Band 7.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.0 · Recent IELTS Exams (Canada & India) · 2026-09-30

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)

There is an ongoing debate about wether government should spend money to restore old buildings like town halls and galleries or they should replace them with new, modern buildings. While new buildings can provide better facilities and are more suited for current scenario, I believe preservation of historical and culturally significant buildings is also important.

On the one hand, replacing old buildings with new bulidings can have several advantages. New buildings can be built according to the latest safety standards and technology whereas it could be costly to maintain the old structure. Older buildings usually have outdated electrical systems, plumbing issues, insufficient use of space and lack of accessibilty option. Sometimes builidng a new structure can be cost beneficial in the long run. For example a government could build a new town hall with energy-efficient systems and facilities for people with dissability rather than spending money to upgrade an old structure.

On the other hand old buildings play an important part of a cities culture and can provide people a sense of belongingness with the previous generation. Historic structures such as town halls, museums and art galleries often represent a city's history. They can also attract tourist which may benifit local businesses and even create employment opportunities. For instance a restored historic building can attract alot of tourists while continuing to serve as a cultural or community centre. Furthermore, restoration does not mean keeping the building fully unchanged; modern facilities can be incorporated while preserving the original character.

In my view, government should adopt a balance approach rather than automatically choosing either restoration or demolition. Buildings with genuine historic or cultural value should be preserved, whereas structures that are unsafe or have litlle to no significant value should be replaced with new modern building. This would allow government to protect cultural heritage without spending alot of public money.

In conclusion modern buildings can provide greater safety, efficiency and convinence, whereas historic building can preserve cultural identity and provide with tourism. I believe that governments should carefully assess each building individually and prioritise restoration when a structure has significant historical value and can be renovated at a reasonable cost.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response addresses all parts of the task thoroughly, discussing both sides of the argument regarding the restoration versus replacement of old buildings, while maintaining a clear and consistent personal position throughout. Ideas are well-extended and supported with relevant examples, such as how modern town halls can incorporate energy-efficient systems and facilities for people with disabilities. However, to reach a higher level, the ideas could be developed with even greater depth and nuance, perhaps by discussing specific socio-economic or cultural long-term implications rather than relying on slightly generalised arguments. Nevertheless, the position is well-maintained and all prompt requirements are successfully met.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.5

There is a clear logical organisation and progression throughout the essay. The response is divided into logical paragraphs, with a distinct introduction, balanced body paragraphs covering both views, a well-reasoned personal perspective, and a clear conclusion. Cohesive devices such as 'On the one hand', 'On the other hand', and 'Furthermore' are used effectively to guide the reader through the arguments, though occasional minor slip-ups in paragraph transitions or referencing could be smoothed out for a more seamless flow. Paragraphing is used appropriately, ensuring each main idea has its own dedicated space for development.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The writer demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, successfully attempting less common items such as 'preservation', 'energy-efficient', and 'cultural identity'. However, there are noticeable spelling and word-choice errors that prevent the writing from achieving a higher band, including 'wether' instead of 'whether', 'accessibilty' instead of 'accessibility', 'dissability' instead of 'disability', 'alot' instead of 'a lot', and 'convinence' instead of 'convenience'. Additionally, phrases like 'current scenario' and 'balance approach' show minor collocation inaccuracies. Improving spelling accuracy and precision in word choice will be essential to elevate the lexical score.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

The response exhibits a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating a reasonable ability to construct multi-clause sentences using subordinating conjunctions like 'even though', 'whereas', and 'while'. There are frequent error-free sentences, and grammar and punctuation generally do not impede communication. However, a number of grammatical errors persist, such as missing articles ('a balance approach', 'new modern building'), agreement issues ('government should adopt' where plural is contextually preferred, or inconsistent pluralisation like 'historic building can preserve'), and punctuation lapses. To reach the next band, a wider variety of complex structures with tighter control and fewer recurring minor grammatical slips is needed.

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.