Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-29

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 5.0)

Certain individuals have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flying altogether. This decision to make the environment better, doesn't outweigh the disadvantages for individuals and businesses.

Firstly, flying in an airplane do only little harm to environment. As it is flying on a significant higher altitude, smoke released from it's engines do not reach to the surface level to cause air pollution; however, it may cause some damage to birds that are capable of flying at such higher altitudes.

Secondly, It may be able to cause some serious drawbacks to an individual's career and an airline's business. An individual who runs a multinational company would often require to visit an emergency international meeting related to his business, so consequently he wouldn't be able to attend it because of a ban that was imposed by some individuals on air travel. The ban would result in gaining less profit, that could potentially risk the business of an airline to shutdown, resulting it to limit their services.

In conclusion, imposing a ban on air travel by some people is unnecessary and irrelevant, as it doesn't offer much to improve the quality of environment. This action would only result in implementing a serious damage to career of some individuals who worked hard to build their life. Furthermore, it would put an airline's business in danger which could help by allowing people to meet their family living at overseas.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

Your position is clear: you argue that reducing flights does not bring enough environmental benefit to outweigh the costs. You also address both individuals and businesses, using the example of a company owner missing an urgent meeting and the possible effect on airlines. However, the environmental case is asserted rather than supported: the claim that aircraft emissions do not reach the surface is not explained or substantiated, and the discussion gives little consideration to the actual benefits of reducing flights. The conclusion repeats your position without weighing the two sides in depth. The response is 225 words, below the 250-word minimum; 17 words copied from the task prompt were not counted. Develop and support both sides more fully.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, two body paragraphs signalled by “Firstly” and “Secondly,” and a conclusion. This makes the main line of argument easy to identify. However, progression within the paragraphs is limited: the first moves quickly from aircraft altitude to possible harm to birds, without clearly connecting these points to the overall comparison. In the second, the example of a missed meeting leads to airline losses, but the causal links are not fully explained. Some linking is mechanical, and “This action” in the conclusion refers somewhat broadly to the preceding ideas. Use clearer topic sentences and explain how each example supports your position.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use some relevant topic vocabulary, including “air pollution,” “multinational company,” “international meeting,” and “airline’s business,” so the subject is generally clear. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “drawbacks” and “potentially.” However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, including “flying in an airplane do only little harm,” “gaining less profit,” and “implementing a serious damage.” Repetition of “ban” also misrepresents the prompt, which describes individuals choosing to fly less rather than a general prohibition. Aim for more precise expressions such as “reduce emissions,” “lose revenue,” and “cause serious harm,” and distinguish voluntary choices from an imposed ban.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple and complex sentences, including a conditional structure in “An individual who runs a multinational company would often require to visit…” and a relative clause in “profit, that could potentially risk…”. These attempts show some range, but errors are frequent and sometimes make relationships between ideas harder to follow. Examples include subject–verb agreement in “flying … do,” the incorrect verb pattern “would … require to visit,” and the clause “that could potentially risk the business … to shutdown.” Articles and punctuation also need attention, as in “to environment” and the comma before “doesn’t” in the opening sentence. Practise accurate verb patterns and agreement before adding more complex clauses.

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.