IELTS Task 2 · Society
IELTS Task 2 Society Essay: Band 6.5, 7.5 and 9.0 Samples
Three complete responses to a wealth inequality discussion question, with examiner band scores across all four IELTS Writing criteria and annotated commentary.
What you will see on this page
- ✓ Three complete essays — Band 6.5, 7.5 and 9.0 — on the same question
- ✓ Criterion-by-criterion scores (TR · CC · LR · GRA) for each response
- ✓ Examiner commentary explaining exactly why each band was awarded
The Question
Task 2 · Discussion + Opinion
In many countries, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Some people argue that economic growth is the best way to reduce inequality, while others believe that direct government redistribution of wealth is more effective.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Write at least 250 words. Spend approximately 40 minutes on this task.
Band 6.5 Response
Band 6.5The problem of inequality is increasing in many countries around the world, and people disagree about the best solution. Some people argue that economic growth is the answer, while others say the government should redistribute wealth directly. This essay will discuss both views and give my own opinion.
Those who support economic growth say that it creates more jobs and higher wages for everyone in society. For example, many Asian countries such as South Korea developed quickly and this helped to reduce poverty for large numbers of people. When businesses grow and produce more goods and services, there is more money in the economy and more people can find work. This shows that economic growth can benefit ordinary people as well as the rich.
On the other hand, people who support redistribution argue that growth does not always help poor people equally. Sometimes rich people benefit more from economic growth than the poor, so the gap gets bigger even when the economy is growing. For this reason, the government should collect more taxes from rich people and use this money for social programmes. For example, free healthcare and education can help poor people to have better opportunities.
In my opinion, I think that redistribution is more important because economic growth alone has not reduced inequality in many countries. However, both approaches are needed. The government must use tax revenue from a growing economy to fund social spending. Without this combination, economic growth will only make the rich richer.
In conclusion, economic growth and government redistribution should both be used together to effectively solve the problem of inequality in modern societies.
Band 7.5 Response
Band 7.5The widening wealth gap is one of the most pressing social issues of our time. While some economists maintain that sustained economic growth provides the most effective remedy, others contend that direct state intervention to redistribute resources is essential. Having considered both positions, I will argue that growth without redistribution is insufficient to achieve genuine equality.
Proponents of economic growth point to the dramatic poverty reductions achieved in rapidly developing nations. When economies expand, employment rises, wages increase, and the overall standard of living improves across social groups. South Korea's transformation from a low-income country in the 1960s to a high-income economy by the 1990s is frequently cited as evidence that growth can lift large populations out of deprivation. From this perspective, policies that stimulate investment and productivity offer a sustainable path to broader prosperity.
Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence suggests that growth alone does not automatically produce a fairer distribution of wealth. In many advanced economies, prolonged periods of expansion have coincided with sharper inequality, as the returns from investment have flowed predominantly to those who already possess assets. Consequently, direct redistribution through progressive taxation, social transfers, and investment in public education appears indispensable. Scandinavian countries, which combine strong market economies with robust welfare systems, consistently achieve the world's lowest inequality levels.
I am persuaded that both mechanisms must operate together. Economic growth generates the fiscal resources that make redistribution possible, yet without deliberate policy, the gains of growth become concentrated at the top. Governments must therefore pursue growth-oriented strategies while simultaneously ensuring that social investment distributes those gains more equitably.
Band 9.0 Response
Band 9.0Widening economic inequality has emerged as one of the defining political and social challenges of the early twenty-first century. Advocates of market-led solutions argue that aggregate growth ultimately benefits all income groups, whereas redistributionists insist that deliberate state intervention is the only reliable mechanism for narrowing the wealth gap. Having weighed both perspectives, I would argue that the evidence decisively favours redistribution as an indispensable complement to, rather than a substitute for, sustained economic growth.
The case for prioritising growth rests on the concept of a rising tide lifting all boats. When national output expands, labour markets tighten, wages increase, and the tax base broadens, providing governments with additional resources for public services. The rapid industrialisation of East Asian economies demonstrates that growth can precipitate substantial reductions in absolute poverty within a generation, and for proponents of this view, restrictive redistributive policies risk dampening the investment on which broad-based prosperity depends.
Yet this argument conflates reductions in absolute poverty with reductions in relative inequality — two fundamentally distinct objectives. Contemporary research has demonstrated that, in the absence of corrective policies, the return on capital tends to outpace economic growth, meaning wealth concentrates at the apex of the income distribution regardless of macroeconomic performance. Progressive tax structures, universal healthcare, quality public education, and well-targeted social transfers have all been shown to compress income disparities without materially impeding growth, as the consistently low inequality levels across Nordic economies illustrate.
The inescapable conclusion is that growth and redistribution are complementary, not competing, imperatives. Governments that pursue expansion while simultaneously embedding strong redistributive institutions are best positioned to achieve societies that are both prosperous and equitable.
Criterion-by-criterion comparison
| Criterion | Band 6.5 | Band 7.5 | Band 9.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Both views addressed; ideas underdeveloped; opinion asserted without argument | Clear position; relevant examples developed with implications; consistent throughout | Fully developed; analytically distinguishes absolute poverty from relative inequality; sophisticated position |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Mechanical discourse markers; single-idea paragraphs with no internal development chain | Varied referencing alongside markers; logical paragraph progression; minimal overuse | Entirely organic cohesion; no mechanical markers; argument flows through logical connectors |
| Lexical Resource | Adequate but repetitive; core terms ("inequality", "growth") unvaried across paragraphs | Appropriate academic range; minor collocational slips; less-common items used correctly | Precise formal vocabulary used accurately; 'conflates', 'apex', 'compress income disparities' |
| Grammatical Range | Mostly accurate simple and compound sentences; register inconsistencies in complex structures | Good range of complex structures; minor errors do not impede meaning | Full range of structures — embedding, passives, nominalisation — all accurate; virtually error-free |
What pushes your band up
6.5 → 7.5 Four targeted changes
- 1.
Replace mechanical markers with referencing. Swap 'On the other hand' and 'Firstly' for logical connectors: 'Yet this overlooks...', 'The evidence suggests...' Referencing — 'from this perspective', 'the gains of growth' — signals cohesion without signposting it.
- 2.
Name specific countries with hedging. "In countries such as Scandinavia, progressive taxation has consistently..." is stronger than "some countries". Hedging ('such as') protects factual accuracy; specificity lifts Task Response.
- 3.
Vary noun phrases for the central concept. Rotate 'wealth gap', 'income disparity', 'the divide between rich and poor' — repeating 'inequality' throughout limits your Lexical Resource score regardless of accuracy.
- 4.
Develop your conclusion beyond restating. Integrate your main reasons in fresh language and add an implication sentence. Do not copy phrases from your body paragraphs — examiners assess paraphrase ability in the conclusion.
7.5 → 9.0 Four targeted changes
- 1.
Distinguish absolute poverty from relative inequality. Economic growth may reduce headcount poverty while inequality rises — a Band 9 response demonstrates it knows this distinction. State it explicitly to show analytical depth under Task Response.
- 2.
Cite analytical frameworks, not just examples. Referencing landmark research — 'as economists have demonstrated, the return on capital tends to outpace growth...' — adds the depth examiners credit. You do not need the author's name; the concept alone signals engagement.
- 3.
Carry concessions internally via subordination. Instead of 'However, growth does not always help poor people', write: 'While growth may reduce headcount poverty, the return on capital tends to...' The concession and the rebuttal merge into one structure.
- 4.
Nominalise for precision and register. 'Redistribution' rather than 'giving money to poor people'. 'Fiscal consolidation' rather than 'government spending cuts'. Nominalisation compresses ideas, raises register, and signals control of academic English.
Common questions about Task 2 society essays
How do I discuss wealth inequality without sounding politically biased?+
Use neutral academic language and frame your points as economic arguments rather than moral positions. Phrases like 'evidence indicates that...', 'research suggests...' and 'economists have argued...' establish objectivity. Present both views fairly before stating your own position, and support it with data or named examples rather than emotive language.
Can I use specific countries as examples in a society essay?+
Yes — specific examples strengthen Task Response significantly. Use hedging language for accuracy: 'In countries such as Scandinavia, progressive taxation has historically...' rather than a sweeping claim. Named examples (South Korea, Norway, the United States) show analytical depth, and hedging with 'such as' or 'for example' protects you if your factual detail is imprecise.
What is the difference between discussing inequality and poverty?+
Inequality refers to the relative gap between rich and poor groups; poverty refers to absolute deprivation below a minimum standard of living. They overlap but are distinct. A country can reduce poverty while inequality rises — rapid growth often does exactly this. Using the terms interchangeably loses lexical precision and can misrepresent the argument, which lowers your Task Response score.
How long should each body paragraph be in a Band 7+ essay?+
Aim for 100–120 words per body paragraph. The internal structure should be: one clear topic sentence, two to three sentences of development, one specific example (named country, statistic, or named theory), and one implication sentence that links back to your overall position. Paragraphs shorter than 80 words are usually underdeveloped; paragraphs over 140 words often lose focus.
Does the conclusion need new information?+
No. The conclusion should restate your position and main supporting reasons in different words — do not introduce new arguments, new examples, or new evidence. Introducing fresh content at the conclusion is a structural error that lowers your Coherence and Cohesion score. A strong conclusion uses paraphrase, not repetition, and ends with a clear statement of your overall view.
See exactly what band your essay would receive
A qualified IELTS examiner marks your Task 2 essay against all four official criteria and returns detailed written feedback within 48 hours.