Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-11-09

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 6.0)

Wastes that are not recycled by the people with their own intiative is a huge burden for the government. The overall population's claim is that recycling should be made a legal requirement where people would bound by the law to recycle their own wastes. Personally, I think there are more cons to imposing hard and fast legal rules.

Imposing a legal framework, actually helps in a lot of way. We have seen in past, when people were legally bound to not speeding their cars, they tend to stop the practice a lot. A legal infastructure with regular implementation of punishments for not following the law has stopped a lot of bad practices among the population.Such as, stopping child marriage through child marriage act was crucial in Bangladesh. It certainly helped stopping a widely followed practice.

However, I doubt the effectiveness when it comes to solving an environmental problem through improsing a legal framework. For example, there are laws in every country on public smoking and drugs abuse. Public smoking could hardly be reduced through legal enforcement since enacting the law would require a lot of vigillancy by the law enforcement agencies which prooved nearly impossible by some governments. I am confident that same thing would happen if government proceed to make recycle compulsary through law enforcement. Government need to increase vigillancy across the households, so if some household impedes the law they are fined accordingly. But not all government has the infrastructure and it will fail.

In conclusion, law enforcement on recycling waste will be a failed project for a lot of governments out there. On the other hand, if awareness could be built among the people through collective practice would be more fruitful in my point of view.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

Your position is clear: you doubt that legal requirements are an effective way to increase household recycling, and you conclude that awareness and collective practice would be more fruitful. You address both the potential value of laws and their practical limitations, using examples such as traffic rules and public-smoking restrictions. However, the discussion of recycling itself is less fully developed than the general examples. The traffic example shows that laws can change behaviour, but you do not explain how that lesson applies to household waste. Likewise, the final suggestion about awareness is not supported with a specific example or explanation of how it would work. Develop these points and acknowledge when enforcement might be useful to make the response more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction states your view, the body paragraphs consider the benefits and limitations of legal enforcement, and the conclusion restates your position. Linking expressions such as “However” and “In conclusion” help signal the direction of the argument. Some connections between ideas are less clear or feel mechanical. For instance, the shift from traffic laws to child marriage is abrupt, and “Such as” begins a fragment rather than smoothly introducing an example. The conclusion’s contrast, “On the other hand,” is also not fully logical because it follows a statement that laws will fail and introduces an alternative rather than an opposing view. Use clearer transitions and explain how each example supports the paragraph’s main point.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, including “legal framework,” “legal enforcement,” “infrastructure,” and “collective practice.” These choices help communicate your argument, and some less common terms show an attempt to express ideas precisely. However, several spelling and word-choice errors reduce accuracy, including “intiative,” “infastructure,” “vigillancy,” and “compulsary.” Some combinations are also unnatural, such as “not speeding their cars” and “implementation of punishments.” Aim for accurate spelling and more natural collocations, especially when discussing laws and enforcement. Replacing broad or awkward phrases with precise expressions will make the argument clearer without requiring more complicated vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including conditional structures such as “if some household impedes the law they are fined accordingly.” The main argument is generally understandable, but some grammatical errors affect accuracy. For example, “people would bound by the law” is missing a verb, while “Government need” has a subject–verb agreement problem. The sentence beginning “Such as” is incomplete, and “if government proceed” needs a clearer subject and verb form. There are also issues with articles and plural forms, as in “not all government.” Work on complete sentence construction, agreement, and articles, and check punctuation around longer sentences. More consistently accurate complex sentences would strengthen your control.

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.