Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 19 · 2026-10-29

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 5.0)

The increasing number of technological tools enabled people to transport wide range of foods all across the world. Individuals who live in foreign country could enjoy thier country food because technology allowed them to. I think it's a positive developement because people can enjoy a wide variety of food without even travelling to that specific country.

Transport system such as cargo and plane enabled to transport good all across the globe. Also they generate revenue for governments from that product. Importing wide variety of food in the country will help individuals to enjoy such foods without visiting that country. For instance, in the past residents had to visit a country in order to enjoy it's taste. However, tarnsporting them to another country allowed them to get those items from supermarkets.

Conversly, transporting goods from one country to another country made international bonding among leaders stronger. For instance, Going to supermarket allowed individuals impression on that country and if the product is good in taste then it may encourage possible purchases. This could encourage government to invest on that product. Eventually both country could make mutual bonding with each other. And in times of need that friend country perhaps comes in benefit.

In conclusion, Having food produced all across the glob will generate possible revnue as well as mutual bonding among governments and residents. In my view, having global range food not only generate possible revnue but also strenghten mutual bonding.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You state a clear positive view, explaining that imported food gives people access to a wider variety without travelling, and you add a second idea about trade potentially strengthening relations between countries. These points are relevant, but the response addresses the question only partially because the explanations remain limited and some claims are unclear. For example, the link between a supermarket product being tasty and governments forming a stronger bond is asserted rather than convincingly explained. The conclusion repeats the two benefits without adding a developed final insight. The response is also 10 words below the required minimum, so there is less space to support your ideas. Develop each main reason with a clear explanation and a specific, relevant example.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, two body paragraphs and a conclusion. Paragraphs broadly separate the benefits of access to food and international relations, and linking expressions such as “For instance,” “However,” and “In conclusion” help signal movement between points. However, progression within paragraphs is sometimes difficult to follow. In the second body paragraph, the sequence from consumers forming an impression of a country to governments investing in a product and then becoming friends is not clearly connected. Some transitions, including “Conversely,” do not accurately signal a contrast, since the paragraph continues to support your positive position. Use clearer topic sentences and explain each step in your reasoning; avoid connectors that suggest a relationship your ideas do not show.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some topic-relevant vocabulary, including “transport,” “importing,” “revenue,” and “mutual bonding,” and the reader can generally understand your main position. However, the range is limited and several word choices or combinations are inaccurate or unnatural, which makes parts of the argument harder to interpret. For example, “transport good” does not express the intended idea clearly, while “made international bonding among leaders stronger” is an awkward way to describe closer relations. Spelling errors such as “developement,” “tarnsporting,” and “revnue” are also noticeable. Build a more precise range of vocabulary for international trade and relationships, and check spelling and collocations when editing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including a conditional structure in “if the product is good in taste then it may encourage possible purchases.” However, the range is limited, and errors occur frequently enough to affect clarity. For example, “enabled people to transport wide range of foods” is missing an article and has an unclear subject relationship; “Transport system … enabled to transport” lacks a clear object after “enabled”; and “both country could make” has an agreement and number error. Capitalisation and punctuation are also inconsistent, as in “For instance, Going” and “In conclusion, Having.” Practise accurate article use, subject–verb agreement, and sentence construction, then proofread each sentence for a complete and clearly connected structure.

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.