Understand Important Changes in PTE Scoring & Update Your Preparation

The language flowed smoothly, was well-organised, and used a variety of vocabulary naturally. Anyone listening would find it easy to follow and understand.

 Vocabulary was appropriate and the structure was logical, so your response was generally easy to follow.

You tried to use your own words, but sometimes repeated phrases. Vocabulary was enough for basic explanation, but there was some repetition, and the response was a bit hard to follow due to poor connections between ideas.

You may have repeated parts of the lecture instead of explaining it in your own way. Vocabulary was limited and the ideas were not well-organised, making it difficult to follow.

You may have repeated the lecture without understanding it. Your vocabulary was very limited, and the answer was disjointed and confusing.

Vocabulary was extremely limited and there was no clear meaning or structure in your response.

– Paraphrasing is effective; unnecessary details are removed.

– All main ideas are correctly identified and synthesized.

– Summary is concise, coherent, and uses a variety of appropriate connective devices.

– Paraphrasing is attempted but not consistent; some irrelevant details may affect clarity.

– Most main ideas are included, with minor omissions.

– Ideas are connected but not efficiently synthesized.

– Summary is logical and uses simple or repetitive connectives.

– No clear distinction between key and minor points.

– Heavy reliance on copied text; lacks paraphrasing and synthesis.

– Connectives may be repetitive or inappropriate.

– Summary is hard to follow.

– Comprised of disconnected ideas or excerpts with no synthesis.

– Key ideas are omitted or misrepresented.

– Response is incoherent and difficult to follow.

– Shows no comprehension of the source text.

– Reformulates the issue smoothly in original words.

– Expands on key points with specific details.

– Provides strong supporting arguments and relevant examples throughout.

– Presents relevant ideas clearly.

– Main points are well supported, with only minor gaps in detail.

– The argument is generally clear but lacks depth or complexity.

– Supporting details are inconsistently applied; strong in some parts, weak or missing in others.

– Supporting details are often weak, missing, or not appropriate.

– Content is mostly vague, generic, or copied.

– Few relevant details are provided; ideas are not well developed.

– Uses repetitive or generic phrasing, often copied from the prompt.

– Details, if any, are disorganized and poorly connected to the topic.

– No meaningful content related to the task is provided.

– Argument is clear, cohesive, and developed in detail.

– Includes a well-structured introduction and conclusion.

– Paragraphs are clearly defined and logically sequenced.

– A wide range of connective devices is used effectively to show relationships between ideas.

– Argument is clear with some well-developed points.

– Introduction, conclusion, and paragraphing are present and functional.

– Connective devices are used to maintain coherence, though some gaps or abrupt transitions may occur.

– Argument lacks full development and may be hard to follow in places.

– Paragraphs are used, but may be weakly linked or uneven.

– Ideas are somewhat connected, but overall coherence is inconsistent or unclear.

– Position or opinion exists but is underdeveloped and unclear.

– Paragraphing may be missing or ineffective; logical flow is weak.

– Basic connectives are used (e.g., “and”, “but”) but do not show complex relationships.

– Argument or opinion is unclear and underdeveloped.

– Essay lacks coherence and mostly consists of unrelated points.

– Only simple linking words like “and”, “but”, or “because” are used.

– No clear opinion or position is expressed.

– Ideas are only linked with basic and repetitive connectives like “and” or “then.”

– Essay is completely incoherent or off-topic.

– Ideas are communicated with ease and precision.

– No noticeable language limitations; expression is fluent.

– Errors, if any, are rare, minor, and do not affect meaning.

– Ideas are expressed clearly with little to no restriction.

– Occasional errors may occur but meaning remains fully clear.

– Some difficulty in expressing complex or abstract thoughts.

– May result in repetition or indirect phrasing (circumlocution).

– Errors sometimes affect clarity, but main ideas are understandable.

– Can only communicate simple ideas effectively.

– Errors are more frequent and may cause some confusion for the reader.

– Communication is often unclear; some ideas are difficult to understand.

– Frequent basic language errors lead to breakdowns in meaning.

– Communication is largely ineffective; most ideas are unclear.

– Persistent and serious language errors block understanding.

– Accurately paraphrases key points while omitting irrelevant details.

– All main ideas are clearly identified and effectively synthesized.

– Summary is coherent, concise, and flows smoothly.

– Uses a wide range of appropriate connective devices.

– Paraphrasing is attempted but inconsistent; some extra details may interfere with clarity.

– Main ideas are generally identified, with minor omissions.

– Ideas are logically connected but lack effective synthesis.

– Uses simple or repetitive linking words to maintain flow.

– No clear distinction between major and minor points.

– Heavy reliance on copying from the source with minimal rewording.

– Lacks synthesis and reformulation in own words.

– Uses repetitive or incorrect connectives; summary is hard to follow.

– Consists mostly of unconnected ideas or copied phrases with no synthesis.

– Main points are missing or inaccurately presented.

– Lacks clarity and coherence; difficult to understand.

– No meaningful understanding or relevant content from the source is demonstrated.