Describe a rule you think should be changed.
A pure argument card with nothing to describe. It rewards a candidate who can take a clear position, concede the other side, and propose a workable alternative — which is exactly what Part 3 will ask for two minutes later.
The task card
Describe a rule you think should be changed.
You should say:
- what the rule is
- who it applies to
- why you think it should change
and explain what you would replace it with.
How long you have
- 1 minute
Preparation
The examiner hands you the card, paper and a pencil. Make notes — a few words per cue point, never sentences.
- 1–2 minutes
Your long turn
Speak until the examiner stops you at two minutes. Finishing early is the most common self-inflicted problem in Part 2.
- 1–2 questions
Rounding off
The examiner may ask one or two short follow-up questions, then moves straight into the Part 3 discussion on the same theme.
Part 2 takes three to four minutes in total. The whole Speaking test runs 11 to 14 minutes across three parts, and Part 3 that follows lasts four to five minutes.
How to approach this card
Choose a small, specific rule you have actually bumped into: no phones in the staff room, no returns after fourteen days, no eating on the metro, the office rule that leave must be booked a month ahead. Big political rules sound impressive and give you nothing concrete to say. The examiner is listening for argument, not for importance.
Ground it inside the first thirty seconds. Name the one occasion the rule caused a problem — the day you missed a delivery, the colleague who lost holiday. Without that anchor, an abstract card thins out badly at around the ninety-second mark.
The fourth bullet asks for a replacement, so plan it in the prep minute rather than improvising. A specific alternative — 'thirty days instead of fourteen, with proof of purchase' — is worth far more than 'they should be more flexible', and it naturally pulls out second conditionals: if they allowed that, most of the complaints would disappear.
Ideas you can actually use
Three angles on this card. Pick the one closest to something real in your own life — invented material is what makes candidates hesitate at ninety seconds.
Small rules you have actually collided with
- A workplace rule: leave booked a month ahead, cameras on in every meeting, no working from home on Mondays
- A consumer rule: fourteen-day returns, no refund without the original packaging, tickets that cannot be transferred
- A public rule: no cycling in a park at any hour, a bin collection that penalises flats, a library fine system
Show the harm concretely
- One person, one occasion, one cost — a colleague, an amount of money, a missed event
- Who the rule was written for and who it actually catches
- Whether the harm is rare and severe, or constant and small
Design the replacement
- Keep the rule for the main case and carve out an exception for the edge case
- Change a number rather than abolish the rule — thirty days instead of fourteen
- Add a check rather than a ban: proof, a manager's sign-off, an annual allowance
What your one minute of notes should look like
Not sentences — a few words per cue point. This is the level of detail sixty seconds actually buys you, and it is enough to speak from for two minutes.
- RULE — leave must be booked 30 days ahead, in writing, no exceptions
- WHO — ~60 staff below manager level; rota argument
- WHY CHANGE — colleague, father in hospital, took it unpaid
- REPLACE — keep 30 days for long leave + 5 emergency days at 24 hrs' notice
Model answer
Speak your own answer first. Examiners are trained to spot memorised speeches and mark them down — use this to study structure, pacing and naturalness, never to recite.
Show the model answer
The rule I'd change is at my old workplace — annual leave had to be requested at least thirty days in advance, in writing, no exceptions. It sounds reasonable on paper. In practice it was a nightmare. It applied to everyone below management level, so about sixty people, and the logic was that the rota had to be planned a month out. Fine, I understand that. But life doesn't give you thirty days' notice. A colleague of mine had a family emergency — her father was taken into hospital — and she still had to take the days as unpaid because a formal request hadn't been filed in time. That was the moment it stopped being an administrative rule and started being, honestly, a bit cruel. So why change it? Because it was a blanket ban applied to a situation nobody had thought through. The rule was designed for people booking two weeks in Spain, and it was being used on someone whose father was ill. It had outlived its usefulness, or at least outgrown the situation it was written for. What would I replace it with? I'd keep the thirty days for anything longer than three days — the rota argument is genuinely valid there. But I'd carve out an emergency allowance, say five days a year, that you can take at twenty-four hours' notice with a reason given afterwards rather than before. It costs the company almost nothing, because most people never touch it. And I think if they had done that, they would have kept about half the staff who left that year.
Why this works: The answer refuses to stay abstract: within twenty seconds it names a real workplace, a real number of people, and a real colleague. The concession — 'Fine, I understand that' — makes the argument sound like thinking rather than complaining, and the replacement is specific enough to be argued with, which is exactly what the fourth bullet asks for. Note the second conditional at the end, which is the natural grammar of this card.
Useful vocabulary for this topic
- a blanket ban
A rule applied to everyone with no exceptions; very useful on this card.
- it is applied across the board
Formal collocation for a rule with no exceptions.
- it does more harm than good
Clean evaluative phrase for the 'why change it' bullet.
- a case-by-case basis
The standard alternative to a blanket rule; sets up your replacement.
- it is well intentioned, but…
Concession opener that instantly raises the sophistication of the answer.
- to make an exception
Precise collocation — not 'to do an exception'.
- it has outlived its usefulness
Elegant way to say a rule made sense once and no longer does.
The same phrases in a full sentence
A phrase list is only useful if you know how the words sit around it. Say each of these aloud once before you attempt the card.
- a blanket ban
- “The trouble with a blanket ban is that it catches the one case nobody thought about.”
- on a case-by-case basis
- “I would deal with it on a case-by-case basis rather than applying one rule to everybody.”
- it has outlived its usefulness
- “The rule made sense in 2010, and I think it has outlived its usefulness.”
- it does more harm than good
- “As it stands it does more harm than good, even though it was well intentioned.”
Part 3 discussion
After your long turn the examiner moves into a four to five minute discussion on the same theme, working from two related discussion topics with about three questions each. The first stays close to your own experience; the second widens out. Answer with reasons and examples, not one-line replies.
Rules in everyday life
Example questions
- 1What kinds of rules do people have to follow at work?
- 2How important is it for rules to be explained rather than just announced?
- 3Do you think people follow rules more willingly if they helped make them?
Changing the law
Example questions
- 1Can you suggest why some laws stay in place long after they stop working?
- 2Who should decide when a law needs to be reviewed?
- 3Do you agree that people should be free to break rules they believe are unfair?
More on how this family of cards is discussed: Abstract and idea-led prompts.