come into the office, keep a hybrid schedule, or stay fully remote? Express your opinion and justify it.
Model
I think employers should keep a small number of office days, two a week, not five, rather than going fully remote or fully in-person. The first reason is the work that doesn't survive a chat thread. Hiring, feedback, and anything with a new teammate is faster in the same room. At my last job, the intern learned the tools in a week at the office and then worked from home without getting stuck. Fully remote, that took a month of back-and-forth. The second reason is fairness. Fully in-office quietly punishes people with long commutes or caregiving. Fully remote quietly punishes people who don't have a spare room. Two set days is a compromise most teams can plan around. I know some roles, coding, writing, analysis, are done better in quiet at home. That's a reason to keep most of the week remote, not a reason to drop the office altogether. So I'd keep two office days, put them on the calendar, and judge people on the work, not on who stays late.
Why it works
Fence-sitting: 'both sides have a point' with no pick.
Two reasons that are the same idea rephrased.
A concession in the close that undoes the position.