Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-11-05

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement.

To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

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

Student answer (Band 5.5)

Some people think that more material from homes can be recycled. According to them the government should make it a legal requirement to boost recycling. I think motivating laws should be made to push people towards more recyling. People should be paid some amount of money for recycling and there should be a minimum number of recycling points given to each household.

Individuals should get some money for recycling products. It can be done by installing recycling machines on different points in a city in which people can dump the waste material and depending on the waste they get some money. In germany machines are placed at different points in which people dump plastic bottles and get some points in their cards or coins in hand.

Similarly, A scoring system should be installed in buildings or in the streets near the specialised trunks for waste material where a minimum points should be displayed and people will get their points according to the number of waste material products which can be calculated at the end of the month and a penalty or fine should be imposed on those scoring below those points. More developed countries across the world adopt such strategies to encourage recycling.

In conclusion, people should be encouraged by the government to recycle more waste from their homes by installing recycling machines nearby residential areas and by introducing a scoring system in which by scoring less than the minimum points a fine should be imposed.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

Your position is clear: you support government action to increase household recycling, using financial rewards and a points system with fines. The examples of bottle-return machines in Germany and penalties for households that score below a minimum make the response relevant to the question. However, the discussion focuses mainly on how incentives and monitoring could work, rather than explaining how far laws are necessary or considering whether other approaches could also increase recycling. The points system is also not fully explained—for example, how households’ waste would be measured fairly. The response is four words below the required minimum, so it does not meet the task’s length requirement. Develop the argument further and address the extent of your agreement more explicitly.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction states your view, two body paragraphs present proposed measures, and a conclusion restates them. The progression from financial rewards to a points-and-penalty system is easy to follow, and phrases such as “Similarly” and “In conclusion” signal the stages of the argument. However, the organisation is somewhat mechanical, with the conclusion repeating the introduction and body points rather than drawing them together. Some links between ideas are also unclear: the relationship between rewarding recycling and imposing fines is not explained, and “More developed countries across the world adopt such strategies” is a broad claim that does not clearly connect to the preceding example. Use clearer referencing and explain how each measure supports your position.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use enough topic-related vocabulary to communicate your proposals, including “legal requirement,” “recycling machines,” “penalty,” and “fine.” The German bottle-return example also gives the discussion some specificity. However, the range is limited by repeated use of “points,” “waste material,” and “recycling,” and some expressions are imprecise or unnatural, such as “specialised trunks” and “different points in a city.” Spelling errors, including “recyling,” are noticeable. Aim for more precise terms such as “collection bins,” “recycling facilities,” and “deposit-return machines,” and vary repeated wording where possible. More accurate collocations would make the argument sound clearer and more natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You communicate your main ideas using both simple sentences and some longer structures, including the sentence beginning “It can be done by installing recycling machines…” and the clause “those scoring below those points.” Most of the meaning remains understandable, but some grammatical errors occur. For example, “a minimum points” has incorrect number agreement, and “where a minimum points should be displayed” has an unclear structure. The sentence beginning “Similarly” also combines several ideas in a way that makes the relationship between the scoring system, monthly calculation, and fine difficult to follow. Capitalisation is inconsistent in “In germany” and “Similarly, A scoring system.” Practise accurate articles, singular/plural agreement, and punctuation, while breaking long sentences into clearer units.

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.