TechnologyDiscussion (Both Views + Opinion)
IELTS Essay: A Cashless Society (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 societies should move entirely to digital payments and abandon physical cash, while others think cash should be kept in use. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
How to approach a Discussion (Both Views + Opinion) question
A discussion question asks you to do two distinct things: present both views fairly, and give your own opinion. Devote one body paragraph to each view, then make sure your position is clear — either woven through or stated plainly in the conclusion. The classic mistake is discussing both sides but forgetting to give an opinion at all, which directly costs Task Response marks.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the cashless debate and signal a middle position — go largely digital but keep cash as a safeguard.
- 02Body 1: the case for going fully cashless — convenience, lower crime, transparent taxation.
- 03Body 2: the case for keeping cash, plus your opinion — inclusion of the unbanked and elderly, privacy, resilience when systems fail.
- 04Conclusion: digital should dominate, but abolishing cash entirely would harm the vulnerable and remove a vital backup.
Band 9 model answer
As card and phone payments become the norm, some argue that notes and coins should be retired altogether, while others insist cash must remain. Having weighed both positions, I side with keeping cash in circulation, even as digital payment rightly becomes the default.
Advocates of a fully cashless society make a persuasive case. Digital transactions are faster and cleaner for consumers and businesses alike, sparing shops the costs of counting, storing and transporting money. More significantly, electronic payments leave a trace: robberies become pointless when tills are empty, and tax evasion and money laundering grow far harder when every transaction is recorded. For governments, a cashless economy is a more transparent and ultimately more honest one.
Yet the counter-arguments are, to my mind, weightier. Millions of people — typically the elderly, the poor and those without bank accounts — still run their lives in cash, and abolishing it would effectively expel them from the economy overnight. That very traceability celebrated by reformers is also a loss: citizens surrender the ability to make a single purchase unobserved by banks, corporations or the state. Most practically of all, digital systems fail. A power cut, a cyberattack or a simple software fault can paralyse card networks for hours, and on such days cash is not a relic but critical infrastructure.
In conclusion, the efficiency and transparency of digital payments justify their dominance, but not a monopoly. Because physical money protects the vulnerable, preserves a measure of privacy and keeps commerce alive when technology stumbles, societies should modernise their payments without abandoning cash.
The same question at Band 6.5
In the modern world, many people pay for everything by card or mobile phone. Some people think we should stop using cash completely, but others believe cash is still necessary. This essay will discuss both opinions and then I will give my view.
On the one hand, there are many benefits of a cashless society. Paying by card is very fast and easy, and people do not need to carry a heavy wallet or count the coins. It is also safer, because if nobody has cash, the thieves cannot steal money in the street or rob the shops. In addition, the government can see all the payments, so it is difficult for criminals to hide their money or avoid paying the tax.
On the other hand, some people say that cash should not disappear. The main reason is that many old people do not know how to use the new technology, and poor people sometimes do not have a bank account. If cash is stopped, these people cannot buy anything. Another reason is that technology sometimes has problems. For example, if the internet stops working or there is no electricity, nobody can pay in the shops, and this can make a big chaos.
In my opinion, I agree more with the second view. Digital payment is very useful and most people can use it every day, but the society should keep the cash also, because it is important for old people and for emergency situations. In conclusion, both sides have good arguments, but cash should stay with us for now.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Presents both views with genuine substance, then argues an integrated opinion — digital as default, cash as safeguard — that goes beyond simply picking a side. | Covers both views and gives a clear opinion, but each argument stops after one supporting sentence and the opinion largely repeats the second view. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Arguments escalate within paragraphs ('More significantly', 'Most practically of all') so each view builds to its strongest point. | Standard discussion skeleton with clear paragraphs, but cohesion is limited to stock frames ('On the one hand', 'Another reason is'). |
| Lexical Resource | Sophisticated and precise: 'leave a trace', 'expel them from the economy', 'not a relic but critical infrastructure'. | Everyday vocabulary that communicates but rarely impresses; slips such as 'make a big chaos' and repeated 'people', 'money', 'cash'. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Varied complex structures — conditionals, appositives, balanced contrasts — used with full accuracy. | Simple structures are sound, but complex attempts are rare and small errors persist ('avoid paying the tax', 'keep the cash also'). |
Examiner's note
This is a well-matched pair on structure — both do exactly what a discussion question asks — so it isolates what actually separates Band 6.5 from Band 9: depth and language. The Band 9 finds the strongest version of each side (traceability as both virtue and cost) and coins memorable phrases; the Band 6.5 states sensible ideas in plain words and leaves them undeveloped. Candidates stuck at 6.5 should study how each Band 9 argument gets two to three sentences of development, not one.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| to retire something | to withdraw something from use permanently |
| to leave a trace | to create a record that can be followed later |
| money laundering | disguising illegally obtained money as legitimate |
| the unbanked | people who have no access to a bank account |
| traceability | the quality of being recordable and trackable |
| unobserved | without being watched or recorded |
| to paralyse a network | to stop a system from functioning completely |
| critical infrastructure | systems a society cannot function without |
| a monopoly | total control by a single option or provider |
Frequently asked questions
Where should my opinion appear in a discussion essay?
Signal it in the introduction, let it colour the body paragraph you agree with, and state it plainly in the conclusion. The one fatal error is discussing both views and never giving an opinion at all — that directly caps Task Response.
Can my opinion combine both views?
Yes, and it often produces the strongest essays — like 'digital by default, cash as backup' here. A combined position is fine as long as it is definite; what scores poorly is vagueness, not nuance.
Should both body paragraphs be the same length?
Roughly, yes — both views must be genuinely discussed. It is acceptable for the paragraph carrying your own view to be somewhat fuller, but a one-sentence treatment of the other side does not count as discussing it.