Test your introduction and conclusion against seven checks
Runs a yes/no scorecard over the two most formulaic paragraphs in Task 2, quotes the evidence, then rewrites both in your own voice.
Here is my introduction and conclusion only: [PASTE]
The question was: [QUESTION]
Check each against these tests and answer yes/no with the quote as evidence:
INTRO: (1) Does it paraphrase the question without copying more than 3 consecutive
words? (2) Does it state a clear position or the essay's scope? (3) Is it under 50
words? (4) Does it contain any filler ("In today's modern world", "Since the dawn
of time")?
CONCLUSION: (5) Does it restate the position without new arguments? (6) Does it
add anything the body didn't earn? (7) Does it repeat the intro's wording?
Then give me one rewrite of each that fixes every failed test — same argument, my
voice. And list the filler phrases I used so I can stop using them.Best on ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini.
What to fill in
| Token | What to paste |
|---|---|
| [PASTE] | Your introduction and conclusion only — not the body paragraphs. |
| [QUESTION] | The exact Task 2 question, so it can check your paraphrase against the original wording. |
What you should get back
A seven-row yes/no scorecard with a quote as evidence for each verdict, two rewrites that fix every failed test, and a personal list of the filler phrases you actually used.
What it actually returned
Tested on Gemini 2.5 Flash, API, August 2026, 2026-08-06. Trimmed — this is an excerpt of a longer response, not the whole thing.
INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS: (1) Does it paraphrase the question without copying more than 3 consecutive words? — No. — Quote: "governments should spend money on public transport rather than building new roads" (12 consecutive words copied directly from the prompt). (2) Does it state a clear position or the essay's scope? — Yes. — Quote: "I completely agree with this opinion because of two reasons which I will discuss below." (3) Is it under 50 words? — Yes. (4) Does it contain any filler? — Yes. "In today's modern world"
Our verdict on this run
This is the prompt that performed best of the five. The yes/no format left no room for hedging, and it caught the thing that actually matters: twelve consecutive words lifted straight from the task prompt, which do not count toward the word total and demonstrate none of the paraphrasing the descriptors reward. It also identified the filler opener and, later in the run, the repeat of that same filler in the conclusion. The rewrites it produced afterwards were competent but noticeably more formal than the original — the voice drift described above is real, so compare them line by line before adopting one.
How this prompt goes wrong
The rewrite stops being yours. Models reach for their own register — "delve", "myriad", "multifaceted" — and hand back a paragraph you would never have written, which reads as memorised language to an examiner and costs you Lexical Resource marks. Compare the rewrite against your original sentence by sentence: if more than about a third of the content words changed, it rewrote your voice rather than fixing your faults. Ask it again with "keep every word I used unless it failed a test".
Tips
- Copying more than three consecutive words from the question is a real risk — copied words do not count toward your word total.
- Keep the filler list. The same three phrases usually reappear in every essay you write, and deleting them is free marks.
- Do this before you write the body. A clear position in the introduction makes the rest of the essay easier to keep on task.
Related prompts
- Writing Task 2Analyse only coherence and cohesion, nothing elseMaps your controlling ideas, referencing chains and linker repeats — the criterion most learners cannot self-assess — with grammar and vocabulary explicitly off-limits.
- Writing Task 2Force the model to quote your essay before it scores itMarks your Task 2 essay in four locked steps — evidence first, descriptors second, band last — so it cannot work backwards from a flattering number.
- Writing Task 2Give the model a known band first, then mark your essayMarks a reference essay whose real band you already know, forces a recalibration, then marks yours against that same standard.
- Mock examinerA 250-word verdict with no room for flatteryA tired, strict examiner persona capped at 250 words: the band first, three quoted justifications, one upgrade condition, nothing else.
Common questions
Is a 50-word introduction really enough?
Yes. The introduction earns no marks for length — it has to paraphrase the task and state a position. Words spent beyond that are words not spent developing your body paragraphs, which is where Task Response is actually decided.
Why does copying from the question matter?
Words copied directly from the task prompt are excluded from your word count, so a heavily copied introduction can quietly push you under 250 words. It also demonstrates none of the paraphrasing ability the descriptors reward.
Can I reuse the rewritten introduction in the exam?
No. Memorised sentences are penalised, and an introduction written for a different question will not fit. Learn the moves it makes — paraphrase, position, scope — and reproduce those.