Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

The majority of people think that household waste is not getting recycled and causing harm to environment, believing the only possible method is to enforce legal regulations by government. However, In my opinion, there should be a balanced approach of combining laws with education so that they can encourage people to recycle more.

One of the major reasons to bring legal act regarding recycling of waste is that some people feel its time consuming because separating every kind of trash takes a lot of efforts and, therefore they send it to landfills, which harms the environment. Moreover, some people may ignore voluntary recycling because they do not consider waste management their responsibility. By implementing fines on repeated such violence may encourage individuals to change their habits and follow recycling laws. Consequently, more paper, plastic and glass could be reused instead of dumping.

Despite these valid reasons, authorities must not solely rely on penalties to change peoples' behavior. For example, there might be minority of community who are unware of recycling procedure and imposing frequently fines could discourage them. Moreover, in some communities there might be inadequate of facilities, means people do not have the proper access to recycling bins or convenience collection service. Therefore, government should not impose financial penalties on small actions and make individuals aware of recycling through education and better infrastructure.

In conclusion, although making recycling compulsory could help residents to avoid dumping waste into landfills, however, I believe these laws should be accompanied by public awareness and accessible recycling facilities to achieve faster results.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

Your position is clear throughout: you support using laws, but argue they should be combined with education and accessible facilities. You address both the case for legal requirements and the limitations of relying on penalties, with relevant examples such as fines for repeated non-compliance and communities lacking recycling bins. These points are extended with explanations of how they could affect recycling behaviour, which makes the response persuasive. Some support remains general, however: the discussion of time and effort, for instance, would be stronger with a specific example or clearer explanation of how regulation could address those barriers. Overall, the response covers the task and maintains a consistent position, while a little more precise development would strengthen the argument further.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The essay has a clear four-paragraph structure, moving from your position to arguments for regulation, then limitations and a conclusion. The progression is easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “Moreover,” “Consequently,” and “Therefore” help show relationships between ideas. The contrast introduced by “Despite these valid reasons” is also appropriate. At times, however, the connections feel somewhat formulaic, and some sentences contain several ideas that could be separated for clearer progression. In the conclusion, “although” and “however” are used together, creating unnecessary duplication of contrast. More varied referencing and smoother links between the examples and their implications would make cohesion more flexible and natural.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “household waste,” “landfills,” “voluntary recycling,” “financial penalties,” and “recycling facilities.” These choices make the subject clear, and some phrases show an attempt to use more formal language. However, several word-choice, collocation, and spelling problems limit precision: “legal act” is not the natural phrase here, “repeated such violence” does not express the intended meaning, and “unware” is misspelled. “Inadequate of facilities” is also an awkward construction. These errors do not prevent understanding, but they make parts of the argument less fluent. Aim to learn common word partnerships and check spelling and word forms when editing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex structures, including clauses with “because,” “although,” and “so that,” and most of the argument remains understandable. Some grammatical errors occur, particularly with articles, agreement, and sentence construction. For example, “harm to environment” needs an article, while “there might be minority” also requires one. The sentence beginning “By implementing fines on repeated…” lacks a clear grammatical structure, and “there might be inadequate of facilities, means…” joins ideas incorrectly. In the conclusion, “although” and “however” create a faulty combination. To improve accuracy, check sentence boundaries and ensure each clause has a clear subject and verb, while continuing to use 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.