Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-10-03

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)

In various countries, the public has different opinions.some believe allocating funds for the high-speed railways construction is bettter. While some argue, that working on the betterment of existing public transport would be a much more benefical step. This essay will describe both the views, while in my opinion investing in new railways is a better option for the economy.

The governments are intreseted in setting aside a subsantial amount for high-speed trains beacuse it can help will the traffic congestion on highways and roads. Bullet trains can be time saving as many people will preffer using them instead of local buses for commute easilt through inter-cities. Many people will use trains instead of private vechiles and domestic flights, eventually leading to less pollution. Having up-to date system will promote tourism, provide more job oppurtunities and better for the economy of the country. Japan and China are living example of high-speed trains.

In contrast, to those who beleive that, upgrading public buses,coaches and ordinary trains is significant as this step will require less expenditure in comparison to building new railway system from scratch. Many people use public transport everyday, as it is more convinient because you can find these in residential areas easily while for fast trains you need to use stations which are away from residencial areas. These offer cheaper fares, so many use them instead of driving. Such as, London and Singapore have the largest Metropolian systems working throughout the country effectiviely.

Overall, it gives a balnced view suggesting that working on high-speed trains aids long-term growth, whereas upgrading present system offers an immediate relief. I beleive investing for a long term benefit is more important then just focusing on temporary relief.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response successfully addresses all parts of the prompt by discussing both views—investing in high-speed rail versus improving existing public transport—and provides a clear position throughout the essay. The writer's stance is evident from the introduction and is reinforced in the conclusion. Ideas are generally extended and supported, such as when the writer mentions how bullet trains can alleviate traffic congestion on highways and reduce pollution, citing examples like Japan and China. However, there is a slight tendency to over-generalise in parts, such as the broad claims about tourism and job opportunities without deeper elaboration. To reach a higher band, the ideas would need more fully developed extension and finer detail regarding how these economic benefits are realised.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The essay demonstrates a clear logical organisation and progression throughout. Each paragraph has a distinct focus, moving smoothly from the introduction to the arguments for high-speed rail, the counter-arguments for upgrading existing infrastructure, and finally a balanced conclusion. Cohesive devices are used adequately to guide the reader, such as 'In contrast, to those who beleive that' and 'Overall, it gives a balnced view'. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate distinct themes. To move beyond this level, referencing could be slightly more refined and cohesive ties made more seamless and flexible, avoiding occasional mechanical transitions.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The student uses an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, attempting some less common lexical items such as 'infrastructure' contextually implied alongside 'traffic congestion' and 'expenditure'. However, there are noticeable spelling errors throughout the text, including 'bettter', 'benefical', 'intreseted', 'subsantial', 'beacuse', 'preffer', 'vechiles', 'oppurtunities', 'beleive', 'convinient', 'residencial', 'Metropolian', 'effectiviely', 'balnced', and 'then'. While these errors do not severely impede communication, their frequency prevents the response from achieving a higher band for lexical resource, as precision and control over spelling and word choice are limited.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The writer employs a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating attempts at subordination and relative clauses, such as in 'While some argue, that working on the betterment of existing public transport would be a much more benefical step.' There are some errors in grammar, punctuation, and article usage, such as unnecessary commas ('argue, that') and minor prepositional awkwardness ('commute easilt through inter-cities'). While these grammatical errors rarely impede communication, they persist throughout the text and prevent the sentence structures from achieving the consistent error-free frequency required for higher bands.

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.