The 380-Word Essay With No Position
Jonas has 40 minutes for Writing Task 2. The prompt asks whether universities should prioritise employable skills or knowledge for its own sake, and to discuss both views and give his opinion. He writes 380 words. His introduction begins, 'In the modern era, education plays a vital role in society,' then outlines both sides without stating his position. Body paragraph 1 lists three skills employers want but gives no example. Body paragraph 2 says knowledge is important because 'it broadens horizons.' The conclusion says, 'Therefore, both are important and we should balance them.' His grammar is accurate and his vocabulary is adequate, but he repeats 'important' seven times. Ten minutes remain. He has not re-read the prompt. He believes longer essays score higher and is reluctant to cut anything.
1. Diagnose the two highest-impact weaknesses in Jonas's response against Task 2 criteria, and justify your ranking.
Read the worked answer
The highest-impact weakness is Task Response: the prompt requires both views and his opinion, but the essay never states a position. Listing skills in one paragraph and knowledge in another is not the same as discussing the views, because there is no reasoning about why each side holds its position or under what conditions it is valid. The conclusion, 'both are important and we should balance them,' could answer almost any education prompt; it does not resolve the tension the question sets up.
The second weakness is Coherence and Cohesion at the argument level. The introduction is a memorised opener, the body paragraphs are lists rather than developed claims, and there are no examples to link the general statements to real university practice. Accurate grammar and adequate vocabulary do not compensate, because the band descriptors reward relevant, extended, supported ideas before lexical range. Length is not the issue: 380 words is enough, but the extra words repeat rather than develop. Ranking Task Response first is justified because a clear position can be fixed quickly and raises the ceiling for everything else.
2. Give a 10-minute revision plan that he can actually complete, including what to cut and what to add.
Read the worked answer
Use the ten minutes for surgery, not rewriting. Minutes 1–2: re-read the prompt and underline 'discuss both views' and 'your opinion'. Write a one-sentence thesis at the top of the page, for example: 'Universities should embed employability skills in the curriculum, but not replace disciplinary knowledge, because judgement in complex work depends on both.' Minutes 3–4: write a topic sentence for each body paragraph that names the view and the reason it is held. Minutes 5–7: add one concrete example to each body paragraph - an internship module, a research seminar, a graduate scheme - and one sentence explaining what the example shows. Minutes 8–9: rewrite the conclusion so it repeats the thesis and gives one condition, not 'balance'. Minute 10: check the introduction for a stated position and cut repetition.
Cut about 80–100 words: delete the 'modern era' sentence, delete one item from the three-skill list, and replace repeated 'important' with 'central', 'necessary' or 'valuable'. Do not cut the examples; they are the evidence the essay currently lacks. He should not try to reduce 380 words to 250 - the target is 260–290 words of developed argument, and the current length is acceptable if the content changes.
3. Why is 'both are important and we should balance them' a weak conclusion for this prompt?
Read the worked answer
It is weak because it refuses the judgement the prompt asks for. 'Discuss both views and give your opinion' requires the writer to weigh the views, not merely notice that both exist. A conclusion that says both are important gives the examiner no criterion for when employability should dominate, when knowledge should dominate, or why the writer chose that position. It also makes the body paragraphs redundant: if the answer was always 'balance', there was no need to examine either view.
A stronger conclusion restates a conditional position and its reason. For example: 'Employability skills should be taught within disciplinary programmes rather than as a substitute for them, because graduates need both the ability to analyse and the ability to apply that analysis in unfamiliar settings.' This is still balanced, but it is a position, and it follows from the examples. The difference is not the word 'balance'; it is that the examiner can see what the writer would recommend if a university had to choose. That visible reasoning is what separates a Band 6 conclusion from a Band 7 one.