Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-13

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 some people think during job interviews, employers ask personal questions from applying candidates like their marriage status or leisure activities are beneficial and relevant information, However, others believe these questions are not appropirate for asking from people who are seeking jobs. I think that professional questions are better for asking during job interviews, but personal questions like hobbies and interests are also provide lots of information about the candidate to their employer. This essay will discuss both views in the upcoming paragraphs.

On the one hand, sometimes, personal interests show individuals behaviour or nature that's why many employers asking questions about employee's hobbies and interests. From which, employers make decisions like their employee would easily adjust in their team or how they can communicate with them. For instance, if a worker have interested in sports such as badminton or cricket, may they are more active or easily engage with their co-workers. As a result, these questions assist to the employers for select the better candidates from list of job seekers.

On the other hand, some people think that questions regarding their personal life may provide unsecurity. First of all, some individuals are not interesting to reviel their marriage life. Moreover, employers may do discriminate between candidates by judge their personal life. For example, if a person is married or have children, employers may assume that they can less available and more busy with their family members. Therefore, people who are actually deserves the job, they may loss their job just because of discrimination.

In conclusion, although there are some disadvantages about asking personal questions from people applying for jobs which may suffer from streyotype, I think that these are more beneficaila for selection of candidates who are really active or helpfull.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You address both views and state a position: personal questions can help employers understand candidates, but professional questions should remain the priority. The two body paragraphs give relevant reasons, including team compatibility and the risk of assumptions about married applicants or parents. These points support the task, but they are not developed equally: the first paragraph’s badminton/cricket example makes a broad link between sport and being active or sociable, while the discrimination argument could explain more clearly why such information should not influence hiring. Your conclusion also calls personal questions “more beneficial” for selection, which makes your final position less consistent with the earlier preference for professional questions. Clarify which information employers should be allowed to ask about and qualify your view more precisely.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, separate paragraphs for the two views, and a conclusion. “On the one hand,” “On the other hand,” and “In conclusion” make the progression easy to follow, and the examples are placed with the relevant arguments. This meets the lower-band expectation of coherent organisation and shows some of the flexibility associated with stronger cohesion. However, several links are mechanical or unclear. For example, “From which” does not clearly connect to the previous sentence, and “Therefore” introduces a consequence without fully explaining the link. The introduction and conclusion also repeat the same broad contrast rather than sharpening the argument. Use clearer references and connect each example explicitly to the point it supports.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a range of task-relevant vocabulary, including “discriminate,” “candidates,” “interests,” and “available,” and you attempt more specific expressions such as “adjust in their team.” However, the range is limited by repeated general terms such as “questions,” “people,” and “personal,” and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate enough to make parts less natural. Examples include “provide unsecurity,” “not interesting to reveal,” and “more beneficial for selection.” There are also spelling errors, such as “appropirate,” “reviel,” and “streyotype.” These issues fit a limited but minimally adequate range: the main ideas remain understandable, but precision and naturalness are inconsistent. Build a bank of accurate hiring-related collocations and proofread spelling.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and complex sentences, including a conditional example beginning “if a person is married” and a contrast introduced by “although.” However, complex structures are often faulty, and errors occur across verb forms, agreement, articles, and sentence construction. For example, “many employers asking questions” needs a finite verb, while “if a worker have interested” has problems with both the verb pattern and agreement. In “these questions assist to the employers for select,” the verb pattern is also incorrect. The opening sentence is difficult to follow because several clauses are joined without clear punctuation. These errors sometimes make the reader work to understand the intended meaning. Practise accurate clause construction and check subject–verb agreement and verb patterns.

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.