GlobalisationAdvantages–Disadvantages
IELTS Essay: Do the Advantages of Globalisation Outweigh the Disadvantages? (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
Globalisation has allowed goods, money, and people to move more freely around the world. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
How to approach a Advantages–Disadvantages question
For an advantages/disadvantages question, first check exactly what is asked: 'discuss the advantages and disadvantages' wants a balanced account, whereas 'do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?' demands a clear verdict. If a verdict is required, state it in the introduction and return to it in the conclusion — listing pros and cons without deciding is a Task Response failure.
The plan
- 01Introduction: Paraphrase the statement that globalisation lets goods, money and people move freely, then give a clear verdict - the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
- 02Body 1 (disadvantages): Concede the genuine drawbacks - vulnerable local industries collapsing when firms relocate to cheaper labour, and the rapid transmission of financial and health shocks across borders.
- 03Body 2 (advantages): Explain why the gains dominate - economic development and poverty reduction in developing economies, cheaper and more varied goods, and the exchange of ideas and innovation through the movement of people.
- 04Conclusion: Restate that although globalisation disrupts industries and amplifies shared risks, prosperity, opportunity and knowledge-sharing outweigh these costs; the answer is to cushion those it leaves behind, not to reverse it.
Band 9 model answer
The free flow of goods, capital and labour across national borders has reshaped the modern world in profound ways. Although this openness has undeniably created losers as well as winners, I would argue that its advantages comfortably outweigh the drawbacks it brings.
The principal downside of an interconnected world is its capacity to expose local communities to forces beyond their control. When factories relocate to wherever labour is cheapest, long-established industries can collapse almost overnight, leaving entire regions economically stranded and their workforces without a livelihood. A globalised system also transmits shocks with alarming speed, so that a financial crisis or a public-health emergency originating in one country spills rapidly across every border.
Set against this, however, the economic gains are substantial and broadly shared. The mobility of capital and expertise has enabled developing economies to industrialise at a pace that was previously unimaginable, drawing large numbers of people out of poverty and equipping their workforces with valuable skills. Consumers in wealthier nations, meanwhile, benefit from cheaper and more varied products than any closed economy could ever supply.
Just as importantly, the movement of people enriches societies in ways that extend far beyond commerce. Migrants and international students circulate ideas, languages and innovation that no single nation could generate in isolation, and this cross-pollination underpins much of the scientific and cultural progress we now take for granted. Diversity, in short, has become a genuine competitive advantage.
In conclusion, although globalisation certainly disrupts vulnerable industries and amplifies shared risks, these costs are outweighed by the prosperity, opportunity and exchange of knowledge that it makes possible. The wisest course is not to reverse the process but to cushion those whom it leaves behind.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, globalisation makes goods, money and people move more easily around the world. Some people think this is a positive thing, but other people are worried about it. This development has advantages and disadvantages, but in my opinion the advantages are more than the disadvantages.
Firstly, globalisation is good for the economy. Companies can sell their products in many countries, so they earn more money and give a lot of jobs to people. Also, people can travel and work in other countries easily. This is very good because they can find better job and earn more money for their family. In addition, we can buy many products from different countries at a cheap price. For example, a person can buy a phone that is made in another country very easily.
Secondly, globalisation has some disadvantages too. One big problem is that small local companies cannot compete with big international companies, so they close down. Also, when there is a economic problem in one country, it can affect other countries very fast. Another disadvantage is that some people are worried about their culture, because all the countries are becoming the same. This is not good for the world.
However, I think the advantages are still more important. Globalisation help poor countries to develop and it also gives people more opportunities to have a better life. In conclusion, globalisation has some problems, but the advantages are more than the disadvantages, so it is good for the world.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Delivers a clear, sustained verdict from the outset - the advantages 'comfortably outweigh the drawbacks' - and genuinely weighs the two sides, conceding real disadvantages (industries 'collapse almost overnight') before demonstrating why the gains prevail. Every point is extended with a consequence rather than merely named. | Answers the question and states a position ('the advantages are more than the disadvantages'), but the ideas are stated, not developed. A claim like 'globalisation is good for the economy' is asserted and followed by generic support rather than explained in depth, which caps development. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Cohesion is unobtrusive and meaning-driven: linkers such as 'Set against this, however' and 'Just as importantly' guide the reader without announcing structure, and referencing ('these costs', 'this cross-pollination') ties sentences together naturally. | Organisation is clear but the cohesion is mechanical and listing-based - 'Firstly', 'Secondly', 'Also', 'In addition' - so the essay signposts adequately yet reads formulaically, with each idea bolted on rather than woven in. |
| Lexical Resource | Uses precise, natural topic collocation: 'the mobility of capital and expertise', 'economically stranded', 'transmits shocks', 'cross-pollination' and 'amplifies shared risks', showing range and control of less common items. | Leans on repetitive high-frequency words - 'good', 'very good', 'a lot of jobs', 'big problem' - and shows a collocation slip in 'at a cheap price' (a low price / cheap goods). Understandable, but the vocabulary lacks range and precision. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Deploys a wide range of complex structures accurately - subordinate clauses ('so that a financial crisis ... spills rapidly across every border'), participle phrases ('leaving entire regions economically stranded') and a relative clause ('those whom it leaves behind'). | Relies mostly on simple and compound sentences ('Companies can sell ... so they earn more money'), with minor slips - 'find better job' (missing article), 'a economic problem' (a/an) and 'Globalisation help' (subject-verb) - that do not prevent understanding. |
Examiner's note
The Band 9 essay wins on every criterion. It answers the exact question by giving a clear, sustained verdict - the advantages 'comfortably outweigh the drawbacks' - and genuinely weighs both sides, conceding that industries can 'collapse almost overnight' before showing why the gains dominate. Its cohesion is invisible ('Set against this, however', 'Just as importantly'), its vocabulary is precise and collocational ('the mobility of capital and expertise', 'cross-pollination', 'economically stranded'), and its complex structures are varied and controlled. The Band 6.5 response is on-topic, clearly organised and easy to follow, but its ceiling is set by mechanical linking ('Firstly', 'Secondly', 'Also', 'In addition'), repetitive high-frequency vocabulary ('good', 'very good', 'a lot', 'big problem'), simple and compound sentences that state ideas rather than develop them, and minor slips such as 'find better job', 'a economic problem' and 'Globalisation help'. Those errors never block meaning, which is exactly why it sits at a solid 6.5 rather than lower - but the lack of lexical and grammatical range, together with underdeveloped ideas, is what keeps it well short of Band 8.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| the free flow of goods | the unrestricted movement of products between countries |
| to reshape | to change the form or structure of something significantly |
| economically stranded | left without economic support or a way to recover |
| to transmit shocks | to pass sudden problems or crises from one place to another |
| broadly shared | spread widely among many people or groups |
| the mobility of capital | the ease with which money and investment can move between places |
| cross-pollination (of ideas) | the exchange and mixing of ideas between different groups |
| to underpin | to form the basis or foundation that supports something |
| to cushion those whom it leaves behind | to soften the impact for the people who lose out |
Frequently asked questions
How should I answer a 'do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages' question?
You must give a clear verdict, not just list pros and cons. State in your introduction whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (or the reverse), keep that judgement consistent, and give the side you favour more weight and development in the body. Describing both sides without deciding which is greater will limit your Task Response score.
Do I still need to mention both advantages and disadvantages?
Yes, and you should. The task expects you to acknowledge both, but your real job is to weigh them. A reliable structure is one paragraph on the weaker side and one or two on the side you think dominates, followed by a conclusion that states your overall judgement clearly.
How many words and paragraphs should the essay be?
Write at least 250 words - roughly 260 to 290 is ideal - in about four paragraphs: an introduction with your position, two body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Going under 250 words is penalised, and very short answers rarely develop their ideas enough to reach Band 7 or above.