Media & AdvertisingProblem–Solution
IELTS Essay: Fake News and Online Misinformation (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
These days, false information and misleading stories spread quickly on the internet. What problems does this cause for society? What can be done to address this issue?
How to approach a Problem–Solution question
A problem/solution question needs realistic causes or problems in one body paragraph and directly matching solutions in the other. Keep the two linked — each solution should address a problem you actually raised — and be specific: vague answers like 'the government should do more' score poorly compared with concrete, plausible measures.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the rapid spread of online misinformation and signal that the essay will identify its harms and realistic countermeasures.
- 02Body 1: problems - erosion of trust in institutions and dangerous real-world decisions, from health choices to public panic.
- 03Body 2: solutions matching those problems - platform accountability for viral falsehoods and media-literacy education that builds public resistance.
- 04Conclusion: summarise that no single fix exists, but platforms and education together can contain the damage.
Band 9 model answer
A fabricated story can now circle the globe before any correction is written, because online platforms reward speed and outrage rather than accuracy. This flood of misinformation damages society in profound ways, but a combination of platform accountability and public education can substantially contain it.
The harms operate at two levels. Collectively, misinformation corrodes the shared trust on which democracies depend: when citizens cannot agree on basic facts, they begin to distrust journalists, scientists, election results and one another, leaving public debate polarised and vulnerable to manipulation. Individually, false stories drive dangerous decisions. People have refused proven medical treatments, sold investments in fabricated panics and even attacked innocent strangers on the strength of viral rumours. The damage, in other words, is not confined to the internet; it ends in hospitals, courtrooms and streets.
The response must therefore work at both levels as well. Governments should oblige platforms to take responsibility for what their algorithms amplify - labelling disputed claims, slowing the resharing of unverified viral content and removing coordinated fake accounts - with meaningful fines for negligence, an approach the European Union has already pioneered. Regulation alone, however, cannot inspect every post, which is why the deeper remedy is education. Teaching students to check sources, recognise emotional manipulation and distinguish reporting from opinion equips each citizen as a filter, so that falsehoods find fewer willing carriers in the first place.
In conclusion, unchecked misinformation undermines public trust and provokes genuinely dangerous behaviour. Neither regulation nor education can solve this alone, but platforms held liable for amplification, combined with a media-literate public, would deprive fake news of both its megaphone and its audience.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, fake news and false information spread very fast on the internet and social media. This situation causes many problems for the society. In this essay, I will explain these problems and suggest some solutions for them.
The first problem is that people believe wrong information and make bad decisions. For example, during the pandemic, many people read fake news about the vaccines and they refused to take them, so their health was in danger. The second problem is that fake news makes people confused and they do not trust anything anymore. When people see many different stories on the internet, they do not know which one is true, so they also stop believing the real news and the government. This is dangerous for the society because people cannot make good decisions together.
There are some solutions for this problem. Firstly, the social media companies should check the information before it spreads. They can use AI technology and special teams to find the fake news and delete them quickly. The government should also make laws to punish the people who create the fake news on purpose. Secondly, schools should teach the students how to check if the information is true or not. If people learn to compare different sources and think carefully, they will not believe everything they see on the internet.
In conclusion, fake news causes serious problems because people make wrong decisions and lose their trust. The companies and the government should control the false information, and the schools should teach people how to recognize it. Then this problem can be reduced in the future.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Identifies harms at a collective and an individual level, then builds solutions that explicitly mirror that structure - regulation for amplification, education for belief. | Answers both questions with relevant, even well-chosen ideas (vaccines, media literacy), but each is stated briefly and the link between specific problems and specific solutions is loose. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | The two-level framing ('The harms operate at two levels… The response must therefore work at both levels') binds the whole essay together; referencing is skilful ('in other words', 'which is why'). | Clear paragraph roles, but progression depends on counting markers ('The first problem', 'Firstly', 'Secondly') and 'so' appears in nearly every sentence. |
| Lexical Resource | Rich topical lexis used naturally: 'corrodes shared trust', 'coordinated fake accounts', 'media-literate public', 'deprive fake news of its megaphone'. | Adequate range with repetition ('fake news', 'problem', 'people') and some imprecision ('delete them quickly', 'the real news'); few genuine collocations. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Long, controlled sentences with embedded lists, non-finite clauses and accurate punctuation; error-free throughout. | Mostly simple and compound sentences; errors like 'the society', 'delete them' (for uncountable news) and comma splices appear but rarely impede understanding. |
Examiner's note
Both essays choose the same sensible content - health misinformation, collapsing trust, platform checks, media literacy - which shows that ideas alone do not separate Band 6.5 from Band 9. The difference is execution: the Band 9 essay organises the same material into a two-level argument where every solution answers a named harm, expressed in precise collocations and faultless complex grammar. The Band 6.5 essay tells us what should happen; the Band 9 essay shows why it would work.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| misinformation | false or misleading information, spread with or without intent to deceive |
| to corrode trust | to gradually destroy confidence in people or institutions |
| polarised debate | public discussion split into two extreme, opposing camps |
| to amplify content | to make a message reach far more people, as algorithms do |
| coordinated fake accounts | networks of false profiles working together to push a message |
| platform accountability | holding social media companies responsible for what they spread |
| media literacy | the ability to evaluate sources and spot manipulation in media |
| a viral rumour | an unverified story that spreads extremely fast online |
| a willing carrier | a person who passes something on, here a false story |
| negligence | failure to take proper care over something one is responsible for |
Frequently asked questions
Can I use examples like the pandemic in my essay?
Yes - widely known public events are ideal examples because they need no invented detail. Keep the reference general ('people refused proven medical treatments') rather than citing specific statistics you cannot verify.
Is it enough to blame social media companies in the solutions paragraph?
One actor is rarely enough for a well-developed answer. Strong essays combine at least two levels of solution - for instance regulation of platforms plus education of users - and explain how each one attacks a problem raised earlier.
Should I define 'fake news' in the introduction?
A formal definition is unnecessary and wastes words. A brief paraphrase of the prompt - 'false information and misleading stories online' - shows the examiner you understand the topic, which is all that is required.