Band 8.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 8.5 · Barron's Writing · 2026-08-17

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

People should never eat meat because raising animals for human consumption is cruel.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Give reasons for your answer, and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Student answer (Band 8.5)

here is growing concern about the ethical implications of consuming meat, particularly because animals raised for food may be subjected to poor living conditions and inhumane treatment. Although I agree that industrial animal farming can involve significant cruelty, I disagree with the view that people should never eat meat. In my opinion, responsible meat consumption can coexist with acceptable standards of animal welfare.

On the one hand, there are compelling reasons to oppose intensive meat production. In many large-scale farms, animals are kept in confined spaces and raised primarily to maximise productivity and reduce costs. Such practices can prevent animals from behaving naturally and may cause considerable stress and suffering. Furthermore, the transportation and slaughter of livestock can also involve unnecessary pain if proper welfare standards are not followed. For example, chickens and pigs raised in highly intensive systems may spend most of their lives in overcrowded conditions. From an ethical perspective, consumers are therefore justified in questioning whether the convenience of inexpensive meat is worth the suffering associated with its production.

However, it would be overly simplistic to conclude that all meat consumption is inherently cruel. The treatment of animals varies considerably according to farming methods, and livestock can be raised in conditions that prioritise their welfare. Free-range poultry farming, pasture-based cattle farming and smaller-scale farms, for instance, can provide animals with adequate space, food and access to natural environments. In addition, many countries have introduced animal-welfare regulations governing transportation, housing and slaughter. Therefore, rather than eliminating meat altogether, consumers can reduce the ethical problems associated with meat production by purchasing products from farms that follow higher welfare standards.

There are also practical reasons why a complete prohibition on meat consumption may be unrealistic. Meat provides important nutrients, including high-quality protein, iron and vitamin B12, although these can also be obtained from carefully planned vegetarian or vegan diets. More importantly, livestock farming is an important source of income for millions of people, particularly in rural communities. A sudden worldwide transition away from meat could consequently have serious economic consequences for farmers and related industries. A more realistic approach would be to reduce excessive consumption while encouraging sustainable farming and stricter animal-welfare standards.

In conclusion, I strongly oppose cruel and intensive methods of animal farming, but I do not believe that eating meat is inherently unethical. The better solution is to promote responsible consumption, improve farming practices and enforce rigorous welfare regulations. This approach would allow society to balance human dietary choices with the ethical responsibility to minimise animal suffering.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 8.5

The response fully addresses all parts of the prompt. You clearly state your position in the introduction and maintain it consistently throughout the essay. Each paragraph is well-developed with relevant examples, such as the mention of free-range and pasture-based farming as alternatives to intensive systems. You also provide a balanced view by acknowledging the ethical concerns while offering a pragmatic counter-argument regarding economic impacts and nutritional needs. The ideas are extended logically, and the conclusion effectively synthesizes your main points, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of the topic.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 8.0

The essay is logically organized with a clear progression of ideas. Each paragraph has a central theme, and the transition between the ethical arguments and the practical considerations is smooth. You make effective use of cohesive devices such as 'On the one hand,' 'Furthermore,' 'In addition,' and 'Consequently,' which help guide the reader through your argument. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate distinct points, and referencing is clear throughout. The flow of information is natural and unobtrusive, meeting the criteria for a high band score in this category.

Lexical Resource — Band 8.0

You demonstrate a wide and flexible range of vocabulary, which allows for precise expression of your ideas. Phrases such as 'ethical implications,' 'intensive meat production,' 'inherently cruel,' and 'rigorous welfare regulations' show a high level of lexical control. You use topic-specific terminology accurately and naturally. There are no significant errors in word choice or collocation, and the vocabulary is varied enough to avoid repetition while maintaining a formal, academic tone suitable for an IELTS task of this nature.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 8.5

The essay displays a wide range of grammatical structures, including complex sentences with subordinate clauses and varied sentence beginnings. The majority of your sentences are error-free, and you demonstrate excellent control over punctuation and tense usage. For instance, the use of conditional structures and modal verbs is accurate and adds nuance to your arguments. There are no noticeable grammatical slips that impede communication, and the overall quality of the writing is highly professional and accurate, reflecting a strong command of English grammar.

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.