June 06, 2026
Dear Madam,
I am writing to inquire about family counseling service [k4: missing determiner / article] your family counselling services/ a family counselling service..
My spouse and I have frequent arguments and difficulty communicating calmly, so I would like to ask whether it is possible to attend counselling, but I am not quite sure that my spouse is willing to attend [k2: awkward logical structure — the contrast is not expressed naturally] . However, I am not certain whether my spouse would be willing to participate. //Although we experience frequent disagreements and communication difficulties, I am unsure whether my partner would agree to take part in counselling.
In that case [k2: vague reference -- in what case? if the spouse continues refusing to come?] If so, is it possible to start with an individual consultation first?
I would appreciate if you provide [k4: incorrect verb pattern -- 'appreciate' is a transitive verb, which means that it requires an object.] it if you could provide information about the fee, session length, and confidentiality [k2: incomplete request — unclear what information about confidentiality is required] your confidentiality policy. //I would also be grateful for details regarding consultation fees, the typical duration of appointments, and the way client privacy is protected.
Could you please let me know which appointment times are available?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Yours Faithfully [k5: capitalization] faithfully,
Kate A.
From my perspective there are [k5: missing comma after introductory phrase] From my perspective, there are some parallels between mentioned two methods [k4: missing determiner] the two methods mentioned. //In my view, the two approaches share several similarities.
Following Max’s idea, neuromarketing is based on facial characteristics, such as emotional signs [k3: inaccurate word choice] cues, which help to understand consumer’s fillings and mood [k5: wrong spelling + k4: wrong possessive form + k3: inaccurate collocation] researchers understand consumers’ emotions/feelings and attitudes. //As Max points out, neuromarketing relies on facial cues that may reveal consumers’ emotional reactions and preferences.
There are micro signs [k3: inaccurate terminology] micro-expressions which are also used by detectives. [k2: unsupported argument — the connection with detectives does not clearly support the comparison between neuromarketing and phrenology]
Moreover, there is a popular psychological test based on portraits choice [k4: incorrect noun form] the choice of portraits followed by the same face’s signs [k3: inaccurate terminology] facial features. [k2: unclear logic — the relevance of this example to the discussion is not sufficiently explained]
In conclusion, that all rooted from phrenology [k4: missing verb + k4: wrong verbal pattern] all these approaches are rooted in phrenology. //Overall, these approaches may share historical roots with earlier attempts to infer psychological traits from physical characteristics, which formed a discipline known as phrenology.
arguing Emma’s opinion [k3: inaccurate collocation] contrary to Emma’s view, it is unscientific now [k2: illogical flow] although it is now regarded as unscientific, but [k4: redundant conjunction] all science evaluated [k3: wrong word choice] evolved from some unscientific historical passage [k3: unnatural collocation] less scientific historical stage. //Although phrenology is no longer considered scientific, many modern disciplines developed from earlier theories that were later revised or rejected.
Estimated TOEFL Academic Discussion score: 3 / 6
Strong points:
- The response attempts to engage directly with both Max's and Emma's positions.
- The writer tries to provide supporting examples.
- A clear position is presented.
Main weaknesses:
- Numerous lexical inaccuracies:
- signs instead of cues or features
- fillings
- historical passage
- Several grammar problems:
- that all rooted from phrenology
- portraits choice
- consumer's fillings
- Multiple coherence and logic issues:
- The example involving detectives is not clearly linked to the main argument.
- The psychological-test example is insufficiently explained.
- The final argument partially undermines itself by calling phrenology unscientific without clearly explaining why this still supports the writer's position.
- The response is relatively short and underdeveloped compared with stronger TOEFL Academic Discussion responses.
Why not higher: Although the main idea can be understood, frequent lexical, grammatical, and logical problems reduce clarity and persuasiveness. The argument requires more precise language and stronger explanation of how the examples support the central claim.
Oral answers:
Answer 1
Well, to be perfectly honest, I'd say I'm going through a bit of transition [k4: missing determiner] a transition at the moment. I recently started a new role at work and at the same time I have been trying to juggle several personal responsibilities. So naturally I have had second thoughts here and there.
If I took a short-term view, I'd probably feel completely overwhelmed, but I try to take a long view of the situation and focus on building my coping capacity. I know that if I act rashly, I would [k4: wrong conditional form] could fall flat on my face, so right now it's more important for me to remain resilient. All things considered, while it's not always easy, I see these changes as a necessary part of growing, both personally and professionally.
Estimated score: 5.5 / 6
Comment: Strong, fluent, idiomatic answer with good cohesion and topic development. Minor grammar issues only.
Answer 2
I hear people complaining about information overload all the time and honestly I have been snowed under by it myself. To cut through the noise I have had to be pretty intentional. First I rely on strong data [k3: unnatural collocation] reliable sources, so instead of scrolling through every headline, I stick to a couple of credible sources.
I also filter out relevant information [k2: illogical meaning — “filter out” means remove; the intended meaning is “select” or “filter out irrelevant information”] filter out irrelevant information by muting notifications and setting strict time blocks.
If I were to give someone advice, I'd say: provided that people limit their notifications and take control of their immediate digital environment, they will feel much less overwhelmed [k2: illogical development — "proivded" means "при условии, что..." ; after "I'd say", the speaker is expected to provide advice rather than introduce a conditional clause; the recommendation itself is missing] that people should limit their notifications and take control of their digital environment. This would help them feel much less overwhelmed.
It's not about consuming class [k3: inaccurate word choice / likely speech-recognition error] less content; it's about being more selective with what you let in.
Estimated score: 4.5 / 6
Comment: The answer has good ideas and idiomatic expressions, but several lexical and logical errors reduce clarity, especially filter out relevant information and provide it that.
Answer 3
Anyone who is going to move abroad should make a risk-informed decision rather than simply buying into the idealized version vision [k3: repetition / self-correction] image of life overseas.
Before making such a decision, it's worth testing the waters: visiting the destination [k2: incomplete answer — the thought stops before the recommendation is fully developed] first, researching housing and healthcare, and speaking to people who already live there.
Estimated score: 4 / 6
Comment: The opening is strong and natural, but the answer is incomplete. Because the response stops mid-idea, development and task fulfilment are limited.
Overall estimated score: 4.5 / 6
The first answer is close to top-band level, the second is good but less controlled, and the third is underdeveloped/incomplete. Since syntax and spelling are not counted, the score mainly reflects grammar, vocabulary, coherence, and development.
Pronunciation issues:
contingency → pronounced inaccurately. Recommended pronunciation: /kənˈtɪndʒənsi/ (con-TIN-gen-cy).
thorough → pronounced inaccurately. Recommended pronunciation: /ˈθʌrə/ (BrE) or /ˈθɝːoʊ/ (AmE).
idealized → pronounced as idolized. These are different words:
idealized = regarded as more perfect than reality (/aɪˈdiːəlaɪzd/);
idolized = admired excessively (/ˈaɪdəlaɪzd/).
emergence → stress/pronunciation should be checked. Recommended pronunciation: /ɪˈmɜːdʒəns/ (e-MER-gence).
Revised overall estimated TOEFL Speaking score: 4 / 6
The content is generally strong, especially in Answer 1, but pronunciation issues lower the delivery score. The most important problem is idealized being pronounced as idolized, because this changes the meaning. Mispronunciations of contingency, thorough, and possibly emergence also reduce clarity and naturalness.
Reason for lowering the score: Since these are oral responses, pronunciation is part of performance. The answers are still understandable, but repeated pronunciation problems prevent a higher band.
Moving abroad
Score: 5.5 / 6
No significant language problems after normalizing speech-recognition errors. Excellent use of idiomatic language (test the waters, pipe dream, contingency planning, take the leap), clear development, and strong organization.
Pronunciation:
contingency → pronunciation should be improved.
thorough → pronunciation should be improved.
Estimated TOEFL Email score: 4.5 / 6
Strong points:
Main weaknesses:
Why not 5.5–6/6: The message successfully completes the task, but several grammar, collocation, and cohesion issues reduce its linguistic quality. The language is functional rather than polished, and the range of structures is relatively limited. A stronger response would demonstrate more precise professional phrasing and greater control of formal correspondence conventions.