Presentation and Conversation Skills: Question 6
Syllabus SL1
A candidate preparing a 3-minute individual talk is choosing between four possible topics.
Which topic is best scoped for a 3-minute talk. Narrow enough to allow two or three points to be developed in real depth, but not so narrow that there is too little to say? [1]
Show worked solution Hide worked solution
Worked solution
Assessment focus
This question tests whether a candidate can judge the scope of a talk topic before any planning of structure or content begins. A well-scoped topic is one specific enough that two or three points can each be developed in real depth within 3 minutes, but substantial enough that it does not run out of content after a few sentences.
Why B is correct
Option B is narrow enough to be manageable, a single relationship and a single specific disagreement, while still containing a natural three-part shape: what caused the conflict, how it was resolved, and what was learned. That structure supports developed, specific content rather than a rushed list, which is exactly what a strong 3-minute talk needs.
Why the distractors are wrong
- A (Olympic history) spans thousands of years and dozens of possible points; in 3 minutes it can only be covered as a shallow list of facts, with no room for the depth that earns strong marks.
- C (opinion on video games) is a broad, open-ended stance with no built-in narrative or sequence of points. A candidate would have to invent structure from nothing, and the topic itself gives no natural direction.
- D (tying shoelaces) is a single trivial moment with too little substance to sustain 2–3 minutes of developed, varied content; a candidate would run out of material well before time is up.
Mark scheme
- 1 mark for selecting B.
- 0 marks for any other option. No partial credit, since this is a discrete single-answer selection question.