EnvironmentOpinion (Agree / Disagree)
IELTS Essay: Raising Fuel Prices for the Environment (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
Some people believe that the best way to solve the world's environmental problems is to increase the price of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
How to approach a Opinion (Agree / Disagree) question
For an agree/disagree question, decide your position before you write and make it unmistakable in the introduction. You can fully agree, fully disagree, or partially agree — all are fine — but you must then defend that single position consistently across both body paragraphs. The most common Task Response error here is sitting on the fence: giving arguments for both sides without ever committing to a view.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the fuel-price claim and state a clear position - it helps but is not the single best solution
- 02Body 1: concede the genuine benefits of higher fuel prices (less driving, greener vehicles, revenue for clean technology)
- 03Body 2: explain why it is not the best measure (regressive on the poor, ignores industry and other sources) and argue for complementary policies
- 04Conclusion: restate that only a coordinated package of measures can deliver lasting results
Band 9 model answer
It is frequently claimed that the most effective way of tackling environmental degradation is to make fuel considerably more expensive. While higher prices at the pump undeniably discourage wasteful consumption, I would argue that this measure on its own is far from the best solution and needs to be embedded within a much broader strategy.
There is a compelling logic behind taxing fuel heavily. When motoring becomes costly, many drivers think twice before making unnecessary journeys, opt for more economical vehicles, or switch to public transport, all of which curb harmful emissions. Furthermore, the revenue generated can be channelled into cleaner technologies, from electric buses to sprawling wind farms. In this respect, pricing does harness market forces to nudge behaviour in a greener direction, which explains much of its appeal to policymakers.
Nevertheless, treating fuel costs as a panacea overlooks several inconvenient realities. Such a policy is inherently regressive, hitting low-income households and rural communities hardest, since they often have little choice but to drive. Moreover, transport is only one contributor to pollution; heavy industry, intensive agriculture and widespread deforestation would remain largely untouched. A genuinely effective response therefore demands complementary measures, such as investment in reliable public transit, generous subsidies for renewables and stricter regulation of the worst polluting industries.
In conclusion, although raising fuel prices can play a useful part in cutting emissions, it is too blunt and inequitable an instrument to be regarded as the single best answer. Environmental problems are multifaceted, and only a carefully coordinated package of measures is likely to deliver lasting results for the planet.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays the environment is becoming more and more polluted, and many people think that increasing the price of fuel is the best way to solve this problems. In my opinion, I partly agree with this idea, but I think it is not enough alone.
Firstly, when the fuel is more expensive, people will use their car less. This is good for environment because cars produce a lot of pollution and gases which is bad for the air. Also, if petrol cost too much, some people will choose to take the bus or ride bicycle instead of driving. So the government can get more money from the tax and use it for other things like planting trees.
Secondly, I think only increasing the price is not the best solution. There is many other reasons of pollution, for example the factories and the plastic waste. If we only make the fuel expensive, these problems will still be there. Another point is that poor people will suffer, because they still need to go to work and they can not afford the expensive fuel. This is not fair for them.
In addition, the government should do other things also. For example, they can build more public transport and make the electric car more cheaper, so people can buy it easily. In conclusion, increasing the fuel price can help the environment in some way, but I do not think it is the best way, and the government must do many solutions together to solve this problem.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Takes a clear, consistent stance ('far from the best solution') and handles the counter-argument by first conceding that pricing 'harnesses market forces' before rebutting it. | Answers the question and reaches a similar verdict, but ideas such as 'poor people will suffer' stay general and are not fully developed. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Ideas flow with varied, unobtrusive links ('Nevertheless', 'Moreover', 'In this respect'), and each paragraph builds on the last. | Relies on mechanical signposts ('Firstly', 'Secondly', 'In addition', 'Also') and lists points rather than developing them. |
| Lexical Resource | Precise, flexible collocation: 'environmental degradation', 'inherently regressive', 'nudge behaviour in a greener direction'. | Adequate but repetitive high-frequency words - 'pollution', 'expensive' and 'environment' recur with little variation. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | A wide range of accurate complex structures, including concessive and relative clauses, with no errors. | Mostly simple and compound sentences with noticeable but non-impeding slips ('this problems', 'more cheaper', 'ride bicycle'). |
Examiner's note
The Band 9 response outperforms the 6.5 chiefly because it develops a nuanced position - conceding the appeal of fuel taxes before showing why they are insufficient - using precise vocabulary and a confident range of complex sentences. The 6.5 essay reaches a sensible conclusion but relies on mechanical linking, repeats everyday words, and contains persistent grammatical slips that, while not blocking meaning, keep it well below the top band.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| environmental degradation | the gradual damage to and decline of the natural environment |
| discourage wasteful consumption | put people off using more of something than they really need |
| harness market forces | use the natural pressures of price, supply and demand to achieve an aim |
| nudge behaviour in a greener direction | gently encourage people to act in a more environmentally friendly way |
| inherently regressive | by its very nature placing a heavier burden on poorer people than on richer ones |
| a panacea | a single solution believed, often wrongly, to cure every problem |
| complementary measures | additional actions that work together with a main policy |
| a blunt instrument | a crude tool or policy that lacks precision and hits the wrong targets |
Frequently asked questions
How long should a Task 2 essay be?
Write at least 250 words; there is no upper limit, but around 260-290 well-organised words is usually ideal, because quality of argument matters more than sheer length.
Do I have to fully agree or disagree?
No. You can partly agree, but your position must be clear and consistent from the introduction to the conclusion; sitting on the fence lowers your Task Response score.
Should I mention the opposing view in an opinion essay?
Yes. Acknowledging and then answering the other side shows a developed argument, as long as your own opinion remains the dominant thread throughout.