Banning mobile phone use in public places
This is a model answer written to show what a Band 7 response looks like against the marking criteria. It is a worked example, not a graded submission. To see your own band, paste your writing into the free checker.
The prompt
Some people think that using mobile phones should be banned in certain public places, such as cinemas, restaurants and public transport. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Band 7 model answer (265 words)
Loud calls on trains and glowing screens in cinemas have led some people to demand a ban on phone use in shared public spaces. I agree with such restrictions in a small number of places where phones spoil the experience for everyone, but I believe a broad ban would be both unfair and impossible to enforce.
In venues like cinemas, theatres and libraries, a ban is justified because the harm is direct and unavoidable. A single lit screen in a dark cinema pulls the eyes of an entire row, and one ringtone can ruin a performance that hundreds of people have paid for. Silence and attention are the very product these places sell, so protecting them is no different from asking customers not to talk during a film.
Public transport and restaurants are a different matter. A quiet text message on a bus harms nobody, and many passengers depend on their phones to work, navigate or tell family when they will arrive. In restaurants, whether a couple looks at their screens is their own business, not the state's. Banning behaviour that causes no real harm to others crosses the line from protecting the public to policing private choices.
There is also the question of enforcement. Rules that most people quietly ignore, as a transport phone ban surely would be, weaken respect for rules in general and put staff in constant conflict with customers.
In conclusion, I support banning phones where they genuinely destroy a shared experience, such as cinemas and theatres, but in ordinary public spaces courtesy and common sense are better tools than prohibition.
Why this reaches Band 7
-
Task Response
A partial-agreement position is stated precisely in the introduction and applied consistently: bans where "the harm is direct and unavoidable", freedom elsewhere. The enforcement paragraph adds a practical dimension most answers miss.
-
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay is organised by principle rather than by place, which keeps it from becoming a list. Transitions such as "a different matter" and "There is also the question of" feel natural.
-
Lexical Resource
Sharp, idiomatic phrasing: "the very product these places sell", "policing private choices", "courtesy and common sense are better tools than prohibition".
-
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Varied and accurate, including embedded concession ("as a transport phone ban surely would be") and parallel contrasts in the conclusion.
The one fix to reach Band 7
Band 6 answers to this question usually agree or disagree with everything at once. The lift to Band 7 comes from drawing a principled line, banning phones only where harm is unavoidable, and then testing each public place against that single principle.
Now check your own answer.
Paste your own attempt at this prompt and Examinerly names the single criterion keeping you below your target band, and shows the sentence-level fix. We never inflate your band.
Check your writing free