Task 2 "discuss both views": 420 words that answer one and a half questions
Yuki has 40 minutes for Task 2. The prompt:
Some people believe employers should be legally required to give every employee at least four weeks of paid holiday a year. Others believe the amount of holiday should be negotiated between employer and employee. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
She plans for 11 minutes, writes 420 words, and spends roughly 330 of them on the case for a legal minimum, with examples from Japan and Germany. The second view appears only in her conclusion: "On the other hand, some people think negotiation is better, but I disagree." Her introduction reads: "Nowadays, holiday is a very important topic in modern society. This essay will discuss both views and give my opinion." She states her position three times but never explains why she holds it beyond "workers need protection". She believes the extra length will lift her to Band 7 and that her position is "clear throughout".
1. Which criterion does the missing view damage, and what overall band is she likely to receive if her grammar, vocabulary and organisation are genuinely strong?
Read the worked answer
The damage is confined to Task Response. Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource and Grammatical Range and Accuracy are judged on how she writes, not on what she covers, so those can still sit at 7.
Task Response, however, is capped. The instruction is "discuss both views"; she discusses one. Naming the second view in a single clause and dismissing it is partial coverage, which typically lands at Band 5 for that criterion - the band that describes addressing the task only partially and presenting a position whose development is unclear or unsupported.
Her arithmetic, then: TR 5 + CC 7 + LR 7 + GRA 7 = 26, divided by four, rounded to the nearest half band = 6.5. Her 420 words have bought her nothing, because a 260-word essay that genuinely presented both views and defended her own would have scored TR 7 and the same 7.0 overall - and would have taken 30 minutes, freeing ten for Task 1.
The "clear throughout" defence misses the point. Repetition is not development. An opinion is developed when it is reasoned - when she explains what makes her prefer a legal floor to free negotiation, and answers the strongest version of the opposing case.
2. Redesign the essay within roughly 320 words. Give the paragraph plan, the word budget, and the content of the paragraph she currently omits.
Read the worked answer
Plan (about 320 words):
- Introduction - 40 words. Paraphrase the dispute and state a position that contains a reason: "While a statutory minimum protects workers with weak bargaining power, I would argue that a legal floor, rather than a fixed figure, best combines protection with flexibility."
- View 1 - 80 words. A legal minimum: prevents exploitation in low-wage and temporary work, removes the need to negotiate individually with an employer who holds the power, and produces predictable staffing costs. One concrete example (a statutory four weeks in a country she knows).
- View 2 - 90 words, and this is the paragraph she is missing. Give the negotiation case its strongest form, not a straw version: sectors differ (hospitality has seasonal peaks, agriculture has harvests), small firms cannot absorb a uniform rule, and many employees prefer to trade holiday for pay or for flexibility around childcare. A worker on a zero-hours contract may genuinely want to bank leave. Include one example and, crucially, do not knock it down inside the paragraph.
- Own opinion - 70 words. Weigh the two. Concede that negotiation works where bargaining power is equal, then argue that it is exactly where it is unequal that protection matters. Resolve the tension with a hybrid: a statutory minimum that cannot be contracted away, with negotiation permitted above it.
- Conclusion - 40 words. Restate the hybrid position without new arguments.
The omitted paragraph must be written as though a reasonable person holds that view. That is what "discuss" rewards.
3. Yuki also wants to keep her opening line ("Nowadays, holiday is a very important topic in modern society") because she has used it in every essay. What is the examiner's likely response, and what does this habit cost her?
Read the worked answer
Examiners are trained to recognise memorised language and to disregard it when judging a candidate's own ability. The sentence is not an error, so it will not attract a direct penalty - but it earns nothing and it displaces something that would.
Three costs:
- It wastes the introduction. Thirty words of filler leave no room within a 40-word budget to paraphrase the prompt and state a reasoned position - the two things the introduction is judged on.
- It depresses Lexical Resource. "Very important topic in modern society" is generic to the point of being meaningless; it demonstrates no topic vocabulary, and reusing it in every essay prevents her from building any.
- It signals a template. Once an examiner reads a formulaic opener followed by "This essay will discuss both views", they read the rest looking for evidence of the promised structure. If the second view never arrives - as here - the template actively highlights the gap.
The fix is not to memorise a better opener but a routine: one sentence paraphrasing the prompt in her own words ("Whether paid leave should be fixed by law or left to individual agreements is contested"), one sentence stating her position with its reason. Same 40 words, four times the credit.