Thinking like a 9er when asked a question put to you during the Speaking

Allow me to paraphrase the Hermit- Visionary who lives a Spartan existence somewhere on Luzon: Collocations will get you there and their absence will keep you here. Or words to that effect. Let us say that you are asked if you support the view that people who get themselves into problems with the police, should be jailed. You want to get a good pass, right? You want to demonstrate you have the guts to use the language because that is step one. Correct? You want to show the examiner that you can think a little deeper than someone who is destined for a Band 6. Is that also true? If so, please read this. Examiners will expect that you have a basic vocabulary related to the law, legal proceedings, etcetera. Not deep technical vocabulary of course but basic words. What they also do expect from you is the use of collocations in your reply. You cant do that in a very brief reply and the examiner has to conclude, you cant do it. You cant add another brief sentence to demonstrate your competence. Normally, if someone is nervous or not confident as English writers or speakers, he or she, will often write a brief sentence or say a few words like this: Yes. They break the law then jail for them. The answer is OK at a level 5 because it answers the question. The problem is the Examiner will think one of two things: The speaker cannot produce the English expected because he or she does not have the skills to do so; the speaker is too lazy to even try. When you get greater mastery of grammar and lexis, it becomes so much easier to use collocations, idioms, modal and phrasal verbs appropriately. The question, do you support the view that people who get themselves into problems with the police, should be jailed, is a fairly open topic because nothing is said about the nature of the

offence, how serious it was, who or what was involved, witnesses, responses and reactions of the people in the frame, the evidence, etcetera. Aside from that, many people here would think you cannot assume a police charge is just and legal. There are so many reported stories of police misconduct, how can you automatically believe them? They well might be telling the truth but it is a classic case of the boy who cried wolf here. Police reputations are tarnished. Apart from the knowledge one gets in the news media, the best proof is usually witnessing bad police behaviour first- hand. So, if you were asked this question about the police and whether you could trust them in this matter, it is far better to give the more accurate answer. The more accurate answer might consider one or more of the other things I mentioned. It is better English, not because it is a longer answer, but because it is a better, clearer answer. A brief sentence answer here by you is a poor choice and makes the Examiner think you are not willing to try or you just cannot produce language. It would certainly help a great deal if you knew basic terms like the accused, the arresting officer, the nature of the offence, the professional behaviour of the police during and after the incident, the availability of witnesses, the credibility of all concerned etc. This question also involves the issue of public trust here for institutions and the public servants themselves. Since the papers are full of police corruption cases, with even a Deputy Head of the NBI accused of criminality, matters here take on a whole new dimension. So you already have three different agents interacting: the arrested person, the police, the journalist and soon penology, the judiciary, lawyers. All of these agents can be described in vocabulary suitable for them. The policeman or policewoman wants to see the arrested person incarcerated. They want the arrest formally written up in the Station House police blotter, the person jailed immediately for resisting arrest and the crime considered solved. The accused wants the opposite. He asserts the presumption of innocence, his day in court. The journalist, on the tough inner-city metro beat, needs copy, wants a story, to meet his Editors deadline. In other words, if you have the vocabulary resources to deal with any IELTS question, the whole thing is a stroll in the park. You simply require some of the idiom and word combinations that a reasonably fluent person uses. I am not talking about a huge speech. I am talking about just adding perhaps one more sentence to your response or two if you want. Even adding this would do it for you:

I dont feel I have enough background information t o make a reasonable judgement in this particular case. There are a lot of horror stories about corrupt cops and its possible the cops here are also rotten apples or scallywags. That is perfect. Not too long, not too short and nice touches of collocation. You need topic specific vocabulary and appropriate collocations ready to use. Everything is here at your fingertips. Start with a mastery of life as warfare and conflict, winner-loser, life as a brutal game and competition collocations as previously discussed. This is the topic specific section. I hope it further encourages you to feel more in control of this language as your collocation skills improve.