Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Academic Practice Accelerator · 2026-10-23

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 5.5)

In many parts of the world, people really donot consider recycling the rubbish as much they could. This is really true, people think that its useless to recycle things.

Recycling things cost time and feels un effective to many people. Old things and rubbish can be recycled so that it can reduce the enviornmental pollution. Peope should be encouraged to reuse and recycle the goods so that they can play a role in making ideal enviornment to survive. For example: In America, people collect old plastic bottles instead of throwing away and go to recycling stores once in a month where they are provided with money in return of empty bottles as government encourages this act and will e beneficary for both governmet, enviornment and the public.

Rubbish not only takes lot of space in houses,play grounds and streets but also a factor in spread in many contagious diseases like Malaria, Typhoid and Hepatitis by containminating enviornment. There is a need to spread awareness by the government and health sector about these risk factors to control these diseases. For exampe: If government conduct proper awareness and training sessions for the local communites, people can get awareness about many diseases and avioid throwing garbage on streets and open areas which can automatically results in the decline of these diseseas.

In conclusion, recycling things can be effective for both the communities and the governmet so people should be awared about the benefical effects of the recycling and should be ecouraged to take serious attention towards making it a habbit.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response addresses both questions: it suggests that recycling is seen as time-consuming or ineffective, and proposes incentives, government encouragement, and public-awareness sessions. The bottle-return example gives one relevant illustration, while the discussion of rubbish and disease supports the need for action. However, the reasons for low recycling are only briefly explained, and the response shifts from recycling to littering and disease without clearly showing how these issues answer the question. The proposed measures also need fuller explanation—for instance, how awareness campaigns would make recycling easier or more routine. A clearer position and more developed links between each cause, solution, and example would make the response more complete and persuasive.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, two body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Ideas are generally grouped by topic: the first body paragraph discusses recycling and incentives, while the next focuses on rubbish-related health risks and awareness. However, progression is limited because the second body paragraph moves away from recycling towards street litter and disease, and the connection between these points is not made explicit. Linking phrases such as “For example” and “In conclusion” help signal stages, but they are used mechanically and do not always clarify the relationship between ideas. Improve cohesion by organising the body around the two task questions and using clear references to connect each example to its main point.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The response uses some relevant topic vocabulary, including “recycle,” “environmental pollution,” “contagious diseases,” and “awareness,” so the main subject is understandable. However, the range is limited and several expressions are inaccurate or awkward, such as “recycling things cost time,” “ideal environment to survive,” and “take serious attention.” Spelling errors—including “enviornment,” “beneficary,” and “containminating”—are noticeable and reduce the accuracy of the vocabulary. Repetition of “people,” “things,” and “awareness” also limits precision. Build a wider set of natural collocations for waste management and public policy, and check spelling and word forms carefully so that the intended meaning is consistently clear.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

There are attempts to combine ideas in longer sentences, for example, the sentence beginning “For example: In America,” and the sentence explaining how awareness sessions could affect behaviour. However, the range of sentence structures is limited, and complex sentences are often faulty. Examples include “people really donot consider recycling the rubbish as much they could,” which is missing “as,” and “Recycling things cost time,” where the subject and verb do not agree. Other problems include “people collect … and go … where they are provided,” which has unclear reference, and “If government conduct,” which needs a correctly formed conditional clause. These errors sometimes make relationships between ideas difficult to follow. Practise accurate simple sentences first, then build longer sentences with controlled clauses and punctuation.

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.