Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Barron's Writing · 2026-10-17

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Using a cell phone while driving is dangerous because it causes the driver to become distracted. Therefore, cell phone use by drivers should be made illegal.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

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

Student answer (Band 6.0)

In these times of modern technology, everyone has access to super fast internet services in reasonable prices. The most dangerous use is by the drivers who regardless of knowing the consequences of such carelessness, keep on using their electronic gadgets. This leads to severe accidents and sometimes death including the passengers lives on stake. Considering its fatal results, I largely agree that it should be declared illegal for drivers to use cellphones.

Assuming the importance of phones, it is a mere necessity but not compulsory for everyone to use while they are on road. It becomes a major source of distraction when there is a call or a text. The one driving just gives a glimpse to the phone in hand and with a blink of an eye, the accidents happen.Moreover, it is ethically not correct to use a mobile when you are driving a vehicle and there are people along whose life are also put in danger. It should be banned by the government and strict actions should be made against such people.

Rapid decline in accidents would be seen and more safety concerns will arise when citizens are made aware of their unconscious mistakes. The ruling authorities should impose heavy fines to the ones caught using phone. Every traffic signal or road corner should be monitored with cameras. This will make more focused and there will be more precautionary driving by people. Our society is immensely influenced by the usage of phones. So as they receive a notification, they become eager to attend their phone, whatever the situation given. This causes a diversion in attention while driving too. Strict rules and proper awareness by the ruling authorities can minimize such interruptions. For instance, the Dubai governments have restricted the use of gadgets and warned for implying hefty fines.This has made citizens well aware of their duties as responsible citizens. As a result, they have less accidents as compared to other countries.

In my perspective, majority of the accidents and casualties result due to the use of phones. This is an alarming situation where only awareness can help others for safety reasons.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear from the introduction: you “largely agree” that drivers’ cellphone use should be illegal, and the conclusion maintains this view. You address the main parts of the task by explaining distraction, danger to passengers, and possible enforcement through fines and cameras. The Dubai example also gives your argument some specific support. This meets the task well, but development is uneven: the claim that accidents would decline is asserted rather than explained, and the example does not show clearly how restrictions have reduced accidents. To strengthen the response further, explain the reasoning behind each proposed measure and develop one example with a clear link to your position. The argument is relevant throughout, though some claims remain broad.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, two main paragraphs, and a conclusion. Ideas generally progress from the danger of phone use to enforcement and public awareness, and linking expressions such as “Moreover,” “For instance,” and “As a result” help show relationships. However, cohesion is sometimes mechanical, with repeated references to “phones,” “driving,” and “strict” rules, and some links between claims are not fully clear. For example, the move from cameras to “more focused” driving needs an explanation of how monitoring produces that result. The final paragraph repeats the central claim rather than drawing together the supporting points. Use clearer referencing and organise each body paragraph around one main reason, followed by explanation and evidence.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a relevant range of topic vocabulary, including “distraction,” “fatal results,” “heavy fines,” “monitored with cameras,” and “precautionary driving.” These choices make the subject and your position clear, and some less common expressions show an effort to vary your language. However, several word combinations are unnatural or imprecise, such as “in reasonable prices,” “passengers lives on stake,” “strict actions should be made,” and “implying hefty fines.” There is also repetition of general terms such as “use,” “phone,” and “people,” which limits precision. Aim to learn common collocations for road safety and enforcement, and choose more exact wording when describing consequences. These improvements would make your vocabulary more natural and flexible.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex structures, including the opening clause “Considering its fatal results” and the conditional-style explanation of what happens when a driver looks at a phone. Most ideas remain understandable, but some grammatical errors and punctuation problems are noticeable. For example, “the accidents happen” does not fit naturally with the preceding time expression, and “there are people along whose life are also put in danger” has an unclear relative clause and agreement problem. In “This will make more focused,” the sentence lacks a clear object or complement. Several sentences also run together, as in “the accidents happen.Moreover,” and spacing around punctuation is inconsistent. Review sentence boundaries, subject–verb agreement, and relative clauses while continuing to practise complex sentence forms.

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.