This TOEFL Speaking practice response earns 3.6 out of 5 on My Speaking Score. The platform reports 85 words, a pace of 113 words per minute, and Complete coverage.
The speaker understands the question. They explain a possible benefit of reduced commuting, then describe a disadvantage for businesses that depend on commuters. The displayed feedback also identifies clear pronunciation as a strength.
The next improvement is to express those relevant ideas more smoothly and precisely. The transcript contains fillers, restarts, and several phrases that take more words than necessary to communicate a fairly simple point.
The response at a glance
| Measure | Displayed result | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|
| Response score | 3.6/5 | The result for this individual practice response. |
| Pace | 113 WPM | The average output across the response window. |
| Words | 85 | The answer develops both sides, with room for more specific illustration. |
| Coverage | Complete | The platform recognizes the requested content as addressed. |
| Response window | 45 seconds | The time shown in the player. |
This analysis uses the supplied screenshot and transcript. Pronunciation and pause observations come from the displayed feedback, not an independent audio review. The 3.6/5 is a practice-response score, not an overall TOEFL Speaking section score.
The question asks for effects on businesses
Good points. Lastly, considering advances in technology, some people believe that commuting might disappear entirely. How do you think a severe decline in commuting might affect businesses in positive ways and negative ways? Please give one example of each.
The answer needs to explain what changes for businesses when commuting declines. It must address both a positive and a negative effect, with examples.
This speaker gives a relevant positive mechanism: time previously spent travelling could be used for work. The negative mechanism is also relevant: businesses serving commuters could face lower demand. The positive-to-negative transition makes the overall direction easy to follow.
The original response
Well, yes, in positive ways, uh, I can connect this to the first answer. Um, the- the time that is actually being spent on commuting could be spent in working, and that would be a benefit for any business. Uh, on the o- On the other hand, maybe, um, the businesses dedicated to the commuting business, uh, hereby the redundance, uh, may be affected negatively because they, uh, wouldn't have, uh, the work that they have now because there is no more demand on that.
The transcript preserves the wording displayed in the screenshot. The platform reports 85 words. Manual counts can differ depending on how fillers, repetitions, and fragments are counted.
What the speaker gets right
Both sides concern businesses. The speaker connects saved time to work and reduced commuting demand to businesses that serve those travellers. The response stays focused on the requested situation.
The negative point includes a reason. Businesses would have less work because demand falls. That explanation gives the listener a causal connection rather than an unsupported statement that businesses would suffer.
The answer has a recognizable structure. “On the other hand” marks the move from the positive effect to the negative one. The speaker does not need an entirely new framework.
Intelligibility is a relative strength. The displayed feedback describes pronunciation and word stress as clear. A 3.6/5 overall response does not imply that every dimension is equally weak.
What Complete coverage does and does not establish
The Complete label tells us how the platform classifies task coverage. It does not mean the wording, delivery, or development has reached its strongest possible form.
In this transcript, the illustrations remain broad. “Any business” does not give the listener a particular company or situation to imagine. “The businesses dedicated to the commuting business” identifies a category without naming a clear example such as a commuter bus operator.
That leaves a useful next step: make the existing ideas more concrete. We can retain the displayed Complete classification while recognizing that more explicit examples would strengthen the answer.
| Existing idea | More specific illustration | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Saved travel time could benefit a business. | A consultant could use some saved time to finish a client report. | Names the worker, action, and business output. |
| Commuting-related businesses could lose demand. | A bus company serving office workers could sell fewer tickets. | Names the business, customers, and revenue mechanism. |
The delivery takes effort to maintain
The transcript shows interruptions around “the- the time” and “on the o- On the other hand,” along with frequent fillers. The displayed Fluency feedback reports a 2.5-second pause after “answer,” a 1.4-second pause after “business,” and eight filler words.
Those timing and count details are platform-reported. Pauses must be interpreted in context, since a sentence boundary can be an appropriate place to pause. The broader practice concern is whether the speaker can produce connected phrases without repeatedly stopping to reconstruct them.
The opening also uses time to say “I can connect this to the first answer.” Referring to an earlier interview answer is reasonable, but this sentence does not explain either business effect. Starting with the positive effect would make the answer more direct.
A suitable practice opening is: “Less commuting could give employees more time for work.” The learner can then explain a specific situation rather than spending the opening announcing a connection.
Why 113 WPM does not tell the whole fluency story
Eighty-five words across 45 seconds gives approximately 113 words per minute. This average includes the effect of any silence in the response window. It does not measure only the speed of the spoken phrases.
A higher average could come from fewer interruptions, faster articulation, or both. For this learner, the transcript suggests practicing shorter, more familiar phrases and fewer restarts. That can create room for examples while preserving the clarity the displayed feedback already recognizes.
There is no need to force extra words into the answer just to reach a number. Additional language should make the explanation more precise.
Language changes that reduce unnecessary effort
| Original phrase | Clearer version | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| “could be spent in working” | “could be spent working” | Use the natural construction without “in.” |
| “the businesses dedicated to the commuting business” | “transport companies that serve commuters” | Identify the businesses directly. |
| “hereby the redundance” | Omit this aside. | The phrase interrupts the explanation without adding a business effect. |
| “wouldn't have ... the work that they have now” | “could lose customers and revenue” | State the consequence precisely. |
| “no more demand on that” | “less demand for their services” | Use the appropriate preposition and a more defensible claim. |
The final correction matters for meaning as well as grammar. A decline in commuting can reduce demand for transport. People would still travel for shopping, appointments, leisure, and other purposes, so zero demand is too broad a conclusion.
A revised answer with clearer examples
This version preserves the speaker's two main ideas while making the situations and consequences explicit:
Less commuting could benefit businesses if employees use some of the time they save to complete work. For example, a consultant who avoids a long morning journey could use part of that time to finish a client report. However, transport businesses that depend on commuters could lose revenue. A bus company serving office workers might sell fewer tickets when more people work from home. It could then need to reduce some services. So the effects would vary: some companies could gain productive time, while transport operators would need to adjust to lower demand from their regular customers.
The positive effect is conditional. Saved travel time does not automatically become working time. The negative effect is also limited to the relevant change: lower commuter demand, rather than the disappearance of all transport demand.
This is a practice model, not a predicted score. The learner still needs to deliver the answer clearly and smoothly.
A focused practice routine
- Keep the two existing ideas. The response already has a relevant benefit and drawback.
- Give each idea a specific example. Name the person or business and explain what changes.
- Rehearse the difficult phrases. Practice “time spent working,” “transport companies,” and “less demand for their services” within complete sentences.
- Record a fresh 45-second answer. Begin with the positive effect and move directly to its example.
- Compare delivery and meaning. Check whether the new recording has fewer restarts and more concrete explanation while remaining easy to understand.
How this connects to the rubric
The ETS Take an Interview scoring guide considers task fulfillment and elaboration alongside delivery, intelligibility, grammar, and vocabulary. Addressing the question is essential, but coverage alone cannot account for the full quality of a spoken response.
This case shows why the separate dimensions are useful. The answer can be relevant and understandable while still benefiting from smoother delivery and more precise expression. The screenshot does not reveal exactly how much each feature contributed to the displayed 3.6/5.
Sources: the supplied My Speaking Score response screenshot and the ETS Speaking Scoring Guide, Take an Interview, in the supplied “speaking-rubrics 2026.pdf.”
Frequently asked questions
Why can Complete coverage coexist with a score of 3.6/5?
Coverage is one aspect of the response. Delivery, intelligibility, language control, and development also matter. The platform can recognize the requested content while identifying other areas to improve.
Does this response need different ideas?
The two central ideas are relevant. The more useful revision is to explain them with specific examples and more direct wording.
Are the examples already fully specific?
The answer remains broad, referring to “any business” and businesses involved in commuting. Naming a consultant or a bus operator would make the illustrations clearer even though the platform marks coverage Complete.
Should this learner speak faster?
Focus first on reducing repeated starts and making familiar phrases easier to produce. Review the recording to see whether that creates a smoother pace without reducing clarity.
Would less commuting eliminate demand for transport?
No. It could reduce commuter trips, but people would still have other reasons to travel. “Lower demand from commuters” expresses the claim more accurately.
What is the main takeaway?
Once your answer addresses the question, improve how efficiently and specifically you explain it. Keep the useful ideas, simplify the wording, and make the examples concrete.
Find the next improvement in your own response
Review your transcript, coverage, pace, and feedback on My Speaking Score. Identify a strength to preserve and one specific change to test in your next recording.