Should public transport be free
This is a model answer written to show what a Band 8 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 argue that governments should make all public transport free of charge in order to reduce traffic and pollution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Band 8 model answer (269 words)
The idea of free public transport has an obvious appeal: remove the fare, and drivers will surely abandon their cars for the bus. I agree with the goal but only partly with the method, because the evidence suggests that quality, not price, is what actually persuades drivers to switch.
Free fares do deliver real benefits. For low-income residents, transport costs can consume a significant share of earnings, so removing fares widens access to jobs, education and healthcare in a way few other policies can match. Cities that have tried it, such as Tallinn, also report that existing passengers travel more freely and that boarding is faster without ticket checks.
The difficulty is that fares are rarely the reason people drive. Motorists cite convenience, comfort and journey time, and a free bus that is slow, crowded or unreliable converts almost none of them. Worse, abolishing fares removes the very revenue that funds better services: a network that loses a third of its budget cannot add routes or increase frequency, and quality quietly declines. Several cities that experimented with free transport found that most new passengers were former pedestrians and cyclists rather than drivers, which does nothing for congestion or emissions.
A more effective policy is therefore heavily subsidised but not free transport, with cheap flat fares for everyone, free travel targeted at students, the elderly and the unemployed, and the remaining revenue invested in frequency and reliability.
In conclusion, I support the ambition behind free public transport but not a blanket free fare. Making services excellent and affordable will take more cars off the road than making mediocre services free.
Why this reaches Band 8
-
Task Response
A precisely qualified position, agreeing with the goal but not the method, sustained without wobble. The essay engages the strongest evidence on both sides, including the Tallinn experience and the finding that free fares mainly convert "former pedestrians and cyclists", and ends with a concrete alternative policy.
-
Coherence and Cohesion
Every paragraph advances the argument: benefits conceded, mechanism dismantled, alternative proposed. Cohesion is nearly invisible, carried by logic and reference ("the very revenue", "the ambition behind") rather than by connectors.
-
Lexical Resource
Precise, flexible and occasionally sharp: "a blanket free fare", "converts almost none of them", "quality quietly declines". Word choice consistently expresses fine distinctions, which is the mark of Band 8 rather than 7.
-
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Full range with virtually no errors: colon and semicolon structures, conditionals, and dense noun phrases like "free travel targeted at students, the elderly and the unemployed" all handled effortlessly.
The one fix to reach Band 8
What separates this from a strong Band 7 is precision of position. A 7 agrees or disagrees and supports it well; this essay splits the question into goal and method, concedes exactly what the other side gets right, and proposes a specific better policy. That fine-grained control of the argument, mirrored in the language, is the Band 8 difference.
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