Imagine that the page shows three original photographs. The two written questions above them are:
- What might the people be learning from one another?
- Which situation is likely to require the most cooperation?
The visible-fact inventories are included here so the practice is fully answerable without images.
Picture 1 — Group food preparation: Five adults stand around a steel table. Two wear aprons and chop vegetables. One person points to a printed recipe. Bowls of carrots and onions are visible. Everyone faces the table. No restaurant sign or money is visible.
Picture 2 — Bicycle work on a path: Three adults crouch beside a bicycle on a paved path. One holds the rear wheel, one uses a small tool near the chain, and one watches. All wear casual clothes. Trees and two parked bicycles are visible. No race number or uniform is visible.
Picture 3 — Design studio: Four adults sit around a desk. A large paper plan lies in the center. One person points at it while another writes in a notebook. Two laptop screens are open. A wall behind them has color samples and sketches. No company name is visible.
In Cambridge C1 Advanced Speaking Part 2, the Long turn, you receive three pictures and talk about two for one uninterrupted minute. The two questions are written at the top of the page. The task involves comparing, describing, expressing opinions, and speculating. The other candidate then comments for about 30 seconds; that comment is secondary to your one-minute turn.
See the Cambridge C1 and C2 vocabulary hub for more targeted practice, or browse the Exam English hub for the wider exam collection.
The decision: compare, then calibrate
A weak plan is picture 1: food details; picture 2: bicycle details. That creates two lists. A stronger plan links a visible similarity or contrast to one question, then uses evidence to speculate. The photograph shows; you infer.
For pictures 1 and 2, a 20-second selection-and-link plan could be:
choose 1 + 2 → practical skills in both
contrast: planned group recipe vs immediate repair problem
Q1: techniques + roles, presumably
Q2: on balance picture 1, more people/tasks; caveat bike work may need coordination
The notes are short, but both questions are present.
Six tools in priority order
1. Whereas
Whereas sets two facts or situations side by side as a direct contrast within one sentence: “The first group follows a printed recipe, whereas the second group works around a bicycle wheel and chain.” Both sides should be complete clauses in the active pattern taught here.
Compare whereas with while. While can mark contrast, so the words overlap there. But while also has a time sense; whereas does not. Use a factual boundary, not a false rule. “While one person holds the wheel, another adjusts the chain” describes simultaneous action. Replacing it with whereas would change that time relation into contrast.
2. Analogous
Analogous means similar in a relevant structure, function, or relationship. The food-preparation and bicycle-work scenes are analogous because both appear to show people pooling practical knowledge around a shared object. They are not alike in appearance, scale, or setting.
That is the boundary with broad similar. Similarity can concern any likeness. An analogy points to a relevant correspondence and should name it. Do not claim that analogous situations are identical or will have the same result.
3. Divergent
Divergent describes paths, trends, views, or methods that are different or move in different directions. The groups may use divergent methods: one follows an ordered recipe, while the other responds to a fault as it appears.
Different is the broad word, and it is not wrong wherever divergent works. Divergent adds a tendency of directional separation or substantial difference. Do not force hostility or incompatibility into it; divergent approaches can both succeed.
Understanding is only the first step.
Lyra Practice helps you retrieve and use high-value workplace expressions in realistic situations until they feel natural.
Start a practice session →4. Presumably
Presumably marks your own reasonable, unconfirmed inference from visible evidence. Aprons, chopped vegetables, and a recipe suggest that the first group is presumably preparing food together. The word tells the listener that this is an inference, not a visible fact.
The boundary with probably is a guide-level tendency, not a hard split. Probably states likelihood; presumably foregrounds an inference from evidence. They overlap. Never mark probably wrong merely because presumably sounds more advanced.
5. Plausible
A plausible explanation is credible on the available facts. It is plausible that the person holding the wheel is helping diagnose a problem because that person is crouched beside the bicycle while another uses a small tool near the chain.
Possible is broader: something can be possible without being well supported by what is visible. It is possible that the group is preparing for a race, but no race numbers, uniforms, or timing equipment make that interpretation plausible here. State the cue that moves an idea from mere possibility to a reasonable reading.
6. On balance
On balance introduces a judgment reached after weighing relevant factors. It fits the second question because you can consider number of people, number of tasks, and need for timing before choosing.
Overall can summarize a general view without foregrounding that weighing process. The expressions often overlap, so do not invent a rigid rule. Use on balance when your answer visibly weighs competing considerations: the bicycle work may need coordination, but the first scene has more people and visible tasks.
Weak response and repair
Weak response:
In the first picture there are five people and vegetables. They are in a kitchen. In the second picture there are three people and a bicycle. They are outside. The third picture has laptops. I think they are all working.
This response describes the pictures separately, shifts to a third picture without purpose, offers an unsupported location claim about the first scene, and never answers which situation needs the most cooperation.
Better structure:
shared feature → selective contrast → evidence-based speculation → question 1 answer → weighed question 2 answer
A 55–60-second model
Time-coded transcript:
0:00–0:12 — Both pictures appear to show adults sharing practical knowledge around a common task. The situations are analogous because nobody is visibly working alone.
0:12–0:25 — In the first, two people prepare vegetables while another points to a recipe, whereas in the second one person holds a bicycle wheel as another works near the chain.
0:25–0:39 — They are presumably learning techniques from one another. It is plausible that the recipe guides the first group, while the tool, wheel, and chain suggest the second group is solving a mechanical problem.
0:39–0:51 — Their methods are divergent: the cooking task seems planned and sequential, but the repair may require them to react to what they find.
0:51–0:59 — On balance, the first situation probably requires more cooperation because five people must coordinate several visible tasks, although the bicycle work may also depend on careful timing.
The model compares pictures 1 and 2 throughout. It answers what they might learn and which scene likely needs more cooperation. Every inference has a cue: recipe, small tool, body position, group size, or visible task.
Evidence calibration grid
| Wording | Visible cue | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| “Two people chop vegetables” | Two apron-wearing adults are visibly chopping vegetables | Direct description |
| “They are presumably preparing food together” | Aprons, ingredients, recipe, shared table | Reasonable but unconfirmed inference |
| “It is plausible that they are learning techniques” | One person points; others perform related actions | Evidence-backed speculation |
| “They are close friends opening a restaurant” | No relationship, ownership, or business evidence | Invented claim |
Common mistakes
- Giving one description, then another, with no comparison link.
- Answering only the first written question.
- Using whereas for time instead of contrast.
- Treating analogous as “identical in every way.”
- Claiming divergent methods are necessarily in conflict.
- Using presumably as if it confirmed a fact.
- Calling an interpretation plausible without naming visible evidence.
- Saying on balance without actually weighing anything.
Quick check
Decide whether each sentence is direct description, licensed speculation, or invention.
- “One studio participant points to a large paper plan.” — Direct description.
- “The studio group is presumably discussing the plan.” — Licensed speculation, based on one person pointing, another writing, the central paper plan, and the open laptops.
- “They are designing a hospital for a wealthy client.” — Invention; no building type, client, or budget is visible.
- “The food-preparation and studio scenes appear analogous because both organize several roles around one visible plan.” — Licensed comparison with a stated dimension: the printed recipe in Picture 1 and the paper plan in Picture 3.
The secondary 30-second partner comment
After the candidate’s minute, the other candidate comments for about 30 seconds. This is not part of the candidate’s long turn.
I agree that the first situation may need the most cooperation because several visible actions have to come together at the right time. However, the design studio is demanding in a different way. Four people appear to be working from one plan, and their ideas may be divergent even if the proposal must be shared. On balance, I would choose the first situation because the visible physical tasks seem more interdependent.
Fresh practice
Use this new set: Picture A shows two adults examining labels on seed trays in a greenhouse; Picture B shows four musicians looking at the same sheet of music during rehearsal; Picture C shows three volunteers arranging boxes by color-coded labels. First write a 20-second link plan. Then choose two pictures and speak for 55–60 seconds, answering which skills people might share and which task may be hardest to coordinate. Cite a visible cue for every speculative claim.
Sources
Related
- Cambridge Speaking Parts 3 and 4 vocabulary
- Middle ground vs common ground: what’s the difference?
- Hedge vs qualify: what’s the difference?
- Equivocal vs ambiguous: what’s the difference?
Lyra Practice is not affiliated with or endorsed by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.