TOEFL Academic Discussion — Band 5 Sample Response

Prompt

Your professor has posted the following discussion question, with two student replies already visible.

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. Denmark's saturated fat tax did reduce consumption in its first year.

Daniel:
I disagree. These taxes are regressive — they take a larger share of income from poorer families. Mexico's sugar tax raised prices but the consumption changes were small, and most of the burden fell on the lowest income decile.

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

Sample response

I find Daniel's regressivity argument persuasive but ultimately incomplete, and I want to suggest a position that combines elements of both Claire's and Daniel's views. Sin taxes are worth pursuing, but only when paired with a redistribution mechanism that returns the revenue to the same households the tax disproportionately hits.

Claire is right that price signals shape consumption — the Danish fat tax data she cited is genuine. But Daniel is also right that a flat tax on a category of goods consumed at higher rates by lower-income households produces a regressive outcome in absolute monetary terms. The two are not in tension if we look at the policy as a package rather than as a single instrument.

Mexico is the clearest example. The 1-peso-per-litre sugar tax did reduce purchases by around 6% in lower-income households, which is meaningful. The problem was that the revenue went into general government spending. If even half of it had been hypothecated to subsidising fresh produce in the same neighbourhoods, the regressivity Daniel identifies would have been substantially offset, and the health benefit would have compounded.

My position, then, is that the question 'should we impose sin taxes' is the wrong frame. The right question is whether the design includes a mechanism that prevents the regressive outcome. Without that mechanism, Daniel's objection holds. With it, Claire's position becomes more defensible.

Rubric breakdown

What works in this response

• Synthesis position rather than agreement with one peer. Examiners reward students who take the conversation forward instead of repeating what was already said.
• Specific policy data (Mexican sugar tax, Danish fat tax) anchors the abstract argument. Even if the numbers were rounded, citing them shows the writer is engaging with the topic, not bluffing.
• Hypothecation is the technical vocabulary for ringfenced tax revenue. Using it in context demonstrates topic-area mastery.
• Word count well above the 100-word minimum. Top-tier responses on this task typically run 200-280 words.
• Reframes the original question in the conclusion ('the right question is...'). This rhetorical move shows confidence with the discussion format.

How to push higher

Band 5.0 is essentially the ceiling of the rubric for this task type. Pushing into 5.5+ territory would require additional rhetorical sophistication: a brief acknowledgement of evidence that complicates the synthesis position itself (a counter-counter-argument), adding intellectual humility on top of the already strong argument.

Common mistakes at lower bands

Band 3 responses on this task usually fail engagement: they take a position without naming or summarising either student's reply. Band 4 responses engage but agree with one student rather than synthesise. Band 2 responses often miss the academic register entirely and write as if to a friend.