IELTS Writing Task 2 — Estimated Score
| Criterion | Band | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | 5.5 / 6.0 | You address traffic congestion and mention relevant causes and solutions, but the essay is framed as a debate about road expansion versus demand reduction. The task asks directly for causes and solutions, so the first body paragraph does not fulfil the required function clearly enough. |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 / 6.0 | The surface organisation is clear, but the paragraph logic does not match the title. “On the one hand / On the other hand” creates a discussion-essay structure instead of a problem-solution structure. There are also punctuation and sentence-fragment issues. |
| Lexical Resource | 7.0 | The vocabulary is strong and academic, but some phrases are vague, awkward or too metaphorical for formal IELTS writing: “lack of asphalt,” “unclog,” “smart constraints,” and “these concerns.” There are also typing/spelling errors. |
| Grammar Range and Accuracy | 6.5 / 7.0 | The essay contains several complex structures, but sentence control is weakened by fragments, punctuation mistakes, and a few unclear references. |
| Overall estimated band | 6.0 | The language is stronger than the task response. A stricter examiner may keep this around Band 6 because the required problem-solution structure is not followed clearly. |
Structure required by this title
This is a problem-solution essay. The title asks: What are the causes? and What solutions can be introduced? Therefore, the essay should be organised around causes and solutions, not around two opposing views.
A suitable structure would be:
Introduction: introduce the problem and briefly name the main causes and solutions.
Body 1: explain the causes of congestion.
Body 2: propose solutions.
Conclusion: summarise the main causes and solutions.
Marked version
Urban traffic congestion, driven by car dependency and weak public transport, is debated, especially regarding whether to expand roads or reduce driving [k0: task response — wrong task frame; the title asks for causes and solutions, not a debate between two positions] is mainly caused by car dependency, weak public transport and car-oriented urban planning. Supporters cite faster trips and freight flows, while opponents point to induced traffic and emissions. [k0: task response + k2: wrong essay structure — this sounds like a discussion essay] These causes can be addressed by improving public transport, reducing unnecessary car use and introducing targeted restrictions. This essay examines both sides and concludes that demand reduction is preferable; while counterarguments matter, upgraded public transport and targeted restrictions are decisive. [k0: task response — the essay should explain causes and propose solutions, not examine both sides] This essay will examine the main reasons for urban congestion and suggest practical measures, including better public transport and carefully designed driving restrictions.
Urban traffic congestion is mainly caused by car dependency, weak public transport and car-oriented urban planning. This essay will examine these causes and suggest practical solutions, including improved public transport and carefully designed restrictions on unnecessary car use.
On the one hand, [k2: unsuitable linker — this creates a discussion-essay structure, not a problem-solution structure] One major cause of congestion is that it is often argued that cities should build more roads, primarily because when car numbers and trip lengths keep rising, shortages at junctions and ring roads are easy to interpret as a simple lack of asphalt [k3: too informal / metaphorical for IELTS Task 2] lack of road capacity. In practice, this means that governments widen highways and add junctions to "unclog" peak hours. For instance, a city may extend a ring road to speed up commuting from suburbs. Furthermore, proponents of this position maintain that road expansion supports business, as faster freight movement and more_reliable commuting improve productivity and reduce delays for firms. [k0: task response — this paragraph discusses a proposed solution / argument for road expansion instead of clearly explaining causes of congestion] In practice, many cities become congested because commuters have few realistic alternatives to driving. Long distances between homes and workplaces, unreliable buses and limited metro coverage force large numbers of people onto the same roads at peak times. Put differently, congestion is treated as a problem that more lanes can cure, That said, [k5: syntax — comma splice + capitalization error] . However, these are not groundless, especially when infrastructure is genuinely outdated concerns or unsafe [k5: syntax + k2: unclear reference + k3: broken wording] this argument is not entirely groundless when infrastructure is genuinely outdated or unsafe.
One major cause of congestion is excessive dependence on private cars. In many cities, commuters have few realistic alternatives to driving because buses are unreliable, metro systems are limited and residential areas are far from workplaces. As a result, large numbers of people travel by car at the same time, especially during rush hours. This problem is made worse when old junctions and ring roads cannot cope with modern traffic volumes.
On the other hand, [k2: unsuitable linker — the paragraph should introduce solutions, not the opposite side of an argument] The most effective solution is to I contend that congestion is best tackled by reducing car dependence. [k5: syntax — sentence fragment follows] , largely because even when capacity is tight, the chronic gridlock reflects incentives to drive, low-density land use and weak alternatives, so adding lanes often pulls more cars onto the network without fixing that dynamic . [k5: syntax — overlong sentence + spacing error before full stop] largely because chronic gridlock often reflects incentives to drive, low-density land use and weak alternatives. Adding lanes may therefore attract more cars without solving the underlying problem. This is rooted in the fact that [k3: wordy phrase] This is because when driving becomes easier, more people choose it. To illustrate, [k2: weak linking — the sentence that follows introduces a solution rather than illustrating induced demand] As a solution, protected bus lanes and frequent metro services can shift large numbers of commuters away from private cars. In addition, pricing and regulation are crucial, since congestion charges and strict parking policies discourage short, avoidable journeys. Admittedly, public resistance and equity concerns are valid; however, these downsides are largely avoidable provided that alternatives are upgraded first and discounts are offered to low-income commuters. To give a clear example, a city can launch a charge only after expanding park-and-ride hubs and improving service frequency.
The most effective solutions are therefore to improve alternatives to driving and reduce unnecessary car use. Protected bus lanes, frequent metro services and park-and-ride hubs can make public transport faster and more attractive. In addition, congestion charges and stricter parking policies can discourage short, avoidable car journeys. However, such measures should be introduced only after public transport has been upgraded, and discounts should be offered to low-income commuters to make the policy fairer.
In conclusion, while capacity limits and economic concerns deserve attention, I remain convinced that demand reduction is the most effective route. [k0: task response — this sounds like the conclusion of an opinion/discussion essay; a problem-solution essay should summarise the main causes and solutions] traffic congestion is mainly caused by excessive car dependence, weak public transport and car-oriented urban design, and it can be reduced through better public transport and targeted restrictions on unnecessary driving. This is because strongalternatives [k5: spelling / spacing error] strong alternatives and smart constraints [k3: vague wording] carefully designed restrictions are ultimately decisive, particularly when fair transition measures [k3: vague wording] support measures are in place.
In conclusion, traffic congestion is mainly caused by excessive dependence on private cars, weak public transport and car-oriented urban design. It can be reduced by improving public transport, discouraging unnecessary car trips and ensuring that any restrictions are introduced fairly.
Corrected version close to your wording
Urban traffic congestion is mainly caused by car dependency, weak public transport and car-oriented urban planning. This essay will examine these causes and suggest practical solutions, including improved public transport and carefully designed restrictions on unnecessary car use.
One major cause of congestion is excessive dependence on private cars. In many cities, commuters have few realistic alternatives to driving because buses are unreliable, metro systems are limited and residential areas are far from workplaces. As a result, large numbers of people travel by car at the same time, especially during rush hours. This problem is made worse when old junctions and ring roads cannot cope with modern traffic volumes.
The most effective solutions are therefore to improve alternatives to driving and reduce unnecessary car use. Protected bus lanes, frequent metro services and park-and-ride hubs can make public transport faster and more attractive. In addition, congestion charges and stricter parking policies can discourage short, avoidable car journeys. However, such measures should be introduced only after public transport has been upgraded, and discounts should be offered to low-income commuters to make the policy fairer.
In conclusion, traffic congestion is mainly caused by excessive dependence on private cars, weak public transport and car-oriented urban design. It can be reduced by improving public transport, discouraging unnecessary car trips and ensuring that any restrictions are introduced fairly.
A stronger IELTS-style version
Traffic congestion is a serious problem in many urban areas. It is often caused by excessive reliance on private cars, inadequate public transport and city layouts that force people to travel long distances. To address this issue, governments should improve transport alternatives and introduce carefully designed measures to reduce unnecessary car use.
The first major cause is car dependency. In many cities, people drive because buses are slow, trains are overcrowded or residential areas are poorly connected to workplaces. This creates heavy traffic during peak hours, especially around junctions, ring roads and business districts. A second cause is low-density urban planning. When housing, schools and offices are spread far apart, daily journeys become longer, and walking or cycling is often unrealistic.
Several solutions can be introduced. Firstly, cities should invest in frequent, reliable and affordable public transport, including bus lanes, metro services and park-and-ride facilities. If public transport becomes faster than driving, many commuters will be more willing to leave their cars at home. Secondly, local authorities can use congestion charges and stricter parking rules to discourage unnecessary journeys by car. However, these policies should be introduced gradually and should include discounts or support for low-income residents.
In conclusion, urban congestion is mainly caused by car dependence, poor public transport and car-oriented planning. The best response is not simply to build more roads, but to provide better alternatives and reduce avoidable car use in a fair and practical way.
Feedback for you
Your vocabulary and grammar are generally strong, but the structure does not match the title. The task is not asking whether cities should expand roads or reduce driving. It asks you to explain the causes of congestion and propose solutions.
Your introduction creates the wrong frame by saying that the issue is “debated” and that the essay “examines both sides.” This makes the essay sound like a discussion essay. For this title, you should write something like: “This essay will examine the main causes of traffic congestion and suggest possible solutions.”
Your first body paragraph is the main weakness. Instead of explaining the causes of congestion, it mostly presents the argument for road expansion. Some of this material could be used briefly as background, but it should not form the main body paragraph in a problem-solution essay.
Your second body paragraph contains useful solution ideas: public transport, congestion charges, parking restrictions and support for low-income commuters. However, these ideas should be placed in a clear solutions paragraph, not introduced as the “other hand” of a debate.
To improve your score, make the paragraph functions clear: one paragraph for causes, one paragraph for solutions. This would immediately improve Task Response and Coherence.
Potentially missed or debatable issues
1. Road expansion: You can mention road expansion, but only as a limited or ineffective solution, not as one side of the main essay structure.
2. “Causes” are present but underdeveloped: car dependency, low-density land use and weak alternatives are valid causes, but they appear mostly in the second body paragraph instead of being developed clearly in the causes paragraph.
3. Conclusion: the conclusion repeats the “demand reduction” opinion. It should summarise both required task elements: causes and solutions.
4. Score: if judged mainly on language, this essay may look like Band 6.5 or even 7.0. If judged strictly against the problem-solution task, Band 6.0 is safer.
01 Aug 2026
IELTS Speaking / Oral Written Answers — Estimated Score
| Criterion | Estimated IELTS band / 9 | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| (Fluency) and Coherence | 5.5 / 9 | You answer the questions clearly, but some answers are quite short and the same ideas are repeated instead of being developed with examples or explanation. |
| Lexical Resource | 5.5 / 9 | You use some suitable phrases, such as “meaningful with my time” and “broaden my horizons,” but several expressions are vague: “whatever else,” “only what I want,” “many things,” and “any issues.” |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.5 / 9 | You use conditional forms, but there are problems with tense consistency, articles, word forms and collocations. |
| Pronunciation | Not assessed | Pronunciation, intonation and hesitation cannot be assessed from the written transcript only. |
| Overall estimated IELTS band | 5.5 / 9 | The answers are relevant and understandable, but they need more precise vocabulary, fuller development and less repetition to reach Band 6+. |
Marked version
The text discusses Basic Income [k3: term use — write the full term first if it means Universal Basic Income] universal basic income as a policy where citizens receive money from the state just for existing [k1: too informal / oversimplified wording] regardless of whether they are employed. The author claims that modern work has become mostly meaningless, unlike in the past when it was essential for survival. Furthermore, it is suggested that Basic Income [k3: repetition — avoid repeating the term too often] this policy would solve problems like [k1: informal linker in a summary] such as homelessness and unaffordable healthcare. The author [k3: repetition — vary the reporting phrase] The writer argues that the U.S. rejects this idea because capitalism thrives on workers' desperation. The author [k3: repetition — vary the reporting phrase] Finally, the text concludes that Basic Income [k3: repetition] universal basic income is a great idea [k1: too informal for a summary] a beneficial policy and the next logical step for society.
The text discusses universal basic income as a policy under which citizens receive regular payments from the state regardless of their employment status. The writer claims that modern work has become less meaningful than it was in the past, when it was essential for survival. It is also suggested that this policy could help address problems such as homelessness and unaffordable healthcare. Finally, the text argues that the U.S. rejects universal basic income because capitalism depends on workers’ financial insecurity.
1) Yes, I would agree, but only on one condition: I would still want to do something meaningful with my time. I would like to do sports [k3: slightly unnatural collocation] exercise / play sports or whatever else [k3: vague wording] try other useful activities. It seems exciting to focus on some creative projects [k3: slightly vague wording] creative projects that I’m truly passionate about.
Yes, I would agree, but only on one condition: I would still want to do something meaningful with my time. I would probably exercise more, learn new skills and focus on creative projects that I am truly passionate about.
2) In my opinion, I would be much happier, If [k5: punctuation/capitalization + k2: sentence flow] I would be much happier if I were doing only what I like [k3: slightly unnatural wording] things I enjoy, as I won’t [k4: wrong tense in a conditional context] would not be stressed about work and money. It could broaden my horizons too.
In my opinion, I would be much happier if I could do things I genuinely enjoy, because I would not have to worry so much about work and money. It could also broaden my horizons, as I would have more time to study, travel or develop new interests.
3) I think that could influence me positively, as I would do only what I want [k3: repetition from the previous answer + vague wording] have more freedom to choose meaningful activities. It is very important to listen heart [k4: missing preposition + k4: missing possessive adjective] listen to your heart and live free life [k4: missing article] a free life.
I think it could affect me positively because I would have more freedom to choose meaningful activities. I believe it is important to listen to your heart and live a freer life instead of being controlled only by financial pressure.
4) I’m sure that AI will free us from routine [k3: incomplete collocation] routine tasks and make our life [k4: incorrect number form] lives easier. It will replace many things [k3: vague wording] take over many repetitive jobs and help with any issues [k3: overgeneralised wording] many everyday problems.
I’m sure that AI will free us from many routine tasks and make our lives easier. It may take over repetitive jobs, help people solve everyday problems faster and give them more time for creative or personal activities.
Corrected version close to your wording
The text discusses universal basic income as a policy under which citizens receive regular payments from the state regardless of their employment status. The writer claims that modern work has become less meaningful than it was in the past, when it was essential for survival. It is also suggested that this policy could help address problems such as homelessness and unaffordable healthcare. Finally, the text argues that the U.S. rejects universal basic income because capitalism depends on workers’ financial insecurity.
1) Yes, I would agree, but only on one condition: I would still want to do something meaningful with my time. I would probably exercise more, learn new skills and focus on creative projects that I am truly passionate about.
2) In my opinion, I would be much happier if I could do things I genuinely enjoy, because I would not have to worry so much about work and money. It could also broaden my horizons, as I would have more time to study, travel or develop new interests.
3) I think it could affect me positively because I would have more freedom to choose meaningful activities. I believe it is important to listen to your heart and live a freer life instead of being controlled only by financial pressure.
4) I’m sure that AI will free us from many routine tasks and make our lives easier. It may take over repetitive jobs, help people solve everyday problems faster and give them more time for creative or personal activities.
Feedback for you
You answer all the questions and your ideas are easy to understand. Your best answer is number 1 because it gives a clear condition and adds personal examples.
Your main problem is that answers 3 and 4 are too general. Phrases like “do only what I want,” “replace many things,” and “help with any issues” do not give enough precise meaning. In IELTS Speaking, you need to add concrete examples or explain the result more clearly.
You also repeat the same idea several times: being free, doing what you want, and not worrying about work. This is relevant, but you need to vary the language and develop the ideas instead of repeating them.
For a higher score, use more specific phrases: “routine tasks,” “financial pressure,” “meaningful activities,” “repetitive jobs,” “personal development,” and “creative work.”
Potentially missed or debatable issues
1. “Healthcare”: this spelling is acceptable, especially in American English. It does not need correction unless you are enforcing British English consistency.
2. “Listen to your heart”: this is grammatically correct after correction, but it is idiomatic and slightly emotional. It is acceptable in an oral answer, but in a formal essay it would sound too informal.
3. Pronunciation: pronunciation, intonation and hesitation cannot be assessed from this written version.
05August 2025
IELTS Writing Task 2 — Estimated Score
| Criterion | Estimated IELTS band / 9 | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | 5.5 / 9 | You give a clear opinion, but the task asks whether capable adults should be expected to work, not whether they should be forced to work. The argument is relevant but underdeveloped and does not fully address the social responsibility side of the question. |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 / 9 | The essay has a clear paragraph structure, but some ideas are not logically connected. The concession about “nobody stirring a finger” is abrupt and unclear. |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 / 9 | There are several inaccurate or unnatural phrases: “involved in labour,” “in condition,” “spend their life richly,” “go to job,” and “indulger their hobbies.” |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 / 9 | The meaning is usually clear, but there are frequent errors with articles, prepositions, verb forms, conditional structures and punctuation. |
| Overall estimated IELTS band | 5.5 / 9 | The essay is understandable and relevant, but it needs a more precise response to the task, clearer development and more accurate wording. |
Task structure note
The task asks: “To what extent do you agree or disagree?” A strong answer should clearly state whether you fully agree, partly agree or disagree, and then explain why. Here, you say you largely disagree, but your essay sometimes argues against forcing people to work. This is not exactly the same as saying that capable adults should be expected to work.
Marked version
It is debatable whether everyone should be involved in labour [k3: unnatural collocation] expected to work, If [k5: capitalization error after comma] if they are in condition to do so [k3: unnatural wording + k4: missing adjective] physically able to do so. I largely disagree with this statement, as people can find various ways how to spend their life richly and with benefit [k3: unnatural wording + k4: incorrect number form] to live fulfilling and useful lives. This essay will support my view.
It is debatable whether all adults who are physically capable of working should be expected to do so. I largely disagree with this view because people can live fulfilling and useful lives even if they are not in paid employment.
The main reason why I support the idea that everyone should decide whether they want work [k4: missing infinitive marker] to work or not is the happiness [k4: wrong article] happiness. For example, for some adults job [k4: wrong article / incorrect noun use] a job / work is stressful and exhausting, so it could be better without it [k2: unclear reference + k3: unnatural wording] they might be better off without regular employment. It is important to note that if nobody stirs a finger [k3: wrong idiom] lifts a finger, life would be [k4: conditional form — match with hypothetical past condition] would become impossible, so people should keep doing something valuable despite work [k3: inaccurate wording + k2: unclear meaning] even if they are not formally employed.
The main reason I support personal choice is happiness. For some adults, paid work can be stressful and exhausting, so they may be better off without regular employment if they can support themselves. However, this does not mean that people should contribute nothing to society; they can still do useful work at home, volunteer, care for relatives or create something valuable.
Another reason is that people who have already earned quite enough [k3: vague / unnatural wording] enough money, could [k5: punctuation — unnecessary comma before the main verb] could just relax and live on their savings. In addition, it doesn’t [k1: no contractions in formal writing] does not mean that they would be bored, as they can continue to travel, spend time with their closest people [k3: unnatural collocation] loved ones and indulger [k5: wrong spelling + k4: wrong verb form] indulge in their hobbies. Undeniably, this is what they deserve. [k2: underdeveloped / unsupported claim — explain why, or remove]
Another reason is that people who have already earned enough money should be free to live on their savings. This does not mean that their lives would become empty: they could travel, spend time with their loved ones, pursue hobbies or contribute to society in unpaid ways.
In conclusion, I totally disagree [k0: task response — inconsistent with “largely disagree” in the introduction] largely disagree that everyone must go to job [k3: unnatural collocation + k4: missing article] have a job / be in paid employment, if their health allows it. It’s [k1: no contractions in formal writing] It is not democratic [k3: inaccurate word choice] unfair / unreasonable to force people to work [k0: task response — the task says “expected to work,” not necessarily “forced to work”] expect everyone to be in paid employment if they don’t [k1: no contractions in formal writing] do not want to and they can explore other areas of life.
In conclusion, I largely disagree that every physically capable adult should be expected to be in paid employment. Although society depends on people’s contribution, this contribution does not always have to take the form of a regular job, especially when people can support themselves and use their time productively.
Corrected version close to your wording
It is debatable whether all adults who are physically capable of working should be expected to do so. I largely disagree with this view because people can live fulfilling and useful lives even if they are not in paid employment.
The main reason I support personal choice is happiness. For some adults, paid work can be stressful and exhausting, so they may be better off without regular employment if they can support themselves. However, this does not mean that people should contribute nothing to society; they can still do useful work at home, volunteer, care for relatives or create something valuable.
Another reason is that people who have already earned enough money should be free to live on their savings. This does not mean that their lives would become empty: they could travel, spend time with their loved ones, pursue hobbies or contribute to society in unpaid ways.
In conclusion, I largely disagree that every physically capable adult should be expected to be in paid employment. Although society depends on people’s contribution, this contribution does not always have to take the form of a regular job, especially when people can support themselves and use their time productively.
A stronger IELTS-style version
Some people argue that all adults of working age who are physically able to work should be expected to do so. I partly disagree with this view: while adults should contribute to society in some way, this contribution does not always have to take the form of paid employment.
One reason is that paid work is not the only meaningful way to live. Some people may be financially independent, retired early, or responsible for unpaid care within their families. Forcing such people into employment would not necessarily benefit society, especially if they are already using their time productively. For example, a person who lives on savings may still volunteer, look after elderly relatives, or support community projects.
However, I do not believe that physically capable adults should be completely free from social expectations. If everyone refused to work or contribute, essential services would collapse and the economy would suffer. Therefore, the real issue is not whether every adult must have a job, but whether every adult should make some useful contribution according to their circumstances.
In conclusion, I disagree with the idea that all capable adults must be in paid employment. Nevertheless, I believe that people should be expected to contribute to society in some form, whether through paid work, unpaid care, volunteering or other productive activities.
Feedback for you
You give a clear opinion and your answer is relevant to the topic. However, you need to be more precise about the task. The question asks whether capable adults should be expected to work, not whether they should be legally forced to work. These are different ideas.
Your best idea is that people can contribute to society even without a regular job. This could become a strong argument, but in your essay it is only briefly mentioned. You should develop it with examples, such as volunteering, caring for relatives, raising children, studying, creative work or community work.
There is also a small position problem: in the introduction you say “I largely disagree,” but in the conclusion you say “I totally disagree.” Keep the same degree of agreement throughout the essay.
Your language needs more accuracy. Avoid phrases such as “involved in labour,” “go to job,” and “spend their life richly.” Use clearer IELTS-style phrases: “be expected to work,” “be in paid employment,” “live a fulfilling life,” and “contribute to society.”
Potentially missed or debatable issues
1. “Labour”: the word is not wrong, but “be involved in labour” is unnatural here. “Be expected to work” or “be in paid employment” is much better.
2. “Not democratic”: this is not the best word. The issue is more about fairness, personal freedom and social responsibility than democracy.
3. Stronger position: a safer IELTS position would be “I partly disagree”: adults should contribute to society, but not necessarily through paid employment.
4. Task interpretation: if the student argues only for personal freedom, the essay may ignore the opposing idea that working-age adults have responsibilities to the economy and society.