Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-08-28
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)
A number of people believes that not all the waste products from houses can be recycled and the government has to take an action on it and make recycling legal. I agree with this statement because most of the waste products from homes such as plastic thrown in garbage which can be recycled and reuse. This recycling process can also save our environment from pollutions.
From my perspective, government needs to make a law on '3R' which is reduce, reuse and recycle. Most of the waste products such as plastics, shopping bags, cans need to be recycled because if the law is make then our environment can be safe from harmful substances. For example, when plastics go to waste and when they burn the garbage containing plastic things through smoke many harmful substances emerge in air and can cause climate change.
Additionally, majority of homes use chemicals for washing clothes and other things and then when they waste those chemicals through drainage it float into rivers which can effect marine life. Government also need to make a law on it to reduce usage of such dangerous chemicals and then drain them to rivers.
From my experience, most people burn wood and from its ashes heavy smoke rise which can be harmful for human who has week immune system and cause asthma. The Authorities also need to look at this issue and stop those people who waste the things even though they can be useful in making house and other things.
So, those people who think that not enough of the waste from recycled are true I agree with them and the authorities has to take an action on it otherwise without recycling, our environment will be in great danger. Dangerous gases emerging from burning of garbage can affect on ozone layer resulting in climate change.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.5 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The response addresses the prompt by expressing a clear position in favor of legal requirements for recycling. However, the development of ideas is somewhat limited. While you mention the '3R' concept and environmental concerns, the arguments remain at a surface level. For instance, you discuss chemical waste and wood burning, which are relevant to environmental protection but are not directly linked to the core argument of why 'legal requirements' are the most effective solution compared to other methods like education or incentives. To reach a higher band, you should focus on explaining the mechanism of how legislation would specifically change behavior and address the counter-arguments more thoroughly.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The essay is organized into paragraphs, which helps the reader follow the structure. However, the use of cohesive devices is often mechanical or repetitive. For example, you frequently start sentences with 'Most of the waste products' or 'Government also need to make a law'. The logical flow between sentences is sometimes hindered by awkward phrasing, such as the transition between the discussion of chemical waste and the personal experience regarding wood burning. Improving the variety of linking words (e.g., 'consequently', 'furthermore', 'in light of this') would help the ideas connect more naturally and improve the overall flow.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.5
The vocabulary is generally adequate for the task but lacks the precision and range required for higher bands. You rely on basic terms like 'waste products', 'things', and 'make a law'. There are also some issues with word choice and collocation, such as 'waste those chemicals' (instead of 'dispose of') and 'effect marine life' (should be 'affect'). To improve, try to incorporate more academic collocations and topic-specific terminology related to environmental policy and sustainability. The current range is sufficient to convey your meaning, but it does not demonstrate the flexibility needed for a higher score.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
There are frequent grammatical errors throughout the text that occasionally impede clarity. Subject-verb agreement is a recurring issue, such as 'A number of people believes' (should be 'believe') and 'the authorities has to take' (should be 'have'). Additionally, there are errors with articles and pluralization, such as 'in air' (in the air) and 'human who has week immune system' (humans who have weak immune systems). While you attempt some complex structures, they are often marred by these persistent errors. Focusing on basic sentence construction and proofreading for subject-verb agreement would significantly improve your accuracy.
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.