Band 6 to band 7: the same essay rewritten, with every change explained

If you want to know how to improve an IELTS essay from 6 to 7, the useful answer is not a list of tips — it is the same essay at both bands, side by side, with each edit tagged to the criterion it moved. That is what this page is.

Below: a band 6 essay in full, the same essay rewritten to band 7, a log of every change, and the arithmetic that explains why fixing three criteria out of four leaves you where you started.

One essay, two bands. Every mark on the right-hand copy is tagged to the criterion it moved.

The band 6 essay, in full

The prompt below was written for this article and reproduces a standard Task 2 opinion type rather than any past paper.

Some people think governments should invest in public transport rather than build new roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The essay is 269 words.

Nowadays, transport is a big problem in many cities around the world. Some people believe that the government should spend money on public transport instead of building new roads. In my opinion, I agree with this statement because public transport is better for everyone.

Firstly, public transport can carry many people at the same time. A bus can carry fifty passengers, and a train can carry hundreds. Moreover, if these people drive their own cars, the roads will be very crowded. Therefore, public transport is a good solution for traffic. Moreover, it is cheaper for ordinary people who cannot buy a car. For example, in my country a monthly bus ticket costs much less than the petrol for a small car.

Secondly, building new roads is not a good idea because it causes pollution. Cars produce a lot of gas which is bad for the environment. Furthermore, when the government builds more roads, more people will buy cars and drive them. This is a big problem for the environment and for the health of citizens. Many people in large cities suffer from breathing illnesses because of this situation.

However, some people say that new roads are necessary for the economy. They think that trucks need good roads to deliver goods. This is true in some cases. But I think the government can repair the old roads instead of building new ones.

In conclusion, I believe that the government should invest in public transport because it is better for traffic and for the environment. If governments do this, the cities will be more comfortable places to live in the future.

Scorecard: TR 6 / CC 7 / LR 6 / GRA 6 → band 6.

That is our assessment against the published band descriptors, not an official rating — IELTS publishes examiner-commented Task 2 scripts only up to band 5.5. Note that each criterion takes a whole band; half bands come out of the average.

The same essay at band 7

Insertions are marked +, deletions −. The rewrite is 275 words — six more than the original, not a longer essay.

−Nowadays, transport is a big problem in many cities around the world. +Congestion in large cities has reached the point where governments must choose what to fund next. Some people believe that the government should spend money on public transport instead of building new roads. −In my opinion, I agree with this statement because public transport is better for everyone. +I agree, though the case rests on capacity rather than on any general superiority of buses over cars.

+The first argument is one of throughput. −Firstly, public +Public transport can carry many people at the same time. +A single bus route running at capacity moves as many commuters as a lane of cars carrying one passenger each, so the same road space serves far more journeys. −A bus can carry fifty passengers, and a train can carry hundreds. Moreover, if these people drive their own cars, the roads will be very crowded. Therefore, public transport is a good solution for traffic. −Moreover, it +It is also cheaper for −ordinary people who cannot buy +households that cannot afford a car, +which matters in cities where car ownership is concentrated among higher earners. −For example, in my country a monthly bus ticket costs much less than the petrol for a small car.

−Secondly, building +Building new roads is −not a good idea because it causes pollution. Cars produce a lot of gas which is bad for the environment. Furthermore, when +also self-defeating. When the government builds more roads, more people buy cars and drive them, +and the new capacity fills within a few years, a pattern traffic planners call induced demand. The environmental cost follows from the same mechanism: additional lanes produce more vehicles rather than faster ones, so the emissions the scheme was meant to reduce simply arrive later. −This is a big problem for the environment and for the health of citizens. Many people in large cities suffer from breathing illnesses because of this situation.

However, −some people say that new roads are necessary for the economy. They think that trucks need good roads +freight is a genuine counter-argument: lorries need reliable roads to deliver goods, and no bus route substitutes for that. −This is true in some cases. But I think the government can repair the old roads instead of building new ones. +Maintaining and upgrading existing routes, however, meets that need without adding lanes to the network. The distinction matters, because the freight case argues for road quality rather than road quantity, and the two are routinely presented as though they were the same demand.

In conclusion, governments should fund public transport −because it is better for traffic and for the environment +because it buys more movement per unit of road, and because new roads generate the traffic they are built to relieve.

Scorecard: TR 7 / CC 7 / LR 7 / GRA 7 → band 7.

Every change, and what it bought

Each edit is tagged to the criterion it moved and the descriptor phrase it satisfies. None is a vocabulary swap for its own sake.

#	Before → After	Criterion	Descriptor phrase satisfied
1	"Nowadays, transport is a big problem" → "Congestion in large cities has reached the point where governments must choose what to fund next"	TR	A generic opener commits to nothing; the replacement frames the actual choice.
2	"In my opinion, I agree… because public transport is better for everyone" → "I agree, though the case rests on capacity"	TR	"A clear and developed position is presented" — the position now has a stated basis, not a blanket claim.
3	Removed "Moreover" ×2, "Therefore", "Furthermore"	CC	Band 6 marks cohesion "faulty or mechanical due to misuse, overuse or omission". Cutting linkers raised this score.
4	"Firstly / Secondly" → "The first argument is one of throughput" / "Building new roads is also self-defeating"	CC	"Cohesive devices… used flexibly" — the logic sits in the sentences, not in labels bolted to the front.
5	"the roads will be very crowded" → "the same road space serves far more journeys"	TR	Unsupported hypothetical replaced with the actual mechanism.
6	"cheaper for ordinary people who cannot buy a car" → "…which matters in cities where car ownership is concentrated among higher earners"	TR	"Main ideas are extended and supported" — the claim now carries a reason.
7	Three separate pollution restatements → one induced-demand argument	TR / CC	Band 6 permits repetition; band 7 wants "a clear progression".
8	"a lot of gas which is bad" → "the new capacity fills within a few years"	LR	"Sufficient to allow some flexibility and precision" — vague quantifier, specific outcome.
9	Added "induced demand", "throughput", "freight"	LR	"Some ability to use less common and/or idiomatic items" — topic-specific, not decorative.
10	"trucks need good roads" → "lorries need reliable roads"	LR	Roads are reliable, not "good". "An awareness of style and collocation is evident."
11	"But I think the government can repair the old roads" → "Maintaining and upgrading existing routes, however, meets that need"	GRA / CC	Sentence-initial "But" becomes a mid-sentence adverbial; the gerund subject is a structure the original never uses.
12	Conclusion names the mechanism instead of restating the topic	TR	Band 6 conclusions may be "repetitive"; this one is not.

Six of the twelve edits move Task Response. That is where the original was weakest, and where most band 6 essays are weakest.

The half-band trap

Here is the structural fact almost nobody writes about. IELTS states that "the criteria are weighted equally and the score on the task is the average".

Equal weighting means the lowest criterion sets what the other three are worth.

Run the original scorecard through that: TR 6, CC 7, LR 6, GRA 6 averages 6.25. Now spend a month on grammar and cohesion, pushing both to 8 while leaving TR and LR alone: 6, 8, 6, 8 averages 7. Better — but that is twice the work for movement that fixing TR alone would have bought.

It runs the other way too. Three criteria at 7 and one at 6 averages 6.75. The single weakest criterion is all that stands between you and a solid 7, and no amount of polishing the other three will move it.

So the question is not "how do I get better at writing". It is which of the four is lowest, because that is the only one whose improvement is worth full price. Here it was Task Response: six of twelve edits, and the essay moved a full band.

One caution on the arithmetic. IELTS confirms the equal weighting and the averaging, but does not publish a rounding table for Writing subscores — so treat these averages as direction, not as a calculator. Task 2 also contributes twice as much as Task 1 to your overall Writing score.

What to fix first if you have two weeks

Score one essay you have already written against the four descriptors, giving each a whole band. Not "it feels like 6.5" — an individual criterion cannot be 6.5.

Then work only on the lowest, and expect it to be Task Response. The band 6 to 7 line for TR is "main ideas are extended and supported", and crossing it is mechanical: find every claim stated once and never explained, and add the sentence that explains it. That single habit produced edits 2, 5, 6 and 7 above.

Do not spend the two weeks collecting linking words. The descriptor penalises overuse, and adding them is the most common way a band 6 essay stays a band 6 essay.

FAQ

How many words should the essay be?

At least 250, the published minimum. The two essays above are six words apart — the rewrite is not longer, it is denser.

Can a criterion be scored 6.5?

No. Individual criteria are whole bands. Half bands appear only in the average.

Is band 7 realistic in two weeks?

If one criterion is holding you a band below the others, yes. If all four sit at 6, the honest answer is months rather than weeks.

How many error-free sentences do I need for band 7?

The descriptor says "error-free sentences are frequent". It sets no percentage, and any page that gives you one has invented it.

Where do these quotations come from?

The public band descriptors and test resource pages at ielts.org.

Related reading

• Band 6.5 vs band 7 IELTS essay — the half band below this one, scored side by side
• Band 8 IELTS essay example — the same exercise one band up
• Band 7 vs band 7.5 IELTS essay — what two criterion boxes are worth
• How to get band 7 in IELTS Writing — the four criteria as conditions to meet

Official task instructions are on ielts.org.