Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Academic Practice Accelerator · 2026-09-13

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

In many countries, people do not recycle their rubbish as much as they could.

Why do you think this is? What can be done to change this?

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

Student answer (Band 5.0)

In many countries people do not recycle the plastic items such as water bottles, boxes, bags, and other items, things However some countries like Germany they can recycle and reuse the plastic things infrastructure and implementing strict legislation.

Firstly, people do not recycle the bags and some people are use long- driven times, the some people use rubbish boxes to were un useful things For example the plastic items are very dangerious we didn't use plastic bags, items, 2 years back in my home town the cow was eaten food such as rice with plastic bag then the cow was died in my home town most of the people are use cloth bags avoid plastic bags however when we go a long driven we can through the waste items are things.

Secondly, I go with people can recycle the plastic items, government can improve main infrastructure things such countries like Germany and America, USA mostly they can recycle the plastic items like water bottles to drink water and plastic bags to carry vegetables, toys and other personal care, For example in the other countries they can store all the rubbish in one store with plastic bags when the people has free time they can recycle it use the things by doing recycle they can save time and income , the government has not taking responsibility to people, the services marketing, residents face steep monetary fines for mixing recyclable materials with general waste, while reverse-vending systems. reward individuals with financial incentives for returning plastic bottles, recycling as an institutionalized daily habit.

In conclusion, the recycle the plastic things are good thing but mostly we can use cloth bags and it was a systemic, the government can motivated successfully citizens to protect environmental.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0

The response addresses both parts of the prompt, discussing the causes of low recycling rates and offering solutions. However, the development of ideas is limited and at times disjointed. For instance, the causes are briefly touched upon through personal anecdotes, such as the cow dying from eating plastic, rather than fully extended socio-economic explanations. The position is somewhat unclear due to abrupt shifts in ideas and run-on sentences. While the writer attempts to present solutions, such as government intervention and infrastructure improvements, these points lack deep elaboration and remain partially under-developed. This performance aligns best with the Band 5 descriptors, as the task is addressed, but the ideas are limited, repetitive, and lack clear progression.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0

Cohesion and logical progression are significant weak points in this essay. While the writer uses basic transition markers such as 'Firstly' and 'Secondly', the sentences within paragraphs are heavily tangled and run-on, making the overall arrangement difficult to follow. Paragraphing is attempted, but internal paragraph coherence fails because ideas are crammed together without clear demarcation. Referencing is frequently unclear; for example, pronouns and transitional phrases like 'however when we go a long driven we can through the waste items are things' lack clear antecedents or logical connection to the surrounding text. Overall organization shows some structural attempt, but cohesive devices are inaccurate and inadequate, placing it firmly at Band 4.5, rounded to 5.0 based on standard whole/half band increments.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, frequently relying on simple terms like 'plastic things', 'rubbish', and 'things'. There are noticeable word choice errors and awkward collocations, such as 'long- driven times' and 'very dangerious'. While the writer attempts some less common vocabulary items like 'legislation', 'financial incentives', and 'residents face steep monetary fines', these are often lifted from rote phrases or integrated with grammatical errors that cause difficulty for the reader. Spelling errors, such as 'dangerious' and 'motivated successfully', further restrict the lexical score. This performance fits the Band 5 descriptor of a limited and minimally adequate range with noticeable errors.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0

The grammatical range is extremely limited and heavily flawed. The response consists largely of long, rambling run-on sentences joined by commas rather than proper subordination or coordination (e.g., 'For example the plastic items are very dangerious we didn't use plastic bags...'). There is a lack of control over basic sentence structures, resulting in frequent errors in tense, subject-verb agreement, and clause structure. Complex sentences are rarely attempted successfully, and punctuation is largely neglected or misapplied. The density of errors frequently strains the reader and obscures meaning, corresponding to the Band 4 descriptor, though occasional pockets of correct phrasing push it to a 4.5, rounded to 5.0.

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.