TOEFL 2026 Speaking Practice — Level Hard (for score 100+) #23
Listen & Repeat · Take an Interview — full speaking practice with model answers at two score levels.
Listen & Repeat
Listen to each sentence and repeat it out loud. Try to match the speaker’s pronunciation, rhythm, and speed.
You are a student ambassador guiding new international students through their first day at the language school.
Show Answer
Welcome to our language center.
Show Answer
Please check your schedule at the desk.
Show Answer
You must wear your student identification badge inside the building.
Show Answer
All mobile phones should be silenced during your morning classes.
Show Answer
Please visit the library if you require extra study materials.
Show Answer
There is a brief orientation meeting in the main auditorium starting in exactly ten minutes.
Show Answer
Before you head over there, please confirm your classroom location with the receptionist at the front desk.
Take an Interview
Listen to each question and give a spoken response. You have 45 seconds for each answer, and there is no preparation time.
You are participating in a university research project regarding the intersection of rapid scientific advancement and personal ethics.
Thank you for joining this study. Please think back to a time when you read, heard, or watched a news story about a major breakthrough in genetic engineering—such as gene editing in crops, medical treatments for hereditary diseases, or lab-grown food. What specific information did you learn, and how did you feel about the potential consequences of that discovery?
Start withI recall a time when I…
Perfect answerScore 100
I recall a time when I read an article about scientists using CRISPR to edit the gene responsible for sickle cell disease, actually curing a patient rather than just managing her symptoms. What struck me most was that this wasn't some distant lab experiment; it was a real person whose life was transformed. I remember feeling a mix of awe and unease at the same time. On one hand, it's genuinely exhilarating to think that a disease people have suffered from for generations could simply be eliminated. On the other hand, I couldn't help wondering where the line gets drawn next, since the same tool that cures a disease could, in theory, be used to edit traits that have nothing to do with illness. I'd say my overall reaction was cautious optimism rather than pure excitement.
Good answerScore 80
I recall a time when I watched a video about scientists changing genes to help sick people get better. It was about a disease that runs in families, and doctors found a way to fix the gene that caused it. I thought this was really amazing because before this, there was no cure for that disease. But I also felt a little worried, because if scientists can change genes to cure diseases, maybe someday people could use it for other things that aren't as good. Overall, I think it was a really important discovery, but it also made me think about how careful we need to be with this kind of technology.
Why the 100 scores higher: The 100 answer names the actual tool and disease ("CRISPR," "sickle cell disease") and centers a real patient's transformation, while the 80 answer stays vague ("a disease that runs in families") and never gets more specific than "changing genes" — concrete detail is what carries the higher score.
People have very different comfort levels regarding modern biotechnology. Some people follow these scientific developments closely and feel optimistic, while others feel skeptical or avoid learning about them due to ethical concerns. How do you usually stay informed about genetic research, or do you tend to avoid it? Why do you think you react that way?
Start withIn my case, I generally…
Perfect answerScore 100
In my case, I generally follow genetic research fairly closely, though I'll admit my interest comes and goes depending on how the news is framed. If a headline focuses on a medical breakthrough, like a new gene therapy, I'll read the whole article and even look up follow-up studies afterward. But if it's about something like genetically modified crops, I tend to skim past it, mostly because the ethical debate there feels murkier and less resolved to me. I think my reaction really depends on whether the application feels like it's solving a clear problem, such as curing a disease, versus altering something for convenience, which makes me a bit more hesitant to engage.
Good answerScore 80
In my case, I generally try to stay informed about genetic research when I have time. I usually read news articles or watch videos about new discoveries. I think it's interesting to learn about how science is changing, especially for medicine. Sometimes though, I don't fully understand all the technical details, so I might skip articles that seem too complicated. I think I react this way because I'm curious about science, but I don't have a strong background in biology, so some topics feel harder to follow than others.
Why the 100 scores higher: The 100 answer draws a specific distinction between two types of genetic research (medical therapy vs. crop modification) and explains a real reasoning pattern behind engaging with one over the other, while the 80 answer gives a single general reason ("technical details feel complicated") without that comparative depth.
Now I would like your opinion. Some people argue that we have a moral obligation to use genetic engineering to eliminate diseases and suffering, while others feel that interfering with nature is dangerous and unethical. Which of these viewpoints do you lean toward, and what are your primary reasons?
Start withPersonally, I feel that…
Perfect answerScore 100
Personally, I feel that we have a real moral obligation to use genetic engineering when it can eliminate serious suffering, especially for diseases that have no other treatment. For example, if a gene therapy can prevent a child from inheriting a fatal illness, I struggle to see a strong ethical argument for withholding that option out of general caution about "interfering with nature." That said, I don't think this obligation is unlimited; I'd draw a clear line between curing disease, which I fully support, and using the same technology to select for traits like height or appearance, which feels like a very different, much less justified use of the science.
Good answerScore 80
Personally, I feel that genetic engineering should be used to help people who are sick, because curing diseases is a good thing. I don't think it's dangerous if doctors are careful and only use it for medical reasons. Some people worry that it's unnatural, but I think saving someone's life is more important than that concern. However, I also think there should be some rules so that it isn't used in ways that could be harmful or unfair to people.
Why the 100 scores higher: The 100 answer draws a specific, defensible line (curing disease vs. selecting for appearance) that shows the speaker has actually thought through the limits of their own position, while the 80 answer states a similar view but only gestures at "some rules" without ever saying what they'd be.
One last question. Do you think governments should place strict legal limits on how private companies use genetic engineering, for example, by banning the modification of human embryos or limiting the alteration of food sources? Why or why not?
Start withI believe that governments should…
Perfect answerScore 100
I believe that governments should place strict legal limits specifically on human embryo editing, while regulating rather than banning genetic modification of food sources. The distinction matters because editing a human embryo creates permanent, heritable changes that the individual never consented to, which raises serious ethical concerns that don't really apply to a modified crop. Food sources, on the other hand, can be regulated through safety testing and labeling requirements instead of an outright ban, since the risks there are more about consumer choice and environmental impact than irreversible changes to a human life. So rather than treating all genetic engineering the same way, I think the law should scale the restriction to match the actual stakes involved.
Good answerScore 80
I believe that governments should make some rules about genetic engineering because private companies might not always think about safety first. For human embryos, I think it should be banned because changing a baby's genes seems too risky and not fair to the child. For food, I think it's okay to allow it but companies should be checked by the government to make sure it's safe. So overall, I think there should be limits, but maybe not the same limits for everything.
Why the 100 scores higher: The 100 answer explains the actual reasoning behind treating embryos and food differently (irreversible, non-consensual change vs. manageable consumer/environmental risk), while the 80 answer reaches a similar conclusion but only says the difference "seems" fair, without identifying what makes it fair.
Every answer graded, for less than one tutoring lesson.
You heard the model answers. Record all 11 in a full TOEFL test and each one gets a band from 1 to 6 and a line by line note, like this sample.
I think it is important because hobbies makesmake people more creative inat work, and they come back more freshfresher.
That was one answer. Your full test has 11. Every one gets this.