IELTS Writing Task 2 sample essays at Band 6, 7 and 8

Nowadays, many universities let students focus only on their main subject. Some people think that students should also have to study subjects from other fields, for example a science student studying history or art. I mostly agree with this idea, although I think the number of these courses should be limited. Firstly, studying a different subject can help students to think in a wider way. If an engineering student takes a course in history, he can learn how technology changed the society in the past, and this can make him a better engineer. Also, many jobs today need people who understand different areas. For example, a company that make medical software needs workers who know about computers and also about health. So students who study only one subject may have less chances in the future. Secondly, these courses can develop skills which are useful for everyone. Art and literature classes often ask students to write essays and discuss their opinions, so science students can improve their communication. On the other hand, arts students can learn basic skills in mathematics or data, which are important in modern life. However, there are some problems with this idea. University students are already very busy, and if they must take extra subjects, they may have less time for their main study. Also, some students pay high fees and they want to spend money only on courses related to their career. Because of this, I think universities should only require one or two courses outside the main field. In conclusion, I agree that university students should study subjects outside their main field because it makes their thinking wider and gives them useful skills. However, universities should keep the number of these courses small so that students can still focus on their degree.

Task response is adequate: a clear position is maintained and main ideas are relevant, though the history example is not fully developed. Coherence and cohesion is evident but mechanical, relying on "Firstly", "Secondly" and "Also", and "On the other hand" is misused for addition. Lexical resource is adequate but repetitive ("think in a wider way"). Grammatical range and accuracy includes complex sentences with errors like "a company that make" and "less chances".

In many countries, university students spend almost all of their time on a single subject. It has been suggested that they should be obliged to take courses in unrelated fields, so that, for instance, a chemistry student would also study history or art. I largely agree with this proposal, provided that such requirements are kept to a reasonable level. The main advantage is that studying another discipline broadens the way students think. An engineering student who takes a course in history, for example, may come to understand how new technologies have changed people's lives in the past, which could make them more aware of the social impact of their own work. Moreover, many modern careers combine different areas of knowledge. A company developing health apps needs staff who understand both programming and medicine, so graduates with a narrow education may find themselves at a disadvantage. In addition, courses outside a student's specialism can develop transferable skills. Subjects such as literature or philosophy usually involve writing essays and debating ideas, which can improve the communication skills of science students. Similarly, arts students who take an introductory course in statistics gain the ability to interpret data, which is increasingly important in everyday life and work. Admittedly, there are drawbacks. Degree programmes are already demanding, and compulsory extra subjects could take time away from students' core studies. Furthermore, students who pay high tuition fees may feel that they should only pay for courses directly linked to their future careers. For these reasons, I believe universities should require only one or two such courses rather than a large number. In conclusion, I agree that university students should study subjects beyond their main field, as this widens their perspective and equips them with valuable skills. Nevertheless, the requirement should be limited so that it does not undermine students' specialist education.

Task response is good: the qualified position is clear throughout and each main idea is extended with an example, although some support stays general. Coherence and cohesion is effective, with topic sentences and a well-placed concession beginning "Admittedly". Lexical resource is good, using collocations such as "transferable skills" and "at a disadvantage". Grammatical range and accuracy is varied, including "provided that" and relative clauses, with very few errors.

At many universities, students devote almost their entire degree to a single discipline. Some argue that they should instead be required to take courses in unrelated areas, so that a physics student, say, might also study history or art. I largely support this view, although I believe such requirements work best when they are modest in scale. The strongest argument in favour is that exposure to a different discipline broadens students' intellectual horizons. An engineering student who studies the history of industrial change, for example, is likely to develop a sharper awareness of how technology reshapes communities, and may therefore design products with their wider consequences in mind. Furthermore, the boundaries between professions are becoming increasingly blurred. Organisations developing health-related software need employees who are comfortable with both code and clinical concepts, so graduates with an overly narrow education risk being at a disadvantage. A second benefit lies in the transferable skills that such courses cultivate. Humanities subjects typically demand sustained argument in writing and discussion, which can strengthen the communication skills of science students who might otherwise rarely practise them. Conversely, an arts student who completes an introductory course in statistics becomes better equipped to evaluate the figures that appear constantly in news reports and workplace decisions. That said, the policy is not without its drawbacks. Degree programmes are already intensive, and compulsory subjects could divert valuable time from students' core specialism. Students paying substantial tuition fees may also, understandably, resent paying for courses they consider irrelevant to their goals. These concerns suggest that universities should require only one or two courses outside the main field. In conclusion, I agree that studying beyond one's main subject is valuable, since it broadens perspectives and fosters versatile skills. Provided that the requirement remains limited, its benefits clearly outweigh its costs.

Task response is fully developed: the nuanced position is consistent, and ideas such as engineers designing "with their wider consequences in mind" are extended logically. Coherence and cohesion is skilful, with paragraphing that moves from benefits to a concession introduced by "That said". Lexical resource is sophisticated and precise ("broadens students' intellectual horizons", "increasingly blurred"). Grammatical range and accuracy is wide and accurate, including parenthetical adverbs and conditional structures.

Government has only limited money for science, so it is difficult to choose which research to support. There are good reasons to focus on practical problems, but I think research from curiosity should also get some public money, because it can help to find solutions in the future. Firstly, some people think that research should solve the problems of today. Taxpayers pay the money, so they want to see the result. For example, if people in a country have problem with clean water or crop diseases, or medicine is too expensive, the government should pay for research about these problems. Also, practical research usually gives results in a short time, so it is easy for the government to explain why they spend the money. Secondly, other people believe that curiosity research is also important. In the past, many useful technologies came from research which had no clear purpose at the beginning. For example, scientists studied light and cells only because they were interested, but later this knowledge was used to make medical machines and electronics. If the government only pay for practical research, these kind of discoveries will not happen often, and there will be less knowledge for other scientists. In my opinion, both types of research are needed and they help each other. Practical research solve problems today, but it needs the discoveries from scientists who can study freely. So I think the government should spend most money on urgent problems, but it should also keep some money for curiosity research every year. In conclusion, it is understandable that people want public money to be used for today's problems, but curiosity research is equally important because it gives knowledge for future solutions. The government should support both of them.

Task response: both views are discussed and an opinion is given, but the examples ('medical machines') are general. Coherence and cohesion: clear paragraphing, though 'Firstly... Secondly...' is used to introduce opposing views rather than a sequence. Lexical resource: limited and sometimes inexact ('curiosity research'). Grammatical range and accuracy: a mix of sentence types with agreement errors such as 'the government only pay' and 'these kind of discoveries', which do not cause misunderstanding.

Governments only have a limited amount of money for science, so it is difficult to decide which research should receive funding. Although there are good reasons to focus on practical problems, I believe that research based on curiosity should also receive a fair share of public money, because it often prepares the way for future solutions. People who support practical research argue that taxpayers should see clear benefits from their money. When communities face problems such as a lack of clean water, diseases affecting crops or expensive medicines, it seems logical to fund projects that deal directly with these issues. Practical research also tends to produce results within a certain period, so it is easier for governments to explain their spending and check whether it has been successful. On the other hand, those who support curiosity-driven research point out that many important technologies came from studies which had no clear purpose at first. For example, scientists studied light, cells and unusual materials simply because they wanted to understand nature, but this knowledge was later used to develop medical scanners and modern electronic devices. If all funding were linked to current needs, these surprising discoveries would happen much less often, and applied scientists would have less basic knowledge to build on. In my opinion, these two types of research support each other. Practical research solves present problems, but it relies on discoveries made by scientists who were free to explore. Therefore, governments should spend most of their budget on urgent challenges while keeping a stable part for open research. In conclusion, although it is understandable to spend public money on today's problems, curiosity-driven research is just as important because it provides the knowledge that future practical solutions need. Both types deserve support from the government.

Task response: both views are presented with relevant support and the writer's opinion is clear throughout. Coherence and cohesion: logical progression with suitable linking ('On the other hand', 'Therefore'). Lexical resource: good range, including 'curiosity-driven research' and 'build on', though some phrasing such as 'a stable part' is less precise. Grammatical range and accuracy: accurate use of conditionals ('If all funding were linked...') and passives, with very few errors.

Governments have limited budgets for science, so deciding which research to fund is never easy. While there are strong reasons to concentrate on urgent practical problems, I believe that research driven by curiosity deserves a secure share of public money, because it often lays the foundations for tomorrow's solutions. Those who favour practical research argue that taxpayers have a right to see clear returns on their money. When communities face problems such as unreliable water supplies, crop diseases or a shortage of affordable medicines, funding projects that directly target these issues seems both logical and fair. Applied research also tends to produce results within a predictable timeframe, which makes it easier for governments to justify spending and to measure success. Supporters of curiosity-driven research, on the other hand, point out that many transformative technologies emerged from studies that had no obvious application at the time. Investigations into the behaviour of light, the structure of cells or the properties of unusual materials were originally pursued simply to understand nature, yet they later made possible everything from medical scanners to modern electronics. If funding were tied exclusively to immediate needs, such unexpected breakthroughs would become far less likely, and the pool of knowledge on which applied scientists draw would gradually dry up. In my view, the two approaches are complementary rather than competing. Practical research solves today's problems, but it depends on discoveries made by scientists who were free to follow their curiosity. A sensible policy would therefore devote most funding to pressing challenges while protecting a substantial, stable portion for open-ended inquiry. In conclusion, although directing public money towards current problems is understandable, curiosity-driven science is equally valuable because it creates the knowledge that future practical solutions depend on. Both deserve government support.

Task response: both views are fully explored and the opinion ('complementary rather than competing') is clear and well justified. Coherence and cohesion: ideas progress smoothly, with cohesive devices such as 'such unexpected breakthroughs' used naturally. Lexical resource: precise and idiomatic, e.g. 'lays the foundations', 'clear returns' and 'open-ended inquiry'. Grammatical range and accuracy: a wide range of structures, including 'the pool of knowledge on which applied scientists draw', handled with full control.

In many farming areas, people take water from under the ground faster than the rain can refill it. This essay will explain the problems this causes for water, land and farmers, and some solutions such as better irrigation, paying for water and putting rainwater back into the ground. The first problem is that wells become dry. When the underground water level go down, farmers must dig deeper wells and pumping become more expensive. Small farmers don't have enough money for new machines, so some of them must stop farming. Another problem is that the land can be damaged. In some soil, when water is taken out, the ground goes down slowly, and roads and buildings get cracks. After that the ground cannot keep as much water as before. Also, near the sea, sea water can go into the underground water, so the water becomes too salty for drinking and for the crops. Because of this, food production and people in the countryside are in danger. There are some solutions for this problem. Firstly, farms use the most water, so they should use better irrigation. For example, drip irrigation gives water directly to the roots of plants and it uses much less water than putting water on the whole field. The government can give money to farmers to buy it. Secondly, wells should have a meter and people should pay for the amount of water they use. Then farmers and families will try to save water, but the basic amount should be cheap. Finally, the government can collect rain water in ponds, so it goes into the ground again. Farmers can also grow crops which need less water. In conclusion, using too much underground water causes dry wells, sinking land and salty water, and this is dangerous for food. However, better irrigation, paying for water and collecting rain water can solve this problem.

Task response: both problems and solutions are covered with relevant ideas, so the task is fully answered at a basic level. Coherence and cohesion: clear organisation, but sequencing is mechanical ('Firstly... Secondly... Finally'). Lexical resource: limited and sometimes informal ('the ground goes down', 'putting water on the whole field'). Grammatical range and accuracy: agreement errors such as 'the water level go down' and 'pumping become' recur but do not impede meaning.

In many farming regions, water is being taken from underground sources much faster than rain can refill them. This essay will explain that this causes problems for water supply, the land and farmers' incomes, and that more efficient farming, better pricing and refilling underground water could help to solve them. The first problem is that wells are running dry. As the water level underground goes down, farmers have to dig deeper wells, which increases the cost of pumping. Small farmers who cannot pay for new equipment may have to stop farming. In addition, taking too much water can damage the land. In some types of soil, the ground slowly sinks when the water is removed, which can crack roads and buildings and reduce the amount of water the ground can hold in future. In coastal areas, seawater may enter the empty spaces underground, making the remaining water too salty to drink or to use on crops. As a result, food production and rural communities are in danger. However, there are several ways to deal with this issue. Firstly, since farms normally use the most water, they should be encouraged to irrigate more efficiently. Drip irrigation, which sends water directly to the roots, uses much less water than flooding fields, and the government could help farmers pay for it. Secondly, if wells had meters and people paid according to how much they used, both farmers and households would try to save water, especially if a basic amount stayed cheap. Lastly, the authorities could refill underground water by collecting rainwater in ponds so that it soaks into the ground, and they could advise farmers to grow crops that need less water. In conclusion, pumping too much groundwater leads to dry wells, sinking land and salty water, which all threaten food supplies. Nevertheless, efficient irrigation, fair pricing and refilling underground water could solve the problem before it is too late.

Task response: problems and solutions are both clearly presented and logically connected, with relevant examples such as drip irrigation. Coherence and cohesion: well organised with clear paragraph roles, though 'Firstly... Secondly... Lastly' is somewhat formulaic. Lexical resource: good range, including 'running dry' and 'coastal areas', with some repetition of 'underground water'. Grammatical range and accuracy: accurate relative clauses, participle phrases ('making the remaining water too salty') and conditionals.

In many agricultural regions, underground water is being extracted far more quickly than rainfall can replenish it. This essay will argue that the practice threatens water supplies, the land itself and rural livelihoods, but that a combination of more efficient farming, fairer pricing and active recharge could bring the situation under control. The most immediate problem is that wells are drying up. As the water table falls, farmers must drill ever deeper, which raises pumping costs and eventually forces small growers who cannot afford new equipment out of business. Over-extraction can also damage the land itself: when water is removed from certain soils, the ground may gradually subside, cracking roads and buildings and permanently reducing the capacity of the aquifer to store water. In coastal areas, the situation is even more serious, since seawater can seep into depleted aquifers and make the remaining water too salty for drinking or irrigation. Ultimately, food production and the communities that depend on it are put at risk. Fortunately, several measures could reverse this trend. First, because agriculture is usually the largest user, encouraging efficient irrigation is essential. Drip systems, which deliver water directly to plant roots, use considerably less than flooding fields, and governments could subsidise their installation. Second, metering wells and charging according to the volume used would give both farmers and households a clear incentive to conserve, particularly if a basic allowance remained affordable. Finally, authorities could help to refill aquifers by capturing rainwater in ponds and allowing it to soak into the ground, while advising farmers to switch to less thirsty crops. In conclusion, unchecked pumping of groundwater leads to failing wells, sinking land and salt contamination, all of which endanger food supplies. Nonetheless, efficient irrigation, volume-based pricing and deliberate recharge could restore the balance before the damage becomes irreversible.

Task response: problems and solutions are fully developed, with each solution clearly matched to a cause. Coherence and cohesion: effortless progression, with a colon and 'all of which' used to link ideas economically. Lexical resource: precise, topic-specific language such as 'replenish', 'water table', 'seep into depleted aquifers' and 'less thirsty crops'. Grammatical range and accuracy: a wide range of structures, including participle clauses and gerund subjects ('metering wells and charging...'), with no errors.

Nowadays, many families do not cook meals from basic ingredients like before, and they buy ready meals or use delivery services instead. I think the reasons are that people are busy and it is easy to order food, and I believe this is mostly a negative development. Firstly, many people work long hours and they need long time for commuting, so they are too tired for cooking at night. This is especially true when both husband and wife are working. Secondly, the technology make it very easy to get food. People can order a meal by smartphone and it arrive in thirty minutes, and supermarkets also sell many ready meals which you only need to heat. Thirdly, some young people do not know how to cook because nobody teach them at home or at school. In my opinion, this development is more negative than positive. Firstly, ready meals and takeaway food has more salt, sugar and fat than home cooking, so if people eat them often, they can become fat and have health problems. Secondly, it is more expensive, so families who use it a lot may spend too much money for food. Thirdly, cooking and eating together is a good time for family, but this habit is disappearing. Of course, this kind of food is useful for old or disabled people who cannot cook easily, but for most people it is just a habit and not a necessary. In conclusion, people cook less because they are busy, technology makes ordering easy and they have no cooking skills. Although it is convenient, it is bad for health, money and family life, so I think it is a negative development.

Task response answers both questions and gives a clear view, although the effects are listed rather than explored in depth. Coherence and cohesion is basic and mechanical, repeating 'Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly'. Lexical resource is adequate for the topic but includes word-form errors such as 'not a necessary' and informal 'become fat'. Grammatical range and accuracy shows agreement slips like 'the technology make' and 'it arrive', but the message is never hard to follow.

Compared with the past, many families today seldom cook meals from basic ingredients and prefer ready meals or delivery services. This is mainly because people are busier and ordering food has become very easy, and although it is convenient, I believe it is mostly a negative development for people's health and finances. There are several reasons for this trend. The most important is that many adults work long hours and spend a long time commuting, so they are too tired to cook in the evening, especially when both partners have jobs. Technology has also changed the situation: people can order a hot meal on their phone and receive it within thirty minutes, and supermarkets sell many ready-made dishes that only need to be heated. In addition, some young people never learned how to cook because their parents or schools did not teach them. Although these services save time, I think their disadvantages are greater. Ready meals and takeaways usually contain more salt, sugar and fat than food cooked at home, so eating them often can lead to weight gain and health problems. They are also more expensive, which means that families who depend on them may spend too much of their income on food. Furthermore, cooking and eating together has always been a good way for families to spend time with each other, and this habit is slowly disappearing. Of course, such food can be very helpful for elderly or disabled people who find cooking difficult, but for most people it is a habit rather than a need. In conclusion, people cook less because they are short of time, technology makes ordering easy and many lack cooking skills. Even though this trend is convenient, its effects on health, money and family life mean that it is generally negative.

Task response addresses both the reasons and the evaluation, with a clear and consistent position that acknowledges a counter-point. Coherence and cohesion is effective, using 'Although' and 'Furthermore' to organise ideas. Lexical resource is appropriate with some less common items ('weight gain', 'short of time'), but lacks the precision of a higher band. Grammatical range and accuracy is good, with accurate relative and conditional clauses and only minor awkwardness.

Compared with previous generations, many households today rarely prepare meals from raw ingredients, turning instead to ready-made dishes and delivery apps. This shift is driven mainly by busier lifestyles and the growing ease of ordering food, and although it brings genuine convenience, I consider it a largely negative development for health and household budgets. Several factors explain this trend. Most obviously, longer working hours and commutes leave many adults with little time or energy to cook in the evening, particularly in households where both partners work. Technology has also transformed the options available: with a few taps on a phone, a hot meal can arrive within half an hour, and supermarkets now stock an extensive range of chilled dishes that need only reheating. Moreover, some young people have simply never learned to cook, because kitchen skills are no longer routinely passed on at home or taught in schools. While these services undoubtedly save time, their drawbacks are more significant. Ready-made and takeaway food tends to contain more salt, sugar and fat than home-cooked meals, and regular consumption may contribute to weight gain and related illnesses. It is also considerably more expensive, so families relying on it may spend a disproportionate share of their income on food. Beyond this, preparing and sharing a meal has traditionally been an important way for families to spend time together, and this social ritual is gradually being lost. Admittedly, convenient food can be a lifeline for elderly or disabled people who cannot easily cook, but for most households it is a habit rather than a necessity. In conclusion, people cook less because of time pressure, the convenience offered by technology and a decline in basic kitchen skills. Although this trend offers flexibility, its effects on health, finances and family life make it, on balance, a negative development.

Task response fully answers both questions, explaining the causes and then weighing benefits against harms before reaching a clear judgement. Coherence and cohesion is natural, with concessive signposting such as 'Admittedly' and 'Beyond this'. Lexical resource is precise and varied: 'disproportionate share of their income', 'social ritual', 'a lifeline for'. Grammatical range and accuracy is wide and flexible, including reduced relative clauses like 'families relying on it', with no significant errors.

Nowadays, some secondary schools say that all students must do a short work experience in a local company before graduation. This has some disadvantages, but I think the advantages are bigger because students can grow up and choose their career better. Firstly, there are some disadvantages. The quality of the placement is different for each student. For example, one student can do useful work, but other student only makes copies for two weeks and does not learn anything. Also, in small towns it is difficult to find enough companies, so some students must work in a place which they are not interested. Secondly, students lose time for studying, so it can be bad for important exams. Some people also think that unpaid work means the work of young people has no value. However, I think the advantages are more important. Firstly, students can learn what is necessary in the workplace, for example coming on time, teamwork and talking with adults who are not teachers. These skills are difficult to learn in school, but companies think they are very important. Secondly, work experience help students to decide their future job. For example, a student who want to be a vet can check if this job is good for him, or he can understand early that another job is better, so he does not waste many years. Thirdly, it makes good relationship between schools and local community, and sometimes students can get part-time jobs after that. The placement is short, so it is not a big problem for studying. In conclusion, there are some problems like the different quality of placements and losing study time, but work experience gives students practical skills, clear career goals and connections with the community. If schools check the placements carefully, the advantages are more than the disadvantages.

Task response weighs both sides and answers the question directly, though some points, such as the value of unpaid work, are not developed. Coherence and cohesion is clear but mechanical, with 'Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly' throughout. Lexical resource is adequate but simple ('grow up', 'good for him'). Grammatical range and accuracy includes errors such as 'work experience help', 'a student who want' and 'a place which they are not interested', which do not seriously affect meaning.

More and more secondary schools now require every student to do a short work placement at a local company before they leave school. Although this rule has some disadvantages, such as the different quality of placements and the loss of study time, I believe that its benefits for students' development and career choices are greater. It is true that compulsory work experience has some problems. The quality of placements can be very different: one student may be given useful tasks and support, while another spends two weeks making photocopies and learns very little. Schools in small towns may also find it difficult to find enough companies, so some students have to work in areas that do not interest them. Moreover, time away from school might reduce preparation for important exams, and some people say that unpaid work suggests that young people's work is not worth anything. However, the advantages are more important. Most importantly, a placement shows teenagers what is expected at work, such as arriving on time, working in a team and talking to adults who are not their teachers. These skills are hard to learn in a classroom, but employers value them highly. Work experience can also help students decide on a career. For example, a student who wants to become a vet may find that this job really suits them, or may realise early that a different career is better, which saves years of studying the wrong subject. In addition, these programmes build connections between schools and local communities and can sometimes lead to part-time jobs or apprenticeships. Because placements are short, they do not seriously affect students' studies. In conclusion, although the different quality of placements and lost study time are real concerns, compulsory work experience gives young people practical skills, a clearer career direction and useful community links. If schools check placements carefully, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Task response presents a balanced discussion and a clear answer to the question, supported by a relevant example. Coherence and cohesion is effective: 'It is true that...' concedes the drawbacks before 'However, the advantages are more important' shifts the argument. Lexical resource is appropriate with some less common items ('apprenticeships', 'career direction'), although phrases like 'different quality' are slightly vague. Grammatical range and accuracy shows good control of complex sentences.

A growing number of secondary schools insist that every student spends a short placement at a local business before leaving school. Although this requirement has some drawbacks, particularly regarding the quality of placements and the time taken from study, I believe its benefits for students' maturity and career choices clearly outweigh them. Admittedly, compulsory work experience is not without problems. Placements vary greatly in quality: one student may be given meaningful tasks and guidance, while another spends a fortnight photocopying documents and learns little. Schools in small towns may also struggle to find enough willing employers, so students are sometimes placed in roles unrelated to their interests. In addition, time spent away from the classroom could reduce preparation for important examinations, and some critics argue that unpaid work risks normalising the idea that young people's labour has no value. Nevertheless, the advantages are more substantial. Above all, a placement offers teenagers their first direct insight into the expectations of the workplace, such as punctuality, teamwork and communicating with adults who are not teachers. These qualities are difficult to cultivate in a classroom but highly valued by future employers. Work experience can also clarify career goals; a student who imagines a career in veterinary care, for example, may either have that ambition confirmed or realise early that another path suits them better, saving years of misdirected study. Furthermore, such schemes strengthen links between schools and local communities, and they may even lead to part-time jobs or apprenticeships. Since the placements are short, their impact on academic study is limited. In conclusion, while uneven placement quality and lost study time are genuine concerns, compulsory work experience gives young people practical skills, sharper career direction and valuable community connections. Provided schools monitor placements carefully, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

Task response is fully developed: the disadvantages are fairly presented and then convincingly outweighed, with the final condition 'Provided schools monitor placements carefully' adding nuance. Coherence and cohesion is skilful, moving from 'Admittedly' to 'Nevertheless'. Lexical resource is precise and natural: 'not without problems', 'direct insight into', 'misdirected study'. Grammatical range and accuracy is wide, using semicolons, participle clauses and conditionals accurately.