Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-09-25

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there.

What is your opinion about this?

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

 

Student answer (Band 6.5)

New residences are required in some locations, but rural areas have merely sufficient space to build them. Many believe that it becomes necessity to protect the countryside by avoiding construction there. I agree with this statement because it will create negative effect on the economic and ecology in rural zones. Instead of disturbing environment, urban planning can be an effective way for building housing for new residents in cities.

To begin with, building houses in rural areas causes irreversible ecological and economic damage. The countryside consists greenfield sites that support agricultural production and local ecosystem. Converting these houses into housing estates leads to severe habitat fragmentation, and threatening biodiversity. Furthermore, reducing agricultural land comprises a nation's food security, making it dependent on food imports. For instance, uncontrolled urban sprawl in many developing countries has permanently wiped out farming.

Rather than destroying nature, urban consolidation offers a highly practical alternative. Cities can accommodate expanding population by prioritizing vertical expansion and development. Constructing high-density multi-story residential complexes will prove to be beneficial in minimizing use of land. Government policies and strategies by converting useless or empty commerical building into affortable housing will preserve the rural environments but also utilize the urban spaces effectively. For example, in the developed countries like the the UK, rural areas are far away fourban areas and urban boundaries are set by government.

In conclusion, although, the demand for housing is undeniable, sacrificing the countryside is an unsustainable solution. The long-term costs of environmental destruction and reduced food production far outweigh the temporary benefits of rural housing. Therefore, development should be strictly confined to urban boundaries through smarter, denser architecture, and government policies.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The student presents a clear and well-developed position throughout the response, agreeing with the statement that the countryside should be protected from new housing developments. All parts of the prompt are addressed, offering reasons relating to ecological damage and economic impacts on agriculture, followed by a counter-proposal regarding urban consolidation. The ideas are extended and supported with relevant explanations and examples, such as mentioning urban boundaries in the UK and general urban sprawl. The response meets all task requirements successfully, demonstrating a solid understanding of the prompt and maintaining a consistent stance. Therefore, it fits the requirements for a Band 7.0.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The essay displays clear logical organisation and progression throughout. Each paragraph has a distinct central topic, beginning with a clear introduction that states the writer's position, followed by body paragraphs addressing ecological arguments and urban alternatives, and concluding with a concise summary. Cohesive devices such as 'To begin with', 'Furthermore', 'Rather than', and 'In conclusion' are used effectively to guide the reader through the argument. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and appropriately, ensuring the logical flow of ideas is maintained without confusion, supporting a solid Band 7.0 performance.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The writer demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary with some flexibility and precision, employing less common items such as 'habitat fragmentation', 'urban sprawl', and 'multi-story residential complexes'. However, there are some noticeable vocabulary and spelling errors, such as 'commerical' instead of 'commercial', 'affortable' instead of 'affordable', and awkward phrasing like 'economic and ecology' instead of 'economic and ecological'. Furthermore, the phrase 'Converting these houses into housing estates' contains a lexical mismatch since the original context is building on greenfield sites rather than converting existing houses. Despite these minor inaccuracies, the range of vocabulary is adequate for a Band 6.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The response contains a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating attempts at varied structures such as conditional and participial clauses ('Rather than destroying nature, urban consolidation offers...'). There are, however, several grammatical errors and awkward structures, including 'rural areas have merely sufficient space' (instead of barely or scarcely), 'reducing agricultural land comprises' (instead of compromises), and 'like the the UK, rural areas are far away fourban areas'. Punctuation and article usage also show occasional slips, such as missing articles or double words. These errors do not impede communication, placing the grammar firmly at a Band 6.0.

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.