Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 21 · 2026-10-30

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

The best way to provide enough homes in large cities is to build tall apartment blocks.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

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

Student answer (Band 6.0)

It is often said that building tall apartment units in big urban cities is considered as the best approach for providing sufficient homes to its residents. While I agree to this statement at some context , I also fear that this may create some big isuues in the future.

To start with, due to heavy urbanization and high population density, large cities do not have enough unused land ,which makes it difficult to develop individual homes in large numbers. To cope with the huge market demand from the increasing population in cities it is almost impossible to grant them a seperate house. As a result, home builders and developers are forced to develop big apartment and condominium blocks in the town. Even the goverment projects thesedays focus on developing big houses to meet the the problem of housing crisis. Canadian Goverment, For example had implemented plans to develop big apartment houses to address the housing problems created by rapid population growth in the year 2025.

On the other hand, while building tall apartment building might solve the problem in the short run , it will create problems such as overcrowd and safety concerns ,especially in times of emergency such as fire in the buildings or natural events. when the city has more number of big apartment blocks, the city gets crowded and contributes to noise pollution. this will eventually lead to environmental issues in the future. Similarly, residents of apartment blocks are at risk in the events such as when there is a fire hazard as the more number residents are staying within the same building. In addition, it's challenging to manage and handle the residents of tall buildings in case of natural events like earthquake or flood. There is a channce that not only people lose their homes together but it also leads to the loss of their lives.

In conclusion, I strongly agree that having tall apartment blocks in big cities will assist to alleviate the problem of housing crisis, there is a huge chance that relying only on this development, will create catastrophic problems in the years to come, such as nosiy environment and safety oncerns when natural disassters take place.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear: you recognise that tall apartment blocks can increase housing supply, while warning against relying on them alone. The response addresses both sides of the question and gives relevant reasons, including limited urban land, population growth, crowding and emergency risks. The Canadian example also attempts to support the argument, although it is presented as a broad claim rather than explained evidence. Some ideas are more fully developed than others: the land-scarcity point is linked to the need for apartments, but the claims about noise, environmental harm and disaster-related loss are asserted without showing how likely or avoidable they are. To strengthen the response, explain the trade-off more precisely and clarify whether you agree with tall blocks as the best approach or only as one part of a wider housing strategy.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The essay has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, two contrasting body paragraphs and a conclusion. The progression from the benefits of apartment construction to its possible drawbacks is easy to follow, and signposts such as “To start with,” “On the other hand” and “In conclusion” help orient the reader. This gives the response a coherent overall arrangement. However, some connections are mechanical, and the second body paragraph moves quickly from crowding to noise, environmental issues and emergency risks without clearly grouping or developing these points. The conclusion also combines agreement with a warning in a way that leaves the final position slightly imprecise. Use clearer links between cause and consequence, and organise each paragraph around one main claim with supporting explanation.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “population density,” “housing crisis,” “condominium blocks,” “noise pollution” and “safety concerns.” These choices make the subject clear, and you attempt some less common expressions. At times, however, word choice and collocation are inaccurate or repetitive: “big apartment houses,” “huge market demand” and “more number of big apartment blocks” do not sound natural in this context. There are also spelling errors such as “seperate,” “goverment,” “channce” and “disassters,” alongside the misspelling “nosiy.” These generally do not prevent understanding, but they reduce precision and control. Build a bank of natural housing-related collocations and proofread spelling carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex structures, including a concession in “While I agree…” and a conditional-style explanation beginning “when the city has more number…”. Most ideas remain understandable, but some grammatical errors recur and occasionally make relationships less clear. For example, “is considered as the best approach” uses an unnecessary “as,” while “to its residents” does not agree clearly with the plural subject “cities.” The sentence beginning “Canadian Goverment, For example had implemented…” has faulty punctuation and sentence construction, and “the more number residents” lacks a grammatical structure. Capitalisation and comma use are also inconsistent. Practise accurate clause construction, articles and agreement, then check sentence boundaries and punctuation during revision.

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.