In this post: Rewrites of the introduction, the first Q1 reason and the Q2 paragraph, a two-question structure with sentence frames, and a self-check list with exercises.
Band 6.5 Sample: Entertainers' Pay · 3 parts
- 1. Question type and original essay
- 2. Criteria and three major problems
- 3. Rewrites, frames and self-check (you are here)
✦ In this post
5. Rewrite examples: introduction, the first Q1 reason and the Q2 paragraph
Below are my rewrite examples (the original essay is in Part 1). I kept the original direction (I agree that entertainers are paid too much, and highly qualified and dangerous jobs should be well paid), but brought the reasons back to “pay versus contribution” and showed how to “pick one and explain it fully” in Q2.
Rewrite example | Introduction
Film stars, pop singers and top athletes often earn more in a year than most people do in a lifetime, and many argue that such rewards are excessive. I agree with this view, and I believe the money would be better directed towards professions that keep society healthy and safe.
What changed: “excessive” keeps the opinion of “too much”. The answers to both questions are given in the second sentence (agree, plus which jobs deserve the money), so by the end of the introduction the reader knows where the whole essay is going.
Rewrite example | First Q1 reason
The main reason I consider these salaries excessive is that they bear little relation to the value entertainers create. A footballer may earn millions in a single season, while a nurse who helps save lives every week receives a tiny fraction of that amount. When income depends on popularity rather than contribution, it sends young people the message that fame matters more than skill or hard work. As a result, some teenagers dream of becoming celebrities instead of pursuing careers that require years of study.
What changed: the topic sentence states directly that the pay is out of proportion to the value created, which answers “too much money”. Then a footballer versus a nurse gives a concrete contrast. Finally, my original idea that “young people stop studying” becomes a consequence of the message the pay structure sends, and the absolute claim “youngsters do not want to focus…” becomes “some teenagers” to avoid overgeneralising.
Rewrite example | Q2 paragraph
Instead, higher pay should go to jobs whose value to the public far exceeds their current salaries. Doctors are a clear example. They spend more than a decade in training and make decisions that affect people’s lives every day, so generous pay is both a fair reward and a way to keep talented people in the profession. Similarly, firefighters risk their own safety to protect others, and a higher salary would recognise this risk and help attract new recruits.
What changed: the first sentence uses “Instead” to pick up from Q1, so the two answers become one argument (the money should not go to entertainers; it should go to these people). Doctors get three layers (length of training, responsibility, keeping talent) and firefighters get two (risk, recruitment), replacing the six job names in the original.
6. A two-question structure and sentence frames you can take away
| Paragraph | Content | Sentence frame |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Paraphrase the question (keep the opinion as an opinion) + answers to both questions | Many argue that … are paid excessively. I agree with this view, and I believe … should be better rewarded instead. |
| Q1 paragraph | Two reasons tied to the core of the question | The main reason I consider … excessive is that … Another concern is that … |
| Q2 paragraph | A transition from Q1, then 1–2 jobs explained fully | Instead, higher pay should go to … A clear example is … because … |
| Conclusion | One summary sentence for each question | In conclusion, I believe …, and that … deserve higher salaries because … |
| Check question | What it checks | The answer for this essay |
|---|---|---|
| If I remove the core condition of the question, do my reasons still hold? | Whether the reasons fit the question | Halve entertainers’ pay and their influence remains → the reasons do not fit |
| Do my examples explain “why”? | Development of ideas | All six jobs are just names → underdeveloped |
| Is there a sentence linking the two questions? | CC | No → the two answers stand alone |
| After paraphrasing the question, is the opinion still an opinion? | Paraphrasing | “too much” became “extremely high” → opinion turned into fact |
Which jobs to pick for Q2? Three selection criteria
An open Q2 looks like the freest part of the essay, but it is actually the easiest to let sprawl. I suggest choosing examples with three criteria; any example that meets two of them is a good one:
| Criterion | What it means | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Contrasts with Q1 | You can naturally explain why it deserves the money more than entertainers do | Nurses, doctors: saving lives vs entertainment |
| The reason has at least two layers | Not just “it is hard”, but also “so what problem would higher pay solve” | Firefighters: high risk → pay as compensation → attracts recruits |
| You can describe a concrete picture | One or two details let the reader imagine it | Doctors: more than ten years of training, decisions that affect lives every day |
Looking back at my original with these criteria: professors and lawyers do not contrast clearly with entertainers (lawyers are already widely seen as well paid), and the reason for soldiers overlaps with firefighters. The jobs that really allow two layers of reasoning and also contrast with entertainers are doctors and firefighters. So the rewrite keeps only those two and drops the rest. It feels like a waste to delete examples, but this is exactly the step that takes you from “listing” to “arguing”.
One more small technique: the two types of jobs in Q2 should not overlap as categories. My original categories, “highly qualified jobs” and “dangerous jobs”, were well chosen: one is about the cost of entry and the other is about risk, so they do not overlap. That part was right and worth keeping.
7. Self-check list and a short exercise
Self-check list
- ☐ Did I split the prompt into Q1 and Q2 and give each its own paragraph?
- ☐ Does the introduction answer both questions?
- ☐ When I paraphrased the question, did I keep the opinion words (too much, should)?
- ☐ If I remove the core condition of the question, does each Q1 reason still hold? (If it does, it may be off-topic.)
- ☐ In Q2, did I pick 1–2 examples and explain them fully, rather than list a string of names?
- ☐ Does the Q2 paragraph open with a sentence that links back to Q1?
- ☐ Is it clear what “it”, “this” and “they” refer to?
- ☐ Have I used overgeneralised subjects such as youngsters / people / everyone?
Short exercise: the question is “Some people think university students should not have part-time jobs while studying. Do you agree?” Which of the two reasons below is tied to the question?
Reason A: Many students spend too much time on social media, which affects their grades. / Reason B: Working long hours leaves students too tired to concentrate in lectures.
Reason B is tied to the question. Reason A is about social media and has nothing to do with part-time work: even if students did not have jobs, the phone problem would still be there. Use the check “If I remove the core condition of the question, does the reason still hold?” A still holds, so A is off-topic.
Extension exercise: rewrite “Polices, firefighters, and soldiers” from my Q2 so that it covers only one job, and give at least two reasons why that job deserves high pay.
A possible direction
You could choose soldiers: They may be sent to dangerous areas and spend long periods away from their families. Higher salaries would compensate for these sacrifices and help the armed forces recruit enough people. (Example.)
More from the same band
This essay is a 6.5 where content held the score back. These are the posts I think are most worth reading at this band:
- How to check your IELTS sub-scores and read the four criteria (in Chinese): a profile of TR and CC at 6 with LR and GRA at 7 means you need to work on content, not vocabulary.
- Tutor Ali: simplifying my essay structure, from 400 words back to 300 (in Chinese): the idea of a leaner structure is exactly what solves the “I want to cram everything in” problem in two-question essays.
- Former examiner Farid: live marking for speaking and writing (in Chinese): my experience of live writing feedback.
- My successful IDP re-mark: writing from 6.5 to 7.0 (in Chinese): how I finally got to 7.0 after being stuck at 6.5 in writing for a while.
This is the last part of “Band 6.5 Sample: Entertainers' Pay”. To start again, go back to Part 1.
IELTS Notes in English · Band Score Samples (post 10 of 19)
← Previous: IELTS Task 2 Band 6.5 Sample: Driverless Vehicles and the Missing Comparison
Next →: IELTS Task 2 Band 6.5 Sample: Gap Year Pros and Cons, Pulled Down by Language
Task 1 Structure · Task 2 Structure · Topic Guides · Writing Language · Band Score Samples · Practice Methods · Speaking & Study Tips
✦ Target Your Future
Some days you practise for hours and the score still does not move. I hope these notes remind you that the setbacks are part of the road: every recording you replayed, every essay you rewrote and every sentence you finally dared to say is progress you have already made.
I wrote this down so the next person can take fewer detours. You do not have to follow my method exactly. Find a rhythm that works for you, rest when you need to, and come back for the next small step.
I hope what you take away is more than a number on a score report: a little more confidence in yourself, and the courage to step a bit closer to the world.
— Ting
← Back to IELTS notes in English
Leave a Reply