IELTS Writing Task 2 Common Mistakes

The 10 Most Costly IELTS Writing Task 2 Mistakes

These are not minor stylistic preferences — they are the errors that examiner reports and official band descriptor guidance identify as the primary barriers between Band 6 and Band 7, and between Band 7 and Band 8. Each mistake below includes a before-and-after example so you can identify and correct the pattern in your own writing before exam day. Once you have worked through this list, use the Task 2 tips guide for the proactive strategies that prevent these mistakes from occurring in the first place.

Mistake 1 — Writing Off-Topic

Off-topic responses are the most severe Task Achievement error. An essay that addresses a different question from the one asked — even if grammatically flawless — cannot score above Band 5 for Task Achievement, which caps the overall Task 2 band at 5 regardless of performance on other criteria.

How it happens:A candidate reads the topic noun (“technology”) and writes a pre-prepared essay on technology rather than engaging with the specific argument in the prompt. The prompt might ask whether technology isolates people; the candidate writes about technology’s effects on the economy.

Before:Prompt asks “To what extent has technology increased social isolation?” Response argues that “technology has created many job opportunities and boosted economic growth.”

After:Address the specific claim in the prompt. Plan by underlining the core argument: “technology” + “social isolation.” Every paragraph must be answerable with reference to those two concepts.

Mistake 2 — Not Meeting the 250-Word Minimum

The official IELTS instructions state a minimum of 250 words. Essays below this threshold are automatically penalised under Task Achievement — the descriptor explicitly states that a response must be at “appropriate length.” There is no partial credit for being 230 words versus 150 words; both fall below the minimum.

Before: A 210-word essay with a two-sentence body paragraph that states a point but provides no explanation or example.

After: Expand each body paragraph to 90–110 words using the full PEEL structure. A Point sentence, two Explanation sentences, one Example sentence, and one Link sentence reliably produces 90–100 words per paragraph without padding.

Mistake 3 — Using a Memorised Essay

Submitting a memorised or near-memorised essay is penalised under Lexical Resource (“inappropriately memorised formulaic language”) and Task Achievement (“fails to address the task appropriately”). Examiners are trained to identify responses where the language is inconsistent with the candidate’s overall ability, or where the content does not engage with the specific wording of the prompt.

Before: A response that uses sophisticated vocabulary and structural complexity but never directly addresses what the prompt asked — because it was written for a different question.

After: Prepare ideas, vocabulary, and argument frameworks by topic — not full essays. A candidate who has prepared five strong arguments about education, five about technology, and five about the environment can construct an original, task-specific essay on any variant of those topics in 40 minutes.

Mistake 4 — Copying the Prompt Verbatim

Direct copying of the prompt wording is identified by examiners and penalised under Lexical Resource. The paraphrase at the start of the introduction is an active test of your ability to express the same idea in different words — copying suggests you cannot do this.

Before:Prompt says “Many people believe that governments should invest more in public transport.” Introduction begins: “Many people believe that governments should invest more in public transport. I agree with this statement.”

After:“There is growing debate over whether national authorities should allocate greater resources to mass transit infrastructure. I strongly agree that such investment is warranted, as it reduces urban congestion and lowers carbon emissions more effectively than road expansion.”

Mistake 5 — No Clear Thesis in the Introduction

A thesis-free introduction — one that paraphrases the topic but does not state a position or scope — leaves the examiner uncertain about the essay’s direction from the outset. This is a Band 6 Coherence and Cohesion characteristic (“overall progression is not always clear”).

Before:“Nowadays, technology is a very important part of modern life. There are many different opinions about this topic. This essay will discuss this issue.”

After:“Digital technology has become deeply embedded in both professional and social life in the twenty-first century. I strongly believe that, despite its benefits, excessive reliance on digital devices has fundamentally eroded the quality of face-to-face human relationships.”

Mistake 6 — Underdeveloped Examples

Vague examples are the primary differentiator between Band 6 and Band 7 under Task Achievement. The Band 7 descriptor requires “relevant, extended, and supported” ideas. “Extended” means developed beyond a simple statement; “supported” means grounded in a specific example or evidence. To see what fully developed Band 9 examples look like in complete essays, review the Band 9 sample answers — each annotation explains exactly why the example achieves the level it does.

Before:“For example, in many countries people are becoming more unhealthy because of technology.”

After:“A 2023 NHS report, for instance, found that obesity-related hospital admissions in England increased by 17% over five years, a trend attributed by researchers to the displacement of physical activity by screen-based entertainment and food delivery applications.”

Mistake 7 — Changing Position Mid-Essay

An essay that agrees in the introduction but argues the opposite view in a body paragraph is identified as “inconsistent position” — a Task Achievement criterion that, at Band 9, requires the position to be maintained “throughout.” Changing direction mid-essay is almost always caused by insufficient planning.

Before:Introduction states “I strongly agree that technology improves education.” Body Paragraph 2 argues “However, technology is very harmful to children and should not be used in schools at all.”

After:Decide your position in the planning stage. Body Paragraph 2 can acknowledge counter-arguments using concessive language (“Admittedly, technology carries risks for young learners; however, these can be mitigated through …”) — but it must return to your original position, not contradict it.

Mistake 8 — Starting Every Sentence with “I”

Overusing first-person language reduces the academic register expected for Task 2 and produces a monotonous grammatical pattern that limits your Grammatical Range score. “I think,” “I believe,” “I feel,” and “I know” appearing in every sentence are Band 5–6 characteristics. The Task 2 vocabulary guide lists academic phrase patterns and hedging language that let you express claims with appropriate register without defaulting to first-person constructions.

Before:“I think technology is good. I believe it helps students. I feel that schools should use it more. I also think that it saves time.”

After:“Digital tools have demonstrably enhanced student engagement in classroom settings. By providing interactive, self-paced learning environments, educational technology enables students to progress at individually appropriate rates — a flexibility that traditional instruction cannot replicate at scale.”

Mistake 9 — Treating Both Body Paragraphs as the Same Argument

Both body paragraphs must present genuinely distinct main ideas. An essay where both body paragraphs argue “technology improves communication” from slightly different angles is, in the examiner’s assessment, one argument padded across two paragraphs — a Band 5 Task Achievement characteristic (“ideas are repetitive”).

Before:BP1 argues “technology helps people communicate more easily.” BP2 argues “technology makes communication faster.”

After:BP1 argues “technology enables communication across geographic distance, connecting people who could not otherwise interact.” BP2 argues “however, digital communication has reduced the quality of interpersonal relationships by replacing embodied presence with asynchronous text exchanges.” These are genuinely distinct arguments — the first concerns access, the second concerns quality.

Mistake 10 — Writing a Conclusion That Introduces New Information

A conclusion that presents a new argument, a new example, or a new perspective that was not developed in the body paragraphs confuses the examiner and leaves that idea unsupported — the opposite of what a conclusion should do. This is explicitly flagged in examiner training as a Band 6 characteristic.

Before:Conclusion reads: “In conclusion, technology has many advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, governments should invest in digital literacy education to help people use technology safely. Also, companies have a responsibility to design ethical algorithms.” (The last two sentences introduce policy ideas not developed in the body.)

After:“In conclusion, while digital technology delivers genuine benefits in terms of access to information and global connectivity, its capacity to undermine the depth of face-to-face social bonds represents a significant societal cost. Addressing these harms requires both individual restraint and considered regulation of the platforms that profit from maximising engagement.” (This synthesises arguments from both body paragraphs without introducing new content.)

Quick Reference: Error Checklist