Let me be direct. Most students fail IELTS discussion essays because they don't actually discuss anything. They present View A in one paragraph, View B in another, and stop. The examiner reads it thinking: "Okay, you can summarize. Where's the analysis?"
Here's what I've learned after 10 years of teaching IELTS: a discussion essay isn't two separate ideas glued together. It's an argument where you engage with opposing positions, weigh them against each other, and prove you can think critically. That's the difference between Band 7 and Band 8. I've watched students jump from Band 6 to Band 7.5 just by mastering one principle: you don't discuss both views equally. You evaluate them.
First, let's kill a misconception. The IELTS band descriptors for Task Response say you need to present a clear position and support your ideas. That's non-negotiable.
A discussion essay is not about sitting on the fence. You need to take a stand. You can lean toward one view, agree with both partially, or support one while acknowledging the other's validity. But by the end, your position has to be clear.
Look at your actual task instructions. They say "discuss both views and give your own opinion." That's three separate things, not two. Most students miss this.
Real talk: Examiners are testing whether you can analyze multiple angles of an argument. That's Band 7+ territory. Fence-sitting gets you Band 6 at best, and it'll cost you marks on Task Response.
Most discussion essays collapse because of weak structure. Students do intro, View A paragraph, View B paragraph, conclusion. Done. No synthesis. No evaluation.
This is the structure I teach, and it works:
Why this works: by paragraph 2, the examiner already knows you can present ideas. Now they want to see evaluation. That's where you get marked up.
I see this constantly. A student writes something like this:
Weak: "Some people believe social media is beneficial because it connects people. Other people believe it is harmful because it causes addiction. Both views have merit."
This is lazy writing. You're just stating facts with no analysis. Where's the critical thinking? The examiner scores you on four things: Task Response, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range. This paragraph does almost nothing for any of them.
Now watch what actually discussing both views looks like:
Strong: "While proponents argue that social media enables meaningful global connections, this benefit primarily serves users with adequate digital literacy and stable internet access. The addiction problem, by contrast, affects a far broader demographic, including teenagers whose prefrontal cortex is still developing. This scope difference suggests that the documented harms outweigh the connection benefits, especially for vulnerable populations."
What changed? You introduced nuance. You compared the scope of each effect. You drew a conclusion that goes beyond listing both sides. You showed thinking. That's Band 7 minimum.
So how do you write analysis instead of just summarizing both sides? Here are three concrete moves.
Don't present View B as fact. Present it, then test its limits:
Strong: "Some argue that remote work increases productivity because employees control their environment. However, this assumes all workers have access to suitable home spaces and reliable internet. In developing countries, this assumption collapses entirely, making the argument less universal than it initially appears."
You're not dismissing the view. You're exposing where it breaks down. That's sophisticated.
Swap neutral language for phrases that show you're weighing positions:
These phrases tell the examiner: I'm not listing ideas. I'm comparing them.
Weak: "Some people say university is important. Others say practical training is important. Both have advantages."
Strong: "University graduates earn approximately 30% more over their lifetimes, suggesting academic credentials yield sustained financial benefits. However, technical training creates immediate employability; trainees secure work within 6-12 months while graduates wait 3-4 years. For economically disadvantaged students, this gap makes practical training the more realistic path to financial stability."
Numbers. Specificity. Direct comparison. The examiner sees you thinking in real time, not just repeating arguments.
Your introduction should acknowledge both views but signal where you stand. Don't bury your position until the conclusion. That creates a disjointed essay that confuses the reader.
Weak: "This essay will discuss both sides of whether schools should teach practical skills or academic subjects. Both views are important and will be examined."
Strong: "Schools face pressure to prioritize either academic subjects or practical skills training. While both matter, schools should integrate practical skills into academic curricula rather than treating them as separate tracks. This approach maximizes outcomes for both employability and intellectual development."
The reader immediately knows your position. Your essay then becomes a defense of that position, not random exploration. Clarity like this directly boosts your Coherence & Cohesion score.
Key point: Don't reveal your full argument in the introduction. Just your stance. Let your body paragraphs do the heavy lifting with evidence.
This is critical. If you disagree with one view, don't dismiss it. That looks arrogant and loses marks on Task Response.
Instead, do this: acknowledge the view's strongest point, then show why it's ultimately insufficient.
Strong: "Those who support capital punishment argue it deters serious crime. Some research from the 1970s suggested a correlation between executions and lower homicide rates. However, modern criminology research with larger datasets finds no consistent deterrent effect across regions. Countries without capital punishment often have lower homicide rates than those with it, suggesting the deterrent hypothesis doesn't hold universally."
You haven't strawmanned the view. You've engaged with its actual logic and explained why the evidence doesn't support it at scale. That's intellectual honesty. Examiners reward it.
This is where most students lose marks. They write:
Weak: "In conclusion, both views have been discussed. Some people think one thing, and others think another. Both have advantages."
That's not a conclusion. That's wasting time. Your conclusion should reinforce your position and explain why your analysis matters.
Strong: "While both job security and personal fulfillment matter to workers, the evidence suggests fulfillment more directly impacts long-term performance and retention. Companies prioritizing employee satisfaction see 25% lower turnover rates. Therefore, businesses should view fulfillment not as a luxury but as a strategic necessity."
You've restated your position, referenced your evidence, and explained the implication. That's Band 7+ material.
Question: "Some people believe the best way to improve public health is to increase the number of sports facilities. Others believe this money should be spent treating existing diseases in hospitals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion."
Here's how you'd approach it:
Introduction strategy: Acknowledge both views. Hint that prevention may be more cost-effective than treatment, but note context matters. Signal your position without revealing all your evidence.
Paragraph 1 (first view): Present the sports facilities argument with real supporting evidence. Lower obesity rates in countries with accessible sports infrastructure. Reduced healthcare costs long-term. Include a specific example if you can.
Paragraph 2 (second view + evaluation): Present hospital treatment argument. Then compare. Treatment addresses symptoms after damage occurs. Prevention is cheaper at a population level but takes time to show results. For countries facing disease outbreaks, hospital funding becomes essential. This is where you weigh them.
Paragraph 3 (your position): Argue this is a false binary. Allocate 60% to prevention (sports facilities, education) and 40% to treatment (hospitals). Reference your earlier evidence about cost-effectiveness. This shows you've synthesized both views into something more nuanced.
Conclusion: Restate that prevention saves money long-term but requires ongoing commitment alongside treatment infrastructure.
That structure hits every band descriptor. Task Response (clear position), Coherence (logical flow with explicit comparisons), Lexical Resource (varied vocabulary), and Grammatical Range (complex sentences with subordination).
Time management: You have 40 minutes. Spend 5 minutes planning using this structure. Write for 30 minutes. Use the last 5 minutes to check grammar and fix obvious errors. Aim for 280-300 words per body paragraph. That keeps you in the recommended 250-400 word range without rushing. Use a band score calculator to estimate your likely score after practice.
Students often use weak transitions that hurt Coherence & Cohesion scores:
| Weak | Better |
|---|---|
| Also, the second view is... | In contrast to this perspective, the alternative argument emphasizes... |
| Both views are good. | Both views have merit, though one has broader practical implications. |
| I think that... | The evidence suggests that... / The stronger argument is... |
| So in conclusion... | Ultimately, / On balance, / Therefore, |
| This is important. | This distinction matters because... |
The difference looks small, but Band 7 uses precise, formal language. Band 6 sounds conversational. You're writing for an academic examiner, not a friend.
Should I split my IELTS essay 50/50 between both views? No. Allocate space based on where your analysis is strongest. If one view is clearly stronger with evidence, spend more words evaluating it. Both views need to appear meaningfully in your essay, but that doesn't mean equal word count. Quality of analysis matters more than equal distribution. Consider using a free essay grading tool to get feedback on whether your balance is working.
What if the