Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Barron's Writing · 2026-11-05

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 5.5)

Accidents caused by the distractions while using electronic devices has become repetitive practice. Majority of the people believes that this should be considered as an unethical practice; usage of mobile phone on road should be prohibited. I agree to the statement.

To begin with, using phones being on-route can not only risk a lifelong injury for a driver, also it can harm other travellers who are on road. Travellers who obey traffic rules expect everyone to drive safely; if any unforeseen tragedy happens due to careless driving by others, they might lose their trust on higher authorities and law enforcement. Hence, these activities should be restricted to avoid any mishappen.

Secondly, traffic congestion may occur due to mobile usage while driving; some people distract themselves by using cell phones. it may cause traffic delay which can lead to traffic jam.

On the other hand, there are a few positives of using mobile phones while driving if it is used in an emergency situations by hand free services such as apple carplay. Most of the people may face some health conditions while driving such as panic attack. It would be considered as a right step to call emergency services for help such as paramedics.

To conclude, usage of mobile phones during driving could be result lifesaving, but these are not as significant as the drawbacks which are risk for others and traffic congestion.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

Your position is clear in the opening (“I agree to the statement”), and you give relevant reasons involving injury to other road users and traffic congestion. You also acknowledge an exception for emergencies, which helps address the issue with some balance. However, the reasons are not developed evenly: the congestion point is brief, and the emergency example is not fully reconciled with your support for a ban. Explain whether hands-free emergency calls should be exempt and why. The conclusion repeats the main drawbacks but does not resolve this qualification. The response is also 18 words below the required minimum, limiting the space available to develop your ideas. Add a specific example and explain the consequences of distraction more fully.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, two supporting points, a counterpoint, and a conclusion. Sequencing phrases such as “To begin with,” “Secondly,” and “On the other hand” help readers follow the main stages. Overall, the ideas are arranged coherently, but some links are mechanical or unclear. For example, the paragraph on congestion moves from distraction to delay and then repeats the idea as “traffic jam” without explaining the connection. The reference in “these activities” is also vague, and the emergency paragraph’s relationship to your overall agreement could be clearer. Develop each paragraph around one main point, use clearer references, and make the transition from the exception back to your position explicit.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant vocabulary for the topic, including “distracted,” “traffic congestion,” “law enforcement,” “emergency services,” and “drawbacks.” These choices make your main meaning understandable and show some attempt to use topic-specific language. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, such as “repetitive practice,” “on-route,” “unforeseen tragedy,” and “right step.” “Some health conditions” is also too general for the panic-attack example. These issues make parts of the response less precise, although the overall message remains clear. Build a more reliable range of collocations for road safety and emergencies, and check whether each phrase sounds natural in context. Prefer precise expressions such as “repeated occurrence” or “while driving.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including a conditional structure in “if any unforeseen tragedy happens” and a contrast introduced by “On the other hand.” The overall meaning is generally recoverable, but some grammatical errors affect clarity. For example, “Accidents … has become” has a subject–verb agreement problem, and “Majority of the people believes” has issues with the article and agreement. The construction “can not only risk …, also it can harm” is not parallel, while “if it is used in an emergency situations” has a number mismatch. Capitalisation after the full stop in “it may cause” also needs attention. Practise agreement, articles, plurals, and parallel structures, then proofread each sentence.

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.