Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-09-16

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

 

Student answer (Band 6.5)

Some people think that it is necessary to spend large amount of money on the construction of new railway lines for fast traveling between two cities but other people have different opinion they think that the money should be spend on improving public transport.In this eassy discusstion held on both point of view before giving my opinion.

On the one hand, Some people believe that spent large sum of money on the constructing new railway lines for moving to one city to another city because it is the most convinent method to rise the asist of the country. They think that it very benefical for students, worker and also for children. Fast and reliable trains can reduce travelling time, encourage business cooperation and make it easier for people to commute between urban centres. In addition, high-speed rail can provide an alternative to domestic flights and long-distance car journeys, potentially reducing traffic congestion and carbon emissions. For example, if people can travel between two major cities in a few hours by train, many may prefer this option to driving or flying. Consequently, investment in high-speed rail can contribute to both economic development and more sustainable transportation.

On the other hand, improving existing public transport is likely to have a more immediate and widespread impact. In many cities, buses, conventional trains and metro systems are overcrowded, unreliable or poorly maintained. Spending money on increasing service frequency, extending routes and replacing old vehicles could make daily travel considerably easier for millions of residents. Furthermore, efficient public transport can reduce the number of private cars on the roads, thereby helping to tackle congestion and air pollution. This is particularly important in large cities, where the majority of people depend on affordable local transportation rather than travelling between distant cities.

In my view, governments should focus primarily on improving existing public transport before undertaking extremely expensive high-speed railway projects. While fast intercity trains have clear advantages, their benefits are often concentrated among people travelling between major urban centres. By contrast, better buses, trains and metro systems can improve mobility for a much broader section of society, including students, workers and low-income residents. Once basic public transportation has been made efficient and accessible, governments can then consider expanding high-speed rail where there is a clear long-term demand.

In conclusion, high-speed railway networks can strengthen connections between cities and provide environmental benefits, but improving existing public transport is likely to deliver broader and more immediate benefits. Therefore, governments should prioritise reliable and accessible local transportation while developing high-speed rail projects where they are economically and socially justified.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 7.0

The response addresses all parts of the task by discussing both views—building high-speed rail versus improving existing public transport—and provides a clear, well-supported personal opinion throughout. The position is consistently maintained and logically argued. Ideas are well extended with relevant explanations, such as mentioning how high-speed rail can reduce carbon emissions and how upgrading local buses and metros benefits low-income residents and daily commuters. While there are some minor mechanical errors in the introductory paragraph (e.g., 'In this eassy discusstion held on both point of view'), the core task requirements are fully met, demonstrating a solid understanding of an academic argument. This aligns well with the Band 7 descriptors.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 7.0

The essay displays clear logical organisation and progression throughout. Each paragraph has a distinct focus, moving smoothly from the introduction to the two opposing views, the writer's personal opinion, and a concise conclusion. Cohesive devices are used appropriately, such as 'On the one hand', 'On the other hand', 'In addition', and 'Consequently'. However, there are some minor mechanical and paragraphing errors in the opening lines (e.g., run-on phrasing like 'transport.In this eassy...'). Paragraphing is generally used sufficiently and appropriately, but referencing could occasionally be tighter. These features place the response firmly in the Band 6.5 to 7.0 range, warranting a Band 7.0.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

The student uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision, employing terms like 'infrastructure', 'sustainable transportation', 'urban centres', and 'traffic congestion'. Less common lexical items are attempted with varying success. However, there are several noticeable word-choice and spelling inaccuracies throughout the text, such as 'large amount of money' (instead of 'amounts'), 'eassy' (essay), 'discusstion' (discussion), 'spent large sum' (spending large sums), and 'convinent' (convenient). Although these errors do not impede overall communication, they prevent the lexical score from reaching higher bands. This performance fits the Band 6 descriptors well.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, incorporating conditional clauses ('if people can travel... many may prefer') and relative clauses. There are, however, several grammatical and morphological errors, particularly in verb forms and prepositions, such as 'spent large sum of money on the constructing' (constructing/construction), 'to move one city to another city' (moving from), and 'it very benefical' (it is very beneficial). Punctuation errors are also present, notably missing spaces after full stops in the introduction. Despite these errors, meaning is generally clear and communication is rarely impeded, pointing directly to a Band 6.0.

See this exact question answered at other band scores — the same prompt compared across bands.

Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.