Band 7.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.0 · Recent IELTS Exams (Canada & India) · 2026-08-18

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 7.0)

Some people hold the belief that old buildings should be restored, even though the cost could be high, while others argue that governments should replace them with new, modern buildings. I am of the opinion that the structural strength and overall significance of a building should determine whether it should be restored, or torn down to make way for a more modern structure.

Certain buildings hold historical significance. For example, a building that once shielded refugees during a war and has now been turned into an art gallery that tells that story, as well as other stories, holds way too much significance to be torn down. Such edifice would benefit more from restoration, irrespective of cost, to appropriately preserve the history.

Another reason to choose restoration over demolition and overhaul is preserving the significance of the construction itself. Certain building practices have been discontinued but hold noteworthy influence to the point of being historical. Some examples include walls with certain motifs carved into them, or a house with heating or plumbing systems that younger generations can benefit from observing in real time. These need to be preserved in as-close-to their original condition as possible, and will benefit greatly from renovation, rather than replacement.

On the other hand, some old buildings pose significant structural hazards due to how they were made. Despite their importance, certain dwellings have such terrible foundations that having people on their grounds presents a risk to them. It will be foolhardy to insist on renovating these buildings as the problem is foundational, and only by completely replacing them can they be useful again.

A less weighty, but notable argument is that certain cities are moving towards being more modern and even futuristic presenting, therefore preserving old buildings in such cities will not serve the plan for them.

In a nutshell, I think there are several things to take into consideration when determining whether old buildings should be restored or replaced with new buildings, and two major ones are relevance and structural integrity.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 7.0

The response addresses all parts of the prompt, discussing both the restoration of old buildings and the argument for modern replacements. You clearly state your position in the introduction and maintain it throughout. The ideas are well-developed, particularly the distinction between historical significance and structural integrity. You provide relevant examples, such as the refugee-turned-gallery building, which adds depth to your argument. The response is balanced and logically structured, meeting the requirements for a Band 7.0. To reach a higher band, ensure that your own opinion is even more explicitly linked to the conclusion to provide a stronger sense of closure.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 7.0

The essay is logically organized with a clear progression of ideas. Each paragraph focuses on a distinct point, moving from historical value to structural concerns. You use cohesive devices effectively, such as 'On the other hand' and 'In a nutshell,' to guide the reader through your argument. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate different viewpoints. While the flow is generally smooth, some transitions between sentences could be more sophisticated to avoid a slightly mechanical feel. Overall, the structure is clear and easy to follow, justifying a Band 7.0.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.5

You demonstrate a sufficient range of vocabulary to discuss the topic with precision. Phrases like 'structural hazards,' 'historical significance,' and 'foundational' show an ability to use topic-specific language effectively. There are occasional minor inaccuracies in word choice, such as 'way too much significance' (which is slightly informal) and 'futuristic presenting' (which is awkward phrasing). However, these do not impede communication. To improve, try to incorporate more idiomatic expressions or less common collocations to elevate the sophistication of your writing, which would help you move toward a higher band.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 7.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence structures throughout the essay. Most sentences are clear and grammatically accurate, such as 'Some people hold the belief that old buildings should be restored.' There are a few minor errors, such as 'Such edifice' (should be 'Such an edifice') and 'as-close-to their original condition' (which is slightly clunky). However, these errors are infrequent and do not interfere with the reader's understanding. You show good control over punctuation and sentence construction, which is consistent with a Band 7.0 performance.

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.