--- title: "Task 2: Precision Fixes for Common Essay Mistakes" category: metodo --- # Task 2: Precision Fixes for Common Essay Mistakes > **Source:** Adapted from publicly available articles and forum answers on . This is an original, condensed summary — not a copy of their site. These are specific, recurring mistakes that quietly cap a Task Response score even when the writing itself is fluent — usually because the candidate misread what the question was actually asking, or let their essay drift away from the opinion they stated. None of this is about "more vocabulary." It's about answering precisely. --- ## "Do You Agree?" vs. "To What Extent Do You Agree?" In practice, treat these the same way. There's no rule requiring more balance for one phrasing than the other — you can fully agree, fully disagree, or land somewhere in between for either version. What actually matters is which *degree* of agreement you pick, because it determines how you distribute your content: | Your position | How to structure it | |:---|:---| | **Completely agree / disagree** | All your main ideas support that one side. No need to discuss the opposing view in depth. | | **Partially agree / disagree** | A genuinely balanced discussion — if you give two ideas for one side, give two for the other, not one against three. | | **Strongly agree / disagree** | More ideas for your side than the other — e.g., two paragraphs supporting your view, one paragraph acknowledging the counterpoint. | **You do not have to discuss both sides.** A fully one-sided answer (100% agree, reasons only for that side) is completely acceptable and is often the safer choice if your writing control isn't strong yet — less to organize, less risk of the argument getting muddled. Discussing both sides can look more sophisticated and may help at band 7+, but it raises your coherence risk: you now have to make it crystal clear which side is yours. **If you do present both sides, the safer order is: counter-argument first, then your view.** *"Some people say that…; however, I believe that…"* reads more naturally than opening with your own opinion and then undermining it with the opposing view. **The one rule that actually matters:** whatever structure you choose, your stated position must stay consistent from introduction to conclusion. Band 7 for Task Response explicitly requires "a clear position throughout the response." The most common way candidates lose marks here isn't picking the wrong side — it's presenting arguments in the body that contradict, or fail to obviously support, the opinion stated in the intro. If you disagree, make sure every body paragraph is doing work for "disagree," even the one that acknowledges the other view. --- ## "Advantages and Disadvantages" vs. "Does It Outweigh?" These look like the same essay type. They are not, and mixing them up costs you Task Response marks. **"What are the advantages and disadvantages of X?"** — no opinion required. Write one paragraph on the benefits, one on the drawbacks, and stop there. **"Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?"** or **"Will this have more positive or negative effects?"** — this *is* asking your opinion, and you must commit to an answer: which side wins. Answering this version as if it were a neutral pros/cons list (with no stated verdict) can drop your Task Response score, potentially to a band 5, because you haven't fully addressed what was asked. **A specific trap: using the word "outweigh" carelessly.** It's common for candidates to write a thesis like *"the drawbacks outweigh the benefits"* and then, in the body, list more benefits than drawbacks — directly contradicting their own thesis. If you're not confident using "outweigh" precisely, skip it and just state your opinion plainly: *"I believe this has more benefits than drawbacks."* **A reliable structure for this essay type:** - Introduction: paraphrase + clear opinion (which side wins) - Body 1: the side you have *less* to say about (present it first, briefly) - Body 2 (and optionally 3): the side you agree with — more space, more development - Conclusion: restate which side wins, consistent with the intro The number of paragraphs you give each side should visibly match your stated opinion — two paragraphs of benefits and one of drawbacks, if you're arguing benefits win. An examiner should be able to tell your opinion just from how the essay is weighted, before even reading the conclusion. --- ## Problem-Solution Essays: A Structure You Can Reuse Some Task 2 prompts ask you to identify problems and propose solutions — a distinct essay type from agree/disagree or advantages/disadvantages. Watch the wording carefully: a prompt asking for **reasons** and solutions is different from one asking for **problems** and solutions — a reason/cause is not the same thing as a problem, so don't substitute one for the other. **Brainstorm each problem in three parts**, and let that become your paragraph structure: 1. **What** the problem is 2. **How** you'll explain/illustrate it (a concrete example) 3. **What effect** it has For example, brainstorming "problems caused by traffic congestion": > **Problem 1:** commuters lose large amounts of time in stationary traffic → *Explanation: a normally short journey can take an hour or more at peak times* → *Result: workers arrive tired and less productive* > > **Problem 2:** worsening air quality from idling engines → *Explanation: exhaust fumes build up fastest when traffic is stopped, not moving* → *Result: higher rates of respiratory illness in affected areas* Two or three problems is enough — you don't have time to develop more than that inside a 40-minute essay. **For the solutions paragraph, brainstorm by "who's responsible," not just "what should happen."** Identify the actors involved — usually governments and individuals, plus a group specific to the topic (city authorities and commuters for traffic; police for crime; broadcasters for TV violence) — and give each one a concrete action, not a vague gesture: > Weak: *"The government should do something about traffic."* > > Better: *"City authorities should expand public transport capacity so that commuters have a fast, affordable alternative to driving."* Use modal verbs to frame suggestions — *should*, *need to*, *must* — varying them across the paragraph rather than repeating "should" three times. **Full model answer**, built exactly from this method, on a different prompt — *"What are the main problems caused by traffic congestion in large cities, and what solutions can be suggested?"* (270 words — a realistic Task 2 length): > Large cities across the world are increasingly affected by traffic congestion, and this has given rise to a number of serious difficulties. While the causes are complex, practical solutions do exist. > > The most immediate problem is the amount of time wasted by commuters sitting in stationary traffic. In many major cities, a journey that should take twenty minutes can now take well over an hour during peak periods, leaving workers exhausted and less productive once they finally reach their destination. A second, more serious problem is the impact on air quality. Idling engines release far higher levels of exhaust fumes than moving traffic, and residents of heavily congested districts frequently report increased rates of respiratory illness as a direct consequence. > > Addressing these problems requires action from more than one direction. City authorities should expand and subsidise public transport networks, since commuters are far more likely to abandon their cars if trains and buses are frequent, affordable, and reliable. Congestion charging, whereby drivers pay a fee to enter the busiest parts of a city during peak hours, has already proven effective in reducing traffic volumes in several capitals and could be adopted more widely. Individual commuters also have a role to play, for instance by car-sharing with colleagues or shifting their working hours to avoid the busiest periods on the road. > > In conclusion, while traffic congestion imposes a real cost in lost time and damaged health, coordinated action between governments and individual commuters can substantially ease the problem. Notice the introductory phrases doing the organizational work: *"The most immediate problem is…"* / *"A second, more serious problem is…"* for the problems paragraph, and the two named actors (city authorities / individual commuters) for the solutions paragraph. That labeling is what makes the essay easy for an examiner to follow — and easy coherence is free marks. --- ## Can You Use "I" in an IELTS Essay? Yes — and for opinion essays, you often should. IELTS essays are academic in style, but they are not the same as a university essay: you have no sources to cite, only 40 minutes, and the prompt itself explicitly asks you to "give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge." A rubric that invites your own experience isn't one that bans "I." **Where personal pronouns earn their place:** - **Thesis statement (introduction):** *"In my view, funding for public libraries should be increased rather than cut"* or *"I do not believe that…"* — this makes your position unmistakable to the examiner immediately. - **Conclusion:** restating your stance with *"I would argue that…"* leaves zero ambiguity about where you landed. - **Personal examples in body paragraphs**, when a real example from your own experience or country is genuinely the most relevant one available. **Where to hold back:** don't use "I think" / "we" in every single sentence of the body — that tips the essay from "academic with a clear opinion" into "informal," which does count against you. A few well-placed instances (introduction, maybe one body paragraph, conclusion) is the right density. Using personal pronouns doesn't cost marks by itself; overusing them until the whole essay reads conversationally is what causes the problem. --- ## Task Response: Fully Answering the Question Before You Extend Ideas Task Response is 25% of your Writing score, and it's graded on two things, in this order of importance: **(1) fully answering the question**, then **(2) developing and extending your ideas**. Extending brilliant ideas that answer the wrong question doesn't help you — the band ceiling is set by whether you understood the prompt at all: | What you did | Band | |:---|:---| | No relation to the topic or question | 3 | | Misunderstood the question; some ideas are related | 4 | | Understood the question but only partially answered it | 5 | | Fully answered, but some parts covered more than others | 6 | | All parts adequately covered, ideas extended and supported | 7 | **A worked example of how this goes wrong.** Take a real exam question that tripped up multiple candidates: > *"Earlier technological developments brought more advantages and changed the lives of ordinary people more than recent developments ever will. To what extent do you agree or disagree?"* Several phrases here are easy to misread: - **"Ordinary people"** — this means the general population (like you and your neighbors), not specifically poor people or companies. Candidates who wrote about poverty in general went off-topic. - **"Ever will"** — this is emphasis on the existing opinion, not an invitation to speculate about future inventions. The question is a comparison between *past* and *recent* developments — don't drift into predicting what's coming next. - **"Earlier" and "recent"** — genuinely subjective, and that's fine. You won't be marked down for choosing "30 years ago" versus "150 years ago" as your dividing line — you just need to pick a boundary, state it implicitly through your examples, and stay consistent. - **The comparison itself is mandatory.** Whichever side you agree with, your essay needs to reference *both* earlier and recent developments — arguing only "recent developments are great" without comparing them to older ones leaves the question partially answered (capping you around band 5), because you haven't engaged with what was actually being compared. - **The biggest trap:** treating this as a generic "advantages and disadvantages of technology" essay. It isn't asking that at all — it's asking you to weigh two time periods against each other. Missing this reframes your entire essay off-topic, capping you at band 3–4. **Once you've correctly identified what's being asked, several essay structures can answer it fully:** - *By time period:* Intro (opinion) → Body 1: earlier developments → Body 2: recent developments → Conclusion (restate opinion) - *By specific technology pairs:* Intro → Body 1: typewriter vs. computer → Body 2: another old-vs-new pair → Body 3: a third pair → Conclusion - *By impact type:* Intro → Body 1: developments (from both eras) that were beneficial → Body 2: developments (from both eras) that were detrimental → Conclusion All three are valid as long as they visibly engage with every part of the prompt. The lesson generalizes beyond this one question: **before you plan your paragraphs, list every distinct part of the prompt and check that your plan touches each one** — that single habit is what separates a band 5 (partial answer) from a band 7 (fully covered, extended, and supported).