IELTS Task 2 Band 6 Sample: Accept or Improve a Bad Situation? The Both-Views Position Trap (Part 2 of 3): Coherence, Vocabulary, Grammar and Three Position Traps

IELTS · Band Score Samples中文版　Updated 2026/11/09

In this post: How CC, LR and GRA were marked in my Band 6 essay, and the three position traps that pulled a Both Views essay off course.

3. Why this essay got a 6: criterion by criterion (continued)

Coherence & Cohesion 6: the first sentence of a paragraph contradicts its content

CC is about how easy the essay is to read and how logically it flows. The most damaging part of this essay is the topic sentence of the first body paragraph: “An array of factors may contribute to why accepting a bad situation seems rather disadvantageous”. It means “many factors make accepting a bad situation look disadvantageous”, yet the two points that follow, “the life … will be easier because of lower competitiveness” and “have more leisure time”, are both benefits.

My guess is that I was being led by my own opening claim that the drawbacks were greater. I thought: “my position is against accepting, so this paragraph should start with a negative word.” Then, once the topic sentence was written, I switched back to what the question actually wanted. For the examiner, this is a paragraph whose label is the opposite of its content, and by the second sentence they are confused: is it good or bad?

The start of the second paragraph, “On the other hand, as far as I am concerned”, makes things worse. “On the other hand” signals a contrast with what came before. But I had labelled the previous paragraph “disadvantageous”, so the contrast should be “advantageous”; instead, this paragraph talks about the benefits of the other option (improving). The reader has to fill in several missing steps to understand the structure I meant, which is why CC stayed at 6.

The linking words are also a little mechanical: First and foremost, Secondly, In other words, Primarily, To put in other words, Furthermore. Almost every sentence opens with a template connector. The connectors are not wrong in themselves, but if the logic of the paragraph is muddled, no number of linking words can rescue it.

Lexical Resource 6: ambitious words, but the mistakes stand out

This essay actually tries quite a few words that “sound like IELTS”: adversities, competitiveness, compensation, undeniably, aforementioned. The problem is that the mistakes sitting next to them are just as noticeable:

• occupations with fewer salary: “fewer” is for counting things, and “salary” is not compared that way; to say “lower pay”, use lower salaries or lower-paying jobs.
• increase one’s professionals: as a noun, “professional” means a person who works in a profession. What I meant was professional ability, so it should be professional skills or expertise.
• International cooperation, which hire workers…: I meant multinational companies (corporations), but “cooperation” means working together, which is something completely different.
• feasible schedule / feasible timetable: “feasible” means possible or practical to do; what I meant was flexible.
• Considerable public debates surround on: “surround” is transitive and does not take “on”; a more natural version of the whole sentence is There is considerable debate about….
• frims: a misspelling of “firms”.

The Band 6 LR descriptor says “attempts to use less common vocabulary but with some inaccuracy”, and this essay fits it perfectly. The lesson: one advanced word used wrongly costs you more than one basic word used correctly. If you are not sure, safe words like flexible, companies and skills are the better choice.

Grammatical Range & Accuracy 7: varied structures, few errors

GRA is the only criterion where this essay got a 7. I used a non-defining relative clause (International cooperation, which hire workers…), a reason clause with “owing to the fact that”, a subordinate clause with “since” and compound sentences joined by a semicolon, so there was enough variety. The main errors were “those who is poorer” (“who” refers to “those”, so it should be “are”), “conduct others things” (other things) and “providing feasible schedule to individuals” (missing article, unnatural preposition). There are not many of them and they do not affect understanding, so GRA could stay at 7.

4. The major problems: three position traps in Both Views questions

There is a small detail here too: “outnumber” means “greater in number”, while “outweigh” means “greater in importance”. When comparing pros and cons, IELTS wants “outweigh”, because you are not counting how many benefits there are; you are judging which side matters more. But even with “outweigh” instead of “outnumber”, the sentence would still be wrong, because this is not an Outweigh question at all.

Also, the first sentence, “there are two views regarding encountering adversities”, says there are two views but never says what they are. In a Both Views introduction, the most basic task is to paraphrase both views in your own words, to show the examiner you have understood the question. After reading my introduction, the examiner only knows that “people are debating the pros and cons of accepting a bad situation”. The “improve” option is nowhere to be seen.

In a Both Views question, the job of the first body paragraph is to speak for side A. Even if you ultimately disagree with A, this paragraph should explain fairly why A’s supporters think the way they do, so the topic sentence should be positive, for example There are several reasons why some people prefer to accept a difficult situation. Save your disagreement for the second paragraph and the conclusion. Many people worry: “I’m against A, so why should I say good things about it?” But that is exactly the skill Both Views tests: present both sides fairly first, then take a position.

I did not notice this problem at all at the time. In paragraph one I said that if you accept a bad situation, “life will be easier”; in the conclusion I said that improving the situation “can provide easier … opportunities”. The same “easier” is handed to A first and then to B, and the reader feels that the writer has not thought it through either. This is the “conclusions may become unclear” part of the Band 6 TR descriptor.

There is also a conceptual slide. The question is about accepting a bad situation that has already happened, but in paragraph one I wrote “choosing the poorer situation” and “people who choose those jobs”, which turns it into choosing a low-paid job. Accepting and choosing are different things: one is an attitude after the situation has happened, the other is a decision made in advance. Small substitutions like this pull the argument further and further away from the question.

When I later rewrote this question myself (about 311 words), I targeted exactly these three points: paraphrase both views separately in the introduction, change the first topic sentence to “some people think accepting a bad situation has benefits”, and in the conclusion acknowledge that both sides have a point before saying I lean towards improving. The content hardly changed. I just put each sentence back where it belonged, and the whole essay flowed much better.