Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-10-15

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 5.0)

It is often argued that government shoud spent lots of money on railway construction for ensuring fast movement between two cities in a country, others believe that improving existing public transport shoud be prioritized more. I will discuss both views before explaning why i thought that improving exixting transport would be more effective then constructing new railways.

Building new railway paths can lead to financial burden for the goverment, as it requires higher allocation. Moreever, in many countries people find railway much more time consumig way to get their desired destinantion due to delay of train. Farturemore, it required sustainable planning and strategy to construct new line, which can hamper people living because railway line has to be straight forward so if any house appeared in the line it has to be excape from their. As a result, many people would be lose their house or lands for farming.

On the other hand, it would be cost efective to repair the existing trasport, as it dosen't required all of the expanses as like railway line. Additionally, it will save both time and energy.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You state a relevant opinion—that improving existing transport would be more effective—and give reasons for both sides, including the cost and disruption of new railway construction. However, the discussion is incomplete: the case for very fast trains is not explained, and the benefits of upgrading existing transport are only briefly asserted (“save both time and energy”) without an example or explanation. The response also does not reach the required minimum of 250 words, leaving the argument substantially underdeveloped. To strengthen the response, explain the advantages of high-speed rail, develop your comparison with specific consequences or examples, and conclude by clearly restating your position.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, a paragraph about new railway construction, and a paragraph beginning “On the other hand” about existing transport. This helps readers identify the two sides. However, the overall progression is limited because the second view receives very little development, and there is no concluding paragraph to bring the discussion together. Linking expressions such as “Moreover,” “Furthermore,” and “As a result” are used, but the sequence of points within the first body paragraph is not always clearly connected. For example, the move from train delays to the impact of railway routes on homes could be explained more explicitly. Use a fuller paragraph for each view and a brief conclusion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant topic vocabulary, including “financial burden,” “allocation,” “sustainable planning,” and “public transport,” which helps communicate the subject. However, the range is limited, and several spelling and word-choice errors make parts of the response difficult to read, such as “exixting,” “destinantion,” and “time consumig.” Some combinations are also unnatural, including “higher allocation” and “railway much more time consuming way.” Aim for accurate, natural collocations and check spelling carefully. More precise terms such as “investment,” “commuting time,” “infrastructure,” and “displacement” would help you explain the competing costs and benefits more clearly.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including a reason clause (“as it requires…”) and a conditional example (“if any house appeared…”). However, errors are frequent, and some sentences are difficult to follow. For example, “government shoud spent” has an incorrect verb form, while “it required sustainable planning” does not maintain the appropriate tense. In “many people would be lose their house,” the verb pattern and plural agreement are faulty. The opening sentence also joins two independent ideas with a comma, creating a run-on sentence. Practise accurate subject–verb patterns, modal constructions, articles, and sentence boundaries; shorter, correctly punctuated sentences would improve clarity while you build control of complex forms.

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.