Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Barron's Writing · 2026-09-27

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 6.5)

It has been argued that meat consumption has intensified in recent years, with many advocates arguing that raising live stock for food is inherently cruel and should be entirely abolished. While I acknowledge the ethical concerns regarding modern farming practices, I disagree with the absolute stance that people should never eat meat, as it overlooks essential nutritional requirements, economic dependencies, and cultural traditions.

The foremost reason to justify my stand It is undeniable that certain sectors of the commercial live stock industry engage in practices that cause animal suffering. Factory farming often confines animals to cramped, unnatural condition so maximize profit margins. This systematic mistreatment has understandably driven many individuals to adopt plant-based lifestyle out of compassion. If the premise is that humanity should minimize unnecesaly harm, the argument for reducing or eliminating meat from one's diet carries significant moral weight.

However, a universal ban on meat consumption is impractical & potentially harmful to human health. Meat is a dense source of Vitamin B12, protein and essential amino acids, which are difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities from a purely plant based supplementation. Additionally, supplementation is available but expensive, low socio economic populations have no option to get it, forcing a global shift away from this could lead to widespread nutritional deficiences, particularly in developing regions.

Furthermore, the socioeconomic impact of eliminating animal agriculture would be catastrophic. Many small scale farmers entirely depends on livestock for their survival. Moreover, meat consumption is deeply woven into the cultural fabrics, religious rituals, and traditional cuisines of countless societies. Demanding a total cessation of meat consumption ignores these deeply entrenched human realities, suggesting that a more balanced approach – such as promoting ethically raised organic meat &

improving animal welfare laws – is far more realistic that an outright ban.

In conclusion, while the ethical treatment of animals is pressing issue that requires stricter regulation & more humane farming practices, completely eliminating meat from the human diet is an extreme measure. Meat remains a vital source of nutrition & economic stability globally, meaning the focus should be on ethical sourcing rather than total prohibition.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response fully addresses all parts of the prompt by discussing both sides of the issue—acknowledging the ethical arguments against animal cruelty while presenting a clear, well-supported position against a total ban. The writer develops ideas comprehensively across the body paragraphs, covering nutritional requirements, socioeconomic impacts, and cultural traditions. For instance, the discussion on Vitamin B12 and the vulnerabilities of low socioeconomic populations provides strong, relevant examples. The position is maintained consistently from the introduction through to the conclusion. There are no missing components or under-developed main ideas, placing this performance securely in the higher band range.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

Ideas are logically sequenced and progress naturally throughout the essay, guiding the reader smoothly from the introduction into the ethical debate, health considerations, and socioeconomic factors. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and appropriately, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct, central theme. Cohesive devices such as 'Furthermore', 'However', and 'In conclusion' are managed well to signal relationships between ideas, although referencing is occasionally slightly loose, such as the dangling clause in the second paragraph 'The foremost reason to justify my stand It is undeniable...'. Despite this minor slip, the overall organizational structure is clear and cohesive.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The student demonstrates a sufficient and generally flexible range of vocabulary suited to the prompt. Less common lexical items such as 'socioeconomic impact', 'nutritional deficiencies', and 'ethical sourcing' are integrated with reasonable awareness of collocation. However, there are minor errors in word formation and spelling, such as 'live stock' instead of 'livestock', 'unnecesaly' instead of 'unnecessary', and 'low socio economic' instead of 'low-socioeconomic'. While these occasional mechanical slips prevent a higher score, the vocabulary is varied enough to allow precise communication of complex ideas.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The writer uses a mix of complex sentence structures with good control over overall grammar, as seen in complex conditional and concessive clauses ('While I acknowledge the ethical concerns...'). However, there are notable grammatical slips and punctuation errors. For example, the sentence fragment 'The foremost reason to justify my stand It is undeniable...' contains a fused structure error. Additionally, there are minor punctuation issues, such as using '&' instead of 'and' and a stray line break before the final conclusion. The majority of sentences remain accurate, and communication is never impeded, but these recurrent slips keep the performance at a solid Band 6.5.

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.