Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Recent IELTS Exams (Canada & India) · 2026-11-08

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Some people believe that old buildings, such as town halls and art galleries, should be restored, even though this can be costly. Others argue that governments should replace them with new, modern buildings.

Discuss both 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 6.0)

Many individuals believe government should restore the historical buildings like art galleries and town halls despite the expenses, meanwhile, others consider them to be demolished and replaced with modern architectural design. This essay agrees on the later view as it will help government prevent accidents and generate job opportunities.

As the job market is shrinking and people are trying to avoid physical work, depending more on computers, it is an excellent choice for the government to create high paying job among the youths. Furthermore, the old building are not resilient to natural disasters like earthquakes. For instance, Nepal, with many historical buildings from 1800s in its capital city, faced approximately 7 rector-scale earthquake in 2015 resulted to the deaths of many people, which the government could have save, if it had surveyed and ordered it to be demolished.

However, the otherside argues that the architecture consist of historical inportance and has to be repaired from time to time to save it for the future references. For example, future generation might use it to study on how ancient people used the traditional ways to coonstruct houses.

In conclusion, although, it saves the historical blueprints and their importance for upcoming generations I believe that it is safer for the people including the locals and the foreign travelers if the government focuses on prioritizing to replace them with the new ones.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You present a clear opinion in the introduction and conclusion: you favour replacing old buildings, mainly for safety and employment. You also discuss the opposing view by noting their historical value and potential use by future generations, so the response addresses both sides. However, the arguments are unevenly developed: the employment point is asserted rather than explained, and the Nepal earthquake example does not clearly establish that replacing the buildings would have prevented the deaths. The opposing view receives only brief support. The response is also 22 words below the required minimum, which limits the space available to develop and support your ideas. Explain the trade-offs more fully and make each example directly support its claim.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, a paragraph supporting replacement, a paragraph presenting the preservation argument, and a conclusion. The reader can follow the main progression, and signposts such as “For instance,” “However,” and “In conclusion” help distinguish the stages of the discussion. This meets the lower-band expectation of coherent organisation and shows some movement towards more flexible cohesion. However, the links between claims and evidence are sometimes abrupt: the shift from shrinking job markets to creating high-paying jobs is not explained, and the earthquake example is not clearly connected to the proposed policy. The conclusion also repeats the safety argument without drawing together the two views. Develop transitions between each claim and its explanation, and use referencing more precisely.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use some topic-relevant vocabulary, including “historical buildings,” “natural disasters,” “resilient,” and “traditional ways,” and the main ideas remain understandable. There are also attempts at more specific language, such as “architectural design” and “historical importance.” However, the range is limited and several noticeable word-choice, collocation, and spelling errors reduce precision: “rector-scale earthquake” is not the correct term, “create high paying job among the youths” is awkward, and “future references” does not express the intended meaning naturally. Spelling errors such as “inportance” and “coonstruct” also affect accuracy. Build a bank of accurate collocations for heritage, safety, and employment, and check spelling and word forms before submitting.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and complex sentence forms, including a conditional construction in “which the government could have save, if it had surveyed…” and a contrastive clause beginning “although.” These attempts show some range, but complex sentences are often faulty, and errors recur across the response. Examples include “government should restore” (missing an article or plural form), “the old building are” (agreement), and “could have save” (incorrect verb form). The long opening sentence also joins contrasting ideas with a comma, while the final sentence has an awkward clause structure and punctuation around “although.” These errors sometimes make relationships between ideas harder to follow. Practise accurate subject–verb agreement, articles, verb forms after modal verbs, and sentence boundaries before adding further complexity.

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.