PTE Summarize Group Discussion is one of the new speaking question types added in August 2025, and it has a high weighting because it simultaneously contributes to both listening and speaking scores . The following is organized around the key points you are concerned about.

Basic Exam Information Quick Reference

Item	Details
Number of Questions	2-3 questions
Audio Duration	Discussion among three speakers, up to 3 minutes
Preparation Time	10 seconds
Response Time	2 minutes
Skills Assessed	Listening + Speaking
Score Weight	Approximately 9% contribution to overall score, with listening and speaking each accounting for approximately 19-20%

📝 Scoring Criteria

The content scoring consists of 0-5 points, focusing on three core dimensions :

Content: Whether the main ideas of all speakers are accurately captured, and whether the relationships between different viewpoints are synthesized
Fluency: Whether the speech is natural and smooth, without excessive pauses
Pronunciation: Whether it is clear and easy to understand

Key Point: AI assessment plus human review, with particular emphasis on Content—missing any speaker's viewpoint will directly result in point deductions .

🎯 Core Tips

1. Establish a Note-Taking Framework Before Listening

Prepare a three-column note layout on the whiteboard: Topic line, Speaker 1/2/3 each with a Position + Reason + Example column, and a final line for Conclusion . Write only 2-3 words per cell, not complete sentences.

2. Don't Simply List "Speaker 1 Said..."

The examiner wants to hear an organic summary, not mechanical reporting. Use expressions like "The first speaker argued that..." "The second speaker disagreed because..." to make the connections between viewpoints clear .

3. Structure the Response with a Five-Segment Method

Framing (0-20 seconds): State the topic and overall attitude (consensus/disagreement/unresolved)
Speaker 1 (20-45 seconds): Viewpoint + Reason + Example
Speaker 2 (45-75 seconds): Whether they agree or disagree with the previous speaker + Their own reasons
Speaker 3 (75-100 seconds): Supplementary viewpoints or compromise stance
Summary (100-120 seconds): Where the greatest consensus was reached, what disagreements remain

📖 Real Exam Sample Script

Topic: Should University Attendance Be Mandatory?

Speaker 1: Supports mandatory attendance, reason is that it promotes engagement, students who attend classes regularly perform better in assessments.

Speaker 2: Disagrees, believes university students are adults and should manage their own time, plus most lectures are recorded, so attendance is unnecessary.

Speaker 3: Takes a middle position, suggests only mandatory attendance for practical courses (such as laboratory sessions), because these courses require physical presence.

Ending: No firm conclusion reached.

Model Response:

The three speakers discussed whether universities should make attendance compulsory. Overall, they considered how much control students should have over their own study time, and by the end they had not reached a firm conclusion.

The first speaker argued that attendance should be compulsory. The reason given was engagement, and the example mentioned was that students who attend classes regularly tend to perform better in assessments.

The second speaker disagreed with that view. According to this speaker, university students are adults who should manage their own time, mainly because most lectures are recorded anyway.

The third speaker added that a middle position might work better. This speaker focused on practical classes, suggesting attendance should be required only for labs and similar sessions where physical presence is essential. To summarise, while there was clear disagreement on the general principle, the group moved toward a more flexible position that distinguished between different types of classes.

PTE Summarize Group Discussion — 5 Real Exam Style Samples

Here are 5 full practice samples. Each includes a topic, three speakers, a conclusion, and a model answer using the five-segment structure (Framing → Speaker 1 → Speaker 2 → Speaker 3 → Summary).

Sample 1: Should Social Media Be Banned for Teenagers?

Speaker 1: Supports a ban. Reason: social media harms mental health. Example: rising anxiety and depression rates among teens.

Speaker 2: Disagrees. Reason: bans don't work—teens find ways around them. Better to teach digital literacy.

Speaker 3: Middle position. Supports age-based limits (under 16) but with parental guidance rather than a total ban.

Conclusion: No firm agreement, but group leaned toward regulation over a complete ban.

Model Answer:

The three speakers discussed whether social media should be banned for teenagers. Overall, they considered how best to protect young people online, and by the end they had not reached a firm conclusion.

The first speaker argued that social media should be banned for teens. The reason given was mental health, and the example mentioned was rising anxiety and depression rates among adolescents.

The second speaker disagreed with that view. According to this speaker, bans simply don't work because teenagers find ways around them, so the better approach is to teach digital literacy instead.

The third speaker added that a middle position might work better. This speaker focused on age-based limits, suggesting restrictions for under-16s combined with parental guidance rather than a total ban. To summarise, while there was clear disagreement on a complete ban, the group moved toward a more flexible position supporting regulation and education.

Sample 2: Is Remote Work Better Than Office Work?

Speaker 1: Supports remote work. Reason: saves commuting time. Example: employees gain two extra hours daily for family or exercise.

Speaker 2: Disagrees. Reason: collaboration suffers. Example: teams struggle with creative brainstorming online.

Speaker 3: Hybrid approach. Reason: combines flexibility with in-person connection. Example: three days at home, two in office.

Conclusion: Group agreed hybrid is the most practical solution.

Model Answer:

The three speakers discussed whether remote work is better than office work. Overall, they considered the trade-off between flexibility and collaboration, and by the end they broadly agreed on a hybrid approach.

The first speaker argued that remote work is better. The reason given was saved commuting time, and the example mentioned was that employees gain two extra hours daily for family or exercise.

The second speaker disagreed with that view. According to this speaker, collaboration suffers because teams struggle with creative brainstorming when working online.

The third speaker added that a middle position might work better. This speaker focused on a hybrid model, suggesting three days at home and two in the office to combine flexibility with in-person connection. To summarise, while there was disagreement on a full switch to remote work, the group reached consensus that hybrid working is the most practical solution.

Sample 3: Should Plastic Bags Be Completely Banned?

Speaker 1: Supports a ban. Reason: plastic pollution harms oceans. Example: microplastics found in marine life.

Speaker 2: Disagrees with a total ban. Reason: alternatives are expensive. Example: small businesses can't afford eco-friendly packaging.

Speaker 3: Supports a gradual phase-out. Reason: gives businesses time to adapt. Example: taxes on plastic bags first, then a ban.

Conclusion: Group agreed the goal is right but timing matters.

Model Answer:

The three speakers discussed whether plastic bags should be completely banned. Overall, they considered the balance between environmental protection and economic impact, and by the end they agreed the goal was right but the timing mattered.

The first speaker argued that plastic bags should be banned. The reason given was ocean pollution, and the example mentioned was microplastics being found in marine life.

The second speaker disagreed with a total ban. According to this speaker, alternatives are too expensive because small businesses cannot afford eco-friendly packaging.

The third speaker added that a middle position might work better. This speaker focused on a gradual phase-out, suggesting taxes on plastic bags first and a ban later to give businesses time to adapt. To summarise, while there was disagreement on an immediate ban, the group reached consensus that a phased approach is the most realistic solution.

Sample 4: Should Exams Be Replaced by Continuous Assessment?

Speaker 1: Supports continuous assessment. Reason: exams only test memory. Example: students forget everything after the test.

Speaker 2: Disagrees. Reason: continuous assessment is subjective. Example: teachers may favour certain students.

Speaker 3: Supports a mix. Reason: both methods have strengths. Example: 60% coursework, 40% final exam.

Conclusion: Group agreed a balanced system is best.

Model Answer:

The three speakers discussed whether exams should be replaced by continuous assessment. Overall, they considered the strengths and weaknesses of both methods, and by the end they broadly agreed on a balanced system.

The first speaker argued that exams should be replaced. The reason given was that exams only test memory, and the example mentioned was that students forget everything after the test.

The second speaker disagreed with that view. According to this speaker, continuous assessment is subjective because teachers may favour certain students.

The third speaker added that a middle position might work better. This speaker focused on a mixed system, suggesting sixty percent coursework and forty percent final exam to draw on the strengths of both methods. To summarise, while there was disagreement on replacing exams entirely, the group reached consensus that a balanced approach is best.

Sample 5: Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Speaker 1: Supports space exploration. Reason: drives innovation. Example: satellite technology and GPS came from space research.

Speaker 2: Disagrees. Reason: money should solve Earth's problems. Example: hunger and climate change need funding.

Speaker 3: Supports limited spending. Reason: some research has practical value. Example: medical breakthroughs from space experiments.

Conclusion: No firm agreement, but group acknowledged both sides have merit.

Model Answer:

The three speakers discussed whether space exploration is worth the cost. Overall, they considered the trade-off between scientific progress and social spending, and by the end they had not reached a firm conclusion.

The first speaker argued that space exploration is worthwhile. The reason given was innovation, and the example mentioned was that satellite technology and GPS came from space research.

The second speaker disagreed with that view. According to this speaker, the money should be used to solve Earth's problems, since hunger and climate change urgently need funding.

The third speaker added that a middle position might work better. This speaker focused on limited spending, suggesting that some research has practical value, such as medical breakthroughs from space experiments. To summarise, while there was clear disagreement on the overall value of space exploration, the group acknowledged that both sides have merit.

🎯 Quick Practice Tip

Record yourself answering each sample within 2 minutes. Then check:

Checkpoint	Yes/No
Did I mention the topic in the first sentence?
Did I cover all three speakers?
Did I state each speaker's reason or example?
Did I give a conclusion?
Did I finish within 2 minutes?

If you can tick all five boxes, you are on track for a high score.

Study With BR Sir

Saturday, 3 October 2026