# Task 2 — The Complete Guide

Everything Task 2 needs, in one place: the timing, the six question types and their skeletons, how
to generate ideas that survive scrutiny, the phrase bank, the seven structures worth attempting,
the error checklist, and the revision pass that catches what re-reading never does.

Task 2 carries **twice the marks of Task 1**. If the paper overruns, the loss lands on Task 1.

This page is the reference. Model essays live in
[25 Model Essays by Question Type](task2-essay-bank-25-model-answers.html); the same material as an
audio script is in [Task 2 — Audio Essay Bank](task2_audio_bank.html).

> **Sources.** Original material, plus condensed and adapted guidance from
> [IELTS Advantage](https://www.ieltsadvantage.com/) (Christopher Pell),
> [IELTS Podcast](https://www.ieltspodcast.com/) (Ben Worthington) and
> [IELTS buddy](https://www.ieltsbuddy.com/). Band descriptors and criteria wording are the
> published official versions. Go to the originals for full courses and marking.

---

## 1. The forty minutes

| Phase | Time | What happens |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Read + plan** | 3–5 min | Identify the type. Decide your position. Pick one concrete example per point. |
| **Write** | 26–28 min | Draft without stopping to fix grammar. |
| **Revision pass** | 8–10 min | A separate, mechanical step (§9). Protect this time no matter what. |

**Minimum 250 words.** Target 260–290. Longer is not better: every extra sentence is another place
for the grammar to break, and length is not a marking criterion.

**Four paragraphs, not five.** Introduction, two bodies, conclusion. The only exception is the
three-part prompt in §3, which needs three bodies.

The single most common thing that costs band points at this level is not skill — it is the absence
of a **separate, mechanical revision pass**. Not "writing more carefully": a distinct step, after
drafting, where the only job is checking form.

---

## 2. Identify the type — fifteen seconds

Misreading the type is a Task Response penalty you eliminate by reading the prompt twice before
planning.

| Prompt language | Type |
|:---|:---|
| "To what extent do you agree or disagree?" / "Do you agree?" | **Opinion** |
| "Discuss both these views and give your own opinion" | **Discussion** |
| "What are the problems/causes of X? What solutions…?" | **Problem–Solution** |
| "Discuss the advantages and disadvantages" | **Advantage–Disadvantage (neutral)** |
| "Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?" / "more positive or negative effects?" | **Advantage–Disadvantage (opinion)** |
| Two direct questions, no discuss/agree language ("Why…? What effects…?") | **Two-Part Question** |
| Three sub-questions ("Why is this happening? What are the advantages and disadvantages?") | **Three-Part** |

### Three distinctions that cost marks when missed

**"Do you agree?" vs. "To what extent do you agree?"** — treat them the same. Neither obliges you
to sit in the middle. What matters is which *degree* you pick, because it decides how you
distribute content:

| Your position | How to structure it |
|:---|:---|
| Completely agree / disagree | All main ideas support one side. No need to discuss the other in depth. |
| Partially | A genuinely balanced discussion — two ideas each side, not one against three. |
| Strongly | More space for your side: two paragraphs supporting it, one acknowledging the counterpoint. |

A fully one-sided answer is completely acceptable, and it is the safer choice while your control is
still developing — less to organise, less risk of the argument getting muddled.

**"Advantages and disadvantages" vs. "Do the advantages outweigh?"** — these look like the same
essay and are not. The first requires **no opinion**: benefits, drawbacks, stop. The second **is an
opinion prompt** and you must commit to a verdict. Answering it as a neutral pros-and-cons list can
drop Task Response to Band 5.

> **The "outweigh" trap.** Candidates write *"the drawbacks outweigh the benefits"* and then list
> more benefits than drawbacks, contradicting their own thesis. If you are not confident using the
> word precisely, skip it: *"I believe this has more benefits than drawbacks."*

**"Reasons" vs. "problems."** A cause is not a problem. A prompt asking for *reasons* and solutions
is a different essay from one asking for *problems* and solutions. Do not substitute one for the
other.

---

## 3. Structure by type

**Opinion**
> Intro (paraphrase + clear opinion) → Body 1 (reason + example) → Body 2 (reason + example) →
> Conclusion (restate).

Default to full agreement or disagreement rather than partial. Hedging language under time pressure
is exactly where errors surface.

**Discussion**
> Intro (paraphrase + both views + your opinion) → Body 1 (view 1 + example, plus one sentence
> evaluating it before moving on) → Body 2 (view 2 + example) → Conclusion (restate).

Fold your opinion into Body 1's evaluation sentence rather than saving it entirely for the end.
The safer order when presenting both sides 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.

**Problem–Solution**
> Intro (paraphrase + preview) → Body 1 (one problem, developed, one named example) → Body 2 (the
> matching solution) → Conclusion (brief viability note).

Default to **depth over breadth**: one named case beats three generic causes. Brainstorm each
problem in three parts and let that become the paragraph — *what* it is, *how* you illustrate it,
*what effect* it has.

> **Problem 1:** commuters lose large amounts of time in stationary traffic → *a normally short
> journey can take an hour at peak times* → *workers arrive tired and less productive.*

Two or three problems is enough; you cannot develop more inside forty minutes.

**For the solutions paragraph, brainstorm by "who is responsible", not "what should happen."**
Identify the actors — 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 a concrete action:

> ✗ *The government should do something about traffic.*
> ✓ *City authorities should expand public transport capacity so that commuters have a fast,
> affordable alternative to driving.*

Vary your modals across the paragraph — *should*, *need to*, *must* — rather than repeating
"should" three times.

**Advantage–Disadvantage (neutral)**
> Intro → Body 1 (advantages + example) → Body 2 (disadvantages + example) → Conclusion (balanced).

**Advantage–Disadvantage ("outweigh")**
> Intro (state which side wins) → Body 1 (the weaker side, brief) → Body 2 (the stronger side,
> developed) → Conclusion (reaffirm).

An examiner should be able to tell your opinion from how the essay is **weighted**, before reading
the conclusion.

**Two-Part Question**
> Intro (preview both) → Body 1 (answer Q1 fully) → Body 2 (answer Q2 fully) → Conclusion (brief
> summary of both).

Equal development for both questions. A throwaway sentence on one tanks Task Response.

**Three-Part**
> Intro (preview all three) → Body 1 (causes, 2–3, briefly) → Body 2 (advantages, one developed
> example) → Body 3 (disadvantages, one developed example) → Conclusion (brief synthesis).

One paragraph per sub-question is the safe default. Do not compress three questions into two
paragraphs.

---

## 4. Planning: four stages before you write a sentence

### 1. Question analysis

Find three layers in the prompt:

- **Keywords** — the general topic. Useful mainly for knowing what *not* to wander into.
- **Micro-keywords** — the specific phrase you must actually address. "Living longer" and "life
  expectancy is increasing", not "medical care" in general.
- **Instruction words** — what you are told to *do* with the topic.

Missing any part of the instruction caps Task Response at Band 5, however good the English is.

### How Task Response is actually graded

Two things, in this order: **(1) fully answering the question**, then **(2) developing and
extending ideas**. Brilliant ideas that answer the wrong question do not help — the 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 related | 4 |
| Understood but only partially answered | 5 |
| Fully answered, but some parts covered more than others | 6 |
| All parts adequately covered, ideas extended and supported | 7 |

**A worked misreading.** *"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?"*

- **"Ordinary people"** means the general population — not poor people, not companies. Candidates
  who wrote about poverty went off-topic.
- **"Ever will"** is emphasis on the existing claim, not an invitation to predict future inventions.
- **The comparison is mandatory.** Whichever side you take, the essay must reference *both* earlier
  and recent developments. Arguing only "recent developments are great" leaves the question
  partially answered.
- **The biggest trap:** treating it as a generic "advantages and disadvantages of technology"
  essay. It is not asking that. Missing this caps you at Band 3–4.

### The Task Response traps that quietly cap a strong writer

The most common way good writers lose marks is not grammar. It is not fully answering the question.

- **Watch "and" and plural markers.** A prompt asking about advantages *and* disadvantages of
  *both* scenarios needs all of that covered, not one side of one.
- **Nuance words change the actual ask.** *"Is it **necessary** to raise taxes on fast food?"* is
  not *"is it a **good idea**."* You can agree it is a good measure while arguing it is not
  necessary — that distinction alone can separate a 7 from an 8.
- **"Preference" is not "exclusivity."** *"Shops should give **preference** to local food"* is not
  asking whether imported food should be banned.
- **Stay inside the frame given.** If the prompt specifies developing countries, examples from the
  US or UK are off-topic however well written.
- **Cause-and-effect is not problem–solution.** If the prompt asks for causes *and effects*, answer
  exactly that — don't drift into suggesting solutions, which is a different type entirely. *What
  are the causes / why is this happening / what are the reasons for this* are all the same ask.
- **The examiner's own language escalates by band:** at Band 7 you must *address all parts* of the
  task, at Band 8 *sufficiently address* them, at Band 9 *fully address* them.

Two minutes spent re-reading the question before you write is the cheapest score improvement
available in the whole exam.

### 2. Idea generation

Skip open-ended brainstorming — it wastes time and produces irrelevant ideas. Turn the question
into one or two direct **"Why?"** questions and answer them the way you would answer a friend in a
café. You need one or two solid, relevant ideas per body paragraph, not a long list.

**Then ask "why?" again, twice.** The third layer is what a paragraph needs:

> *"Learning a language helps"* → why? → *"because it brings benefits"* → why? →
> *"because it improves mental agility."*

The first layer is a slogan. The second is still vague. The third can carry a paragraph.

### 3. Structure

Slot the ideas into the skeleton for the type. Write a bare outline — the one-line gist of each
sentence — before any prose.

### 4. Vocabulary

Scan the question for the words you will need repeatedly (the topic itself, the key verbs) and
prepare one synonym for each in advance, so you are not echoing the prompt throughout the essay.

---

## 5. Where ideas come from

The most common Task 2 failure is not grammar. It is reading the prompt, understanding it, and
then having nothing to say.

### The arenas

IELTS does not test specialist knowledge. It rotates through a small set of recurring societal
arenas, because these are the only topics equally accessible to every candidate on earth.

| Arena | What it covers |
|:---|:---|
| Learning & schooling | how people acquire skills, at any age, in any setting |
| Work & the economy | jobs, pay, ambition, automation |
| Screens & connection | phones, apps, algorithms, how people talk to each other now |
| The built and natural world | cities, transport, climate, resource use |
| Rules & authority | law, punishment, regulation, who decides |
| State vs. individual | what governments fund or control vs. what people handle themselves |
| Body & wellbeing | healthcare, diet, sport, ageing |
| Belonging | family shape, community, tradition vs. changing norms |
| Moving around | travel, migration, tourism, cultural exchange |

Every prompt you will ever see is a question asked *inside* one of these. Self-driving cars is not a
new topic — it is "Rules & Authority" overlapping "The Built World."

### The forks

Inside every arena, the essays don't hinge on facts. They hinge on a **fork** — a recurring tension
between two things people legitimately value:

- **Short-term comfort vs. long-term cost** — the easy option now creates a bigger bill later.
- **Individual freedom vs. collective outcome** — what's good for one person isn't automatically
  good for everyone at once.
- **Efficiency vs. human cost** — the faster way removes something that wasn't measured in speed.
- **Whose job is it** — the state, a company, the family, or the person?
- **Tradition vs. adaptation** — the old way was tested by time; the new way is tested by nothing.

Spot the fork before you brainstorm. "Should university be free?" is *Individual Freedom vs.
Collective Outcome* plus *Whose Job Is It* — two ready-made lenses to generate from, instead of
staring at the word "university" and hoping something arrives.

### The four-link chain

A raw idea is not an argument. "Technology saves time" is a slogan, and examiners have read it
several thousand times. Never write a claim down without dragging it through four links:

```
1. CLAIM         — the one-sentence assertion.
2. MECHANISM     — the causal "because" that makes the claim true.
3. CONCRETE CASE — a specific, imaginable instance.
4. STAKE         — who is affected, and what changes for them.
```

> **Weak:** "Remote work is good because it saves time."
>
> **Through the chain:**
> 1. *Claim* — Letting employees work from home most of the week reduces how much of their day is
>    consumed by unproductive activity.
> 2. *Mechanism* — A daily commute produces no output for anyone; removing it returns that time
>    directly to work or rest.
> 3. *Case* — Someone with a 90-minute round trip who switches to two office days recovers six
>    hours weekly — close to a full extra working day.
> 4. *Stake* — Employees gain personal time without a pay cut; employers keep output while needing
>    less office space.

The second version survives a follow-up question. The first does not. That gap is what separates a
Band 5 paragraph from a Band 7 one — not fancier vocabulary, but an idea made to explain itself.

### Stress-test with three questions

- **"Says who?"** Is this true, or something people repeat because it sounds reasonable?
- **"Compared to what?"** Claims about improvement or decline need a baseline. "Crime has become
  more visible" is a different claim from "crime has increased."
- **"So what?"** If it's true, what changes for a real person?

One well-tested idea outperforms three slogans.

### The example bank

A small stock of examples you already know well beats a fresh one invented under pressure. Build
your own — five or six named cases you could describe accurately, spread across the arenas. Two
that work well:

- **Costa Rica** — reversed deforestation by paying landowners to preserve forest rather than clear
  it. *(environment / development)*
- **The Aral Sea** — Soviet-era irrigation diverted its rivers for cotton farming; the lake and its
  fishing economy collapsed. *(environment / development)*
- **Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing** — congestion charging that varies with traffic and time.
  *(urban problems / solutions)*

**The pattern that makes an example work is a *named* place, policy, or population** — never "in
places where X is scarce." If a prompt fits none of your stock, still name something specific rather
than defaulting to a general construction.

### Pre-load forks, before you ever see a prompt

Once per arena, before exam day, fill in one row of this table for yourself — using examples you
actually know, since your own knowledge is faster to retrieve under pressure than someone else's:

| Arena | The fork that shows up here | One claim for each side | The mechanism behind it |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| *(pick one)* | *(pick one from above)* | | |

Two rows per sitting, no more. The goal is not a finished bank — it is rehearsing the *motion* of
finding a fork and running a claim through the four links, so the motion is already warm when the
real prompt arrives.

> **Do not memorise model essays.** An examiner trained to spot memorised content will recognise a
> chunk of prose that doesn't quite answer the question asked, and Task Response collapses when
> that happens. Pre-load *forks and mechanisms*, not paragraphs.

---

## 6. The phrase bank

### Introduction, sentence 1 — paraphrase

Synonym swap **plus sentence reorder**, not word-for-word substitution. Three techniques used
together:

1. **Synonyms** — replace the keywords, but watch fixed expressions: *"high unemployment"* becomes
   *"a serious lack of jobs"*, never *"high lack of jobs"*.
2. **Verb transformation** — *facing* → *confronting*; *reducing* → *lessening*.
3. **Sentence restructuring** — turn a question into a statement.

> **Prompt:** *"Air pollution is a growing concern in cities around the world. What are the causes
> of this problem and what measures can be taken to address it?"*
>
> **Paraphrase:** *"Contamination of the air is an increasingly pressing concern in urban centres
> worldwide. Let us consider what is driving this trend and what steps might be taken to tackle
> it."*

Openers worth having: *It is often argued that…* · *There are differing opinions regarding…* ·
*Whether X or Y is a matter of ongoing debate.*

**Avoid** *Nowadays* and *In today's society* — they read as filler, not paraphrase.

### Introduction, sentence 2 — the thesis

One clear sentence, not a hedge. This is where the examiner learns your position.

| Type | Pattern |
|:---|:---|
| Opinion | *This essay will argue that…* / *In my view,…* |
| Discussion | *This essay will examine both perspectives before presenting my own view, which is that…* |
| Problem–Solution | *This essay will outline the main problems caused by X and propose possible solutions.* |
| Adv/Disadv (outweigh) | *While X does offer certain advantages, this essay will argue that the disadvantages are more significant.* |
| Two-part / Three-part | *This essay will consider X, Y and Z.* |

### Can you use "I"?

**Yes** — and for opinion essays you often should. The prompt itself invites "examples from your own
experience or knowledge"; a rubric that invites your experience does not ban the pronoun.

- **Use it** in the thesis (*"In my view, funding should be increased"*), in the conclusion
  (*"I would argue that…"*), and for a genuinely relevant personal example.
- **Hold back** from "I think" in every body sentence — that tips the essay from academic-with-a-
  clear-opinion into informal, and that does cost marks. A few well-placed instances is the right
  density.

### Topic sentences carry the paragraph

A topic sentence should tell the examiner exactly what the paragraph argues **before** they read the
rest of it. Write it as a full claim, not a restatement of the prompt.

> ✗ *This paragraph will look at apprenticeships and university.*
> ✓ *Vocational apprenticeships prepare young people for skilled work far more directly than a
> traditional degree does.*

Then the rest of the paragraph: **topic sentence → position → explanation (the why) → example →
close.** Some guides call the short form **I-E-E** — Idea, Explanation, Example. Same shape.

### Body paragraph openers

*One of the main reasons for this is…* · *A clear example of this is…* · *This is largely
because…* · *A further point worth considering is…*

**Never open a topic sentence with a demonstrative** (*it, this, that, these*) — the reader hasn't
been told what it refers to yet. Save those for supporting sentences, after the noun has appeared.

### Introducing examples — rotate, don't repeat

*This is illustrated by the case of…* · *Consider the case of…* · *This can be seen in…*

### The concession — a Band 7+ move

A concession acknowledges the other side has some validity before you argue your own. It signals
the grasp of nuance the higher bands are looking for.

- **Open with "While"** to force both sides into view immediately:
  > *While automation undeniably boosts productivity and cuts costs for businesses, the human cost
  > in lost jobs and livelihoods cannot simply be dismissed.*
- **Place it right after the introduction.** Your stronger, supported view then goes in the second
  body paragraph, where it lands last and stays freshest for the reader.
- **Keep a concession phrase to half a sentence** inside a body paragraph. More than that and you
  have drifted off that paragraph's own topic sentence.

### Comparing two ideas — four techniques

| Technique | Markers | Example |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Similarity, different degree | more, less, -er | *Discrimination appears more severe in developing countries than in wealthier ones.* |
| Similarity, two sentences | similarly, in a similar way | *Museums preserve a nation's tangible history. Similarly, oral storytelling preserves its cultural memory.* |
| Contrast, one sentence | while, whereas, in contrast to | *Adults deem play a leisure activity, whereas children deem it serious business.* |
| Contrast, two sentences | in contrast, on the other hand | *Financial advisors recommend bonds. On the other hand, businessmen favour private investment.* |

### Connectors — match the logical relationship

| Relationship | Words |
|:---|:---|
| Similarity | similarly, likewise |
| Building | in addition to, moreover, besides |
| Example | for example, to illustrate |
| Emphasis | indeed, undoubtedly |
| Contrast | by contrast, whereas, set against this, in spite of, although |
| Cause → effect | as a result, consequently, this leads to, therefore |
| Summary | overall, on the whole, in short |

Vary them across the essay. Don't reuse one connector twice.

**Transition words don't create coherence by themselves** — a clear topic sentence plus a logical
supporting argument does. Transitions only mark the path.

**Repetition-via-synonym is legitimate cohesion:** reusing "lawyers" as "legal experts" then "law
practitioners" keeps the idea traceable without dull repetition.

### The conclusion

*In conclusion,* / *To conclude,* / *Overall,* — standard and expected in IELTS, unlike in
university writing. Use without hesitation, though it is optional if your position is already
unambiguous.

- State your opinion in one clear sentence. Don't hedge with "I sincerely hope."
- A short, specific **prediction** is a strong closer: *"Unless investment in public transport
  increases significantly, congestion in major cities is likely to worsen over the coming decade."*
- **Never** introduce a new argument, new evidence, or a straight repetition of earlier wording.
  Its only job is to round off what is already there.

---

## 7. The seven structures worth attempting

Each has a **safe fallback**. Use the target structure if it arrives cleanly; if it doesn't arrive
within a few seconds, use the fallback and move on. **A clean simple sentence outscores a broken
complex one.**

| # | Target | Fallback |
|:---|:---|:---|
| 1 | **Negative inversion** — *Not only does the current system pose a barrier, but it also deprives the economy of skilled workers.* | *The current system does not only pose a barrier. It also deprives the economy of skilled workers.* |
| 2 | **Concession then assertion** — *While local action yields real benefits, it is nonetheless true that the problem is transnational.* | *Local action yields real benefits. Even so, the problem is transnational.* |
| 3 | **Parallel concession** — *While those in favour argue one thing, those opposed stress another.* | *Supporters argue one thing. Opponents argue another.* |
| 4 | **Participle clause** — *Granting workers control over their schedules, freelance arrangements allow flexibility.* | *Because freelance arrangements grant workers control over their schedules, they allow flexibility.* |
| 5 | **The absent construction** — *Absent adequate investment, networks cannot meet demand.* | *Without adequate investment, networks cannot meet demand.* — almost as strong, far less likely to break. Use it freely. |
| 6 | **Passive with a modal** — *Substantial funding must be allocated to public transit.* | Keep all three parts: modal + **be** + participle. Dropping *be* is the usual failure. |
| 7 | **Cleft sentence** — *It is early exposure to sport that predicts adult preference.* | *Early exposure to sport is the strongest predictor of adult preference.* |

**With inversion, watch the agreement.** When a sentence opens with *not only*, the auxiliary
carries the agreement and the main verb stays bare.

**With participle clauses, check the attachment.** The participle must belong to the subject of the
main clause, every time.

### Other structures that separate Band 6 from Band 7+

| Structure | Use for | Example |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Past simple passive | Unknown agent | *The vaccine was developed over just eighteen months.* |
| 2nd / 3rd / mixed conditional | Imaginary present or past | *If the treaty had been signed a decade earlier, the dispute might never have escalated.* |
| wish / if only + past perfect | Regret about the past | *Many workers wish they had negotiated for remote work sooner.* |
| could / might / may (+ have) | Speculation | *That could be one explanation, though economists remain divided.* |
| must have | Near-certainty about the past | *The delay must have cost the company a considerable sum.* |

---

## 8. Sentence-level fixes that move the needle

- **Keep subject and verb close.** *"Japan, along with several other East Asian economies that
  industrialised rapidly after 1950, developed…"* forces the reader to hold too much. Move the
  qualifying clause to the end.
- **Vary openings and lengths.** Three sentences starting "There are many…" reads flat regardless
  of content.
- **A dependent clause is not a sentence.** *"Because the region lacks reliable rainfall…"* needs a
  main clause attached.
- **One idea per sentence** is a safe default. A run-on chaining four clauses with "and, and, and"
  is common and costly.
- **In persuasive sentences, put the main point first**, then the qualifications.
- **A colon can rescue a rambling list:** *"Preparing for the exam meant three things: reviewing old
  mistakes, timing every practice essay, and sleeping properly the night before."*

### The tense spine

The spine of a Task 2 essay is **present simple**. Past simple appears only for a single dated
historical fact. Present perfect only for a completed change that still matters now. Nothing else.

Drifting between tenses inside one paragraph is a **load** problem, not a knowledge problem — which
is why the fix is the mechanical pass in §9, not "reading more carefully."

---

## 9. The error checklist and the revision pass

The patterns that recur most often in Band 6–7 scripts, in rough order of frequency. **Run this in
the revision pass, not while drafting.**

**1. Subject–verb agreement** — the most frequent error, in four forms:
   - Abstract or collective singular subjects: *this growth have* → **has**. Words like *exposure,
     growth, migration, scarcity, availability, perception, distance, effort, interaction* are
     singular even when a plural noun sits next to them.
   - Pronoun subjects: *it help individuals* → **it helps**.
   - Plural subject, singular verb: *the disadvantages outweights* → **outweigh**.
   - **The intervening-noun trap:** *the findings of this research supports* — the true subject is
     *findings*, plural.

**2. Comma splices** — two independent clauses joined by only a comma. Fix with a period, a
semicolon, or a conjunction. Watch *however* and *therefore* after a comma: these are conjunctive
adverbs, not coordinating conjunctions, and cannot rescue a splice.

**3. A comma between subject and verb** — a single, unpaired comma before the verb is never
correct: *this trend, is* → **this trend is**. Only valid when paired with a second comma opening a
side-clause.

**4. A period after a sentence-initial transition** — *However. the main…* → **However, the main…**

**5. A semicolon before a non-independent clause** — *…to create a new one; consequently reducing…*
→ should be a **comma**, since what follows has no subject of its own.

**6. Missing comma after a fronted dependent clause** — *…is common it could end…* → **is common, it
could end…**

**7. Tense collapse** — see §8. Watch for present tense creeping in at vivid moments.

**8. Wrong verb form after "to" or a modal** — *to reappropriated* → **to reappropriate**; *can
isolated them* → **can isolate them**.

**9. Comparatives and superlatives** — the one-vs-two-syllable rule; *the* before superlatives.

**10. Prepositions and collocations** — responsible **for** · reason **for** · different **from** ·
arrive **at/in** · based **on** · access *(no "to" after the verb)* · **on the basis of** *(not "on
the base of")* · allocated **to** · in the interest **of**.

**11. Word-class confusion** — growth/grow, reduction/reduce, protection/protect. Does the slot need
a noun or a verb?

**12. Commonly confused pairs** — *base/basis* (the noun is **basis**); *specially/especially*
(**especially** is almost always what you mean).

**13. Register** — no contractions. *it's* → **it is**.

**14. Parallelism** — matching items need matching form: *"risk of discrimination and ostracism"*,
not *"risk of discrimination and to be ostracized"*.

**15. Articles** — *an* before vowel **sounds** regardless of spelling; *the* before country names
that are unions or collections (the USA, the UK); no article before general abstract nouns like
*nature*.

### The mechanical revision technique

Sentence by sentence, **starting from your last sentence and working backward to your first**.

This is not reading backward word by word (that is for spelling). Reversing *sentence order* breaks
the argument-momentum that lets your brain glide past errors while tracking meaning — without
destroying any single sentence's internal structure.

At each sentence, two checks, in this order:

1. **Subject → verb jump.** Skip everything in between. Do they agree?
2. **Comma cover-test.** At every comma, cover before and after separately. Is each half a complete
   sentence on its own? If yes to both, it is a splice.

It works precisely because it removes meaning from the check.

### The final two minutes

1. Did I address **every** part of the prompt? (For three-part prompts: reasons, advantages, *and*
   disadvantages — not just two of three.)
2. Is my opinion visible in more than the intro and conclusion, where the type requires one?
3. Reverse-order pass: subject–verb.
4. Reverse-order pass: comma splices.
5. Spelling check on your own repeat offenders.
6. No contractions anywhere.

---

## 10. The four criteria, band by band

Each is worth 25%.

**Task Response.** Band 5 partially answers. Band 7 covers all parts with extended, supported ideas.
Band 8 explains the idea precisely and ties the example directly to the claim.

> **The swappable-example test.** If your example could be dropped into any other essay on any
> other topic, it is a Band 6–7 example, not a Band 8 one.

The examiner does not verify a personal anecdote or an illustrative scenario, so a specific,
plausible example scores as well as a true one. **But keep it plausible** — a fabricated statistic
or a made-up institution presented as fact is a factual error inside your argument, not a strength.

**Coherence and Cohesion.** One idea per paragraph; Band 5 essays cram several into one. Inside the
paragraph: topic sentence → explanation → example. Cohesive devices are **not** a more-is-better
feature — Band 5 overuses and misuses them, Band 8 uses only the ones it needs, correctly, without
repetition.

**Lexical Resource.** Band 5 repeats words straight from the question because it knows no synonyms.
Band 8 uses topic-specific vocabulary precisely — *unemployment*, *recession*, *economic downturn*,
not "no jobs and no money". Long or rare words used *incorrectly* score worse than plain words used
correctly.

**Grammatical Range and Accuracy.** Band 5 is mostly simple sentences with frequent errors whenever
a complex one is attempted. Band 7 shows a variety of complex structures with roughly half the
sentences fully error-free. Band 8 shows a wide range with most sentences error-free. The practical
rule: **only use a structure in the exam if you are confident it will come out error-free.**

---

## 11. What separates a Band 7 essay from a Band 9

Comparing two real answers to the same prompt, the Band 9 version was not "harder" English. It had:

- **Topic sentences that state a clear claim**, not a topic.
- **Idiomatic expressions used correctly and sparingly** — one or two, not a display.
- **Varied synonyms** instead of repeating one word three times.
- **Specific, plausible examples** rather than general constructions.
- **Advanced but controlled structures** that never wobble.

The Band 7 version's flaws were mundane: repeating "money" three times, a wrong possessive, and
only answering half of a two-part question.

**One caution on vocabulary.** *appalling* (worse than "bad"), *classical* (more precise than
"traditional"), *adolescent* (more precise than "teenage"), *cumulative* (more precise than
"long-term"), *attainable* (more precise than "easy to reach") — all useful, all worth practising.
But **do not drop a C2 word into an essay until you can use it correctly in context.** An unnatural
fancy word costs more than a plain, correct one.

### Spelling variety

Pick British or American before exam day and hold it. *Enrolment/enrollment*, *labour/labor*,
*favour/favor*, *programme/program* — either is fine. **Mixing the two inside one essay is what
looks careless.**

---

## Where to go next

| | |
|:---|:---|
| 25 model essays, by question type | [Task 2 Essay Bank](task2-essay-bank-25-model-answers.html) |
| The same material as an audio script | [Task 2 — Audio Essay Bank](task2_audio_bank.html) |
| Band 5→7 upgrade, with worked corrections | [Band 5→7 Upgrade Guide](ielts_writing_band5to7_guide.html) |
| Coherence and cohesion, worked | [Improving Coherence and Cohesion](improving-ielts-essay-coherence-and-cohesion.html) |
| Sentence mechanics: complex sentences, paraphrasing, ten common errors | [Writing Mechanics](writing-mechanics-and-grammar.html) |
| The official criteria | [Writing Band Descriptors](ielts_task_1_writing_band_descriptors.html) |
| Timed practice papers | [Practice Test 1](ielts-academic-writing-practice-test-1.html) · [3](ielts-academic-writing-practice-test-3.html) · [4](ielts-academic-writing-practice-test-4.html) · [5](ielts-academic-writing-practice-test-5.html) · [6](ielts-academic-writing-practice-test-6.html) |
| The other half of the paper | [Task 1 — The Complete Guide](task1-master-guide.html) |