Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-27

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)

Few individuals argue that not most of the waste from homes is recycled and further add that the only way that recycling can be increased is that the government officials make it an essential and a legal requirement. I believe that it is not essential for the government to make important laws to make people recycle the waste necessarily and this will be explained with suitable examples in the upcoming paragraphs.

To begin with, laws are required in the country to make people recycle their waste, as if there is a law then the people will be more determined to recycle their waste, as they will fear that they may be punished if they did not recycle the waste that they produce on daily basis, for example a person can be fined for a certain amount if they do not recycle the waste that is non-biodegradable. Furthermore, another benefit of government making laws to make people aware to recycle the waste is that there will be decrease in environmental issues like pollution if the people understand the laws properly and act on it accordingly.

On the other hand, there should not be a necessity for the government to make laws for people to recycle the waste, as this should be the responsibility of the people to do it on their own as the people will benefit from it in long term as they will get a clean environment where they can live in if they recycle the waste on time and as required. Moreover, another benefit is that they will have the moral ground if they do it on their own without doing on the recommendation of the government. Furthermore, another benefit is that people can use many things which they might get after recycling, as many times recycled things can be also useful.

To conclude, although making laws by the government to make people recycle is important, as many times people are ignorant and if government make laws people will be more determined to recycle the waste, I believe that it is the responsibility of the people to recycle the waste on their own without acting on the laws made by the government as it will be beneficial for them as they will get a clean environment and they will get many recycled things which can be useful for them.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You address both sides of the question and give a position: you acknowledge that laws may encourage compliance, but argue that people should recycle voluntarily. The examples of fines and the benefits of a cleaner environment are relevant. However, the position is not fully consistent: the introduction says laws are “not essential,” while the conclusion calls them “important” before returning to voluntary action. Several points are asserted rather than explained, such as the “moral ground” of recycling independently and the usefulness of recycled items. Clarify whether laws are unnecessary or useful as a supporting measure, then develop fewer points with specific explanation or an example. This would make the response more fully address the extent question and strengthen its support.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure, with an introduction, separate paragraphs presenting arguments for and against laws, and a conclusion. The reader can follow the broad progression from enforcement to personal responsibility. However, linking is often mechanical: “Furthermore, another benefit” is repeated, and several sentences rely on repeated “as” clauses, making relationships between ideas less clear. The conclusion also combines both positions without resolving the tension between laws being “important” and people acting “without acting on the laws.” Use more varied, precise links and make each paragraph’s main point explicit. Clearer referencing and a more direct transition between the opposing arguments would improve the flow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “recycled,” “non-biodegradable,” “pollution,” and “clean environment,” so the main ideas are generally understandable. However, the range is limited by frequent repetition of “waste,” “people,” “benefit,” and “laws,” and some phrases are awkward or imprecise. For example, “make people aware to recycle” does not express the intended idea naturally, while “moral ground” is unclear in this context. Aim for more precise collocations and vary repeated terms where appropriate, such as referring to household rubbish, recycling practices, or environmental responsibility. Greater control of these choices would make the argument clearer and more natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and complex sentences, including conditional structures such as “if there is a law then the people will be more determined” and clauses explaining consequences. These attempts help communicate the argument, but some sentences become difficult to control because several clauses are joined together. There are also errors in agreement and verb forms, for example “if government make laws” and “if they did not recycle” in a general argument. Articles and sentence boundaries also need attention, as in “on daily basis” and the long opening sentence. Break lengthy sentences into clearer units, check subject–verb agreement, and use consistent present-tense forms for general claims.

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.