Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

While it is widely believed that personal information collected by employers while applying for a job is useful, others opine that it is irrelevant. In my opinion, it is important to know applicant's personal details such as hobbies and interests because these factors may significantly affect the professional life of a person.

On the one side of the argument, there are many people who argue that applicant should not be asked about their lifestyle outside the work. The most compelling reason for believing this is that candidiates should be hired based on their experience, educational qualification and professional knowledge. Whether they enjoy travelling to different places or playing games, would not affect their performance at work if they maintain a work-life balance.

Despite the above arguments, I am of the view that businesses have proper right to ask questions about employees' daily life during recruitment process. Indeed, one reason why I take this position is that family commitments could have a huge impact on working life. For example, an unmarried person would have more availability for work as compared to somebody who has a family. Therefore, job aspirants' marital status provides have an idea about their reliability in emergency situations. Furthermore, it is my firm belief that hobbies of people may describe their personality. To exemplify, having a hobby of playing sports may show that someone have an active lifestyle and it could be attractive for employers if they are hiring for a job which requires phsyical stamina. Consequently, additional information about personal activities in hiring process is undoubtedly relevant.

In conclusion, although job-seeking individuals may find it uncomfortable to provide the details of their daily routine, it is an opportunity for organisations to find out if they can rely on that applicant in future or not. Since businesses have to make projections about future, knowing the personal life of their team members is important for them.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You discuss both views and make your own position clear: you support employers asking about personal details, especially family commitments and hobbies. The opposing view is relevantly explained through the point that recruitment should focus on experience, qualifications and professional knowledge. Your examples about availability and sports also support your position. However, the two sides are not developed equally: the case against asking for personal information receives only a brief explanation, while the argument in favour relies heavily on assumptions—for instance, that unmarried applicants are more available or reliable. To strengthen the response, acknowledge that marital status does not necessarily predict availability, then explain more carefully when particular interests might genuinely relate to a role.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, a paragraph presenting the opposing view, a paragraph supporting your own view, and a conclusion. Ideas progress logically, and signposting such as “On the one side,” “Despite the above arguments,” and “Furthermore” helps readers follow the discussion. The examples are placed alongside the claims they illustrate. Some linking is slightly formulaic, however, and the conclusion largely repeats the argument about employers’ need to assess reliability rather than drawing the discussion together in a fresh way. The phrase “Therefore” also introduces a conclusion about reliability that is not fully established by the preceding point about marital status. More precise links between claims and evidence, and less repeated framing, would make the progression more convincing.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range for the topic, including phrases such as “professional knowledge,” “family commitments,” “work-life balance,” and “physical stamina.” These choices help express the main ideas, and attempts at more formal vocabulary are evident. However, some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or awkward, including “proper right,” “provides have an idea,” and “make projections about future.” There are also spelling errors such as “candidiates” and “phsyical,” which detract from control. Aim for more natural combinations—for example, employers may have a “legitimate reason” to ask, and information may “give them an indication” of something. Proofreading spelling and checking collocations would make your vocabulary more precise and fluent.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including subordinate clauses beginning “because” and “if,” and a relative clause in “a job which requires physical stamina.” Most meaning remains clear, but some grammatical errors persist. Examples include the missing plural/article in “applicant should not be asked,” the agreement error “someone have,” and the faulty construction “provides have an idea.” The sentence beginning “Whether they enjoy travelling…” is also punctuated as a question-like clause without a clear main clause. Review subject–verb agreement, articles and sentence boundaries, and check that each dependent clause is attached to a complete sentence. Greater accuracy in these areas, while retaining your range of structures, would strengthen the response.

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.