돌아가기 ISE III English (UK) – Collaborative task

Supporting Debate Without Polarisation

영어 말하기 시나리오

Alfie

A relaxed British English speaker with an easy, informal style.

31 years · male

Practise talking about "Supporting Debate Without Polarisation" with Alfie, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your ISE III English – Collaborative task speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

대화

We need to work together on this situation: a youth forum wants to discuss controversial issues without becoming hostile. What would you like to ask me first?

좋은 답변:

My first question would be about evidence, not preferences. In this situation, a youth forum wants to discuss controversial issues without becoming hostile. I would ask who is most affected among the people most affected, what has already been tried, and what constraint cannot be ignored. Without that, we might choose a neat solution that does not address the media and public debate in practice.

One possible response is strict moderation and prepared questions. What advantages and problems do you see with that idea?

좋은 답변:

That option has a clear attraction, because people can understand it quickly. Strict moderation and prepared questions could work if the main need is structure and quick implementation. My concern is missing the people most affected. Before supporting it, I would ask who might avoid it, who pays for it and how we would know whether it improves the situation rather than just making action visible.

Another option is smaller dialogue groups before public debate. How would you compare the two options?

좋은 답변:

I would compare them by asking which risk is more acceptable. Strict moderation and prepared questions seems stronger where the problem needs clear rules, while smaller dialogue groups before public debate may be stronger where people need confidence, privacy or ownership. I would choose the option that is more likely to produce a fairer result in this situation.

Some people involved may disagree with your preferred option. How would you persuade them or adapt the plan?

좋은 답변:

I would not try to win the discussion by repeating my preference. If their concern was reasonable, I would change the plan rather than treat compromise as weakness. For example, we could pilot the option, publish the review criteria and agree in advance what evidence would make us change direction. For supporting debate without polarisation, that extra link would make the point more precise.

What final recommendation would you make, and what should happen next?

좋은 답변:

My final recommendation would be conditional. I would probably choose smaller dialogue groups before public debate if it deals better with missing the people most affected. Next, I would assign responsibility, consult the least heard group and set a short review against a fairer result in this situation.