Source: Adapted from publicly available content on https://www.ieltspodcast.com/ (Ben Worthington). This is an original, condensed summary — not a copy of their site.
Most Task 2 essays don't fail because the English is bad. They fail because the writer answered a slightly different question than the one asked, or because good ideas never got linked into a coherent argument. These notes are about closing those two gaps.
Classify the question before you plan anything
There are five recurring question types. Naming the type tells you what your paragraphs need to do:
| Type | What each paragraph must do |
|---|---|
| Opinion (agree/disagree) | Argue your position — you don't need two "balanced" sides |
| Discuss both views + opinion | Cover both views, then state your own |
| Problem + solution | One paragraph problems, one paragraph solutions (or paired) |
| Two-part / direct question | Answer both questions — don't quietly drop one |
| Advantages / disadvantages | One paragraph each, weighted toward your actual answer |
The 7-step plan (do this before writing a single sentence)
- Classify the question type (table above).
- Brainstorm and pick a position for each paragraph — don't start writing while still undecided.
- Check your ideas actually answer the question. It's easy to develop an idea beautifully and realize afterward it doesn't respond to what was asked — this costs you on Task Response, 25% of the mark.
- Ask "why?" repeatedly to develop each idea past the surface. "Learning a language helps" → why? → "because it brings benefits" → why? → "because it improves mental agility." That third layer is what a paragraph needs.
- Attach a concrete example to each idea — a real one or a plausible, specific illustrative scenario. Don't invent a specific statistic or named institution and present it as fact.
- Organize the paragraph: topic sentence → position → explanation (the why) → example → close.
- Write the introduction, both body paragraphs, and the conclusion.
Four paragraphs, not five
The four-paragraph model (intro / body 1 / body 2 / conclusion) is recommended over five because most Task 2 questions really only have two sides or two parts, and cramming five paragraphs into 40 minutes tends to produce shallow paragraphs. Most points that earn marks live in the body paragraphs — spend your time there, not polishing the introduction. Five paragraphs can work if you write fast and confidently, but never go past five including the intro and conclusion.
Paraphrasing the question in your introduction
Three techniques, used together:
- Synonyms — highlight the keywords, replace them (careful with fixed expressions: "high unemployment" becomes "a serious lack of jobs," not "high lack of jobs").
- Verb transformation — "facing" → "confronting," "reducing" → "lessening."
- Sentence restructuring — turn a question into a statement: "What are the pros and cons of X?" becomes "Let's examine the pros and cons of X."
Example, question: "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's consider what is driving this trend and what steps might be taken to tackle it."
Topic sentences carry the paragraph
A topic sentence should let the examiner know exactly what the paragraph argues before reading the rest of it. Write your position as a full claim, not a restatement of the prompt — e.g., for a question about apprenticeships versus university, a real topic sentence is "Vocational apprenticeships prepare young people for skilled work far more directly than a traditional degree does" — not a vague summary of the question.
Task Response traps that quietly cap your score
The most common way strong writers lose marks isn't grammar — it's not fully answering the question:
- Watch for "and" and plural markers. A question asking about advantages and disadvantages of both scenarios needs all of that covered, not just one side.
- Nuance words change the actual ask. "Is it necessary to raise taxes on fast food?" is not the same question as "is it a good idea." You can agree it's a good measure while arguing it isn't necessary — that distinction alone can separate a 7 from an 8.
- "Preference" isn't "exclusivity." "Shops should give preference to local food" is not asking whether imported food should be banned — writing as if it does misses the question.
- Stay inside the frame given. If the question specifies developing countries, examples from the US or UK are off-topic, however well-written.
- 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, and at Band 9 "fully address" them. Spend two minutes actually re-reading the question before you write — it's the cheapest score improvement available.
Cause-and-effect questions are not problem-solution questions
If a question asks "what are the causes of X and what are the effects," answer exactly that — don't drift into suggesting solutions, which is a different question type entirely. Watch for these all meaning the same underlying ask: "what are the causes / why is this happening / what are the reasons for this."
Concession paragraphs (for agree/disagree essays)
A concession is acknowledging the other side has some validity before arguing your own — it signals a mature, examiner-pleasing grasp of nuance, useful for Band 7+.
- 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 the concession right after the introduction; your stronger, supported view goes in the second body paragraph — it lands last and stays fresher for the reader.
- Keep a concession phrase to half a sentence maximum inside a body paragraph — more than that and you've drifted off the paragraph's own topic sentence.
Comparing ideas: four techniques
| Technique | Marker words | 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, on the contrary | Financial advisors recommend bonds. On the other hand, businessmen favour private investment. |
Cohesion: what actually links ideas
Transition words don't create coherence by themselves — a clear topic sentence plus a logical supporting argument does that. Transitions just mark the path. A few specific traps:
- Never open a topic sentence with a demonstrative (it, this, that, these) — the reader hasn't been told what it refers to yet. Save "it/this/that" for supporting sentences, after the noun has already appeared.
- Repetition-via-synonym is a legitimate cohesion device: reusing "lawyers" as "legal experts" then "law practitioners" keeps the idea traceable without dull repetition.
- Match your connective to the actual logical relationship, not just to "sound academic":
| Relationship | Words |
|---|---|
| Similarity | similarly, likewise |
| Building an argument | in addition to, moreover, besides |
| Example | for example, to illustrate |
| Emphasis | indeed, undoubtedly, truly |
| Difference | in spite of, although, still |
| Time | soon, lately, formerly |
| Cause/effect | therefore, accordingly |
| Summary | overall, on the whole, in short |
Sentence-level fixes that move the needle
- Keep subject and verb close together. "Japan, along with several other East Asian economies that industrialised rapidly after 1950, developed..." forces the reader to hold several words before reaching the verb. Move the qualifying clause to the end instead.
- Vary sentence openings and lengths. Three sentences in a row starting "There are many..." reads flat regardless of content quality.
- A dependent clause is not a sentence. "Because the region lacks reliable rainfall..." needs a main clause attached to it.
- Long sentences lose readers and invite grammar errors. One idea per sentence is a safe default; a run-on that chains four independent clauses with "and, and, and" is a common, costly pattern (this exact issue is flagged in the site's own grammar-pattern table too).
- In persuasive sentences, put the main point first, then the qualifications — not the reverse. "Renewable energy investment has grown substantially in recent years, even allowing for a slowdown during the last recession" is stronger than burying that claim after the qualifications.
- A colon can convert a rambling list into one governed idea: "Preparing for the exam meant three things: reviewing old mistakes, timing every practice essay, and sleeping properly the night before" reads better than four flat, choppy sentences.
Writing the conclusion
- 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, traffic 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 in the conclusion — its only job is to round off what's already there.
- "In conclusion" as an opener is optional, not required, if your position is already unambiguous.
Grammar that separates Band 6 from Band 7+
| Structure | Use it for | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Past simple passive | Unknown agent, news/scientific style | The vaccine was developed over the course of just eighteen months. |
| 2nd/3rd/mixed conditional | Imaginary present/past, or one bleeding into the other | If the treaty had been signed a decade earlier, the border dispute might never have escalated. |
| wish/if only + past perfect | Regret about the past | Many workers wish they had negotiated for remote work sooner. |
| would rather + past perfect | A past wish | He'd rather they had chosen a smaller, quieter venue. |
| could/might/may (+ have) | Speculation, uncertainty | 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. |
What actually separates a Band 7 essay from a Band 9 essay
Comparing two real answers to the same prompt about wealth and social responsibility, the Band 9 version wasn't "harder" English — it used: topic sentences that state a clear claim ("plagued civilisation," "wealth distribution for social ends"), idiomatic expressions used correctly and sparingly ("every man for himself," "levelling the playing field," "no man is an island"), varied synonyms instead of repeating one word three times (never repeating "money" or "obliged"), specific invented-but-plausible examples (a named university, a named study), and advanced but controlled structures ("laying the responsibility with the poor... is clearly an erroneous policy," "-albeit under duress-"). The Band 7 version's flaws were mundane: repeating "money" three times, a wrong possessive ("his houses" instead of "their"), and only answering half the two-part question.
Five words worth actively practicing at C2 level, with what they upgrade: appalling (worse than "bad"), classical (more precise than "old-style/traditional"), adolescent (more precise than "teenage" as an adjective), cumulative (more precise than "long-term" or "repeated"), attainable (more precise than "easy to reach"). Don't drop a C2 word into an essay until you're confident using it correctly in context — an unnatural fancy word costs more than a plain, correct one.