Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-14

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flying altogether.

Do you think the environmental benefits of this development outweigh the disadvantages for individuals and businesses?

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

Student answer (Band 6.0)

Some individuals have resolved to lower the number of times they fly in a year or to stop flying altogether. They think that by doing so, they will reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. But I am of the opinion that this will cause more harm than good to the environment.

In today's world, daily, millions of people fly across the globe as it is the fastest means of transport. We might think that why do people need to travel in the first place? Most people travel as tourists to explore the world and see various different cultures. This is not just beneficial for the tourists but also the country they are visiting as tourism promotes the economic growth of a country. While others travel to study abroad or expand their businesses. Without flying overseas, a huge amount of businesses will cease to exist which also effects jobs worldwide.

A typical airplane can carry hundreds of passengers along with their luggage and can take them from point A to B in a matter of hours, that too for an affordable price. Any other alternate mode of transport such as cars, trains or ferries, would not only take more time but would also consume more fuel than an aircraft for the same journey. People who want to travel by these modes will actually cause more pollution.

In summary, I would like to say that there are better ways to protect the environment such as public transport and use of electric vehicles.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

Your position is clear: you argue that reducing flights would bring more disadvantages than environmental benefits. You address effects on tourism, international study and business, and compare flying with other transport. These are relevant points, but the environmental side of the question is not examined in enough depth. In particular, the claim that cars, trains or ferries would consume more fuel and cause more pollution is broad and unsupported; emissions vary by vehicle, route and passenger numbers. The conclusion also shifts to recommending public transport and electric vehicles without explaining how this supports your argument about the disadvantages of flying less. Develop and qualify these comparisons, and support the main claims with specific reasoning or examples.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction states your view, the body paragraphs give reasons, and a final paragraph summarises your position. The progression from tourism and business to transport alternatives is easy to follow, and linking phrases such as “While others” and “In summary” help guide the reader. This meets the lower-band expectations securely and shows some stronger control through paragraphing and a generally logical sequence. However, the connection between the final recommendation and your argument is not fully clear, and the rhetorical question “why do people need to travel in the first place?” interrupts the flow rather than advancing the reasoning. Use clearer links between claims and conclusions, and make each paragraph’s central point explicit.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, including “pollution in the atmosphere,” “tourism promotes the economic growth,” and “expand their businesses.” These expressions make your main ideas clear, and you attempt more specific language such as “alternate mode of transport.” Some choices are imprecise or unnatural, however: “lower the number of times” is less idiomatic than “reduce the frequency,” while “a huge amount of businesses” uses an unsuitable quantifier. “Effects jobs” also confuses the verb “affects” with the noun “effects.” Greater precision in collocations and word forms would strengthen the argument, especially when discussing emissions and economic consequences. Aim to use topic-specific terms accurately rather than relying on broad phrases such as “more pollution.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including clauses beginning “as” and “While,” and most sentences communicate the intended meaning. There are some grammatical and punctuation errors, but they rarely prevent understanding. For example, “We might think that why do people need to travel” combines an indirect question with direct-question word order; write “We might ask why people need to travel.” The sentence beginning “A typical airplane can carry…” joins two independent clauses with a comma, so it would be clearer to use a full stop or conjunction. Also, “a huge amount of businesses” should be “a huge number of businesses.” Review indirect questions, clause boundaries and countable nouns, while continuing to vary sentence structures.

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.