Should recycling be made compulsory
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
Some people think that recycling should be a legal requirement for all households, with fines for those who do not recycle. Do you agree or disagree?
Band 6.5 sample answer (262 words)
Nowadays, the environment is a big problem in many countries, and recycling is one way to reduce this problem. Some people think the government should make recycling compulsory for every household. I agree with this idea, because I think many people will not recycle if they are not forced to.
Firstly, if recycling is a law, more people will do it. At the moment, recycling is a choice, so many people do not bother because it takes time and effort. If there is a fine, people will think twice before they throw everything in the same bin. For example, in some countries there are strict rules about waste, and these countries recycle much more waste than other countries.
Secondly, compulsory recycling is good for the environment. When people recycle paper, plastic and glass, less rubbish goes to landfill, and we do not need to use so many new materials. This can reduce pollution and also save energy. Also, it can create more jobs in the recycling industry, which is good for the economy.
On the other hand, some people say that it is not fair to punish people with fines, and the government should educate people instead. I understand this opinion, but I think education is too slow. People have knew about recycling for many years, but many still do not do it, so a law is more effective.
In conclusion, I agree that recycling should be compulsory for all households. It will increase the amount of recycling, protect the environment, and in my opinion the benefits are bigger than the disadvantages.
Why this reaches Band 6.5
-
Task Response
The position is clear and relevant ideas are given, but they stay general. Claims like "these countries recycle much more waste than other countries" and "create more jobs" are mentioned and dropped, never developed with a specific consequence, which is what keeps Task Response at 6 rather than 7.
-
Coherence and Cohesion
Paragraphing is logical, but the linking is mechanical: "Firstly", "Secondly", "Also", "On the other hand" carry the whole essay. There is little of the referencing and natural flow between sentences that Band 7 requires.
-
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is adequate but repetitive: "recycle" and "recycling" appear in almost every sentence, and vague words like "big problem" and "good for the environment" replace precise ones. Few less common items are attempted.
-
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Simple and complex sentences are mixed and mostly accurate, but errors such as "People have knew about recycling" and the flat conditional patterns ("If there is a fine, people will...") repeated in the same form limit the range.
The one fix to reach Band 7
The single change that would lift this essay to Band 7 is developing one example properly instead of listing several thin ones: name a real rule, explain exactly how the fine changes behaviour, and follow the consequence through two or three sentences. Development, more than grammar, is what separates this answer from a 7.
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