Grading Criteria:

Well, honestly, I'd say definitely not. It's one thing to prevent a severe illness, but selecting cosmetic traits just feels like a slippery slope. If we start treating children like customizable products, it could create huge social pressure. I mean, my younger cousin is quite short, and he felt insecure during school, but altering someone's height beforehand seems completely unnecessary. Where do we stop? Wealthy families would probably purchase every possible advantage, which would leave everyone else behind. So, um, I believe authorities need to put a stop to purely aesthetic changes before they become normalised.

Grading Criteria:

In my view, that decision shouldn't be left to scientists alone. Of course researchers understand the laboratory methods, but they don't always consider the wider ethical fallout. I think we need an independent committee made up of medical experts, lawyers, and regular citizens. For example, my neighbour works as a high school biology teacher, and she always tells me that public opinion matters just as much as scientific breakthroughs. So, um, if lawmakers set clear boundaries, research is more likely to help people instead of just making money. Basically, we need some community oversight to keep things in check.

Grading Criteria:

No, it definitely isn't fair, although sadly that's often the reality. When life-saving therapies are developed, they should be accessible to anyone who needs them, not just the wealthy. A couple of years ago, my grandfather needed an expensive knee replacement, and our family had to scrape together savings just to cover the hospital bill. It showed me how stressful healthcare costs can be. High development expenses are understandable, but governments ought to step in with subsidies. If new treatments remain a luxury, it will only widen the gap between social classes and take a heavy toll on struggling families.

Grading Criteria:

Well, honestly, it's hard to say. Personally, I think I'd prefer to know, but only if there's an actual way to manage or prevent the condition. For instance, my uncle discovered he was at risk for heart disease after a routine check-up, and he immediately changed his diet and began jogging every morning. That lifestyle shift really paid off for him. However, if doctors told me about an incurable disease, it would probably cause constant anxiety and cast a shadow over my daily life. So, um, having that knowledge is valuable only if you can take proactive steps.

Grading Criteria:

Yes, I truly believe they do. Science often sounds too technical to ordinary people, so they get nervous about it. When specialists explain their findings in plain words, it builds genuine public trust. For example, my close friend was nervous about trying a new prescription allergy treatment because online articles seemed confusing, but her pharmacist explained it in simple words and she felt a lot better. That showed me why clear dialogue matters. If researchers isolate themselves, it's easy for misconceptions to spread fast. So, um, talking to people directly helps bridge the gap between science and everyday life.

Grading Criteria:

Well, I'd say it's largely justifiable, provided there are strict safety standards in place. Global hunger is a serious threat, so developing crops that resist severe drought or pests seems sensible. Last summer, our garden suffered terrible heatwaves, and almost all my grandmother's tomato plants died within days. That showed me how easily farming gets hit by climate fluctuations. Of course, modifying living creatures raises valid animal welfare questions, so we shouldn't cut corners during testing. But, um, when it's done responsibly, it can play a vital role in feeding people in the future.

Great work on finishing both modules!

Check your automated speaking band scores above, compare your wording with the model answers, and note down your strongest phrases.