TOEFL Academic Discussion: Business & Advertising Topics (2026)

Sample response (127 words)

I agree more with Hana, although Marco is right that some ads play on insecurity. The main reason is time. Most people cannot research every purchase, so an ad that shows the price, the key features and how a product compares with rivals does useful work for them. Hana's laptop is a good example: the ad did not invent a need she did not have — she needed a laptop anyway — it simply put a better option in front of her. Manipulative ads certainly exist, but they are easier to recognize than Marco suggests, and consumers can ignore them. Overall, I think advertising helps more than it harms, because the average ad lowers the cost of making a decision rather than creating a desire from nothing.

Sample response (129 words)

In my view, influencer marketing is usually more effective, but for a different reason from the one Jonah gives. What matters is not only trust but interaction. A television commercial delivers the same message to everyone and cannot answer questions, whereas a creator can respond to a follower who asks whether a jacket runs small or whether a phone's camera works at night. That conversation removes the doubts that normally stop people from buying. Priya has a point that audiences know the posts are paid, and that is why disclosure matters. However, even when followers know about the payment, a detailed answer to their own question is more persuasive than a polished slogan. For that reason, I believe the two-way nature of influencer marketing gives it a real advantage.

Sample response (130 words)

I side with Ben, because relatability is more persuasive than fame for most everyday products. When an ordinary customer explains how a product fitted into their routine, viewers can imagine themselves in the same situation, so the benefit feels realistic and attainable. A cleaning product demonstrated in a small, messy kitchen is more believable than one advertised by a film star who clearly does not clean their own home. Lucia is right that celebrities attract attention, and for luxury goods that aspiration may matter. However, attention is not the same as trust, and celebrity campaigns carry an extra risk: if the star is involved in a scandal, the brand's image suffers with them. For products people buy regularly, I think honest testimonials from real customers are the more convincing choice.

Sample response (129 words)

I believe some restrictions are justified, mainly for the reason Ines gives. Advertising relies on the viewer understanding that someone is trying to sell them something, and young children often cannot make that distinction. An animated character who appears in a cartoon and then in a snack commercial is simply a trusted friend to a six-year-old. That makes the persuasion unequal in a way that adult advertising is not. Tom raises a fair concern about free content, but restrictions do not have to be total; limiting ads for unhealthy food or in-app purchases, for example, would address the worst problems while still allowing other sponsorship. Parents do play the main role, yet they cannot watch every screen all day. A clear rule would support them rather than replace them.

Sample response (124 words)

I would recommend careful international expansion, although Samuel identifies the main danger. My reason is stability rather than speed. A company that sells in only one market depends completely on that market's economy, so a single bad year can threaten the whole business. Selling in several countries spreads that risk. Expansion also opens access to cheaper suppliers and a larger customer base, which can lower prices for existing customers at home as well. Samuel is correct that loyalty comes from understanding local needs, and that is exactly why expansion should be gradual — perhaps starting with one neighbouring country with similar customers. Growing step by step would let the company keep what made it successful while making it more resilient over the long term.

Sample response (123 words)

I agree with Clara that paid content should always be labeled, because the value of a review depends on knowing who stands behind it. When viewers watch an unboxing video, they are using it to judge whether a product is good; if they do not know the company paid for it, they cannot decide how much weight to give the opinion. Rafael is right that many sponsored reviewers are honest, but a label does not accuse them of lying — it simply gives the audience the full context. In fact, clear labeling protects honest creators, because it separates them from those who hide their sponsorships. Without a consistent rule, viewers may start distrusting all reviews, which would harm consumers and genuine reviewers alike.