Same IELTS essay, Band 6 to 7.5 — every change explained
By Awais Haq9 min read
Most candidates stuck at Band 6 are not short of ideas. They have the ideas. What they’re missing is the handful of moves that turn an idea into one the examiner can award marks for.
So here is one essay, twice. Same question, same ideas, same structure, same position. The second version is a Band 7.5, and I’ll show you every change and name the descriptor it satisfies.
I wrote both versions for this article. Version A is a representative Band 6 answer — it isn’t a real candidate’s work, and I’d rather say that than let you assume otherwise.
The question
Some people believe governments should spend money on public services such as hospitals and schools rather than on the arts, such as music and painting.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Version A — a Band 6 answer
Nowadays, there is a debate about that government should invest money in public services instead of arts like music and painting. In my opinion, I partly agree with this statement because both of them are important for society.
On the one hand, public services are very important for people. For example, hospitals and schools are the basic needs of every citizen. If the government does not spend money on hospitals, many people will suffer from diseases and they cannot get treatment. Moreover, education is also important because it gives knowledge to children and they can get good jobs in future. Therefore, spending on public services is necessary.
On the other hand, arts are also playing an important role in our life. Music and painting give relaxation to people and reduce their stress. Furthermore, arts show the culture and history of a country. Many tourists come to visit museums and galleries, which is good for economy. So, if government stop funding for arts, the culture will be lost and next generation cannot know about their history.
In conclusion, I think government should give more money to public services because they are more important for daily life, but they should not stop the funding of arts completely. Both are needed for a balanced society.
Read that again and notice something: there’s nothing wrong with it. It answers the question. It has a structure. The grammar is mostly fine. This is exactly why Band 6 is such a frustrating place to be stuck — the essay feels finished.
Why it’s a 6, criterion by criterion
Task Response. There’s a position, but it’s never resolved. “Partly agree” — partly how much? The examiner needs a stance they can measure, and this one dissolves the moment you look at it. Ideas get stated and then abandoned: “which is good for economy” is an assertion with nothing underneath it.
Coherence and Cohesion. The progression is clear enough, but look at the joins: On the one hand, Moreover, Therefore, On the other hand, Furthermore, So. The descriptor for Band 6 says cohesive devices may be used “mechanically”. That’s this. The signposts are bolted on rather than the ideas being connected.
Lexical Resource. “Important” appears five times. The range is adequate but flat, and there are slips that don’t block meaning but do get noticed: “good for economy”, “in future”, “next generation cannot know”.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy. Mostly simple and compound sentences. The errors are the visible kind: “a debate about that”, “arts are also playing”, “if government stop”.
Version B — the same essay at Band 7.5
Same ideas. Nothing imported from outside.
Governments face a genuine choice about where limited funding goes, and many argue that hospitals and schools should take priority over the arts. I largely agree that public services deserve the greater share, though withdrawing arts funding altogether would be a mistake.
The case for prioritising public services rests on necessity. Healthcare and education meet needs that citizens cannot meet for themselves: a family cannot privately fund an intensive care unit, and a child denied schooling carries that disadvantage for life. Underfunding here produces consequences that compound — untreated illness becomes chronic, and a poorly educated generation costs the state far more in the decades that follow than the classroom would have.
The arts, however, are not simply decorative. Cultural institutions preserve a national record that no other body maintains, and they generate measurable returns: galleries and concert halls draw visitors who spend on transport, hotels and restaurants, so the initial subsidy is partly recovered through the wider economy. Withdraw that funding and the loss is permanent, because a closed museum's collection disperses and a disbanded orchestra does not reassemble.
On balance, then, public services should receive the larger allocation, since they address needs that are urgent and universal. The arts require far less to survive, and the sensible policy is a modest but protected budget rather than a choice between the two.
The five changes
1. Resolve the position
BeforeIn my opinion, I partly agree with this statement because both of them are important for society.
AfterI largely agree that public services deserve the greater share, though withdrawing arts funding altogether would be a mistake.
“Partly agree” tells the examiner nothing. Partly how much — 51%? 90%? The rewrite commits to a proportion and names the single exception, which is what makes it a position rather than a hedge.
Band 7 Task Response asks for a clear position throughout the response. A position you can’t measure isn’t clear, however many times you repeat it.
2. Finish the idea
BeforeMany tourists come to visit museums and galleries, which is good for economy.
After…galleries and concert halls draw visitors who spend on transport, hotels and restaurants, so the initial subsidy is partly recovered through the wider economy.
Same idea. Carried three steps further: who spends, on what, and what that produces.
Band 6 says some ideas are inadequately developed. Band 7 asks you to extend and support them. Notice what the fix wasn’t — I didn’t add a new argument. I finished the one that was already there.
3. Connect ideas, don’t label them
BeforeMoreover… Furthermore… Therefore… So…
After“…because…”, “so the initial subsidy is partly recovered”, “Withdraw that funding and the loss is permanent, because…”
The upgrade here isn’t fancier linking words. It’s fewer of them, with the logic moved inside the sentence where it belongs.
Band 6 describes cohesive devices as mechanical or overused. That’s the trap: candidates are taught linkers as a checklist, so they add more when they should be adding connection.
4. Precision over repetition
Beforeimportant × 5. “Music and painting give relaxation to people.”
After“meet needs that citizens cannot meet for themselves”, “urgent and universal”, “not simply decorative”, “a modest but protected budget”.
Band 7 Lexical Resource asks for sufficient range with flexibility and precision.
Now notice what I didn’t do: I didn’t open a thesaurus and swap “important” for “paramount” and “crucial” and “vital”. That’s the standard advice and it’s why so much Band 6 vocabulary looks strained. Every replacement above says something more exact than “important” did. That’s what scores — precision, not decoration.
5. Complexity that earns its place
BeforeIf the government does not spend money on hospitals, many people will suffer from diseases and they cannot get treatment.
AfterUnderfunding here produces consequences that compound — untreated illness becomes chronic, and a poorly educated generation costs the state far more in the decades that follow than the classroom would have.
Band 7 wants a variety of complex structures with the majority of sentences free of error. Both halves matter, and the second is where people lose marks chasing the first.
A complex sentence with a mistake in it scores lower than a simple sentence that’s correct. If you can’t control a structure, don’t reach for it in the exam.
Also fixed quietly along the way: “a debate about that” → a clean opening. “arts are also playing” → “the arts, however, are not”. “if government stop” → subject–verb agreement. “good for economy” → “the wider economy”. “in future” → “in the decades that follow”.
What didn’t change
Worth stating plainly, because it’s the whole point:
- Same ideas. Public services are necessary; the arts have cultural and economic value; fund both, weighted to services.
- Same structure. Introduction, argument, counter-argument, conclusion.
- Same position. Agree, with a caveat.
- Roughly the same length.
The gap between Band 6 and Band 7.5 was not a knowledge gap. It was five habits.
Which one is your gap?
Almost nobody has all five. Most people have one or two that cost them repeatedly, essay after essay, and the frustrating part is that you can’t usually see your own — the sentence that felt finished when you wrote it is the one that stopped at the claim.
The fastest way to find out is to have an essay marked against the four criteria and see which descriptor line your score is actually sitting on. That’s what our free diagnostic does: you write, and it tells you which of the four criteria is holding your band down and why.
But you can also just do this yourself, today. Take your last essay. Run change 2 on it — find every claim that stopped, and finish it. That single change moves more essays than the other four combined.
The starting assessment marks a real essay of yours against the four criteria and shows which one is holding your band down. It is free, and your band is yours to keep.
Find my planNo card. Nothing to cancel.