Should the retirement age be raised
This is a sample answer written to show what a Band 6.5 response looks like, and where it falls short of Band 7. It is a worked example, not a graded submission. To see your own band, paste your writing into the free checker.
The prompt
Because people are living longer, some governments plan to raise the official retirement age. Do you agree or disagree with this policy?
Band 6.5 sample answer (263 words)
Nowadays people live longer than in the past, so some governments want to raise the retirement age. In my opinion, I disagree with this policy because it is unfair for many workers, although I accept it has some benefits for the government.
Firstly, raising the retirement age is unfair for people who do physical jobs. For example, builders, cleaners and factory workers use their body every day, and when they are over sixty their health is often not good enough to continue. It is easy for politicians to work until seventy in an office, but it is very difficult for these workers. Secondly, older people have worked hard for many years and they deserve to enjoy their life. If the retirement age is raised, they will spend their best remaining years still working.
Also, there is a problem for young people. If old workers stay in their jobs for more years, there will be less positions for the young generation, and youth unemployment can increase. This is bad for the whole society, not only for young people.
On the other hand, I understand that pensions are expensive and the government needs money to pay them. When people live longer, they receive a pension for more years, so the cost becomes very high. However, I think the government can find other solutions, for example higher taxes for rich companies, instead of making everyone work longer.
In conclusion, I disagree with raising the retirement age because it is hard for manual workers and reduces jobs for the young, and governments should look for different answers.
Why this reaches Band 6.5
-
Task Response
The position is clear and consistent, but the ideas are stated more than developed: the point that "older people have worked hard... and deserve to enjoy their life" is asserted in two sentences and dropped, and the alternative of "higher taxes for rich companies" is never explained. That thinness is what keeps Task Response at 6 rather than 7.
-
Coherence and Cohesion
Paragraphing is logical, but the linking is mechanical: "Firstly", "Secondly", "Also" and "On the other hand" open points without connecting the ideas inside them, and the second paragraph squeezes two separate arguments together.
-
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is adequate but repetitive: "unfair", "work" and "government" recur constantly, and wording like "less positions" (for "fewer positions") and "their best remaining years still working" shows limited flexibility. There is little of the less common language Band 7 asks for.
-
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Sentences are mostly simple or lightly compound and mostly accurate, but slips such as "there will be less positions" and "when they are over sixty their health is often not good enough to continue" limit the range and precision, so this criterion sits at 6.
The one fix to reach Band 7
This essay names four ideas but develops none of them. The single change that would lift it to Band 7 is to cut one idea entirely and use the space to push a remaining one further: for the manual workers point, explain what actually happens to a sixty-five-year-old builder who must work five more years, then draw the consequence.
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