Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

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

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)

The debate on whether to construct new railway lines for fast trains between cities or spending money on making public transport that already exists better has emerged in many nations. Faster commuting time is argued by some while others propose that reducing traffic jams within towns is a better reason. I believe that this improving public transportation is more important.

Being able to get to work early can be a benefit of having quick commutes on quick trains. This will significantly cut down the time that people spend going to work. For instance, countries like China have adopted bullet trains that help individuals move faster within the cities. As a result, they can have more time to be productive, and also not having to worry about how long it will take to get home to do their hobbies. Nevertheless, I still believe that this is not a worthy reason for the government to spend money on.

On the other hand, by improving public transportation systems, more people will leave their cars at home. This directly impacts the traffic jams that most modern cities experience. The reduced jams means that the level of carbon-emissions is lower which is good for the environment. For example, Singapore has very effective transport system and most residents heavily rely on the proper public transport available. This proves the that government funding was well utilized.

In conclusion, state spending on fast trains can help in ease of movement within cities. However, in my opinion, better public transportation does more for the country and environment in general.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You address both sides of the discussion and state a clear preference for improving existing public transport. The paragraph on fast trains gives a relevant benefit—shorter commutes and more time for other activities—while the next paragraph explains how better local transport could reduce car use, congestion and emissions. The Singapore example supports your position. However, the comparison is not fully developed: the fast-train argument is mainly about individual convenience, and the claim that China’s bullet trains help people move faster “within the cities” does not clearly illustrate travel between cities. Explain more directly why investment in intercity rail may or may not be worthwhile, and develop the practical benefits of improving existing services. This would make the discussion more balanced and the support more precise.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, one paragraph for each view, and a conclusion that restates your position. Transitions such as “On the other hand,” “Nevertheless,” and “In conclusion” make the direction of the argument easy to follow. This is a coherent arrangement, and the main ideas progress logically. Some linking is a little mechanical, however, and a few references are unclear or awkward—for example, “This proves the that government funding was well utilized” does not clearly identify what “This” refers to. The conclusion also introduces “ease of movement within cities,” which is not quite the same as the earlier case for fast trains between cities. Use more precise referencing and connect each paragraph’s final point explicitly to the question.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “commuting time,” “traffic jams,” “carbon-emissions,” and “public transportation,” and the meaning is generally clear. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “significantly cut down” and “heavily rely on.” Some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or imprecise: “quick commutes on quick trains” is repetitive, “proper public transport” is vague, and “state spending … can help in ease of movement” is not natural phrasing. “Carbon emissions” is normally written without a hyphen, and “the that” is an editing error. Aim for more precise transport-related vocabulary and check collocations; for example, distinguish high-speed intercity rail from local public transport rather than describing both simply as “quick” or “better.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex forms, including the opening contrast between the two proposals and the conditional-style explanation that more people may leave their cars at home. Most sentences communicate their meaning, and the errors do not generally obstruct understanding. Some grammatical problems remain: “whether to construct … or spending money” is not parallel, “I believe that this improving public transportation” has an incorrect structure, and “The reduced jams means” has subject–verb disagreement. There are also article and construction issues in “Singapore has very effective transport system” and “help in ease of movement.” Review parallel forms, agreement, and article use, then proofread for small slips such as “the that.” More consistently accurate complex sentences would strengthen control.

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.