Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-09-28
IELTS Writing Task 2 question
Concern for the environment is growing and more and more people are choosing to recycle. But some people suggest that recycling is not enough. They believe we need to consume less.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
It is frequently argued that most of people believe that it is crucial to recycle for the prevention of nature whereas others think, recycling is not enough, they should consume less. As per my knowledge, both suggestions are right at their own place.
Commence with, recycling is one of the favourable step to prevent the nature as nowadays, almost whole world depend on packed food, water, cosmetics, accessories and so on, it is good idea after using it they can recycle the waste and most of people believe in recycling things which give them inner peace and they can earn money because most of the countries has machines which gives money in return which is not only helpful to them but also contribute to nature.
On the other hand, persons argues that recycling is not enough people should consume less as they should start reusing the things which can be reused like toys, plastic bottle, cans, books and so on and people should not depend on packed food which is not favourable to health, they should eat home cooked fresh food.
As per my perspective, recycling is a important and also persons should not totally relay on plastic stuff. As they all know plastic is extremely harmfull for the nature, we should replace with paper bags and glass jars and bottles as paper and glass both can easily destroyed but plastic not. It is the duty of authorities to ban the plastic from everywhere and must be replaced by other material like paper and glass which is not concerned to nature. For example:- In some countries like Canada, America and India, they banned plastic in malls, food places like restaurant , cafes excetera, but not in whole places some rural areas are still using plastic, government should take actions towards them and make strict laws so they must not destroy the nature.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 4.5 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0
The response addresses all parts of the task by discussing both views—the importance of recycling and the argument for consuming less—and provides the writer's own opinion in the introduction and conclusion. However, the development of ideas is somewhat limited and repetitive. For example, the point about recycling earning money through reverse vending machines is a relevant example, but the explanation remains superficial. The writer's perspective leans into reducing plastic consumption rather than strictly consuming less overall, which slightly conflates the two prompts. Overall, the task is addressed adequately, placing it firmly in the band 5 range due to under-developed main ideas and limited extension.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0
The essay is organised into four paragraphs, attempting an introduction, two body paragraphs, and a conclusion. However, the logical progression is hindered by awkward transitional phrases such as 'Commence with,' and 'As per my perspective,' which are misused. Cohesive devices are repetitive and sometimes inaccurate. Referencing is occasionally unclear, as seen in pronouns like 'they' and 'it' referring ambiguously to people, materials, or countries. Paragraphing is present, but internal cohesion lacks flexibility and smooth flow. This results in a mechanical structure that fits the band 5 descriptors well.
Lexical Resource: Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is generally basic and repetitive, with frequent reliance on simple terms like 'things,' 'nature,' and 'good.' There are attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as 'favourable,' 'extemely harmfull,' and 'authorities,' but these are accompanied by noticeable word-choice and spelling errors ('excetera' instead of 'etc.', 'harmfull'). Collocations are occasionally unnatural, such as 'prevent the nature' instead of 'protect the environment.' While the vocabulary is minimally adequate to convey basic meaning, the frequency of lexical errors and limited range restrict the score to a band 5.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5
The writer attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but complex sentences are frequently faulty, containing grammatical errors and run-on structures. For instance, sentences like '...almost whole world depend on packed food... it is good idea after using it they can recycle the waste...' display comma splices, missing articles, and subject-verb agreement issues. Other errors include 'recycling is a important' and 'plastic not' (omission of verb). Punctuation control is weak, with improper comma usage and stray punctuation marks. Frequent grammatical errors cause occasional strain for the reader.
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.