Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-29

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)

Nowadays, many people argue that its not enough of the trash from homes to be recycled. They think that the better way to rise recycling is the governments should make it a legal requirement. I totally agree with this statement because of several reasons.

On one hand, the primary reason why the governments should put rules on recycling and make it obligated that, it has positive impacts on the community and the environment as well. To illustrate this point more, we can say that when the government put people on serious situation like this, then it would be something necessary and should do it so that will be cause so many good things such as, clean environment and better health for human bodies also reduce stress and save money.

Furthermore, despite the several benefits there are some drawbacks that can effect the society because of that idea. Firstly, if the law make people should use trash again a legal thing that can make them more uncomfortable, worried and also could waste their time. For instance, the more people recycle each thing they used the more they spend a lot of time on it instead of buying it again or new.

To conclude, making recycling an obligated thing from the law has some negative impacts but I firmly believe that it benefits could make the world developed so much better for many reasons such as, save money, clean grounds and fresh air, good health and decline anxiety also can make them more comfortable.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You give a clear overall position by stating, “I totally agree,” and you return to that view in the conclusion. The response also recognises a possible disadvantage—recycling rules may make people uncomfortable or take time—so it engages with the issue rather than discussing recycling generally. However, the main case for legal requirements is asserted more than explained: the claim that rules lead to a clean environment and better health needs a concrete explanation or example of how enforcement changes household behaviour. The opposing point is also brief and does not clearly show why inconvenience should outweigh the benefits. Develop fewer points in more depth, and explain what specific laws or incentives could achieve.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, two body paragraphs signposted by “On one hand” and “Furthermore,” and a concluding paragraph. This helps the reader identify your position and the shift to a drawback. However, the progression within paragraphs is often difficult to follow: the first body paragraph moves from government rules to health, stress, and money without showing the links between these ideas. Some connections are also unclear, such as “the more people recycle each thing they used the more they spend a lot of time on it.” The conclusion repeats a list of benefits rather than bringing the argument together. Use clearer topic sentences and connect each supporting detail explicitly to the paragraph’s main point.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant topic vocabulary, including “recycled,” “legal requirement,” “environment,” and “drawbacks,” and the reader can generally understand the subject. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are noticeably inaccurate, which sometimes makes meaning less clear. For example, “rise recycling” is not the natural expression, “put people on serious situation” is unclear, and “use trash again” does not accurately describe sorting household waste for recycling. “Obligated thing” and “clean grounds” are also awkward in this context. Aim to learn common collocations for environmental policy and use precise terms such as “require households to separate waste” and “reduce landfill waste.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and longer sentences, including a conditional structure beginning “if the law…,” and you use linking clauses to explain reasons. However, complex sentences are often faulty, and errors in verb forms, agreement, articles, and sentence construction can make the argument difficult to follow. Examples include “the governments should put rules… that, it has positive impacts,” “the law make people should use,” and “the more they spend a lot of time.” The opening also has a missing apostrophe in “its” where “it’s” is intended. Practise building accurate sentences around one main clause, then add a subordinate clause only when its relationship is clear. Check subject–verb agreement and verb patterns during editing.

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.