Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Recent IELTS Exams (Canada & India) · 2026-09-14

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 6.5)

It is often argued that old bulding's preservation is essential to one's place history, whereas others prefer that it should be modernized for safety reasons. While both points are understandable to some extent, I am firmly of the opinion that buildings with old infrastructures should be preserve, mainly because of their value and relationship with the society.

One of the most compelling reasons why I believe that historical buildings should be restored is because they are siginificant to the history and identity of a particular palce and its people, which consequently raise public awareness. This is due to the fact that they are built with a pupose, it can be to celebrate or remember events that happenned in the past. Additionally, it is one way to inform people of how things were prior to the modern world. By restoring the old buildings, the government or private organziations are instilling a ense of pride and humily to the people. For instance, Aguilnaldo's hous in Cavite represent the events the lead to Philippine Independence since this is where the strategic meeting held, threby enabling Filipinos to appreciate those who fought for the country's soverignty. Moereover, inside the house, the public can see the Filipino way to write a letter. which is through leaves from a tree, thus making people appreciative of the creativeness of the Filipinos during that time.

On the other hand, some would prefer that old hsitorical buildings should be demolish, primarily because of safety reasons. The materials used in the buildings were already out-dated and may pose significant risks to the public when a natural disaster occur. For example, as time passed by the infrastructure of the buildings wears off, questioning its ability to withstand a calamity. In fact, there are exceptional circumstances where the bulding collapsed by itslef due to its old age. Another significant factor, is the cost that it takes to maintain the infrasctructure and design of these buildings, which at times is unpractical. This is because can cause unnecessary expenses that would be better off if allocated to more important sectors, such as healthcare and education.

In my conclusion, although both views have their own justicantions, I strongly believe that it is essential to preserve old buildings because it provide strong sense of identity and purpose. If more buildings are to be preserve, it is highly likely that the public will become more appreciative and grateful.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 7.0

The response addresses all parts of the task by discussing both the preservation and replacement of old buildings, and clearly states the writer's own opinion in the introduction and conclusion. The position is maintained throughout the essay. Ideas are extended and supported, such as using the example of Aguinaldo's house in Cavite to illustrate cultural and historical value, and addressing safety concerns and financial costs in the opposing view paragraph. Although there is a slight tendency to overgeneralise or repeat certain points about identity and safety, the task is fully addressed, satisfying the requirements for a Band 7.0.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 7.0

The essay is clearly organised with a logical progression throughout. Each paragraph has a clear central topic, moving from the introduction to the arguments in favour of preservation, the counter-arguments regarding safety and cost, and a clear concluding summary. Cohesive devices such as 'One of the most compelling reasons', 'Additionally', 'On the other hand', and 'In my conclusion' are used appropriately to guide the reader. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and effectively. However, minor mechanical referencing and minor cohesion flaws keep this at a solid Band 7.0 rather than a higher band.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

The student uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision, employing less common items such as 'infrastructures', 'sovereignty', and 'unpractical'. However, there are notable spelling and word-choice errors throughout the text, including 'bulding's' instead of 'buildings', 'siginificant', 'palce', 'pupose', 'happenned', 'organziations', 'humily', 'hous', 'threby', 'Moereover', 'hsitorical', 'demolish' instead of 'demolished', 'infrasctructure', and 'justicantions'. While communication is not impeded, these frequent mechanical slips in spelling and form prevent the lexical score from reaching Band 7.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The essay incorporates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating attempts at subordination and relative clauses (e.g., 'While both points are understandable to some extent, I am firmly of the opinion that...'). However, there are frequent grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement issues ('buildings with old infrastructures should be preserve' instead of preserved), incorrect tense usage ('the strategic meeting held' instead of 'the strategic meeting was held'), pluralisation errors ('events the lead' instead of 'events that led'), and dangling modifiers or structural awkwardness ('as time passed by the infrastructure of the buildings wears off'). These persistent errors place the essay firmly in the Band 6.0 category.

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.