Stricter laws or better education to reduce crime
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 stricter laws are the best way to reduce crime, while others believe that better education is more effective. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Band 7 model answer (261 words)
There is ongoing debate about the most effective way to bring down crime rates. Some people favour tougher laws and harsher punishments, while others believe that improving education is the better long-term solution. In my view, education is more effective, although firm laws still have a role.
Those who support stricter laws argue that the fear of serious consequences deters people from breaking the rules. If sentences are long and enforcement is consistent, potential offenders may decide that the risk is not worth taking. This approach can also remove dangerous individuals from society quickly, which reassures the public and protects victims.
On the other hand, supporters of education point out that most crime has deeper causes, such as poverty, unemployment and a lack of opportunity. Harsh punishment does little to address these roots, and prisons can even turn minor offenders into hardened criminals. Giving young people a good education and real job prospects reduces the reasons for turning to crime in the first place, which prevents problems rather than reacting to them.
Weighing both sides, I find the educational approach more convincing. Laws are necessary to deal with those who have already offended, but they treat the symptom rather than the cause. A society that invests in schools, training and employment is likely to see less crime over time, because fewer people feel that crime is their only option.
In conclusion, while stricter laws help to control crime in the short term, better education tackles its underlying causes, and I believe it is the more effective policy in the long run.
Why this reaches Band 7
-
Task Response
Both views are explained fairly in their own paragraphs, and the writer's own opinion is stated in the introduction and defended in the conclusion, which the "give your own opinion" instruction requires.
-
Coherence and Cohesion
Clear paragraphing with one view per body paragraph, and signposting such as "On the other hand" and "Weighing both sides" makes the structure easy to follow.
-
Lexical Resource
Accurate topic language such as "deter", "enforcement", "underlying causes" and "job prospects", used naturally.
-
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Controlled complex sentences and contrast structures, with few errors.
The one fix to reach Band 7
The most common reason this type of essay stalls at Band 6 is discussing both views well but never making your own opinion clear. The fix is to state your position in the introduction and return to it in the conclusion, so the examiner is never left guessing.
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