Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-10-10

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 6.0)

New residential buildings are needed in various places and the space available is in countryside only . There is considerable debate that it is required to save the farms and avoid infrastructure there . It hold a valid ground which I will discuss and give me opinion.

To commence with . building infrastructre in countryside will result in loss of farmlands , a home of many wild animals. Moreover , it harms the natural space and is recommended by nature lovers to protect them at any cost . For example , In Alberta , 1 hour driver from calgary to any direction national people will enter into national conservation area which is protected by their government and no buildings are allowed there .As a result , local citizens have exposure to nature and become a tourist place for others .

In my opinion , instead of moving to farmlands for new homes builders should invest in sky scappers in the city which can be closer to residents work place as maximum job opportunities are available in cities .However , abandoned buildings can be reuse after renovation and save farmlands from destroying . For instance , Brampton residents travel almost 50 kms to Toronto for job on daily basis and can be reduced if more residential apartments will be introduced in city centre.

To conclude , investing for homes in village are results in loss of wild animals and farm lands which are major contributor in saving nature and I suggested to develop more buildings in city rather than moving to countryside.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear: you favour building within cities rather than using countryside, and you give relevant reasons about farmland, wildlife and access to jobs. The Alberta conservation-area example supports the case for protecting natural land, while the Brampton–Toronto example helps explain the pressure created by commuting. This addresses the task well, but the two examples are not always fully connected to the specific question of where new homes should be built. The suggestion to reuse abandoned buildings is relevant but receives little explanation, and the opening reference to avoiding infrastructure is not developed later. To strengthen the response, explain more precisely how city-centre apartments or renovated buildings could meet housing demand and why this is preferable to countryside development.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, a paragraph explaining the environmental case, a paragraph presenting your preferred solution, and a conclusion. The progression from protecting farmland to building in cities is generally easy to follow, and examples are placed near the ideas they support. However, some linking is mechanical or awkward, as in “To commence with” and “To conclude,” and punctuation around these transitions interrupts the flow. The relationship between the Alberta example and the claim about tourism could be made clearer, while the Brampton example needs a more explicit link to the proposed solution. Use fewer formulaic transitions and connect each example directly to the point it illustrates.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “farmlands,” “wild animals,” “conservation area,” “renovation,” and “residential apartments.” These choices make your main ideas understandable, and you attempt more specific expressions such as “job opportunities” and “natural space.” However, several word choices or collocations are inaccurate or unclear, including “avoid infrastructure,” “a home of many wild animals,” and “become a tourist place.” There are also spelling and word-form problems, such as “infrastructre” and “sky scappers,” which reduce precision. Aim for more natural combinations and check spelling carefully; for example, describe development as “construction on farmland” and say that a protected area “attracts visitors.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including a contrast with “instead of” and a relative clause in “which can be closer to residents work place.” The overall meaning is usually recoverable, but grammatical control is uneven, with errors in agreement, verb forms, articles and sentence boundaries. Examples include “It hold a valid ground,” “abandoned buildings can be reuse,” and “investing for homes in village are results.” Some sentences also lack clear grammatical structure, particularly the Alberta example beginning “1 hour driver from calgary.” Practise building accurate subject–verb patterns and checking verb forms, such as “buildings can be reused.” Clearer punctuation and complete sentence structures would make your ideas easier to read.

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.