IELTS Writing Task 2 Essay Checker
Instantly and precisely evaluate your task 2 essay with detailed feedback
(Looking for writing task 1 report checker/writing task 1 letter checker?)
Click here to explore thousands of task 2 essays written by our users
Overall Band Score
0.0Task Response
0.0Coherence & Cohesion
0.0Lexical Resource
0.0Grammatical Range & Accuracy
0.0Improved Naturalness Comparison
Enhanced Essay Comparison
Disclaimer
This tool should be seen as a guide rather than a definitive score. Just like human reviewers, AI can be subjective, and the score provided may be accurate within 75%-95% when compared with an official IELTS score. Use this tool to complement your study, but not as a substitute for professional assessment or official IELTS grading.
Introducing the Ultimate IELTS Writing Task 2 Essay Checker: Instant, Accurate, and Free!
Say hello to our cutting-edge, AI-driven IELTS Writing Task 2 Essay Checker, designed to transform your test preparation experience! This innovative online tool provides instant and free correction and evaluation of your IELTS essays, ensuring you’re on the right track to success.
Our advanced AI technology meticulously assesses your writing, delivering comprehensive feedback and invaluable insights to help you excel in both IELTS Academic and General Training. With this powerful assessment tool at your fingertips, you can confidently hone your writing skills and achieve your desired IELTS score.
Band 8.5
Parents in some countries prefer homeschooling to the traditional way of educating children. The upsides of homeschooling can include learning at one’s own pace and less peer pressure, but these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks, such as a lack of social interactions and negative impacts on mental health.
One advantage of studying at home for children is the opportunity to master subjects at their own pace. Many students who attend school tend to gain knowledge according to a fixed curriculum and schedule in groups of 15 to 20 students, while children at home may have a chance to learn at a faster or slower pace depending on their learning ability. This often means that children can understand subjects more effectively and avoid falling behind. A reduced influence of peers can be another benefit. Students who are surrounded by their friends at school on a daily basis might have potential risks to their social and moral development. For example, my cousin has been experiencing lower scores than before, as his friends are encouraging him to play computer games and try cigarettes, impacting him in a negative way. Hence, homeschooled children are less exposed to such peer influence and are more likely to maintain appropriate behavior.
However, the disadvantages of educating children at home are far greater. One major drawback is the inability to interact with others. Children who are taught by their parents are more likely to experience social isolation, which can lead to poor communication skills. Children at school mainly work in group activities, which encourages them to form opinions and learn how to engage in meaningful conversation with people by discussing broad ideas with their classmates. Children who are homeschooled, on the other hand, may lack the ability to express opinions and views freely. As a result, they may struggle to communicate effectively in social or professional settings later in life. Moreover, homeschooled children are more subject to different mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and especially low self-esteem. People who interact less with others may develop social anxiety and feel uncomfortable in face-to-face situations, which can also pose a risk to reduced confidence and make them doubt their social abilities in the future.
In conclusion, teaching children at home may entail several benefits for them, such as personalized learning and reduced peer influence. However, the drawbacks are much more significant, including less interaction and impacts on mental health problems.
Band 7.5
Nowadays, as the global demand for fossil fuels has significantly increased, industries where gas and oil are produced are located in uninhabited regions. I firmly believe that the benefits of fossil fuels can outweigh the drawbacks of poisoning the natural landscapes.
On the one hand, there are some detrimental sides to this point. Firstly, if the number of gas and oil factories increases, it can actually pose harsh risks to the environment. For example, factory emissions release into the atmosphere and, as a result, it can lead to global warming, which is still a main unsolved issue. Secondly, since the amount of carbon dioxide accelerates into the atmosphere, it causes air pollution; in turn, this factor can cause health problems. To make that more clear, people can intake these detrimental gasses, which can cause heart diseases and respiratory illnesses. Therefore, there is a disagreement about increasing these resources.
On the other hand, I personally concur that as oil and gas are considered the cornerstone of the global economy, they are beneficial in some ways due to certain reasons. The gas and oil industry can play a pivotal role in the economy in terms of producing energy. According to statistics, 23% of gas and 27% of oil can be allocated to manufacture energy over the world. Furthermore, these natural sources can be used to produce chemical products, bottles, plastics and synthetic materials, which are main needs of human consumption. On top of that, the gas and oil industry is a dominant provider of transportation, because our cars run with gas and methane, as well as public transport with diesel fuel, and planes with kerosene. Hence, having a gas and oil industry can not only supply energy, but also cover various areas of use in chemistry, transport, and production.
In conclusion, although installing fossil fuel industries in remote areas can be dangerous – air pollution, global warming, and human diseases – I firmly claim that its advantages – energy supply and production – cannot be overlooked.
the best cite
Band 8
Nowadays, many people believe that learning English is more important than learning local languages, which may be at risk of disappearing if they are not preserved. While I agree that English plays a crucial role in today’s globalised world, it is equally important to protect and promote local languages.
I believe everyone should learn English as it is a language spoken around the world. As a result, it has become easier to travel to foreign countries and communicate efficiently without the need to learn their language. It is a common language for tourism and business, so people from different countries and with different mother tongues can exchange using English. This has allowed people to be connected to each other and to have access to foreign culture and knowledge, thanks to this lingua franca that English has become.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that governments and people around the world should ensure the survival of local languages. Indeed, these languages carry the heritage and culture of the countries, and they might lose their rich legacy, as well as their own identity. For example, parents should teach their local language to their children, and the latter could have some subjects in school taught in their local language. That way, they could not lose touch with it.
In conclusion, I believe that it is crucial to learn to speak English in the world we live in to be able to travel abroad and have access to other countries’ culture. However, I also think that it is our responsibility to keep our local languages alive so we do not forget our history and cultural identity.
Band 7
Nowadays, individuals believe that competition is necessary at school, workplace, and in normal life. While others argue that individuals should be more supportive and avoid competition. I firmly concur that cooperation between individuals is more paramount as it creates a friendly environment where everyone feels secured and valued.
On the one hand, competition at educational institutes, workplaces, and in everyday life enhances individual’s progress because a competitive atmosphere influences people to work harder than their colleagues, which eventually improves resilience, diligence, and progress of all the fellows in a group. For example, these days, many big companies are using the reward system which gives bonuses to a limited number of workers with exceptional performance as a result to pursue this reward many workers do overtime to get ahead of their colleagues. Therefore, a healthy competition among people not only improves individual’s performance but it also develops a productive workforce.
On the other hand, some people support the notion that individuals should be cooperative and try to steer away from competition. This is due to the fact that in a competitive environment people with lesser progress and skills often feel insecure and this sense of inferiority lowers their self-esteem, eventually, disrupting their performance. For instance, schools and colleges in Australia have banned disclosing their students’ grades in front of the whole class to eradicate this feeling of competition. As a result, all the students feel equally valued, and even if a student is weak in studies other students will assist him, thus creating a sense of empathy.
To recapitulate, while some people perceive competition as a good thing, I concur that a cooperative environment is much more important as it allows people to encourage and support each other. Hence, in such an environment, everyone will feel secured and valued.
Nowadays, it is widely believed that access to clean water is a basic human right to maintain livelihood, and some argue that governments should provide it free of charge. I strongly agree with this statement, because free access to clean water may reduce social inequality, and lack of water can lead to problems with poor sanitation and life-threatening diseases.
Firstly, free access to water supply can reduce issues with inequality, especially for low-income countries. In many countries, wealthy individuals can easily afford to pay for water, while poor households often struggle to cover even basic utilities. As a result, many of them are more likely to face unequal problems. For example, in many developing countries, low-income families spend a significant amount of income on water, while wealthier individuals can easily afford limitless access without financial struggles.
Secondly, access to clean water is crucial for surviving and treating some life-threatening illnesses, such as infection and poor sanitation. Without a reliable source of safe water, people can face serious health risks. This issue is the primary source of critical problems with well-being and overall health in low-income countries, where many individuals are not able to pay for basic livelihood. For example, many African cities have a problem with free and clean water supply, which leads to unsanitary conditions and the inability to treat serious injuries.
In conclusion, access to clean water is a basic human right to maintain livelihood and governments must ensure that every home has access to a free and clear water supply, because providing access to water is essential to reduce social inequality and problems with life-threatening diseases.
The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Science is believed to aim at improving people’s lives. To some extent I agree with this view, but I also think that balance should be priority.
Main reason for prioritizing science’s aim at improving people’s lives is that science improves people’s lives by advancing healthcare. In other words, they provide humankind with developing new medicines as well as vaccines. Stemming from those innovations, now, people tend to live more than ever before, although a cure has not yet been found in all diseases. Hence, as a result of science, people are living longer. Another primary reason why the role of science is essential is that it improves daily life through technological innovations and modern conveniences. That is, rising technology enhanced the way people communicating with each other, solving problems with their devices. To give an example, if someone lives the far away, they do not have to purchase tickets to meet with each other, the reason is that, with applications such as Telegram, Instagram and Facebook, they are able to see each other in a screen. Thus, they are going to safe their money, being keep in touch through those apps easily as well. Consequently, Innovations that science made is now helping people a lot, not least because being able to see each other online platforms.
However, it is also worth mentioning that, science should not focus solely on improving human conveniences because it can harm nature. Certain innovations, including but not limited to – chemicals, industrial processes, or energy technologies – may damage ecosystems and pollute air, even water. For instance, if science halt caring other factors, not long after those new updating chemicals might influence on animals and on the environment. So, whenever science stop seeking other fields, and aiming to people’s lives only, it may contribute to damage to the environment and even lead to the extinction of animals.
To sum up, although improving human life should be one of the main aims of science, it is also essential for science to consider other fields, such as environmental protection and animal welfare.
It is often argued that the major purpose of science is to improve life quality. I completely agree with this view because humanity has always sought to achieve a more convenient lifestyle with the aid of modern technologies.
Firstly, one key reason is that the development of science improves the quality of medicine. Genetic technologies, organ transplantation, and new drug discoveries are helping to defeat diseases and increase life expectancy. There would not have been depopulation if scholars had more appropriate appliances and opportunities to save people’s lives in the past. Medicine development helps humanity to evolve quickly, reducing the emergence of new diseases and viruses.
Secondly, another important point is technological progress. Recently, scholars invented artificial intelligence, which makes life easier for everyone nowadays. Only after scientists created the first computer did they understand all the benefits of this investigation. Therefore, humanity puts the development of computer technology top of mind now and sees a future in it. Vehicles will help people not to spend time on household chores; instead, individuals can save time for something more important and useful for them.
However, some people argue that with the help of advancing science, people may maintain Earth’s vegetation and the biodiversity of animal species. Humanity cannot live without flora and fauna; therefore, it is essential to try not to harm nature and devote resources not only to improving individuals’ lives but also to helping our planet.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that humanity always strives to simplify their lives, and this is one of the main reasons for science development. Although, it is crucial not to forget about our environment, which constantly deteriorates due to people’s actions. The best way to solve this is to find a balance between personal needs and ecological preservation.
Band 9
8.5
8.5
In modern times, children are spending less time with their families and more time with their friends. Why has this change occurred? Do you think parents should force their children to spend more time at home?
In contemporary society, children tend to spend more time with peers rather than their parents. I believe that this change is caused by the development of digital platforms and parents’ confusion about children’s hobbies. However, I think that children should not be forced to spend more time at home, as socialising with peers is very important for children.
This trend happened because of the intensive cultivation of digital platforms, such as social media and online games. As the industry of online programs developed significantly in recent years, more children started to play mobile games and communicate using Instagram and Snapchat. Another reason why this occurred is that parents do not really understand their children’s hobbies and activities. As a result of technological advancement, it may be difficult for family members to communicate with each other. For example, numerous individuals in England highlight that it is difficult for them to use online platforms, like Snapchat and TikTok, which are very popular among the youth.
However, I think that youngsters should not be forced to spend more time with their parents, as communicating with friends is crucial for them. As our society requires socialising with others, limiting interactions with peers may have a deleterious impact on children. Moreover, forced communication can make relationships even worse. This is because children value free will and it is important give them this freedom of communication. For example, many parents have emphasised that their relationships with children improved when they has stopped forcing them to spend more time at home.
In conclusion, I think that this trend is caused by the cultivation of virtual platforms and parents’ difficulties using them. However, I think that children should not be forced to spend more time with their families, as interacting with friends is vital for children.