Task 1 letter: the tone is wrong in the first line and the wrong line at the end
Marcus needs Band 7 in Writing; his last two reports read Task Achievement 7, Coherence and Cohesion 6.5, with a comment that his letters are "inconsistent in register". His practice prompt is:
You recently hired a meeting room at a hotel for a one-day training event. Several things went wrong. Write a letter to the hotel manager. In your letter: explain why you hired the room; describe the problems; say what you would like the hotel to do.
He writes 178 words in 22 minutes. It opens "Hi there," and closes "Cheers, Marcus". He invents the "Riverside Hotel" and "the Maple Suite" and names the projector model. He describes a projector that would not connect and a room that stayed at 16°C all day, and notes that his 14 attendees paid £240 for the hire. His final paragraph reads in full: "So yeah, it would be great if you could do something about this." He then spends 38 minutes on Task 2, believing longer letters and essays earn higher bands.
1. Separate Marcus's choices into (i) genuine errors and (ii) things the examiner will not penalise. Justify each decision.
Read the worked answer
(i) Genuine errors - register. "Hi there" plus "Cheers" is informal-friendly, but the recipient is a hotel manager he has never met and the purpose is a complaint. The salutation and closing must match each other and the relationship. Because the prompt gives no manager's name, the correct pair is "Dear Sir or Madam" … "Yours faithfully". If he chooses to invent a name - "Dear Ms Okafor" - the closing must change to "Yours sincerely", and the invented name must then be used consistently. Mismatched salutation/closing pairs are the most visible register error an examiner sees, and they sit in the first and last lines, where they colour the whole reading.
(ii) Not penalised - the invented details. The hotel name, the suite name and the projector model are inventions. IELTS neither supplies nor checks these; examiners mark the language and the task response, not factual accuracy. Plausible, consistent invention (the Maple Suite, 14 attendees, £240) actually strengthens the letter because it makes the complaint concrete and gives him something specific to request. What would be penalised is invention that is irrelevant or that contradicts the prompt.
2. The third bullet is the weak point. Rewrite Marcus's final paragraph as it should appear, and explain the principles behind each change.
Read the worked answer
His version - "it would be great if you could do something about this" - technically mentions a request, so it will not be marked as a missing bullet. But it is vague, over-casual and unquantified, and it gives the manager nothing to agree to.
A model final paragraph:
Given that the room was unusable for the first two hours and the temperature never rose above 16°C, I do not believe the full £240 fee is justified. I would ask you either to refund £80 or to credit that amount against a future booking. I would be grateful for a written reply within ten working days.
The principles:
- Tie the request to the problem - the refund is explicitly linked to the two failures, so it reads as proportionate rather than as an opening bid.
- Quantify it. "£80" or "a 30% refund" is actionable; "something" is not.
- Offer a reasonable alternative (refund or credit). This is what a real complaining customer does and it signals control.
- Set a deadline and a channel - "written reply within ten working days" - which gives the letter a purpose beyond complaining.
- Keep the register formal but not hostile. "I would ask", "I would be grateful" carry firmness without aggression.
3. Marcus spends 22 minutes on Task 1 and 38 on Task 2 because he believes longer is better. Assess that belief against the marking criteria and his word counts.
Read the worked answer
The belief is half right and half costly.
Where he is right: length beyond the minimum is not penalised. 178 words passes the 150-word threshold comfortably, and under-length is the real danger - a short Task 1 is penalised under Task Achievement because the bullets cannot be developed.
Where he is wrong: marks are not awarded per word. The descriptors reward a clear purpose, fully covered bullets, a consistent tone and accurate, varied language. A 178-word letter that hits all three bullets with a specific request can reach Band 8; a 300-word letter that rambles about the journey to the hotel cannot. His 22 minutes are also damaging Task 2: the recommended split is about 20 minutes on Task 1 and 40 on Task 2, because Task 2 carries twice the weight. At 22/38 he is financing a marginal letter with marks from the essay.
What he should change: cut Task 1 to 18–20 minutes, aim for 160–190 words, and spend the reclaimed three minutes on the Task 2 proofread - checking the salutation/closing pair and one specific request is a two-minute job that is currently costing him a coherence band.