## IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 — Examiner's Report **Rubric:** IELTS Academic Writing Task 2, four criteria, band 0–9 with half bands · **Level targeted:** C1 (≈ IELTS 7.0–8.0) · **Genre:** Discursive essay, discuss both views + own opinion · **Words:** 158 of a required minimum of 250 --- ## Overall verdict **Band 6.5** — below the C1 target. Band 6.5 sits at the top of B2; C1 begins at 7.0. This is a linguistically accomplished script that fails on the task, not on the English. The sentence-level control is close to Band 8 and the collocation is the work of a genuinely advanced learner, but the essay stops 92 words short of the minimum, offers no example or evidence anywhere, and spends 28 of its 158 words announcing an essay it then does not write. The examiner's arithmetic is unforgiving here: three strong criteria cannot rescue an average when the fourth is capped at 5 by length and underdevelopment. --- ## Scores by criterion | Criterion | Score | Descriptor met | Evidence | |---|---|---|---| | **Task Response** | **5.0** | Band 5: *"presents some main ideas but these are insufficiently developed"*; under-length penalty applied | All three parts are addressed, but each is a bare assertion. The entire counter-argument is three sentences; the opinion is nineteen words: "In my opinion, both parties must collaborate. Governments should establish binding targets while companies should innovate to meet them." No example, statistic, illustration or consequence appears anywhere in the script. 158 words against 250 is a shortfall of 37%. | | **Coherence and Cohesion** | **6.0** | Band 6: *"presents information with some organisation"*; *"uses paragraphing, but not always logically"* — here, not at all | Sequencing is genuinely clear and referencing is accurate: "if its competitors do not follow suit", "companies should innovate to meet them". But the script runs as a single unbroken block with no paragraph divisions, which caps this criterion at 6 regardless of how well the signposts work. Signposting is also mechanical: "On the one hand" / "On the other hand" / "Furthermore" is the full inventory. | | **Lexical Resource** | **7.0** | Band 7: *"uses less common lexical items with some awareness of style and collocation"* | "shoulder this responsibility", "bear the cost of mitigation", "enforce compliance", "follow suit", "a level playing field", "binding targets". This is real Band 7 resource, precisely deployed. Held to 7 rather than 8 by the memorised framing ("In the contemporary era", "a topic of heated debate") and by the stilted "opines". | | **Grammatical Range and Accuracy** | **7.0** | Band 7: *"produces frequent error-free sentences; has good control of grammar and punctuation"* | Accuracy is at Band 8 — the script is very nearly error-free. Range is what holds it at 7: one conditional, one reduced relative ("A single company reducing its emissions"), one passive ("it is argued that"), and otherwise a repeated subject–verb–object frame. No concession clauses, no inversion, no cleft, no participle fronting. | **Average:** (5.0 + 6.0 + 7.0 + 7.0) ÷ 4 = 6.25 → **6.5** --- ## What works | Student wrote | Why it earns marks | Criterion | |---|---|---| | "corporations must shoulder this responsibility" | *Shoulder + responsibility* is a precise, natural collocation that a Band 6 candidate would render as "must take this responsibility". | Lexical Resource | | "they should bear the cost of mitigation" | *Mitigation* is the correct technical register for climate policy, used without strain. | Lexical Resource | | "A single company reducing its emissions will not solve the problem if its competitors do not follow suit." | The best sentence in the script. A reduced relative clause fronting a conditional, plus an idiom used correctly. This alone demonstrates Band 7 grammar. | GRA / Lexical Resource | | "Only legislation can create a level playing field." | Fronted *only* for emphasis, plus a well-judged idiom. Short, forceful, and it lands the paragraph's point. | GRA / Coherence | | "governments alone can enforce compliance" | *Enforce compliance* is exact policy vocabulary; *alone* does real argumentative work. | Lexical Resource | | "if its competitors do not follow suit" / "companies should innovate to meet them" | Pronoun reference is accurate and unambiguous throughout — no repetition of full noun phrases. | Coherence and Cohesion | --- ## Task compliance **Required:** (1) discuss the view that companies should be responsible; (2) discuss the view that this is the role of governments; (3) give your own opinion; (4) write at least 250 words. **Covered:** All three content points are present and correctly identified. The essay does not misread the prompt, does not answer a different question, and does not drift into an unrelated topic — a failure mode that sinks many scripts. Point 1 receives two reasons (industry is the main polluter; industry has the means). Point 2 receives one reason (free-rider problem). Point 3 receives a clear, unambiguous position. **Missing or thin:** Every point is asserted and abandoned. "Manufacturing units release enormous quantities of greenhouse gases" — how much, which sectors, compared to what? "companies possess the financial resources and technological capabilities required for such a transition" — a claim that invites an example and receives none. The counter-argument runs to just three sentences and 39 words. The opinion, the part of a Task 2 essay that carries the most weight, is two sentences with no reasoning attached to it: "both parties must collaborate" is a conclusion without an argument. There is no concluding paragraph distinct from the opinion. **Padding or off-brief:** **28 words — 18% of the entire script — carry no content.** "In the contemporary era, the issue of carbon emission reduction has become a topic of heated debate" (17 words) tells the examiner nothing that the prompt did not already say. "This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my own viewpoint" (11 words) announces a structure that the discourse markers make obvious anyway. In an essay 92 words *under* length, spending a fifth of the total on ceremony is the single most costly decision in this script. Both sentences read as memorised furniture — examiners recognise these openers instantly and they earn no credit under any criterion. **Genre and register:** Correct genre, correctly executed. Formal academic register is sustained without a single lapse into contraction, colloquialism or direct reader address — this is a real strength and it is consistent from first word to last. The only register misstep is "opines", which overshoots into an archaic-journalistic idiom that no academic writer would use. --- ## Error analysis This is an unusually clean script. There are **no critical errors and no grammatical errors that cost meaning**. The list below is exhaustive rather than capped — I have not invented faults to fill a table, and nothing has been omitted. | Student wrote | Correction | Type | Severity | The rule behind it | |---|---|---|---|---| | *(whole script as one block)* | Four paragraphs: introduction, view 1, view 2, opinion + conclusion | Cohesion | **Major** | IELTS Task 2 requires visible paragraphing. Each paragraph carries one central idea, separated by a blank line. Without breaks, Coherence and Cohesion cannot exceed Band 6 no matter how good the linking words are. If the missing breaks are an artefact of how this text was typed up, disregard — but check the original, because the cost is a full band. | | "governments are the appropriate authority" | "governments are the appropriate authorities" | Grammar | Minor | A plural subject normally takes a plural complement when each member of the subject is a separate instance of the complement. *Disputed:* defensible if *authority* is read as an abstract role rather than a countable body, so an examiner would not penalise heavily — but the plural is safer. | | "a certain section of society opines that" | "one section of society argues that" | Register / Lexis | Minor | *Opine* survives mainly in ironic or journalistic use and reads as stilted in academic prose. It is also a marker of coached IELTS phrasing, which reduces credit under Lexical Resource because it does not demonstrate the candidate's own resource. | | "In the contemporary era" | "Debate over who should cut carbon emissions has intensified as targets tighten" | Register | Minor | Openers that could preface any essay on any topic score nothing. Band 7+ introductions contain topic-specific content from the first clause. | | "This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my own viewpoint." | Delete; state the position instead | Register | Minor | Metadiscourse announcing structure is Band 5–6 behaviour. A Band 7+ introduction uses those words to advance a thesis, not to describe the document. | | "Manufacturing units release" | "Manufacturing plants release" / "Manufacturers release" | Lexis | Minor | *Disputed — not marked as an error.* "Manufacturing unit" is standard in Indian and South Asian English and is legitimate in a candidate's own variety. Flagged only because international examiners more readily recognise *plant* or *facility*. | | "carbon emission reduction" | "carbon emissions reduction" | Lexis | Minor | *Disputed.* Attributive nouns usually take the singular, but *emissions* is conventionally plural in this collocation. Both forms appear in published policy writing; no examiner would penalise either. | **Errors of grammar, tense, article, preposition or spelling: none found.** This is the report's most important sentence. The 2.5 bands separating this script from a 9.0 are not in the English. --- ## Recurring patterns | Pattern | Instances | How to stop making it | |---|---|---| | **Assert-and-abandon** — a claim is made, then the essay moves on without support | 5 of 5 argumentative claims: "industries are the primary polluters"; "Manufacturing units release enormous quantities of greenhouse gases"; "companies possess the financial resources and technological capabilities"; "governments alone can enforce compliance"; "both parties must collaborate" | Apply a fixed three-move sequence to every claim: **state → explain the mechanism → illustrate.** Written out: *claim* ("industry is the primary polluter"), *because* ("energy generation and heavy manufacturing account for the majority of annual emissions"), *for instance* ("a single steel plant can emit more in a year than a small town"). Two extra sentences per claim, applied five times, adds roughly 90 words — precisely the shortfall here. This one habit fixes both Task Response and the word count simultaneously. | | **Memorised framing** — pre-learned phrases used where original content should go | 2: "In the contemporary era, the issue of ... has become a topic of heated debate"; "This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my own viewpoint" | Ban both from your repertoire. Practise writing introductions that contain a fact or a definition of the disagreement in the first sentence. Test: if your opening sentence would fit an essay on tourism or online education, it is filler. | | **Narrow structural repertoire** — the same subject–verb–object frame across the script | 8 of 11 sentences | Set a per-essay quota of one concessive clause (*While it is true that...*), one inversion (*Not only does..., but...*), and one nominalised subject (*The reluctance of governments to legislate...*). Three structures deliberately placed will lift GRA from 7 to 8; accuracy is already there. | --- ## Missed opportunities Each item below is **correct English**. At C1 and from Band 7 upward, being correct but below level costs as many marks as being wrong. | Student wrote | Upgrade at target level | Marks gained | |---|---|---| | "This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my own viewpoint." | "Both positions have merit, though framing them as alternatives is itself the error." | TR: replaces filler with a thesis, which Band 7 requires ("presents a clear position throughout"); also recovers 11 wasted words | | "Only legislation can create a level playing field." | "Only through legislation can a level playing field be created." | GRA: subject–auxiliary inversion after a fronted *only* phrase — a structure Band 8 rewards and Band 6 candidates never attempt | | "it is only logical that they should bear the cost of mitigation" | "it seems perverse that those producing the harm should not pay to remedy it" | LR: *perverse* is a less common item used with awareness of style; the negative framing is more forceful than *only logical* | | "companies possess the financial resources and technological capabilities required for such a transition" | "Corporations are better placed than most governments to act quickly, since they command the capital and technical expertise that decarbonisation demands." | TR + LR: converts a static claim into a comparative argument; *command*, *decarbonisation* extend range | | "A single company reducing its emissions will not solve the problem if its competitors do not follow suit." | Keep the sentence, then add the consequence: "...so the responsible firm is competed out of existence while emissions continue." | TR: extension is exactly what Band 7 means by "presents, **extends and supports** main ideas" | | "In my opinion, both parties must collaborate." | "These arguments are complementary rather than opposed: neither actor can succeed alone." | TR: a reasoned position rather than a stated one. *Collaborate* names an outcome without explaining why it follows | | "Governments should establish binding targets while companies should innovate to meet them." | "Governments must set binding targets and price carbon so that pollution carries a real cost; companies must then compete to meet those targets through innovation." | TR + GRA: adds a mechanism (*carbon pricing*) and a result clause, turning a slogan into policy | --- ## Distance to the next band **Weakest criterion:** Task Response at **5.0** — a full two bands below Lexical Resource and Grammatical Range, and the sole reason this script is not a 7.0. **Next descriptor demands:** Band 6 TR requires *"presents relevant main ideas but some may be inadequately developed or unclear"*; Band 7 requires *"presents, extends and supports main ideas"* and *"a clear position throughout the response."* Both presuppose the 250-word minimum, since the under-length penalty is applied within this criterion. **In this response that means:** three things, in order of value. 1. **Reach 250 words, and reach them with argument rather than preamble.** Delete the 28 words of memorised opening. Add roughly 120 words of support across the three body sections. Net gain: 92 words of genuine content, arriving at approximately 250–270. 2. **Give every claim a second sentence.** "Manufacturing units release enormous quantities of greenhouse gases" needs a *because* or a *for instance* immediately after it. Five claims, two sentences each. 3. **Expand the opinion into a full paragraph.** "In my opinion, both parties must collaborate" states a position; it does not argue one. Explain the division of labour, and explain why neither actor can act alone. This is where Band 7's "clear position throughout" is won or lost. **Below any minimum:** IELTS sets no per-criterion minimum — the overall band is a straight average rounded to the nearest half band. There is therefore no hard failure here. But note the leverage: raising Task Response alone from 5.0 to 7.0, with the other three criteria untouched, produces 6.75 → **7.0**, and adding paragraph breaks to lift Coherence to 7.0 produces 7.0 exactly with room to spare. **Every mark you are currently missing is available without improving your English at all.** **Drill this:** For the next ten essays, write to a word budget before you write a word of prose. Allocate: introduction 40, body 1 → 85, body 2 → 85, opinion 60. Then draft each section to its number. Separately, take five of your own past body paragraphs and add exactly one example sentence to each, timed at three minutes per paragraph — the skill you are missing is not knowing what an example is, it is producing one under exam pressure without stalling. --- ## Model answer *Same ideas, same content points, 270 words, written at Band 7.5–8. Achievable by a strong candidate, not a native specialist.* The question of who should bear primary responsibility for cutting carbon emissions — the corporate sector or the state — divides opinion sharply. Both positions have merit, though I would argue that framing them as alternatives is itself the error. The case for corporate responsibility rests on a simple point: industry is the source of the problem. Manufacturing, energy generation and transport account for the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases released each year, and it seems perverse that those producing the harm should not pay to remedy it. Large corporations are also better placed than most governments to act quickly, since they command the capital and the technical expertise that decarbonisation demands. A single multinational can redesign its supply chain in a matter of years; legislation takes as long simply to pass. The opposing view, however, identifies a flaw in this reasoning. Voluntary action punishes the firms that undertake it. A manufacturer that invests heavily in cleaner processes raises its costs and loses market share to rivals who do not, so the responsible company is competed out of existence while emissions continue. Only a government can impose obligations on every actor at once, and only legislation, backed by carbon pricing or penalties, creates the level playing field on which genuine competition to reduce emissions becomes possible. In my view these arguments are complementary rather than opposed. Governments must set binding, enforceable targets and price carbon so that pollution carries a real cost; companies must then compete to meet those targets through innovation. Neither can succeed alone: regulation without corporate capacity produces unmet deadlines, and corporate goodwill without regulation produces nothing at all.