TOEFL 2026 Speaking Practice — Level Hard (for score 100+) #13

Listen to each question and give a spoken response. Aim to speak for 20–30 seconds per answer.

Score 100 — Perfect

I recall a time when my university implemented a strict, campus-wide policy requiring all students to use a specific digital portal for every single course interaction. Honestly, the administration rolled this out with almost zero student input, relying entirely on a team of IT consultants. While these experts clearly understood the technical efficiency, they completely overlooked the inherent friction it caused for our daily workflow. I mean, the system was so convoluted that it actually disrupted our studies rather than streamlining them. Because of this, it felt like a classic case of technocracy overreach, where the decision-makers were too detached from the actual user experience. As a result, many of us felt frustrated because our practical needs were ignored in favor of a purely systemic solution. It really highlighted how lopsided governance becomes when experts lack public feedback.

138 words

Score 80 — Good

I recall a time when my city decided to close a local park to build a new parking lot. It was a big change, and the city officials made the decision really quickly because they wanted to solve the traffic problem. Honestly, I felt frustrated because the public didn’t have much say in the process. The city planners were the experts, so they just looked at the data and said it was necessary. But they didn’t really listen to the families who used the park every day. I think it’s important for experts to have input, but the people who live there should also be heard before they make changes like that.

112 words

Score 100 — Perfect

When forming my own opinions, I generally lean toward the insights of subject-matter experts rather than just listening to politicians. Honestly, I find that political discourse is often so polarized that it’s hard to get a clear picture. For instance, when the government was debating the new carbon tax policy last year, I actually ignored the press releases from local representatives and instead read a series of reports from environmental economists at Seoul National University. Their analysis was incredibly nuanced; it provided a data-driven look at the long-term trade-offs that politicians tended to overlook for short-term gain. Because of this, I feel much more confident in my stance because it’s grounded in objective evidence. So, while elected officials have their place, I’d say relying on experts is just a more reliable way to navigate complex issues.

136 words

Score 80 — Good

When forming my own opinions, I usually look directly to scientific or economic experts instead of just listening to elected officials. Um, I think it’s because politicians have their own agendas, you know, they want to get re-elected and things like that. So, their arguments are often biased. But experts, like researchers or economists, they look at the data and facts. I find it more reliable to read reports from them because they don’t have to worry about political popularity. It helps me understand the real impact of a decision, like how a new tax law might affect the economy. So yeah, I definitely prefer expert analysis over what a politician says on the news.

115 words

Score 100 — Perfect

Personally, I am of the opinion that while experts are vital, relying solely on technocracy is inherently flawed. I mean, look at something like the 2008 financial crisis; even though economists had the technical data, their solutions often ignored the lived reality of everyday people, which caused massive social unrest. I’d say that technocratic expertise is necessary, but it shouldn’t take precedence over democratic consensus. See, complex issues like climate change aren’t just scientific problems; they’re social ones. If you don’t have public buy-in, even the most meticulously crafted policies will fail because people won’t support them. As a result, we need a balance where experts provide the framework, but the public actually shapes the direction. Ultimately, democracy is messy, sure, but it’s the only way to ensure policies are truly sustainable.

132 words

Score 80 — Good

Personally, I am of the opinion that we really need experts to handle big issues like climate change. I mean, these problems are just so complicated, and regular people don’t always have the technical knowledge to make the right decisions. If we just leave it to public voting, things might get messy because people often vote based on their emotions or short-term interests instead of looking at the data. So, I think it’s better to let scientists and economists, you know, the experts, guide the policies. It just makes more sense to have people who actually understand the science making the calls, because otherwise, we might not solve these serious problems at all.

113 words

Score 100 — Perfect

I believe that this approach would profoundly improve governance because it bridges the gap between complex policymaking and the everyday reality of citizens. I mean, we’ve seen this work in places like Ireland, where a citizens’ assembly helped navigate really contentious issues like abortion law reform. It’s effective because it moves beyond partisan gridlock. When you take ordinary people and actually provide them with expert briefings, they’re forced to engage with the nuanced trade-offs of a policy rather than just reacting to soundbites. It’s not just about venting frustration; it’s about collective deliberation. As a result, the final decisions feel more legitimate to the public. So, I’d argue that while it might seem like a slow process, it’s a necessary evolution to restore trust and ensure that policy isn’t just disconnected from the people it affects.

136 words

Score 80 — Good

I believe that this approach would definitely improve the way society is governed. You know, when you have regular citizens involved in the policy process, they bring a fresh perspective that politicians might miss. I mean, it’s just really hard for lawmakers to understand the daily struggles of normal people, so having these assemblies makes things more democratic. Also, it’s a great way to make sure that the government is actually listening to the public instead of just following party lines. I feel like it could lead to better decisions because the citizens get expert briefings, so they’re actually well-informed before they decide. It just seems like a more fair way to handle big issues in our country.

118 words