Task 2: an agree/disagree essay written for a discuss-both-views prompt
The Task 2 prompt reads: "Some people believe that university students should study only subjects that lead directly to employment. Others believe that subjects such as history and philosophy are equally valuable. Discuss both views and give your own opinion." Candidates have 40 minutes and must write at least 250 words.
Candidate C submits 262 words. The introduction is: "Nowadays, many people argue about university subjects. I completely agree that students should choose practical subjects, because they will get a job faster." Body paragraph 1 gives three reasons why vocational degrees are better - salary, employability and family expectations - each in one sentence. Body paragraph 2 is a 60-word account of the candidate's cousin, a history graduate who became a teacher. The conclusion reads: "In a nutshell, I firmly believe practical subjects are the best choice, and students shouldn't waste time on useless subjects." The candidate uses "don't" and "can't" twice each and "a lot of" three times. The second view appears only in the phrase "some people think otherwise" in paragraph 1.
1. Which scoring criterion is most damaged, and why? Be specific about what the response does and does not do.
Read the worked answer
Task Response is the main casualty; Coherence and Cohesion is secondary.
The prompt has two instructions: discuss both views and give your own opinion. The essay satisfies neither fully.
- The second view is not discussed. It receives one clause ("some people think otherwise") and is never developed. Half the prompt is unanswered, whatever the word count.
- The opinion is stated but not argued. Shouting "completely agree" in the introduction and repeating it in the conclusion is a position; it is not a position supported by reasoning. Note also the internal tension: "completely agree" followed by a conclusion that dismisses the other side as "useless subjects" signals a one-sided essay, not a considered judgement.
- Ideas are listed, not extended. Three one-sentence reasons in paragraph 1 do the work of one developed reason. Depth, not breadth, is what the descriptors reward.
- The anecdote is not evidence. A cousin's career is a single case; it illustrates nothing about the general claim and is not linked back to it.
Word count is not the problem: 262 exceeds the 250 minimum, so there is no penalty. The problem is that the words are spent on the wrong task. A response of this shape typically sits at Task Response band 5 ("addresses the task only partially"), which caps the overall score regardless of good grammar.
2. Rewrite the introduction and set out a paragraph plan that would satisfy the prompt.
Read the worked answer
Rewritten introduction (paraphrase + both views + clear position):
"It is often argued that university education should be judged by its contribution to graduates' employment prospects, while others maintain that disciplines such as history and philosophy have a value that cannot be measured in starting salaries. In my view, both positions are partly right: vocational courses reduce the risk of unemployment, but a university that taught nothing else would produce graduates poorly equipped for a changing labour market."
Why this works: the prompt is paraphrased rather than copied; both views are named; the position is clear and arguable - a qualified position is easier to defend than "completely agree".
Paragraph plan:
- Introduction - as above.
- View 1, argued sympathetically - vocational degrees reduce graduate unemployment and debt; example: nursing or engineering courses with placement years; limit: skills can date quickly.
- View 2, argued sympathetically - humanities develop reasoning, writing and judgement; example: employers recruiting for adaptability rather than a single technical skill; limit: without any vocational signal, graduates may struggle initially.
- Own opinion - a mixed system: vocational content plus broad skills; this is where the introduction's "partly right" is cashed out.
- Conclusion - restate the qualified position, no new arguments.
Note the word budget: roughly 40 / 90 / 90 / 70 / 30 - about 320 words, comfortably over 250 with room for development.
3. The candidate uses "don't", "can't", "a lot of" and "in a nutshell". How much does this matter, and which criterion does it affect?
Read the worked answer
Answer: it matters, but less than the task problem - and it is a Lexical Resource issue more than a grammar one.
The descriptors for Lexical Resource at band 7 and above refer to awareness of style and collocation. Academic writing is semi-formal: contractions and conversational idioms are stylistically out of place, not grammatically wrong. So "don't" is not an error in the way "he don't" would be; it is an appropriacy error. "In a nutshell" is a chatty idiom in a conclusion, where "In conclusion" or "Overall" is expected. "A lot of" is not incorrect, but it is vague; "a significant proportion of", "many" or "the majority of" are more precise.
How to weigh it:
- A couple of contractions will not by themselves pull a script down a band. Examiners look at the pattern across the whole response.
- Persistent informality combined with imprecise vocabulary ("useless subjects") signals limited range - that is what costs marks.
- "Useless" is also a Task Response problem, not just a vocabulary one: it is an unsupported, dismissive judgement that undercuts the balanced position the prompt invites. "Less directly vocational" says the same thing without the sneer.
A useful rule for candidates: write the way a careful newspaper editorial reads, not the way you speak to a friend.