IELTS WRITING COMMENTS!

​

​

Band 3: With some effort, the reader can discern ideas related to two of the bullet points but the first bullet is not covered. There is a definite attempt to address the task but the purpose of the letter is not clear, the key features are not all covered, and there is the repetition of the minimal ideas produced. The test taker has not organized these ideas in any logical way and, although linkers are present, they are not always used correctly and fail to help the reader follow the message. The lexical resource is also inadequate for the task. There is a severe distortion of meaning in some parts of the answer due to errors in word choice, form, and spelling; some words cannot be deciphered. There is an effort to produce sentences but this is often unsuccessful. Overall, errors predominate and there are no correct sentences, other than those that rely on the input material. This is a good example of a Band 3 performance.

​

​

Band 3.5: The test taker attempts to address the task, but not all the key features are covered (there is no reference to the ‘walking and bus’ category). The response is also significantly under-length. The Task Achievement rating is affected by these deficiencies. Information is presented, but it is difficult to identify the organization and there is no clear progression within the response. There are some cohesive devices but these are not always used accurately. The range of vocabulary is basic and tends to be used repetitively. There is limited control over spelling, and errors are noticeable throughout. A limited range of sentence forms is used and although some structures are produced accurately, errors are frequent.

​

​

Band 4: The first part of the task is not really addressed. The opening paragraph could be said to serve as a long introduction, although it illustrates the situation, rather than explains it. In the second paragraph, some ideas are presented and supported with an example, but no conclusions are evident. The response is considerably under length, which lowers the rating. There is some appropriate use of paragraphing, although the paragraphs are self-contained rather than presenting a line of argument; thus the overall progression is unclear. The relationship between ideas can be followed and there are some cohesive devices. However, these are not always used correctly and some ideas are not fluently linked. There is also some repetition. Spelling errors are intrusive and cause strain. There is some relevant vocabulary, but overall the range is inadequate for the task. Frequent errors in syntax, verb phrases, and articles keep the rating down, despite basic structures being present. The failure to address the task and the weaknesses in vocabulary and grammar limit this response to an overall Band 4.

​

​

Band 4: While it is obviously related to the topic, the introduction is confusing and the test taker’s position is difficult to identify. Ideas are limited and although the test taker attempts to support them with examples from experience, they remain unclear. There is no overall progression in the response and the ideas are not coherently linked. Although cohesive devices are used, they assist only minimally in achieving coherence. The range of vocabulary is basic and control is inadequate for the task. Language from the input material is used inappropriately and frequent errors in word choice and collocation cause severe problems for the reader. Similarly, the range of structures is very limited, the density of grammatical and punctuation errors is high and these features cause some difficulty for the reader. Attempts to use complex structures, such as subordination, are rare and tend to be very inaccurate.

​

​

Band 4: While it is obviously related to the topic, the introduction is confusing and the test taker’s position is difficult to identify. Ideas are limited and although the test taker attempts to support them with examples from experience, they remain unclear. There is no overall progression in the response and the ideas are not coherently linked. Although cohesive devices are used, they assist only minimally in achieving coherence. The range of vocabulary is basic and control is inadequate for the task. Language from the input material is used inappropriately and frequent errors in word choice and collocation cause severe problems for the reader. Similarly, the range of structures is very limited, the density of grammatical and punctuation errors is high and these features cause some difficulty for the reader. Attempts to use complex structures, such as subordination, are rare and tend to be very inaccurate.

​

​

Band 4.5: The essay is short and doesn't fully answer the question. A detailed introduction and conclusion are not presented and there are several errors in phrasing. Overall, the question is not fully answered, the advantages are given but only one disadvantage. There is some good use of complex sentences, organization, and vocabulary, but this is not sustained.

​

​

Band 5: There is a good attempt to describe the overall trends but the content would have been greatly improved if the candidate had included some reference to the figures given on the graph. Without these, the reader is lacking some important information. The answer is quite difficult to follow and there are some punctuation errors that cause confusion. The structures are fairly simple and efforts to produce more complex sentences are not successful.

​

​

Band 5: There is a good attempt to describe the overall trends but the content would have been greatly improved if the candidate had included some reference to the figures given on the graph. Without these, the reader is lacking some important information. The answer is quite difficult to follow and there are some punctuation errors that cause confusion. The structures are fairly simple and efforts to produce more complex sentences are not successful.

​

​

Band 5: Although the basic process is accurately described, this script fails to present an overview and some of the key features are not adequately covered. The first sentence may have been an attempt at an overview but it simply causes confusion and detracts from the answer. Despite this, the overall progression is clear and there is effective, though mechanical, use of linkers and sequencers. There are also examples of substitution and referencing, although sentences are not always well linked. The vocabulary is minimally adequate for the task. Spelling is generally accurate but there are inappropriate word choices, omissions, and errors in word form. Some attempts at subordination and complex nominalizations are made, but generally, the structures are limited and there are frequent errors. Overall this is a good example of a Band 5 performance.

​

​

Band 5: There is some repetition of the task rubric, and the content of the letter is rather thin, in terms of its coverage of the third bullet point especially. The organization of ideas is not wholly logical. Despite these problems, the introduction to the letter is appropriate and the purpose of the writer is clear. The points are not always linked together well and punctuation is sometimes faulty. The sentences are kept quite simple and mistakes occur as soon as more complex structures are attempted.

​

​

Band 5: There are quite a lot of relevant ideas in the answer but they are not always well supported and sometimes they are unclear. There are some areas in the answer where the organization becomes weak and the reader finds the message difficult to follow. Nevertheless, the writer’s view is apparent and there is a logical flow to the points given. There are a lot of mistakes in the answer and some parts, such as the conclusion, are very hard to follow because of these errors. Although there is some appropriate vocabulary, sentence control is very weak. These problems are made worse by the poor correcting which sometimes makes words unreadable.

​

​

Band 5: The topic is addressed and a relevant position is expressed, although there are patches (as in the third paragraph) where the development is unclear. Other ideas are more evidently relevant but are sometimes insufficiently developed. In spite of this, ideas are clearly organized and there is an overall progression within the response. There is some effective use of a range of cohesive devices, including references, but there is also some mechanical over-use of linkers in places. Paragraphs are sometimes rather too short and inappropriate. A range of vocabulary is attempted and this is adequate for a good response to the task. However, control is weak and there are frequent spelling errors that can cause some difficulties for the reader, thus keeping the rating down for the lexical criterion. The test taker uses a mix of simple and complex structures with frequent subordinate clauses. Control of complex structures is variable, and although errors are noticeable they only rarely impede understanding of the message. Although there are some features of a higher band in this response, flaws in the task response and the use of vocabulary limit this rating to Band 5.

​

​

Band 5: The topic is addressed and a relevant position is expressed, although there are patches (as in the third paragraph) where the development is unclear. Other ideas are more evidently relevant but are sometimes insufficiently developed. In spite of this, ideas are clearly organized and there is an overall progression within the response. There is some effective use of a range of cohesive devices, including references, but there is also some mechanical over-use of linkers in places. Paragraphs are sometimes rather too short and inappropriate. A range of vocabulary is attempted and this is adequate for a good response to the task. However, control is weak and there are frequent spelling errors that can cause some difficulties for the reader, thus keeping the rating down for the lexical criterion. The test taker uses a mix of simple and complex structures with frequent subordinate clauses. Control of complex structures is variable, and although errors are noticeable they only rarely impede understanding of the message. Although there are some features of a higher band in this response, flaws in the task response and the use of vocabulary limit this rating to Band 5.

​

​

Band 5: Although the basic process is accurately described, this script fails to present an overview and some of the key features are not adequately covered. The first sentence may have been an attempt at an overview but it simply causes confusion and detracts from the answer. Despite this, the overall progression is clear and there is effective, though mechanical, use of linkers and sequencers. There are also examples of substitution and referencing, although sentences are not always well linked. The vocabulary is minimally adequate for the task. Spelling is generally accurate but there are inappropriate word choices, omissions, and errors in word form. Some attempts at subordination and complex nominalizations are made, but generally, the structures are limited and there are frequent errors. Overall this is a good example of a Band 5 performance.

​

Band 5: The answer is short at just over 200 words and thus loses marks for content. There are some relevant arguments but these are not very well developed and become unclear in places. The organization of the answer is evident through the use of fairly simple connectives but there are problems for the reader in that there are many missing words and word order is often incorrect.  The structures are quite ambitious but often faulty and vocabulary is kept quite simple.

​

Band 5: Although the script contains some good arguments, these are presented using poor structures and the answer is not very coherent.  The candidate has a clear point of view but not all the supporting arguments are linked together well and sometimes ideas are left unfinished. There is quite a lot of relevant vocabulary but this is not used skilfully and sentences often have words missing or lapse into different styles. The answer is spoilt by grammatical errors and poor expression.
 

​

Band 5.5:  A clear position is presented from the outset, supported by relevant ideas. These would require further development to achieve a higher score. The response is under-length, however. Information and ideas are generally arranged coherently and there is a clear overall progression. Cohesive devices are used effectively, but paragraphing is not always logical. A range of vocabulary is attempted, although there are some errors in spelling, word choice, and word formation. There also appears to be some interference from the test taker’s first language, e.g. ‘alimentation’, but these features do not make the answer difficult to understand. There is a mix of sentence forms, but the level of error is too high to achieve a higher band score.

​

​

Band 5.5: The key features are all covered, but reporting is somewhat mechanical and data is provided to support only some of the descriptions. The response also lacks an overview. Information and ideas are generally arranged coherently, though this is lost towards the end of the response. Cohesive devices are used effectively and there is a clear progression overall. The range of vocabulary is both adequate and appropriate and spelling is accurate, but there is insufficient flexibility and not enough use of less common vocabulary to justify a higher band. There is a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, used fairly accurately, but again, there is not a wide enough variety of structures to achieve a higher band.

​

​

Band 5.5: The test taker has made a good attempt at addressing the task but unfortunately, the first bullet point is completely omitted and this reduces the rating for Task Achievement. Other key features are highlighted and well covered. The response has quite a natural, clear progression, although some paragraphing would assist this. There is a good range of cohesive devices that have been used appropriately and some good examples of referencing. Despite the range and effective use of lexis, there are noticeable spelling errors, but they only rarely impede communication. Sentence types are mixed and there are many attempts at subordination, but control is uneven and there are punctuation errors. Although the response shows some features of higher-level performance, the omission of key parts of the task limits the overall band to 5.5.

​

​

Band 6: The candidate has made a good attempt to describe the graphs looking at global trends and more detailed figures. There is, however, some information missing and the information is inaccurate in minor areas. The answer flows quite smoothly although connectives are overused or inappropriate, and some of the points do not link up well. The grammatical accuracy is quite good and the language used to describe the trends is well-handled. However, there are problems with expression and the appropriate choice of words, and whilst there is good structural control, the complexity and variation in the sentences are limited.

​

​

Band 6: The candidate has made a good attempt to describe the graphs looking at global trends and more detailed figures. There is, however, some information missing and the information is inaccurate in minor areas. The answer flows quite smoothly although connectives are overused or inappropriate, and some of the points do not link up well. The grammatical accuracy is quite good and the language used to describe the trends is well-handled. However, there are problems with expression and the appropriate choice of words, and whilst there is good structural control, the complexity and variation in the sentences are limited.

​

​

Band 6: The answer has an appropriate introduction which the candidate has attempted to express in his/her own words. There is good coverage of the data and a brief reference to contrasting trends. The answer can be followed although it is rather repetitive and cohesive devices are overused. In order to gain a higher mark for content, the candidate would be expected to select the salient features of the graph and comment primarily on these. Sentences are long but lack complexity. There are some errors in tense, verb form, and spelling that interfere slightly with the flow of the answer.

​

​

Band 6: The test taker generally addresses the task, but only incompletely answers the first question. A position is presented, but ideas are sometimes insufficiently developed or extended so the argument is rather thin. Nevertheless, there is a clear overall progression in the response because ideas are logically organized. A range of markers is used effectively to link ideas, although there are errors in the use of some basic connectives. The test taker attempts to use a range of vocabulary and introduces some less common expressions, although with mixed success. Some expressions remain unclear, while others are used repetitively. Nevertheless, there is sufficient range and control to be adequate for the task. A mix of simple and complex structures is evident, but errors in grammar and punctuation occur and indicate limitations in control, although such lapses generally do not reduce communication. This response only just manages to reach an overall Band 6.

​

​

Band 6: The answer has an appropriate introduction which the candidate has attempted to express in his/her own words. There is good coverage of the data and a brief reference to contrasting trends. The answer can be followed although it is rather repetitive and cohesive devices are overused. In order to gain a higher mark for content, the candidate would be expected to select the salient features of the graph and comment primarily on these. Sentences are long but lack complexity. There are some errors in tense, verb form, and spelling that interfere slightly with the flow of the answer.

​

​

Band 6: Organization is strong, the question is answered and the word requirement is met. There is a good use of complex sentences and vocabulary. The introduction and conclusion could be a bit stronger and there are some phrasing and agreement issues. It should be clear what the question is in the introduction and this is only slightly able to be determined. Overall, the essay may score a Band 6. 

​

Band 6: The answer has an appropriate introduction which the candidate has attempted to express in his/her own words.  There is good coverage of the data and a brief reference to contrasting trends.  The answer can be followed although it is rather repetitive and cohesive devices are overused. In order to gain a higher mark for content, the candidate would be expected to select the salient features of the graph and comment primarily on these. Sentences are long but lack complexity. There are some errors in tense, verb form, and spelling that interfere slightly with the flow of the answer.

​

​

Band 6: There are quite a lot of ideas and while some of these are supported better than others, there is an overall coherence to the answer.  The introduction is perhaps slightly longer and more time could have been devoted to answering the question. The answer is fairly easy to follow and there is good punctuation. Organizational devices are evident although some areas of the answer become unclear and would benefit from more accurate use of connectives. There are some errors in the structures but there is also evidence of the production of complex sentence forms. Grammatical errors interfere slightly with comprehension.

​

​

Band 6.5: The introduction is mainly copied from the rubric. The arguments are generally well developed and there is a clear position, despite the lack of a conclusion. Better use of paragraphing would have allowed a clearer focus on some of the supporting points and prevented the lapse into generalization towards the end. Nevertheless, there is a generally clear progression with a good arrangement of opposing arguments. Referencing is usually accurate and effective, but better use of linkers would have improved the cohesion. Vocabulary is sufficient and used with some flexibility. The choice is not always precise but the test taker can evidently incorporate less common/idiomatic phrases into the argument and there is a good range that is generally accurate. The repetition of language from the rubric, while integrated, reveals a lack of ability to paraphrase. Regular errors detract from the use of a range of structures, although they do not impede communication. This is a generally good response to the task, but the weaknesses in organization and grammatical control limit the rating to Band 6.5.

​

​

Band 6.5: The introduction is mainly copied from the rubric. The arguments are generally well developed and there is a clear position, despite the lack of a conclusion. Better use of paragraphing would have allowed a clearer focus on some of the supporting points and prevented the lapse into generalization towards the end. Nevertheless, there is a generally clear progression with a good arrangement of opposing arguments. Referencing is usually accurate and effective, but better use of linkers would have improved the cohesion. Vocabulary is sufficient and used with some flexibility. The choice is not always precise but the test taker can evidently incorporate less common/idiomatic phrases into the argument and there is a good range that is generally accurate. The repetition of language from the rubric, while integrated, reveals a lack of ability to paraphrase. Regular errors detract from the use of a range of structures, although they do not impede communication. This is a generally good response to the task, but the weaknesses in organization and grammatical control limit the rating to Band 6.5.

​

​

Band 6.5: The test taker covers all the task requirements and states the purpose of the letter. The tone, though assertive, is consistently polite. The key features are highlighted and extended but this could be more appropriately dealt with in some areas. There is a clear overall progression, but the arrangement of ideas within paragraphs at times detracts from the clarity of the letter. At other times, the sentences are not as fluently linked as they might be. There is a good range of vocabulary that is more than adequate. Although there are errors in collocation and word choice, there are also many examples of accurate choice and appropriate modification. A mix of simple and complex structures is used, but mistakes in punctuation and in areas such as article use, subject-verb agreements, etc. limit the rating for this criterion. This response shows some features of higher-level performance, but weaknesses in organization and grammatical control limit the rating to Band 6.5.

​

​

Band 6.5: The purpose of the letter is clearly stated and all three bullet points are highlighted and developed. However, the final bullet and the closing section of the letter could be more fully or more appropriately extended. The presentation of information is clear throughout and cohesive devices, referencing and substitution are flexibly used, with occasional error. The absence of paragraphs prevents the award of a higher band for this criterion. Vocabulary is also used with some flexibility and there is a good range, with evidence that the test taker can use less common expressions and has an awareness of collocation. There is an occasional error in word form and choice. Although a variety of structures is apparent, with a mix of simple and complex sentences, the level and regularity of errors in articles, prepositions, and some verb phrases limit the rating for this criterion. The density of grammatical error prevents this response from fully satisfying the descriptors of the higher band, so Band 6.5 is awarded.

​

​

​

Band 7: Although ideas are often provided in the task rubric, candidates are at liberty to include some of their own ideas in their answers. In this case, the candidate has attempted to incorporate some original material. The answer reads quite fluently, is well organized and there is a good use of conjunctions to link points. There are some grammatical errors but these do not affect the reader greatly and there is evidence of some more complex sentence structures.

​

​

Band 7: The test taker addresses both aspects of the task and presents a clear position throughout the response. Main ideas are generally clear and relevant, although some supporting ideas lack focus (as in the opening of paragraph 2). Ideas are generally well organized and there is a clear overall progression, but there are lapses where points are not well integrated into the argument. A range of cohesive devices is used effectively, but some under-use of connectives and substitution and some lapses in the use of referencing are noticeable. A good range of vocabulary is used with flexibility and precision. The test taker has a good awareness of style and collocation, and although awkward expressions or inappropriacies in word choice occur these are only occasional and do not limit the rating for this criterion. Likewise, a good range of sentence structures is used with a high level of accuracy resulting in frequent error-free sentences. Minor systematic errors persist, however, and punctuation is unhelpful at times. The strong lexical resource compensates for flaws in the organizational features, so overall this response is a good example of Band 7.

​

​

Band 7: This test taker uses an inappropriate format at times (e.g. the letter-style opening and personal comments) and this limits the band for Task Achievement. The process itself is adequately described, although some irrelevant information is included and there is no clear overview. Information is logically organized and there is a clear progression throughout the response. A range of cohesive devices is used appropriately, although there are occasional errors in referencing and linking, and paragraphing would have helped convey a clearer description of the stages. A wide range of sophisticated lexis is used to convey meaning with precision, but there are also occasional flaws in word choice that lead to some slightly awkward expressions. A wide range of structures is also used fluently with only occasional slight errors and the majority of sentences are error-free. In spite of the high level of language proficiency, the flaws in format and organization limit the rating for this response to Band 7.

​

​

Band 7: The answer is well­written and contains some good arguments. It does tend to repeat these arguments but the writer’s point of view remains clear throughout. The message is easy to follow and ideas are arranged well with good use of cohesive devices. There are minor problems with coherence and at times the expression is clumsy and imprecise. There is a wide range of structures that are well handled with only small problems in the use of vocabulary, mainly in the areas of spelling and word choice.

​

 

Band 7: The answer deals well with both the individual media trends and the overall comparison of these trends. The opening could be more fully developed with the inclusion of information relating to the groups studied and the period of time during which the study took place. There is a good variety of cohesive devices and the message can be followed quite easily although the expression is sometimes a little clumsy. Structures are complex and vocabulary is varied but there are errors in word forms, tense, and voice though these do not impede communication.

​

​

Band 7: The test taker addresses both aspects of the task and presents a clear position throughout the response. Main ideas are generally clear and relevant, although some supporting ideas lack focus (as in the opening of paragraph 2). Ideas are generally well organized and there is a clear overall progression, but there are lapses where points are not well integrated into the argument. A range of cohesive devices is used effectively, but some under-use of connectives and substitution and some lapses in the use of referencing are noticeable. A good range of vocabulary is used with flexibility and precision. The test taker has a good awareness of style and collocation, and although awkward expressions or inappropriacies in word choice occur these are only occasional and do not limit the rating for this criterion. Likewise, a good range of sentence structures is used with a high level of accuracy resulting in frequent error-free sentences. Minor systematic errors persist, however, and punctuation is unhelpful at times. The strong lexical resource compensates for flaws in the organizational features, so overall this response is a good example of Band 7.

​

​

Band 7: This test taker uses an inappropriate format at times (e.g. the letter-style opening and personal comments) and this limits the band for Task Achievement. The process itself is adequately described, although some irrelevant information is included and there is no clear overview. Information is logically organized and there is a clear progression throughout the response. A range of cohesive devices is used appropriately, although there are occasional errors in referencing and linking, and paragraphing would have helped convey a clearer description of the stages. A wide range of sophisticated lexis is used to convey meaning with precision, but there are also occasional flaws in word choice that lead to some slightly awkward expressions. A wide range of structures is also used fluently with only occasional slight errors and the majority of sentences are error-free. In spite of the high level of language proficiency, the flaws in format and organization limit the rating for this response to Band 7.

​

​

Band 7: The answer deals well with both the individual media trends and the overall comparison of these trends. The opening could be more fully developed with the inclusion of information relating to the groups studied and the period of time during which the study took place. There is a good variety of cohesive devices and the message can be followed quite easily although the expression is sometimes a  little clumsy. Structures are complex and vocabulary is varied but there are errors in word forms,  tense, and voice though these do not impede communication.

​

​

Band 7.5: The test taker presents a clear position at the outset and explores some ideas to support this. An alternative position is also considered but rejected. This is a strong response, but there is rather too much emphasis on technology: other aspects of the proposition could also be considered, e.g. less physical work and more sedentary work, greater reliance on cars meaningless exercise, aging populations in some countries leading to more complex health issues. Ideas are organized logically and there is a clear progression throughout the response, with good use of cohesive devices and logical paragraphing. The response could perhaps be improved by breaking down paragraphs 2 and 3. There is a wide range of vocabulary with good use of less common items as well as evidence of higher-level features, such as ‘softening’, e.g. ‘They tend to’, ‘This appears to be’, and ‘might disagree’. Errors in spelling and word formation are rare. There is also a variety of complex structures with frequent error-free sentences, though some errors do occur and there is some overuse of rather short sentence forms.

​

​

Band 8: The topic is very well addressed and the position is clear throughout. Main ideas are presented and well supported, apart from some over-generalization in the penultimate paragraph. The ideas and information are very well organized and paragraphing is used appropriately throughout. The answer can be read with ease due to the sophisticated handling of cohesive devices – only the lack of an appropriate introduction and the minor error in the second use of ‘eg’ mars this aspect of the response. The writer uses a wide and very natural range of vocabulary with full flexibility. There are many examples of appropriate modification, collocation, and precise vocabulary choice. The syntax is equally varied and sophisticated. There are only occasional errors in an otherwise very accurate answer. Overall this performance is a good example of Band 8.

​

​

Band 8: This is a very well-organized script that contains a lot of well-supported arguments and analyses the topic from different angles. The ideas follow each other well and there is a very honest conclusion. The answer is easy to read. There are some areas where the expression is clumsy but this makes little difference to the overall flow of the answer. There are minor errors in spelling and structure.

​

​

Band 8: All parts of the task are sufficiently and appropriately addressed. A clear position is presented and supported and ideas are relevant and well developed. Some further extension in supporting points, such as some mention of negative effects, however brief, could be added to raise this to the highest band for Task Response. There is a clear progression throughout the response and a wide range of cohesive devices is used with flexibility, although there is a rare error too. However, the personal comment in the final paragraph is a sudden topic shift after the general exploration of the issues. This is a slight lapse in the development and clear progression of the response and prevents it from reaching the highest band for coherence and cohesion. A wide range of vocabulary is used with flexibility and precision. The occasional minor error, such as the omission of dependent prepositions, is evident but not systematic. Similarly, minor errors or omissions occur in structures, but these do not detract from the wide range flexibly and accurately used generally, and the majority of structures are error-free. This is a clear example of a Band 8 performance.

​

​

​

Band 9: This response fully satisfies the requirements of the task. All key features of each stage of the process are appropriately and accurately presented. An excellent overview is given at the beginning of the response and this skilfully incorporates part of the rubric, changing the grammatical function, to give a brief summary of the whole process. The message is very easy to read with seamless cohesion that attracts no attention. Paragraphing, linking, and referencing are all skilfully managed. The language used is very fluent and sophisticated. A wide range of vocabulary and structures are used with full flexibility and accuracy. Only rare minor ‘slips’ can be found and these do not detract from the high rating. This response is a good example of a Band 9 performance.

​

​

​

​