Cambridge C2 Speaking Part 3: Develop an Argument

Imagine this Cambridge C2 Speaking Part 3 question:

Should cities make public transport free?
Ideas on the card: access to work and education; public spending; congestion.

A weak opening is:

“This is a very nuanced and complicated topic with many advantages and disadvantages. On balance, there are good and bad sides.”

The response contains advanced-looking language, but it does not yet make an argument. Nuanced names no distinction. On balance announces no actual judgment. The speaker has not stated a position, supported it, or shown which limitation matters.

A stronger opening is:

“I would advocate lower fares rather than a fully free system. Free transport could widen access to work and education, especially for low-income residents. I concede that fares also discourage some unnecessary journeys, but that concern is less important where congestion is already driven mainly by private cars. Targeted subsidies could strike a better balance between access and public cost.”

This answer has a direction. It accepts a real counterpoint without abandoning the main position. Its final judgment follows from the distinctions it has made.

Cambridge describes C2 Proficiency Speaking Part 3 as a card-based question with ideas. Each candidate speaks for about two minutes, the partner comments, and both then join a discussion on the topic. This guide does not offer a memorized script. It focuses on five lexical moves that help a speaker develop a position accurately: contend, nuanced, concede, on balance, and strike a balance.

Visit the Cambridge C1/C2 vocabulary hub for more task practice, or the Exam English hub for all six exam paths.

A developed argument needs movement

A long turn can have many sentences and still remain flat. Development means the argument changes state:

1. You state a position.
2. You explain a reason or consequence.
3. You separate cases that should not be treated alike.
4. You accept a relevant limitation.
5. You decide what follows overall.

The target expressions do different jobs inside that movement. They are not interchangeable signs of formality.

Contend that: advance a position without calling it fact

Use contend that + clause to state or report a formal position.

Supporters contend that free transport would widen access to work.

The sentence tells us what supporters hold and argue for. It does not tell us whether the claim has been proven or whether the current speaker agrees.

Natural sources include a person, group, report, article, or organization:

• critics contend that the policy is too expensive;
• the report contends that fare collection itself creates avoidable costs;
• I would contend that targeted support is more defensible.

Do not use a plain noun object:

They contend the policy. ✗

Use a clause:

They contend that the policy would reduce congestion.

Also distinguish the claim frame from contend with, which means cope with a difficulty:

Cities must contend with aging transport infrastructure.

In a spoken argument, I would contend that can frame a clear thesis. Use it sparingly. Repeating it before every idea sounds staged.

Nuanced: preserve a meaningful distinction

A nuanced argument recognizes a difference that affects the conclusion. The word does not mean merely difficult, detailed, balanced, or unclear.

Empty use:

“The issue is nuanced because it is complicated.”

Substantive use:

“A more nuanced policy would separate commuters who lack alternatives from occasional travelers who already have affordable options.”

The second sentence names the distinction. The policy may treat the two groups differently because their situations differ.

Useful distinctions in a Part 3 response include:

• short-term cost versus long-term effect;
• universal provision versus targeted support;
• dense cities versus rural areas;
• evidence of association versus evidence of cause;
• a policy’s intention versus its actual outcome.

An answer does not become nuanced by refusing to decide. You can make a firm judgment while preserving conditions:

“Free transport is defensible in dense urban areas with spare capacity, but it is a poor universal rule for regions where service is already infrequent.”

That is more nuanced than “it depends” because it says what the decision depends on.

Concede: accept one disputed point

Use concede when you accept that an opposing point, criticism, or limitation is valid.

“I concede that eliminating fares would create a large immediate funding gap.”

The speaker gives up that point. The broader position may remain:

“I concede that eliminating fares would create a large immediate funding gap; however, targeted free travel for young people may still pay for itself through better access to education.”

The continuation must be compatible with the concession. Do not pretend to accept a point and then simply deny it:

“I concede that the policy is expensive, but it is not expensive.” ✗

Compare acknowledge:

“I acknowledge the concern about cost.”

This recognizes that the concern exists. It does not necessarily accept the concern as valid. Concede gives away more and often sounds more debate-like.

That tone matters. In a routine collaborative exchange, “I agree that cost matters” may sound more natural. In a structured argument where the point has been contested, concede is precise.

On balance: state the overall judgment

Use on balance after weighing relevant considerations.

“On balance, targeted subsidies are more practical than a completely fare-free system.”

The phrase tells the listener that this is the speaker’s overall conclusion. It does not mean the evidence is evenly divided. It does not replace the reasons that lead to the conclusion.

Weak:

“On balance, the issue has advantages and disadvantages.”

Stronger:

“The policy could improve access, but a universal scheme would direct public money to people who do not need support. On balance, reduced fares for defined groups are easier to justify.”

The final sentence now answers the question and grows out of the analysis.

In discussion, on balance can also show that you have updated your view after hearing your partner:

“Your point about administrative cost changes the calculation. On balance, a universal scheme may be simpler than a heavily means-tested one.”

That is real interaction, not a memorized transition.

Strike a balance: weigh two competing aims

Use strike a balance between X and Y when a decision gives appropriate weight to two competing aims.

“The policy must strike a balance between wider access and stable funding.”

The expression does not claim exact equality. The eventual policy may favor one aim while still protecting the other.

Keep the fixed frame:

• strike a balance between access and cost;
• strike the right balance between speed and scrutiny;
• a balance must be struck between local freedom and national standards;
• the proposal fails to strike a reasonable balance.

Avoid these forms:

strike balance between ✗
strike a balance between access with cost ✗
striked a balance ✗

The past form is struck.

Compare a trade-off. A trade-off names the tension or exchange: more of one thing may mean less of another. Strike a balance evaluates the resulting arrangement.

“There is a trade-off between lower fares and revenue. A targeted subsidy may strike a workable balance between them.”

Build a two-minute line of argument

The following structure is a practice tool, not an official Cambridge template.

1. Take a position

“I would contend that cities should reduce fares for selected groups rather than eliminate them for everyone.”

2. Give the main reason

“The people most affected by transport cost are also those whose access to work and education is most constrained.”

3. Make the view nuanced

“The case is different for a dense city with frequent service and a rural region where the main problem is that buses rarely run.”

4. Concede a real limitation

“I concede that eligibility rules add administrative cost and can exclude people near the threshold.”

5. Reach an overall judgment

“On balance, however, a simple age- or income-based discount is more defensible than free travel for every passenger.”

Each step changes the argument. If time is short, keep the distinction and the judgment; remove decorative setup.

Worked Part 3 question

How far should universities adapt courses to employers’ immediate needs?
Ideas: graduate employment; long-term knowledge; cost; changing technology.

Flat answer

“Universities and employers are both important. There are many perspectives, and the issue is nuanced. They should strike a balance.”

The answer names no competing aims and makes no decision.

Developed answer

“I would contend that universities should respond to broad changes in work without redesigning courses around every short-term hiring trend. Employers can show where graduates lack practical experience, and that evidence should shape projects or optional modules. A nuanced response, though, must distinguish durable capabilities from tools that may disappear within a few years. I concede that students reasonably expect a degree to improve their employment prospects. Even so, a course built around today’s software could age before they graduate. On balance, universities should preserve intellectual foundations while giving students regular exposure to current practice.”

Why it works:

• contend frames a position, not an established fact;
• nuanced is supported by a named distinction: durable capabilities versus short-lived tools;
• concede accepts the employment point;
• on balance gives a real verdict;
• the final judgment names both aims explicitly.

Respond to your partner, not only the card

After the long turn, the task becomes interactive. Useful development can begin with the other candidate’s exact point:

“I agree with your distinction between access and quality, but I would push it further…”

“I concede that a universal system is simpler to explain. The remaining question is whether that simplicity justifies the cost.”

“That example makes the argument more nuanced because rural regions face a service problem, not simply a price problem.”

Avoid empty agreement:

“Yes, I agree completely. That is a very good point.”

Add a consequence, boundary, example, or counterexample. Interaction develops the argument when it changes what follows.

Common mistakes

Advanced labels without evidence

If you say a view is nuanced, name the distinction that makes it nuanced.

Conceding a harmless point

“I concede that buses have wheels” does not engage with the opposing argument. Concede the strongest relevant limitation.

Treating a position as proof

“The report contends that…” reports a claim. It does not establish that the claim is true.

Announcing balance without deciding

On balance should lead to a judgment, not another list of sides.

Leaving the balance empty

Say between X and Y. Name the competing goals.

Memorized formality

Five target expressions in every answer would sound mechanical. Choose the move the argument needs.

Quick check

Choose the best expression.

1. You want to report a formal position without presenting it as proven: contend that.
2. You accept that a serious opposing point is valid but keep your broader view: concede.
3. You separate urban and rural cases because the policy affects them differently: a nuanced analysis.
4. You have weighed the major factors and now state your verdict: on balance.
5. You judge whether a policy protects two competing aims: strike a balance between.

Now repair this answer:

“The question of remote work is nuanced. I concede there are offices. On balance, companies should have balance.”

A defensible repair is:

“A nuanced policy would distinguish work that depends on specialist equipment from work that can be done anywhere. I concede that shared office time can make early collaboration easier. A hybrid policy can strike a reasonable balance between team contact and individual flexibility.”

The repair works because every expression now points to explicit content.

Practice prompt

Should governments restrict the use of artificial intelligence in education?
Ideas: access to support; academic honesty; teacher workload; unequal technology.

Speak for about two minutes. Aim to include:

1. one clear position;
2. one distinction that makes the view genuinely nuanced;
3. one opposing point you can honestly concede;
4. one overall judgment introduced only after your reasoning;
5. two aims a policy should balance.

Then imagine your partner says, “Any restriction will make poorer students lose access first.” Respond directly. You can agree, qualify, or challenge the point, but make your next sentence depend on what your partner actually said.

Sources

• C2 Proficiency exam format

Related

• Cambridge Speaking Parts 3 and 4: agreeing, disagreeing, and conceding
• Cambridge C1 Speaking Part 2: compare and speculate
• Cambridge C2 Writing Part 1: evaluate two texts
• Nuanced in a sentence
• Advocate in a sentence

Lyra Practice is not affiliated with or endorsed by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.