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)

State policies remain a significant factor in making people comply to rules and regulation. Some people say it is the only effective way, meanwhile, a few argue that turing some idea into state policy makes it look repressive and turns a convinving conensual decision into a coersive one.

Now a day, while do understand the significance of recycling, they find it difficult to organize their waste into recycle and non recylce and avoid spending time on thinking much about it. This shows that if it becomes part of a legal requirment, people will start following what is right. Evidence for state and government policy being successfull in recycling home waste comes from countries where the state has kept separate bins for every waste. They have also started to put fine on people who do not comply to the rule and do not throw the distinct waste into separate bins. This way, people follow the rules and the home waste is recycled succesfully.

However, even where governemnt have strict policies, at time people ditch the rules and they might feel as if extra effort is bieng demanded from them. This way, they are not whole heartedly willing to do something that is going to benefit them in return. This shows that at times such legal requirements can become burdensome and recieve negative remarks from people. Instead of putting fines on people and making such strict laws, state should start stronger awareness campaigns and find out ways to introduce products made from homw waste that are useful in the longer term which people can also buy in cheaper prices. This way, they will be motivated to recycle their home waste rather than being feeling forced to do so. Nevetheless, not making it a legal requirement will make only a few people to recylce their home waste.

In conclusion, there are benefits and downsides of turning home recylcing into a legal requirment as well as not tunring it into one. However, I believe that it should be a legal requirement for people to recycle their home waste, and the government should also find out ways to sell the recycled products more efficiently and widely in cheaper prices. This way, home recycling will be ensured along with peopl being motivated to do so if they are also given a good return. Also, if we consider the human funtioning, people are less likely to follow something unless they are being compelled to do so. If only awareness programs are conducted, they will acknowledge the importance of recycling but would not be willing to take extra time and effort in organizing their home waste into different categories. This is why, making home recycling a legal requirement is important here, but with fewer fine charges to make it look less repressive.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear: you support making recycling a legal requirement, while recognising that strict enforcement can feel burdensome. You address both sides and give relevant support, including separate bins and fines, then suggest awareness campaigns and markets for recycled products. This meets the task well. To make the argument more fully developed, explain more precisely how these examples demonstrate that laws increase recycling, and distinguish the role of legal rules from practical support such as accessible bins. The claim that people generally will not act unless compelled is broad; qualify it or support it with a specific example. Your conclusion restates your view and adds the useful qualification that fines should be limited, though this balance could be explained more clearly.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, a paragraph supporting legal requirements, a contrasting paragraph, and a conclusion. The progression from the benefits of rules to their possible drawbacks is generally easy to follow. However, some links are mechanical or unclear. For example, “This way” is repeated several times, and “This shows” is used to announce conclusions without always making the connection explicit. The opening sentence also moves quickly from the importance of policy to opposing views, so the central argument could be signposted more directly. In the final paragraph, several points—selling recycled products, human behaviour, awareness, and fines—are crowded together. Give each main idea a clearer sequence and use more varied, precise referencing.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use vocabulary relevant to the topic, including “legal requirement,” “awareness campaigns,” “burdensome,” and “coercive,” and you attempt to express nuanced ideas about motivation and enforcement. However, spelling errors and inaccurate word choices are noticeable and sometimes distract the reader: examples include “conensual,” “coersive,” “recylce,” and “governemnt.” Some combinations are also unnatural, such as “organize their waste into recycle and non recycle” and “sell the recycled products more efficiently and widely in cheaper prices.” Aim for accurate, natural collocations and check spelling carefully. A more controlled range of topic-specific terms would make the argument clearer and more convincing without relying on repeated phrases such as “home waste” and “This way.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including conditional and contrast structures, as in “if it becomes part of a legal requirement” and “even where governments have strict policies.” This gives the response some variety, and the main meaning is generally understandable. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly with agreement, verb forms, articles, and sentence construction. For instance, “government have strict policies” needs subject–verb agreement, while “people will start following what is right” is less precise in its construction. In “they are not whole heartedly willing to do something that is going to benefit them in return,” the relationship between the ideas is grammatically awkward. Review agreement and clause structure, and edit long sentences to ensure each clause connects clearly. Punctuation around introductory phrases also needs attention.

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.