TOEFL Academic Discussion — Band 3 Sample Response (with critique)

Prompt

Same prompt as the band 5 sample. Professor Lee asks for a position on sin taxes for unhealthy foods, with replies from Claire (in favour) and Daniel (opposed).

Professor Lee:
Governments in many countries have introduced 'sin taxes' on products considered unhealthy — such as sugary drinks, alcohol, and processed foods — with the goal of reducing consumption and offsetting public health costs. Some economists argue these taxes are a fair and effective tool. Others argue they disproportionately burden lower-income households and produce only marginal behaviour change.

For this discussion: do you think governments should impose sin taxes on unhealthy foods? Justify your position.

Claire: I'm in favour. Public health costs are huge, and people who drink sugary sodas every day contribute to those costs. A modest tax shifts the price signal without banning anything.

Daniel: I disagree. These taxes are regressive — they take a larger share of income from poorer families.

Instructions: Post a substantive 100+ word reply that engages with at least one of the student replies and takes a clear position.

Sample response

I think governments should impose sin taxes on unhealthy foods because health is very important and these foods cause many problems like obesity and diabetes. If people eat too much fast food and sugar, they will be sick and the government will spend a lot of money for hospital. So the tax is good.

Also I think the tax can change behaviour. If sodas become more expensive, people will buy less of them and drink water instead. This is good for everyone.

Claire said the tax is good and I agree with her. The price signal is helpful for changing what people eat. So I support the tax for unhealthy foods.

Rubric breakdown

What holds this response back

• Repeats the same idea ('health is important', 'changes behaviour') instead of building a multi-step argument.
• Ignores Daniel's regressivity argument — a strong response must at least acknowledge the strongest counter-argument visible in the discussion thread.
• No specific evidence (a country, a study, a number). At band 3, hand-waving general claims is the dominant failure mode.
• Vocabulary stays at A2/B1 register ('very important', 'good for everyone'). Academic Discussion expects B2+ vocabulary.
• 'Will be sick' is informal. 'Will require costly long-term care' or 'will incur higher healthcare costs' would be appropriate register.

How to push this response to band 5

Three concrete moves would lift this response substantially. (1) Engage with Daniel's argument. Even one sentence — 'Daniel is right that the tax falls more heavily on lower-income households, but...' — shows the rubric-rewarded move of acknowledging counter-arguments. (2) Add a specific data point. Claiming the tax 'changes behaviour' without naming a country or a percentage is a band-3 trap; naming Mexico's 6% reduction or Denmark's fat tax data anchors the claim. (3) Replace surface vocabulary with topic-specific vocabulary: 'regressive', 'price elasticity', 'public health expenditure', 'hypothecated revenue'. The earlier response uses these terms because the rubric rewards them.

Common mistakes at lower bands

Band 2 responses on this task typically fail position-taking — they list both sides without committing to one. Band 3 responses commit to a position but don't engage with the visible peer arguments. The single biggest move from band 3 to band 4 is engaging with at least one peer reply by name and reproducing their argument before responding to it.