How to Use Pros, Cons, Verdict to Compare Ideas Clearly
It helps you talk about both sides of a choice in a fair way, then finish with a clear decision.
- Comparing two options
- "Should I...?" questions
- Decisions in meetings
What is Pros, Cons, Verdict?
Some questions have no easy answer. "Is it better to work from home?" "Should I change jobs?" Many of my students freeze here. They see good points and bad points at the same time, so they jump between them. The answer gets messy, and it often ends with "it depends" and nothing else.
Pros, Cons, Verdict is a simple three-step plan for these questions. First you give the good side. Then you give the bad side. Finally you give your verdict, which means your final decision. You stay fair and balanced until the end, and then you make a clear call.
In this guide I'll show you how to do each step, how long to spend on it, and which phrases to use. You'll see three full example answers, a short version for quick replies, and a before and after answer. At the end there are practice questions so you can try it yourself.
Why it works
- Your listener can follow you easily, because they always know which side you're talking about.
- Talking about both sides shows you can think carefully, which impresses examiners and managers.
- Giving equal time to each side makes you sound fair, so people trust your final decision.
- The verdict gives your answer a strong ending, so you never trail off or stop in the middle.
Where Pros, Cons, Verdict works best
Use it when...
- In a team meeting, when your manager asks, "Should we move the launch to next month?"
- In a job interview, when you hear, "What are the advantages and disadvantages of remote work?"
- In IELTS Speaking Part 3, for questions like "Is it better to live in a city or the countryside?"
- With friends, when someone asks, "Should I buy a car or keep using the train?"
- In TOEIC Speaking, when you need to compare, "Which is better for learning, books or videos?"
- In a video or presentation, when you discuss, "Is social media good or bad for teenagers?"
Choose something else when...
- When you're asked for a quick, direct opinion like "Do you agree?", use PREP, because it picks a side from the first sentence.
- When you're asked about a past experience, like "Tell me about a time you solved a problem", use STAR.
- When someone wants to hear a personal story or memory, use a story framework, not a list of pros and cons.
How to do each step
Follow the steps in this order. The times are a guide, not a rule. They show you roughly how much to say in each part.
Pros
Give the good side of the idea with about two clear points.
Start by naming the topic and saying there are some good points. Then give two pros, each with a short reason or a small detail. Two is enough. One feels thin, and four feels like a list. Keep your voice neutral. Don't tell the listener your final decision yet. You want them to feel that you're being fair to this side.
- Give two points, each with a quick reason.
- Use "first" and "also" so the listener can count your points.
- Keep it to about three or four sentences.
- Don't give your verdict at the start.
- Don't list five pros with no detail.
Cons
Give the bad side with about two points, using the same time as the pros.
Now switch sides with a clear signal word, like "But" or "On the other hand". This tells the listener you're moving on. Give two cons, again with a short reason for each. Try to spend the same time here as on the pros. If one side is much shorter, you sound like you've already decided. Balance is the key to this whole framework.
- Start with a clear switch word like "But" or "On the other hand".
- Match the pros: two points, similar length.
- Make the cons real, not weak or silly.
- Don't rush this part because you prefer the pros.
- Don't repeat a pro and just add "not".
Verdict
Make a clear final decision and say why, in a few sentences.
This is where you finally make your call. Say which side wins for you and give one short reason, often by weighing a pro against a con. Never stop at "it depends". If you really think the answer is in the middle, that's fine, but say exactly what the middle way is, like "two days at home and three in the office". End with a short, confident sentence.
- Say your decision in the first sentence of this step.
- Give one reason that links back to a pro or a con.
- If you choose a middle way, make it specific.
- Don't end with only "it depends".
- Don't add brand new pros or cons here.
Three example answers
Read each answer out loud. Notice how every part has one clear job, and how short the sentences are. The colours match the steps above.
“Should we move our weekly team meeting online?”
Okay, so there are some clear benefits. First, it saves time. People don't need to walk to the meeting room or wait for others to arrive. Also, our colleagues in the other office can join easily, so everyone hears the same information at the same time.
On the other hand, online meetings can feel a bit cold. People turn off their cameras and they don't speak up as much. Another problem is the technology. If someone's internet is slow, we lose ten minutes and everyone gets frustrated.
So overall, I think we should go online, but not every week. We could meet online three weeks a month and in person once a month. That way we save time, and we still keep the team connected.
“Do you think it's a good idea to buy a car?”
Well, a car has some big advantages. The first one is freedom. You can go wherever you want, whenever you want, and you don't have to wait for a bus. It's also great for families, because carrying shopping or kids is so much easier.
But there are some real downsides too. Cars are expensive. It's not just the price, it's petrol, parking and insurance every month. And in a big city, traffic can be terrible, so sometimes you're actually slower than on the train.
So for me, it depends on where you live, and in my case I'd say no. I live near the train line, so I don't really need one. I'd rather save the money and rent a car for trips.
“Is it better to study alone or in a group?”
Studying in a group has a lot of advantages. One big benefit is that you can learn from other people. If you don't understand something, someone else can explain it. It's also more motivating, because it's harder to give up when your friends are working too.
On the other hand, groups can be distracting. It's very easy to start chatting about other things and waste time. Another disadvantage is that everyone learns at a different speed, so you might have to wait for others, or you might feel left behind.
All things considered, I think studying alone is better for most of the work. You can focus and go at your own pace. But I'd still join a group now and then, maybe once a week, to check what I've learnt.
Short on time? Use a 20-second version
In a quick chat, you can keep the same structure and say just one sentence for each step.
“Should I learn English with an app?”
Apps are cheap and easy, and you can practise for five minutes anywhere.
But they don't really help you speak, because you're not talking to a real person.
So I'd use an app for vocabulary, but find a speaking partner for real conversation.
How the framework fixes a messy answer
“Is working from home better than working in an office?”
Um, working from home, yeah, it's good, I think. Because, um, no traffic. But also the office is good because you can see your friends. And, um, at home you can wear what you want, and you can cook. But sometimes you're lonely. And my company, um, they have a new office, it's very nice actually, there's a coffee machine. And also the internet at home, sometimes it's slow. So, yeah, it depends, um, on the person, I think.
What goes wrong- There is no clear start, so the listener doesn't know what the speaker is going to do.
- The speaker jumps between good points and bad points, so it's hard to follow.
- There are too many small ideas, and one of them, the coffee machine, is off topic.
- It ends with only "it depends", so there is no real verdict.
Working from home has some great advantages. First, there's no commute, so I save time and I'm less tired. Also, it's easier to focus, because nobody interrupts me every five minutes.
On the other hand, it can get lonely. I miss chatting with my colleagues, and it's harder to build good relationships. Another problem is that work and home life mix together, so I sometimes work too late.
So overall, I'd choose a mix. Three days at home for focused work and two days in the office to see the team. I think that gives you the best of both.
Five mistakes to avoid
Save your verdict for the end. If you decide first, you're really using PREP, and the pros and cons just sound like an excuse.
Give each side about two points and similar time. If you talk about the pros for 40 seconds and the cons for 5, you don't sound balanced.
You can say "it depends", but then say what it depends on and give your own answer. A clear middle way is fine too.
Pick your two best points for each side. Two points with reasons sound smarter than five points with no detail.
Use clear words like "On the plus side", "On the other hand" and "So overall". They show the listener exactly where you are in your answer.
What to do before you start speaking
- Quickly think of your two best pros and your two best cons. Use just one or two words for each, like "time" or "lonely".
- Decide your verdict before you start, but keep it secret until the last step.
- If you're stuck on one side, think about money, time, health or people. These usually give you an idea.
10 sample questions with answers
Try each question yourself first: take 15 seconds to plan, then speak for one minute. Then open the sample answer and compare. Do not learn the answers by heart. Copy the structure and the phrases, then use your own ideas.
1 Is it a good idea to have a pet?
Oh, I love this question. Having a pet has some lovely benefits. First, pets are great company. If you live alone, coming home to a happy dog makes a long day feel better. Also, a dog gets you outside, so you walk more and feel healthier.
But a pet is a big responsibility. One problem is time. You can't just go away for the weekend, because someone has to feed and walk them. Another downside is money. Food, vet visits and medicine add up quickly, especially when the pet gets older.
So overall, I think it's a good idea, but only if you're at home a lot. For busy people, a cat is probably easier than a dog. It still gives you company, but it needs less of your time.
Copy this move: The verdict doesn't just say yes, it adds a condition, "only if you're at home a lot", and a simple swap, a cat instead of a dog.
2 Is it better to cook at home or eat out?
Hmm, let me think. Cooking at home has two big pluses. The first is money. A meal at home costs maybe half the price of a restaurant. It's also healthier, because you know exactly what goes into your food, like how much oil and salt you use.
On the other hand, cooking takes a lot of time. After a long day at work, shopping, cooking and washing up can feel like a second job. And eating out is more social. It's easier to meet friends at a restaurant than to invite them to a small flat.
In the end, I'd choose cooking at home most days. Saving money and eating well matter more to me. But I'd keep Friday nights for eating out with friends, as a little treat.
Copy this move: In the verdict, the speaker weighs two pros, money and health, against the cons and says clearly which matters more to them.
3 Is it better to travel alone or with friends?
Travelling alone has some real advantages. One big one is freedom. You can wake up when you want and change your plans any time. Another benefit is that you meet more new people, because you're not always talking to your friends.
But travelling alone can be hard too. The downside is that it's more expensive, because you pay for the whole hotel room yourself. It can also get lonely, especially at dinner, when you're sitting at a table on your own every night.
All things considered, I'd say travelling with friends is better for most trips. Sharing the costs and the memories makes it more fun. But I think everyone should try one short trip alone, just to see how it feels.
Copy this move: For an "A or B" question, the speaker gives the pros and cons of just one option, travelling alone, which keeps the answer simple and easy to follow.
4 Should children have a mobile phone?
That's a tricky one. On the plus side, a phone keeps children safe. Parents can call them or see where they are after school. It also helps them learn, because they can look things up or use learning apps for homework.
The downside is that phones are very addictive. Many kids spend hours on games and videos instead of playing outside or sleeping. Another problem is safety online. Children can see things that aren't right for their age, or talk to strangers.
Weighing it up, I think children should have a phone, but a simple one at first. For example, a basic phone for calls and messages at ten, and a smartphone later, maybe at fourteen. That way they're safe, but they're not glued to a screen.
Copy this move: The speaker turns a difficult question into a clear plan with real ages, a basic phone at ten and a smartphone at fourteen.
5 Should I take a gap year before university?
So, a gap year can be really useful. First, you get a break after years of exams, so you start university feeling fresh. Also, you can work or travel and learn things you can't learn in a classroom, like managing money or living on your own.
But there are some risks too. One problem is that it's hard to start studying again. After a year off, some people lose the habit, or they don't want to go back at all. It can also cost a lot if you spend the whole year travelling.
For me, the pros are stronger, but only with a clear plan. I'd take a gap year with a goal, like working for six months to save money, then travelling for three. Without a plan, I'd go straight to university.
Copy this move: The verdict links back to a con, losing the habit, and fixes it with a specific plan, six months of work and three of travel.
6 Is it better to live in a city or the countryside?
City life has a lot to offer. One big advantage is jobs. Most companies are in cities, so you have more choice and often a higher salary. It's also very convenient. Shops, hospitals and public transport are all close, so daily life is easier.
On the other hand, cities can be stressful. There's traffic, noise and crowds everywhere, and the air is often dirty. Another disadvantage is the cost. Rent in a big city is very high, so lots of people live in tiny flats.
So overall, I'd say the city is better when you're young and building a career. You need the jobs and the energy. But later, maybe with a family, I think a quiet town near a city gives you the best of both.
Copy this move: The speaker makes the verdict depend on age, but still gives a clear answer for each stage of life, which sounds mature in an exam.
7 Should I take a job with higher pay but a longer commute?
Okay, let's look at the good side first. The higher pay is a big plus. Even a little more each month helps you save or pay off debts faster. Also, a new job can be a step up in your career, with new skills and new people.
But the commute really matters. If you add an hour each way, that's ten hours a week on a bus or train. You'll probably feel more tired, and you'll have less time for your family, exercise or rest.
So my answer is a mix. I'd take the job only if I could work from home some days. Two days at home would cut the travel a lot. If not, I'd stay, because time is worth more to me than a bit of extra money.
Copy this move: The speaker does quick maths, "an hour each way, that's ten hours a week", which makes the con feel real and easy to picture.
8 Should companies allow a four-day working week?
There are two strong benefits here. First, staff are happier and less stressed, so they often take fewer sick days. Also, it helps companies keep good people. A four-day week is a big reason to stay, even if another company offers more money.
On the other hand, it doesn't work for every business. A hospital or a shop needs people there every day, so you'd need more staff. Another problem is pressure. Some people try to fit five days of work into four, and they end up more tired, not less.
All things considered, I think companies should try it, but as a test first. For example, they could run it for three months in one team and check the results. If the work still gets done, they can roll it out to everyone.
Copy this move: Instead of a simple yes or no, the speaker suggests a small, safe test, which is exactly the kind of verdict managers like to hear in a meeting.
9 Is social media good or bad for young people?
Social media has some real benefits for young people. One is connection. They can stay in touch with friends and find people who share their interests, even unusual ones. It's also a place to learn. Lots of teenagers pick up new skills from videos or start their own small projects.
But the downsides are serious. The biggest one is mental health. Young people compare themselves with perfect photos all day, and it can make them feel bad about themselves. Another problem is time. Endless scrolling takes hours away from sleep, study and real friendships.
Weighing it up, I think it does more harm than good when there are no limits. So my answer is limits, not a ban. For example, no phones in the bedroom at night, and a daily time limit that parents and kids agree on together.
Copy this move: The speaker avoids the easy "it depends" and picks a clear position, "limits, not a ban", with two concrete examples of what that means.
10 Should governments make public transport free?
Making public transport free has some clear advantages. First, it helps people with low incomes. Travel to work can take a big part of their salary, so free buses would really make a difference. It's also good for the environment, because more people would leave their cars at home.
On the other hand, someone still has to pay. The money comes from taxes, so the government might have less to spend on schools or hospitals. Another problem is crowding. If it's free, buses and trains could get so full that the service actually gets worse.
So overall, I don't think it should be free for everyone. I'd make it free for students, older people and people on low incomes, and keep it cheap for everyone else. That way it's fair, and the system still has money to run.
Copy this move: The speaker uses the cons to build a smarter answer, free for some groups and cheap for others, so the verdict answers both problems.
Practise with a timer and new questions
The practice tool gives you a random question, 15 seconds to think and a one-minute timer that lights up each step.
Good to know
How is this different from PREP?
With PREP, you pick a side in your first sentence and then support it. With Pros, Cons, Verdict, you stay balanced and show both sides first. You only give your decision at the end.
Can I start with the cons?
Yes, sometimes that feels more natural, especially if your verdict is positive. Just keep the order clear and give both sides equal time. Many people like to end the second side close to their verdict.
What if I really think "it depends"?
That's fine, but don't stop there. Say what it depends on, then choose for one situation, like "For me, living near the train, I'd say no." A specific middle way also works well.
What if I can only think of one pro or one con?
One point with a strong reason and a small example is better than nothing. But try the quick check: money, time, health and people. It usually gives you a second idea in a few seconds.
More speaking guides
Want feedback on your answers?
Practise Pros, Cons, Verdict with me in a lesson and get personal feedback on your structure, words and confidence.