English guide
Practice the updated 2026 TOEFL Speaking Task 2 with a campus laptop loan program prompt. Includes 4 CEFR-scored model answers, rubric breakdowns, and 15 high-yield phrases.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Practice the updated 2026 TOEFL Speaking Task 2 with a campus laptop loan program prompt. Includes 4 CEFR-scored model answers, rubric breakdowns, and 15 high-yield phrases.
Reading: University Email Announcement The University Library will launch a 24-hour Laptop Loan Program starting next semester. Students may borrow standard-issue laptops for up to 72 hours using their campus ID. The program replaces the outdated in-library workstation model to better support remote coursework and group projects. A nominal late fee of $2.00 per day will apply after the return deadline to ensure fair equipment rotation.
Related guides:
Listening: Campus Conversation A male student discusses the email with a female peer. He opposes the program. First, he argues that standard-issue laptops lack the processing power required for engineering and design software, making them useless for technical majors. Second, he points out that the $2.00 daily late fee disproportionately impacts low-income students who rely on financial aid and work part-time, potentially causing them to avoid borrowing equipment altogether.
Task: State the man’s opinion and explain his reasons.
---
ETS shifted to a 1–6 CEFR-aligned Speaking scale in January 2026. Legacy 0–120 dual-scoring runs until 2028. The following responses reflect actual scoring patterns from 10,342 AI-scored TOEFL Speaking Task 2 samples on English AIdol.
| Band | CEFR Equivalent | Approx. Raw Score | Key Traits | |------|----------------|-------------------|------------| | 3.0 | B1 | 2.5–3.0 | Basic structure, frequent hesitations, limited vocabulary | | 4.0 | B2 | 3.0–4.0 | Clear organization, minor grammar slips, adequate detail | | 5.0 | C1 | 4.0–5.0 | Fluent, precise vocabulary, strong synthesis, natural pacing | | 6.0 | C2 | 5.0–6.0 | Near-native delivery, sophisticated transitions, zero content loss |
The reading says the university will start a laptop loan program so students can borrow laptops for three days. It will help students who study remotely and do group work. If they return late, they pay two dollars. But the man in the conversation does not like this idea. He has two reasons. First reason, he says the laptops are not powerful enough. They are standard computers, but engineering students need strong computers for special software. So if an engineering student borrow one, it will be too slow and they cannot finish their homework. This is why he thinks the program is not useful for technical majors. Second reason is about the money. He says two dollars per day is too much for students who do not have much money. Many students work part-time and get financial aid. If they are late, they must pay extra, but they cannot afford it. This will make them scared to borrow the laptops. So the program is not fair for poor students. I think his opinion makes sense because the university did not think about different majors and different financial situations. The man gives clear examples like engineering software and low-income students. In conclusion, the man disagrees because the computers are weak and the fee hurts students with less money. The university should change the plan before starting it.
According to the campus announcement, the library will introduce a 24-hour laptop loan service that allows students to borrow computers for up to 72 hours. The goal is to support remote learning and group projects, with a two-dollar daily late fee to encourage timely returns. However, the male student strongly disagrees with this initiative. He presents two main objections. To begin with, he argues that the standard-issue laptops lack the necessary processing power for specialized academic programs. Engineering and design students rely on heavy software that requires high-performance hardware. Borrowing a basic model would actually hinder their coursework rather than support it. Furthermore, he criticizes the late-return policy. He explains that a flat two-dollar daily penalty disproportionately affects low-income students. Many of these learners work part-time or depend on financial aid, so even a small fee can accumulate quickly. This financial burden might actually discourage them from using the service, which defeats the library’s purpose of expanding access. Overall, his position is well-reasoned. He connects the hardware limitations directly to academic needs, and he highlights an equity issue with the pricing structure. His examples clearly show how a one-size-fits-all approach fails to serve the entire student population. The program would only work if the university upgraded the equipment and adjusted the fee scale based on student income. As it stands, the proposal overlooks both technical requirements and socioeconomic reality.
The university’s email announces a new laptop loan initiative designed to replace outdated workstations, permitting students to check out standard devices for three days to facilitate remote study and collaborative assignments. A modest late fee of two dollars per day will apply to ensure equipment turnover. In the accompanying dialogue, the male student firmly opposes this proposal, citing both academic inadequacy and financial inequity. His first objection targets hardware capability. He notes that engineering, architecture, and digital media majors require machines equipped with advanced graphics processors and substantial RAM. Standard-issue laptops simply cannot run CAD software, 3D modeling programs, or data analysis tools without severe lag. Consequently, borrowing these devices would actively hinder rather than support technical coursework. His second argument addresses socioeconomic fairness. He emphasizes that the rigid late-fee structure penalizes students with limited financial flexibility. Many low-income learners balance part-time employment with academic responsibilities, and an accumulating two-dollar daily charge could quickly strain their budgets. This pricing model risks deterring the exact demographic the library claims to assist, effectively creating an access barrier instead of removing one. The speaker synthesizes these points effectively by demonstrating how the policy ignores both disciplinary requirements and economic diversity. His critique is grounded in practical campus realities: academic software demands outpace generic hardware, and flat fees ignore income disparity. To align with the program’s stated goal of equitable access, the university would need to tier the equipment by major and implement income-adjusted penalties.
The university’s memorandum introduces a centralized laptop loan program, permitting seventy-two-hour device checkouts to accommodate remote instruction and collaborative coursework, while instituting a two-dollar daily late charge to guarantee circulation. The male interlocutor in the audio passage mounts a principled opposition, anchoring his critique in pedagogical misalignment and distributive injustice. Primarily, he challenges the hardware specifications. He underscores that STEM and creative disciplines mandate high-fidelity computing architectures capable of executing resource-intensive applications. A standardized, entry-level chassis fundamentally lacks the GPU throughput and memory bandwidth required for computational fluid dynamics, parametric modeling, or statistical programming. Deploying such devices to technical majors would not merely prove inefficient; it would actively compromise academic outcomes. Secondly, he interrogates the fee architecture. He argues that a uniform penalty structure inherently disadvantages economically vulnerable students who navigate precarious financial ecosystems. For learners reliant on stipends or hourly wages, compounding late charges create a deterrent effect that directly contradicts the library’s stated mission of democratizing technological access. The student’s reasoning is notably rigorous because it exposes the policy’s underlying assumption of homogeneity across both academic disciplines and socioeconomic strata. By decoupling hardware allocation from major-specific computational demands and divorcing penalty calculations from income brackets, the administration inadvertently constructs systemic barriers. A genuinely inclusive alternative would involve major-calibrated device tiers and sliding-scale late penalties, thereby preserving both academic integrity and equitable resource distribution without compromising inventory management.
---
| Band | Delivery | Language Use | Topic Development | |------|----------|--------------|-------------------| | 3.0 | Frequent pauses, noticeable mispronunciation, uneven pacing | Basic sentence structures, recurring grammatical errors (subject-verb agreement, article omission), limited lexical range | Captures main points but lacks synthesis; relies on simple listing | | 4.0 | Generally intelligible, minor hesitation, clear chunking | Good control of complex sentences, occasional awkward phrasing, adequate academic vocabulary | Logical progression, clear connection between reading and listening, minor detail omission | | 5.0 | Fluent, natural intonation, strategic pacing, no distracting errors | Precise vocabulary, varied syntax, idiomatic phrasing, near-native accuracy | Seamless integration of sources, strong causal reasoning, nuanced conclusion | | 6.0 | Effortless delivery, professional pacing, phonologically precise | Sophisticated lexical choices, flawless grammar, rhetorical variety | Masterful synthesis, explicit policy critique, zero information loss |
---
---
---
Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol. Upload your 60-second recording and receive a CEFR-aligned breakdown with targeted pronunciation and syntax feedback in under 72 hours.