Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Recent IELTS Exams (Canada & India) · 2026-10-08

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 6.5)

The debate over whether the historical buildings be preserved or demolished to make way for modern infrastructure is controversial. While critics point out the high cost of maintaining the old buildings, I believe that preserving ancient architecture provides cultural and economic benefits to the society.

Advocates for replacing old buildings state that the cost of maintaining the old buildings like town halls and art galleries is quite high. As they are not equipped with modern electricity and drainage facilities ,so, these buildings require a high amount of investment to keep them functional. Also other modern amenities like Wi-Fi, firm alarm and fire extinguishing systems are not there in these old buildings so it also poses some threats to the people working in such facilities. And to equip them with something that is not built in is time and cost consuming and requires regular maintenance more often than the buildings with the modern built in facilities.

On the other hand, preserving the old buildings can serve as preserving a cultural heritage. These landmarks can serve as physical links to the past and can help in educating future generations about their architectural history. Furthermore, these ancient sites can attract tourists and can generate revenue that can surpass the amount required for maintenance. Cities like Rome, Paris and Kyoto attract millions of tourists every year just because they have preserved their historic townscapes rather than replacing them with concrete skyscrapers.

In conclusion, erasing historical sites and replacing them with modern architecture provides short term financial saving but it risks erasing a city's cultural soul. Governments should intervene and preserve landmarks while utilizing the free and less significant zones.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response addresses both sides of the debate and maintains a clear position in favour of preserving historic buildings. The case for replacement is supported with practical concerns about maintenance costs, outdated utilities and safety, while the preservation argument is extended through cultural education and tourism revenue. The examples of Rome, Paris and Kyoto make the latter point concrete. This is a well-focused discussion, though some claims are broad: for instance, the essay says these cities attract visitors “just because” they preserved historic townscapes, without acknowledging other attractions or explaining how revenue compares with restoration costs. A more specific example or fuller qualification of this point would make the support more convincing.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The essay has a clear, effective structure: an introduction states the issue and opinion, separate body paragraphs present the two views, and the conclusion restates the writer’s position. Ideas progress logically within each paragraph, and signposts such as “On the other hand,” “Furthermore,” and “In conclusion” help readers follow the argument. There is some overuse of additive linking, particularly “Also” and “And” in the first body paragraph, which makes the development feel slightly list-like. The phrase “these buildings” is repeated several times, and the final reference to “the free and less significant zones” is not fully explained. More varied transitions and clearer links between examples and claims would make cohesion more flexible.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The vocabulary is adequate for discussing heritage and urban development, with useful topic-specific expressions such as “cultural heritage,” “physical links to the past,” “historic townscapes,” and “short term financial saving.” The writer also attempts less common language, including “demolished” and “architectural history.” However, some choices or combinations are inaccurate or unnatural: “firm alarm” appears to mean “fire alarm,” “free and less significant zones” is unclear, and “modern built in facilities” is awkwardly phrased. Repetition of “old buildings” and “preserving” also limits flexibility. Aim for more precise collocations and check that each phrase conveys the intended meaning; this would strengthen an otherwise relevant vocabulary range.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The response uses a mix of simple and complex structures, including a concessive opening (“While critics point out…”) and a relative clause (“which can help in educating future generations”). Meaning remains clear throughout, but some grammatical and punctuation errors occur. In “whether the historical buildings be preserved,” the verb form should be “should be preserved” or “should be preserved or demolished.” The sentence beginning “As they are not equipped…” has faulty clause connection and punctuation; it could be recast as “Because they lack modern electricity and drainage, they require substantial investment.” There are also missing or misplaced commas, such as before “so” in that construction, and “the society” would more naturally be “society.” Greater control of clause boundaries and articles would improve accuracy.

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.