Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-11

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 6.0)

There is an ongoing debate about whether the company should ask any personal information such as hobbies, interest and marital status or not. Some people believe that it is a good way to understand the potential employees, whereas others think it is a breach of confidentiality. This essay will discuss both views before presenting why I completely agree with latter assertion. On the one hand, the main reason behind this is responsibilities of the job position. Employers are curious to understand that are they selecting the right candidate for the postion. Consequently, they request for the personal information such as interest and marital status. it is essential to know the availability and personality of the employees. Whether employees are interested in the job or just applying to hold one position. For instance, the google acquires all the personal details suring the interview and provides all the required facilities to its employees. Its recent recorded employees retention percentage is 98.

On the other hand, critics argue that a main concern is privacy invasion. It is not convenient for everyone to express personal information with anyone. As a result of this request, several potential employees refuse to apply for jobs. Moreover, a lots of people think that hobby and professional career have no direct relevancy. A person can become a eminent ricketer with a hobby of painiting. In my opinion, in this competitive era, individuals learn numerous skills such as painting, driving, cooking and so on, but they always choose their carrer path as per their academic abilities. Furthermore, it is clearly undeniable that both men and women handle their personal and peofessional lives completely separate and get promotions after getting married because of their hardwork and concentrarion. In conclusion, it is good to know employees to connect in a better way. Nevertheless, privacy must consider at priority while forming a recuitment and selection process.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You address both views and state a clear position: you agree with the concern about privacy, while acknowledging that employers may use personal details to understand candidates and their availability. The discussion is relevant, but the two sides are not developed equally. The claim that personal information helps assess “personality” and job interest is asserted rather than explained, and the Google example—including the retention figure—does not clearly show how collecting marital status or hobbies produces those benefits. Your own view is clearer in the final body paragraph, but it would be stronger with a specific explanation of why these details should not influence hiring and an example of a fairer approach. Overall, the task is covered, though some ideas remain under-developed or unclear.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, separate paragraphs for the two views, your opinion, and a conclusion. Signposting such as “On the one hand,” “On the other hand,” and “In conclusion” makes the progression easy to follow. This coherent organisation is a strength. However, some links between ideas are mechanical or unclear. For example, “Consequently” does not establish why requesting marital status follows from selecting the right candidate, and the sentence beginning “Whether employees are interested…” is not smoothly connected to the preceding point. The opinion paragraph also introduces several examples without clearly showing how each supports your position. Use more precise references and explain the relationship between claims, examples, and your conclusion to make cohesion more flexible and natural.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a reasonable range of topic-related vocabulary, including “potential employees,” “privacy invasion,” “academic abilities,” and “recruitment and selection process.” These choices help communicate the main ideas, and you attempt some less common expressions. However, noticeable spelling and word-choice errors reduce precision, including “postion,” “suring,” “relevancy,” “carrer,” and “concentrarion.” Some collocations are also unnatural: “request for the personal information,” “a lots of people,” and “privacy must consider at priority.” In addition, “eminent ricketer” appears to be an unclear example, which makes the intended meaning harder to follow. Check spelling carefully and learn common word partnerships, especially for discussing privacy, hiring, and professional suitability.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including a contrast structure with “whereas” and a conditional-style statement beginning “Whether employees…”. The overall meaning is generally understandable, but some grammatical errors affect clarity. For example, “understand that are they selecting” has incorrect word order, while “it is essential” begins a sentence without a capital letter. The fragment “Whether employees are interested in the job…” needs to be joined to a complete clause. There are also problems with articles, agreement, and sentence construction in “a lots of people think” and “privacy must consider at priority.” Practise forming indirect questions, checking subject–verb agreement, and ensuring each sentence has a complete main clause; this will make your varied structures more controlled.

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.