Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 19 · 2026-10-15

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

In many countries nowadays, consumers can go to a supermarket and buy food produced all over the world.

Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

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

Student answer (Band 5.5)

In most countries nowadays, consumers can go to supermarket and can purches food products from all around the world. I believe these is a mainly positive development, although it has some negative aspects.

The main reason i see this as positive is that it reduces chances of monopoly but a singel compney. For example, many times if a country have singel compny domaniting that sector and creates monopoly then sell products at high price so, by opening doors for other compney that can be avoided. In addition, tourest from other country can also have there home food products. For instance many vegitarian tourist face this probelem that they do not find sutaible food, so now they can buy.

On the other hand there are some negative effects, such as increasing food dependincy on other country. For instance, if country is too much depending on other countries for food that can lead to a food security threat from other countries in war like secuations. Moreover, this gives less beifit to local compnes. For example, if your country's market is open for other countries then your local buissness will safer, as people tend to buy cheapest product.

In conclusion, i think this globalisation in food products have its positives and negatives, but from what we have discussed i lean towards is positive development as it supports global unity, although it comes with some negative aspects.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You give a clear overall view that the development is mainly positive, while acknowledging drawbacks, and you address both sides with relevant points: competition and food choice for tourists, alongside dependence on imports and pressure on local businesses. However, the ideas are only partly developed. The monopoly point is difficult to follow, and the tourist example is brief; the claim that local businesses will be “safer” also seems to mean the opposite of the intended point. The conclusion introduces “global unity” without explaining how this follows from the examples. The response is 17 words below the required minimum, which limits the space available to explain and support your arguments. Develop each main point with a clearer explanation or specific example.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, separate paragraphs for positive and negative effects, and a conclusion. This makes the main direction easy to identify, and signposts such as “On the other hand” and “In conclusion” help guide the reader. The ideas within paragraphs are generally grouped by topic, but progression is not always smooth. For example, the link between reducing monopoly and tourists finding familiar food is abrupt, while the sentence about local businesses being “safer” conflicts with the following explanation about consumers choosing cheaper products. Some linking phrases, including repeated “For example,” make the organisation feel mechanical. Use clearer cause-and-effect links and ensure each example directly supports the point it follows.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant topic vocabulary, including “monopoly,” “food security,” “globalisation,” and “local businesses,” which helps communicate the main ideas. However, the range is limited and several inaccurate word choices or collocations make parts difficult to understand, such as “reduces chances of monopoly but a single company” and “local business will safer.” Spelling errors are also noticeable, including “purches,” “dependincy,” and “sutaible.” These are lexical issues because they affect word form and spelling. Aim to learn accurate phrases for discussing competition, imports, and consumer choice, and proofread carefully. More precise vocabulary would make your argument clearer and more convincing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and complex sentence forms, including a conditional structure in “if a country is too much depending… that can lead to a food security threat.” However, complex sentences are often faulty, and errors occur frequently enough to make some ideas harder to follow. Examples include “consumers can go to supermarket,” “many times if a country have,” and “this globalisation in food products have its positives,” which show problems with articles, subject–verb agreement, and sentence construction. Some sentences also lack clear grammatical links between clauses. Practise building accurate sentences with “if” clauses and “because” or “which” clauses, then check agreement, articles, and punctuation. Greater control of these patterns would improve readability.

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.