Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-21

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Employers sometimes ask people applying for jobs for personal information, such as their hobbies and interests, and whether they are married or single. Some people say that this information may be relevant and useful. Others disagree.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

 

Student answer (Band 6.5)

There is an ongoing debate about whether personal information should be considered during the recruitment process. While some opine that it may be beneficial for the growth of both the company and the employee, others argue that it may be irrelevant for hiring decisions. Although providing such information can be advantageous for job-related duties and profits, I strongly believe that qualifications and requirements should be considered during the interview process.

One reason why some employers consider this information useful is that hobbies and interests can define an individual's behaviour, which is helpful for the interviewer to easily hire a suitable candidate. This is largely because hobbies and interests in certain areas, such as sports, can define the person's ability to cooperate, work in a team, and communicate, since these qualities make a person well-suited for the job. To illustrate, corporations require employees who have professional communication skills to enhance customer service and foster sales. Moreover, confirming marital status can create the opportunity to ask them to relocate. Consequently, employees can receive a promotion as well as a salary increase, while companies can generate more revenue annually, which is why members of the community argue that people providing personal information during job interviews can affect positively.

On the other hand, there are strong reasons to believe that candidates should be hired as per job requirements and job applicants' qualifications. Since personal information such as personal interests does not necessarily indicate professional quality, objective criteria should be followed, thereby leading to equal opportunities for everyone. For instance, hiring exclusively based on checking interests, hobbies and marital status can be discriminatory for those who are well qualified but do not fulfill such things.

In conclusion, even though asking personal information can be advantageous for the company and job seeker, in my perspective, job opportunities should be equal and fair regardless personal interest, hobby or marital status.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.5

The response successfully addresses all parts of the prompt by discussing both views on whether personal information should be included in job applications and providing a clear, consistent personal position throughout. In the introduction, the writer outlines the opposing perspectives and states their belief that qualifications should be paramount. The body paragraphs effectively elaborate on both sides. The first body paragraph argues that hobbies can reveal teamwork and communication skills, while the second presents the counterargument regarding objectivity and equal opportunities. Ideas are well-extended with relevant reasoning and examples, such as how sports hobbies demonstrate cooperation. The response meets all the requirements of a Band 7 performance for Task Achievement.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.5

The essay displays clear logical organisation and a natural progression of ideas throughout. Each paragraph has a distinct focus, beginning with an introduction, followed by supporting arguments for each view, and ending with a concise conclusion. Cohesive devices such as 'While some opine', 'This is largely because', and 'On the other hand' are used effectively to guide the reader through the text. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate distinct ideas. Although referencing and linking words are generally managed well, occasional slightly mechanical transitions prevent the response from reaching a higher band. Overall, the structural flow is coherent and supports the development of the topic effectively, aligning well with the Band 7 descriptors.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.5

The student demonstrates an adequate to sufficient range of vocabulary suitable for the task. Words and phrases such as 'recruitment process', 'objective criteria', 'discriminatory', and 'professional quality' are used appropriately. There are attempts to incorporate less common lexical items, though some collocations and word choices are slightly unnatural, such as 'affect positively' instead of 'have a positive effect' or 'regardless personal interest' instead of 'regardless of personal interest'. However, these minor inaccuracies do not impede communication. The vocabulary allows for sufficient flexibility and precision, making Band 6.5 a strong fit, which rounds to a solid 6.5 or 7.0; given the control shown, it sits comfortably at 6.5.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.5

The writer employs a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, demonstrating a good variety of grammatical forms. Examples of complex structures include relative clauses and conditional-like constructions, such as 'While some opine that it may be beneficial...' and 'Since personal information... does not necessarily indicate professional quality, objective criteria should be followed'. There are some minor grammatical errors and awkward prepositions, notably in the conclusion ('regardless personal interest' missing 'of') and occasional slight awkwardness in phrasing, but these errors do not impede communication. The majority of simple sentences are error-free, and complex forms are attempted with reasonable control, placing the response securely in the Band 6.5 range.

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.