TOEFL Speaking: Keep the Scenario Fixed When Explaining Positive and Negative Effects

The question asks about a severe decline in commuting. The speaker begins by explaining how frequent commuting could reduce business costs, then describes how less commuting could reduce other costs.

There is a possible positive–negative argument here, but the listener has to complete part of it.

The response earns 3.4/5 on My Speaking Score, with complete coverage. Its most useful lesson concerns making a hypothetical consequence explicit: explain what happens because of the change named in the question.

The question

“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.”

This is the final Interview question in the free Chicago test on My Speaking Score.

The scenario is a severe decline in commuting. Both the positive effect and the negative effect need to follow from that decline.

The response at a glance

The score shown is an MSS practice score, not an official TOEFL iBT® score.

The original response

“I believe that then commuting is popular, it makes transactional costs much lower. For example, for supplier companies, if uh there is a large amount of vehicles driving from one city to another, um the cost would definitely be lower because you can uh organize this logistics in such a way that you will send some parcels with this transport or goods. Uh but I believe that um um lowering this um uh commuting habits would also uh cut the costs. For example, if we all use Zoom meetings or online conferences, this will save rent.”

The answer moves between two situations

The first point describes a situation with frequent commuting and many vehicles traveling between cities. The speaker proposes that suppliers could use those journeys to transport parcels at a lower cost.

The second point describes reduced commuting. The speaker suggests that online meetings could reduce the need for rented space.

Each point discusses a potential saving. To establish a negative effect of reduced commuting, the first explanation needs another step: what happens to the proposed transport advantage when commuting declines?

The intended disadvantage can be inferred: if suppliers depend on commuter journeys to move parcels, fewer journeys could remove some of that low-cost capacity. However, the speaker does not state that consequence.

The answer also needs to establish the assumption behind the example. Ordinary commuting does not automatically provide a parcel-delivery service. The proposed connection depends on businesses actually using those journeys to carry goods.

The MSS Improved Version

“I believe that when commuting is popular, it makes transactional costs much lower for many businesses. For example, for supplier companies, if there's a large number of vehicles driving from one city to another, the cost per item would definitely be lower. This is because companies can organize this kind of logistics in such a way that they can easily send parcels or goods with this transport. On the other hand, I believe that lowering these commuting habits would also cut costs in positive ways. For instance, if we all use Zoom meetings or online conferences instead of traveling, it'll save on office rent and utility expenses for the company.”

What the Improved Version clarifies

The rewrite makes several parts of the explanation easier to follow:

These revisions improve wording and make the proposed savings more specific. However, the first paragraph still explains the benefit of frequent commuting.

The negative consequence of a decline remains unstated. Clearer sentences help the listener understand an argument, but the argument still needs to complete the causal connection.

Why “on the other hand” is insufficient

A transition can signal that another point is coming. It cannot establish that the next point represents the opposite effect.

Here, “on the other hand” separates two cost-saving explanations under different conditions. The question asks for a benefit and a drawback under one condition: reduced commuting.

Before adding a transition, the speaker needs to decide what the business gains or loses in the scenario described by the prompt.

What the Organization feedback identifies

The feedback recognizes the intended negative argument but notes that its connection could be clearer because the speaker initially presents a cost reduction.

Its practical recommendation is to state explicitly how each point represents a positive or negative business impact before giving the example.

That would help here. The listener should not have to reverse the first argument independently to discover the intended disadvantage.

The report marks coverage complete. That verdict does not remove the need for clearer reasoning and development within the answer.

Delivery and language provide separate practice targets

The Fluency feedback describes interruptions and reports a 3.6-second pause after “that.” The transcript also contains several fillers around the shift to the second point.

The speaking pace of 128 words per minute describes the amount of speech produced. It does not show whether every explanation arrives smoothly.

Intelligibility is a strength. The feedback says the listener can catch the speaker’s meaning without difficulty hearing the words.

The Language Use feedback identifies specific corrections, including “when” instead of “then” and “a large number of vehicles” instead of “a large amount of vehicles.” These changes improve accuracy while the structural revision makes the intended consequences explicit.

A planning check for positive–negative questions

Keep the change named in the question at the center of both points.

1. Name the change: commuting declines.
2. Identify a business that could benefit.
3. Explain how the decline causes that benefit.
4. Identify a business that could face a disadvantage.
5. Explain how the same decline causes that disadvantage.

The two businesses can be different. What needs to remain consistent is the scenario causing the effects.

Frequently asked questions

Does this response contain a possible negative argument?

Yes. The supplier example could imply that reduced commuting removes a low-cost transport opportunity. The response needs to state that consequence and establish how suppliers use commuter journeys.

Why is explaining frequent commuting insufficient?

The question asks what happens when commuting declines. Describing an existing benefit can provide context, but the answer still needs to explain what changes when that benefit becomes less available.

Does “on the other hand” create a positive–negative structure?

The phrase signals a contrast. The claims themselves need to establish a benefit and a drawback of the same scenario.

Does the Improved Version resolve the whole issue?

It clarifies wording and specifies costs. It still leaves the negative effect of reduced commuting implied.

What should I check before finishing my answer?

Ask whether both effects follow from the change in the prompt. Then check that you have explained what each business gains or loses.

Practice the connection

Take the free Chicago test at www.myspeakingscore.com. Review your transcript and detailed feedback. Use Follow Along inside Improved Version for delivery practice, and check that your reasoning explicitly answers the scenario in the question.