Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-16

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)

Nowadays, certain people believe that, it should be legal requirement for people to recycle their wastes, in order to address problem of insufficient recycling. Personally, I do not believe that any laws should be made to resolve such a problem, due to following discussed reasons.

Firstly, it will be harder for governments to monitor whether the recycling laws are being following or not. For instance, in cities like Karachi where there are thousands of households, living into different parts of the city so, realistically it will be not viable for governments to asess that whether each household is recycling waste on regular basis or not. As a result, under such failed monitoring, it will be easy for people to keep on with their old little recycling habits; hence, such a policy will not be successful to meet country's sustainability aims.

Another, reason for not supporting such a policy is that, it will fail to change people's mentality. This is because that, normally it's the environmental-centric mindset of people, which encourages them to do efforts towards reusage of waste products etc, and not the policies which influence their actions. Hence, it is never a realistic approach to do legal changes for making people do more sustainable actions, rather governments of different countries should make informative campaigns to address people on benefits of such activities, as Advertisements can influence them to do more of waste recycling.

On the other hand, governments should aslo make use of their power to influence people's actions. For instance, governments can impose fines on households, who do not disposes off enough waste for recycling purposes, assuming on weekly basis. This policy can work well in some cases, where people fear more on short-lived fines, rather than long-termed consequences, the humanity may face due to climatic changes in future.

To conclude, it is not recommonded to create laws to make people do more recycling of their waste items, since they are hard to monitor and do not change long-termed mindset of people in our society, to make efforts towards reusage of waste products.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

Your position is clear: you argue that laws are not the best way to increase recycling, mainly because they are difficult to monitor and may not change people’s attitudes. The Karachi example gives the first reason some context, and you also acknowledge the opposing view by suggesting fines. However, the response does not fully resolve the question of how necessary laws are: the fines paragraph supports government enforcement, while the conclusion rejects laws altogether. Explain whether you see laws as unnecessary or useful only alongside education, and develop that distinction. The claim that environmental attitudes, rather than policies, drive recycling is relevant but broad; a specific example or explanation of how campaigns change behaviour would make the reasoning more convincing.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The essay has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, separate supporting paragraphs, a counterpoint and a conclusion. The main ideas generally progress in a logical order, and linking expressions such as “Firstly,” “As a result” and “On the other hand” help guide the reader. At times, however, the connections feel mechanical or the reference is unclear. “Another, reason” is an awkward transition, while “This policy” in the final body paragraph could refer more precisely to fines. The contrast between opposing laws and then proposing fines also needs a clearer explanation so the argument develops consistently. Use fewer formulaic transitions and make the relationship between each paragraph’s claim and your overall position explicit.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “sustainability aims,” “environmental-centric mindset,” “informative campaigns” and “climatic changes.” These choices show an effort to discuss the issue beyond basic terms, and the meaning is generally understandable. Some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, however, such as “reusage of waste products,” “do efforts” and “short-lived fines.” There are also spelling errors, including “asess,” “aslo” and “recommonded.” These do not usually prevent understanding, but they reduce precision and control. Aim for natural combinations such as “reuse materials,” “make an effort,” and “impose fines,” and check spelling carefully during revision.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex structures, including clauses introduced by “because,” “where” and “rather than,” and most of your meaning remains clear. Some grammatical errors persist in sentence construction, verb forms, articles and agreement. For example, “the recycling laws are being following” should use the correct passive form, and “households, living into different parts” has an incorrect participle and preposition. In “people do not disposes off enough waste,” the verb form does not agree with the auxiliary, and the sentence pattern is difficult to follow. Punctuation also creates awkward breaks, as in “Another, reason” and “is that, it will fail.” Review passive constructions, verb forms after auxiliaries, and comma use; more accurate control of these patterns would strengthen your complex sentences.

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.