IELTS Writing Band 6 vs 7 vs 8: One Task 2 Prompt, Three Real Example Answers

Most students who are stuck at band 6, or trying to move from 7 to 8, read the official band descriptors and still can’t picture what the difference actually looks like on the page. The descriptors use words like “adequate,” “sufficient,” and “flexible,” which are accurate but abstract. The fastest way to make them concrete is an ielts writing band 6 vs 7 vs 8 example: the same Task 2 prompt, the same position, answered three times at three different levels, so the only thing left to compare is quality of execution.

What Actually Changes From Band 6 to Band 8 on the Same Prompt?

Across one identical IELTS Writing Task 2 prompt, a band 6 answer, a band 7 answer, and a band 8 answer differ in four consistent ways, not in topic or structure. Task Response moves from a position that is stated and held but thinly supported, to a position supported with one well-developed, relevant example, to a position that is nuanced and anticipates its own limits. Coherence & Cohesion moves from mechanical linking words doing most of the logical work, to clear progression with occasional reliance on signals like “however,” to logic that is carried inside the sentence structure itself, with almost no dependence on inserted linking words. Lexical Resource moves from accurate but narrow and repeated vocabulary, to less common words used naturally and with precision, to fully flexible vocabulary and natural collocation throughout. Grammatical Range & Accuracy moves from mostly simple sentences with little variety, to frequent accurate complex sentences, to a wide range of structures used with full control and only rare, non-systematic errors. The prompt, the position, and the paragraph count stay fixed the entire time; what changes is depth, naturalness, and control.

The Prompt We’re Using

To keep the comparison fair, all three sample responses below answer the exact same IELTS Writing Task 2 prompt, take the same side, and follow the same two-paragraph shape (a short introduction, then the first body paragraph). This isolates execution from topic choice or essay planning, which is exactly what you want when you’re trying to see what separates the bands rather than what separates two different essays.

Some people think that the best way to reduce traffic congestion in major cities is to make private car use more expensive, for example through higher fuel taxes and parking charges. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Band 6: What a “Correct but Basic” Answer Looks Like

I agree that making it more expensive to use a private car is a good way to reduce traffic in big cities. Governments can increase fuel tax and parking fees, and this will make some drivers stop using their car so much. This essay will explain why this is a good idea and what else needs to happen.

One reason higher costs work is because many people drive because it is convenient, not because they have to. If driving becomes expensive, they will start to think about other ways to travel, like the bus or the train. This shows that money is a big reason why people choose to drive, so changing the cost can change their behaviour. However, this only works if public transport is good enough, otherwise people will just pay the extra money and keep driving their car.

This is typical band 6 writing: the grammar is largely accurate, the position is clear, and the paragraph does have a logical shape. What caps it is development and range, not errors. “Many people drive because it is convenient” is a reasonable claim that is never illustrated with anything specific, so Task Response reads as adequate rather than well-developed. Every sentence here is a simple or lightly complex sentence (“If driving becomes expensive, they will start to think…”), and the writer never risks a more ambitious structure, which is exactly the pattern Grammatical Range & Accuracy caps at band 6: accurate, but narrow in range. “Expensive” and “driving” each repeat three times in a short space, which is the kind of repetition that keeps Lexical Resource at band 6 even though nothing here is actually wrong.

Band 7: What Changes When You Add One Real Example

I largely agree that raising the cost of private car use, through higher fuel taxes and steeper parking charges, is one of the most effective ways to reduce congestion in major cities, although it only works alongside a reliable alternative.

The central reason this approach succeeds is that it targets convenience rather than necessity: most urban drivers choose their car because it is the easiest option, not because no other option exists. Once that convenience carries a real financial cost, a proportion of drivers will reconsider, switching to buses, trains, or cycling instead. London’s congestion charge is a clear illustration of this, since the policy was introduced specifically to make drivers weigh that cost rather than treat road space as free, which suggests that price is genuinely one of the strongest levers available to city planners. That said, this strategy only works where public transport is already adequate; raising costs without improving alternatives simply punishes drivers who have nowhere else to go.

Nothing about the position changed between band 6 and band 7 here, which is the entire point of holding the prompt constant. What changed is that the general claim about convenience is now illustrated with a specific, real-world reference (London’s congestion charge) instead of being left as an assertion, which is what moves Task Response from “adequate” to “sufficiently developed.” The sentence beginning “Once that convenience carries a real financial cost” is a genuine complex structure, used accurately, and it isn’t the only one in the paragraph, which is the range Grammatical Range & Accuracy is checking for at band 7. Cohesion also does real work now instead of just connecting sentences: “That said” genuinely signals a qualification to the argument, rather than functioning as a generic pivot word. Vocabulary choices like “levers,” “convenience,” and “adequate” are less common than the band 6 equivalents but are used in exactly the right place, which is what separates natural range from vocabulary inserted for effect.

Band 8: What Full Control and Nuance Look Like

I agree, to a considerable extent, that increasing the financial cost of private car use is among the most effective single levers available for easing urban congestion, though its effectiveness depends heavily on what cities do with the revenue it generates.

The logic is straightforward: when driving carries a low cost relative to its convenience, demand for road space will always outstrip supply, regardless of how many roads are built. Pricing that convenience more accurately, through fuel duty, congestion charging, or tiered parking fees, forces drivers to weigh the true cost of each journey rather than treating road space as effectively free. Where this approach has been tried, the pattern is consistent: congestion eases most where pricing is paired with a visible, well-funded alternative, and least where it is introduced in isolation. Seen this way, raising costs is not really the solution in itself; it is the mechanism that makes investment in public transport politically and financially viable, by redirecting revenue from drivers who keep their cars toward the system that gives everyone else a genuine alternative.

The position is still “agree,” but it is no longer a flat agreement; “to a considerable extent” and the closing clause about revenue quietly set a condition under which the argument holds, which is the kind of nuance that band 8 Task Response rewards and band 7 doesn’t require. Structurally, almost every sentence here carries a subordinate clause, a conditional, or an embedded contrast (“though its effectiveness depends heavily on…”), and none of them produce an error, which is the “wide range… with full flexibility” that the Grammatical Range & Accuracy descriptor names at band 8. Cohesion no longer leans on inserted signal words at all; “Seen this way” is one of the only linking phrases in the paragraph, because the logic is carried by the structure of the sentences themselves, not by connectors stitched between them. “Outstrip supply,” “marginal,” and “politically and financially viable” are precise rather than decorative, used because they are the accurate term for the idea, which is exactly the natural, flexible use Lexical Resource is checking for at the top of the scale.

Band 6 vs 7 vs 8: The Four Criteria Side by Side

This table is the fastest way to see what a direct ielts writing band 6 vs 7 vs 8 example actually proves: nothing about the task, the opinion, or the paragraph plan needs to change between bands. What changes is whether a claim gets illustrated, whether a linking word is doing real work or just filling space, whether a word is the precise natural choice, and whether a complex sentence is attempted at all and then controlled accurately.

Why “Correct Grammar” Alone Doesn’t Move You Past Band 6

The band 6 sample above does not contain a single grammar error, which is exactly why so many students who write that way feel confused when their band stays at 6. Grammatical Range & Accuracy is not only checking for correctness; it explicitly rewards range, meaning a demonstrated ability to use complex sentence forms, not just simple ones used safely. A response that never risks a relative clause, a conditional, or a subordinate clause is being graded on half the criterion. The band 7 and band 8 samples above aren’t more accurate than the band 6 sample in any sentence-by-sentence sense; they are more ambitious in the structures they attempt, and they stay accurate while attempting them. That combination, not the absence of errors, is what the scale is actually measuring past band 6.

How to Use This Comparison on Your Own Writing

Take one paragraph of your own recent Task 2 writing and run it against the same four questions this comparison answers. Does your main claim get illustrated with something specific, the way the band 7 and band 8 samples use London’s congestion charge and the revenue-redirection point, or does it stay general the way the band 6 sample does? Do your linking words (“however,” “in addition”) add real logical weight, or could you delete half of them without losing meaning? Do you reuse the same two or three words for your key idea, the way the band 6 sample repeats “expensive” and “driving”? And finally, count your sentences: how many contain a relative clause, a conditional, or a subordinate clause, and were they accurate when you tried them? Answering these four questions honestly will usually place your own writing more accurately than trying to guess a band number in the abstract.

Get Your Own Task 2 Essay Compared Against the Real Descriptors

Judging your own writing against band descriptors is hard precisely because the differences are about degree, not the presence or absence of obvious mistakes, as this comparison shows. Our IELTS writing correction service has a qualified teacher mark your actual Task 2 response against all four official criteria, point to exactly which band your Task Response, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range & Accuracy currently sit at, and show you precisely what the next band up would need to look like in your own essay, with a full band estimate delivered within 48 hours. For the criterion definitions this comparison relies on, see the Task Response guide; for band-specific sample pages on their own, see Band 6, Band 7, and Band 8 Writing.

Related Reading

This same-prompt comparison pairs naturally with IELTS Writing Band 6 vs Band 7: The Difference, which explains the criterion-level descriptors behind the jump shown here, and with Band 7 vs Band 8: What Actually Separates Them, which goes deeper into the higher end of the same scale.