Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-11-04

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)

Environmental degradation is a burning issue in the recent days all over the world. Recycling of household waste could be one of the prior steps for environment protection. Some people argue that, there are not enough household waste are being recycled and they are claiming that the governments should take legal steps in this case in order to increase the rate of recycling by the people.

To some extent, I am in favour of this claim that strict laws are prime necessity to make people bound to recycle more of their household waste. It is seen at almost all of the household that, most of their regular waste are not properly recycled and are being thrown away in the nature which causes sever environmental damage. However, without more legal actions, it is extremly difficult to make people abide by following the rules of proper recycling. Therefore, for the absence of strict law for proper recycling, financially capable households just throw away their semi-used commodities and buy new ones without recycling properly. But if there were government rules to follow the recyling process and there were provisions of financial or physical panalties against it, then the rate of recyling must increase by a big number. Personal and social awareness programs could also play vital role to ensure recyling of waste, but in many countries these steps are found less effective in comparison to government legal regulations.

Finally, it can be said that, in order to maintain a good practice of recycling house waste, the governments should come forward with strict legal actions which can ensure recycling and protecting our environment.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear: you support legal requirements to increase household recycling, while acknowledging that awareness programmes can also help. You address the question directly and give relevant reasons, including the claim that households may discard usable goods and that penalties could encourage compliance. This meets the task well, but some points are asserted rather than fully explained. For example, you say awareness programmes are “less effective” than legal regulations without giving a specific reason or example, and the effect of penalties is predicted rather than illustrated. To strengthen the response, explain how a particular law or enforcement measure would change behaviour and support the comparison with awareness campaigns using a concrete example. The argument is relevant, though not all ideas are equally developed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, a main paragraph developing your view, and a concluding statement. The progression from the problem to legal enforcement and then to awareness programmes is generally easy to follow. Linking expressions such as “However,” “Therefore,” and “Finally” help signal the argument, and the conclusion returns to your central position. At times, though, connections feel mechanical or the relationship between ideas is not fully clear. The long main paragraph combines several claims, while “for the absence of strict law” does not clearly express the intended cause-and-effect link. Divide the argument into more focused paragraphs and use clearer references and transitions to show how each reason supports your position.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “household waste,” “environmental damage,” “legal regulations,” and “social awareness programs.” These choices make your subject and position clear, and you attempt some less common expressions. However, several word choices, collocations, and spelling forms are inaccurate or unnatural, which limits precision: “burning issue in the recent days,” “prior steps,” “bound to recycle,” and “financially or physical panalties” are examples. “Recycling” is also misspelled several times, and “sever” should be “severe.” Aim for natural collocations and check spelling carefully. More precise terms for enforcement, such as fines or mandatory sorting, would help you express the policy argument more clearly and flexibly.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and complex sentence forms, including conditional structures such as “if there were government rules … then the rate … must increase.” This shows some range, and the overall meaning is usually understandable. However, errors in agreement, articles, sentence construction, and punctuation recur. For example, “there are not enough household waste are being recycled” combines incompatible verb structures; “most of their regular waste are” has a subject–verb agreement error; and “could also play vital role” needs an article. Commas are also often placed between a subject and its clause, as in “Some people argue that, …”. Review agreement and article use, and build complex sentences with a clear main clause. Greater accuracy across these structures would make the argument easier to read.

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.