Here's the thing: most students lose 2 to 3 band points on Task 2 not because their grammar is weak, but because their examples are weak.
You'll sit down, write a perfectly coherent essay, throw in some sophisticated vocabulary, and still land a 6.5 instead of a 7. The examiner reads your introduction and thinks, "Good start." Then they hit your body paragraphs and find vague statements with no real proof. No concrete details. No evidence that actually backs up your argument.
This is where most students stumble. They confuse having an opinion with having evidence. Band 7 isn't about having a smart idea. It's about backing that idea up with specific, relevant, real-world examples that make the examiner think, "Yeah, that actually proves the point."
This guide shows you exactly what Band 7 examples look like, how to spot weak ones before you submit, and how to build examples that examiners actually reward.
The IELTS band descriptors for Writing Task 2 are crystal clear on this. At Band 7, you need to "select and develop ideas clearly with relevant, extended and well-supported examples." Not just any examples. Extended. Well-supported. Relevant.
Compare that to Band 6, which says you use "relevant examples" but they're often "limited in extent or clarity." You could pick the right example but execute it poorly.
Here's what matters: examiners spend roughly 20 minutes reading and scoring your Task 2 essay. Your examples fill most of those paragraphs. If your examples are thin, vague, or disconnected from your argument, you'll max out at Band 6.5. If they're specific, detailed, and clearly tied to your point, Band 7 becomes realistic.
Task Response accounts for 25% of your Writing band score. Examples ARE Task Response.
Let's look at actual examples from real IELTS essays and see where things go wrong. Use this checker approach on your own writing.
Question: "Some people think that teenagers should not use social media. To what extent do you agree or disagree?"
Weak (Band 5-6): "Social media is bad for teenagers because it causes mental health problems. Many young people suffer from depression and anxiety. This is a serious issue in modern society."
What's wrong? You've made an assertion but given no real evidence. No numbers. No specifics. No scenario the examiner can picture.
Strong (Band 7): "Research from the American Psychological Association shows that teenagers spending over three hours daily on social media are significantly more likely to develop depression and anxiety. A 16-year-old constantly exposed to filtered images of peers' lives may develop a distorted self-image, leading to social comparison and diminished self-esteem—a documented outcome of heavy platform use."
The difference? Specific numbers (three hours), a named source (APA), a concrete age (16-year-old), and a causal chain you can trace. The examiner reads this and sees depth, not slogans.
Question: "Remote work is becoming more common. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion. Is this a positive or negative development?"
Weak (Band 5-6): "Remote work saves time. Employees don't have to commute, which is good. This saves time every day. Saving time allows them to be more productive. More productivity is beneficial for companies."
You're just circling the same idea. It reads like padding. No scenario. No numbers. No sense of how this works in practice.
Strong (Band 7): "A software developer in London who previously spent 90 minutes commuting daily can now start work at 8 a.m. instead of 6:30 a.m., recovering 7.5 hours per week. Studies show this translates to a 15 to 20 percent increase in output quality for knowledge workers, directly benefiting employers even as stress levels drop."
Now there's a specific person (software developer), location (London), time investments (90 minutes, 7.5 hours per week), and measurable impact (15-20% quality increase). The examiner sees depth.
Question: "Some believe that governments should invest in renewable energy. Do you agree or disagree?"
Weak (Band 5-6): "If countries invested in renewable energy, they could reduce pollution and save money. This would be better for the environment. Renewable energy is cleaner than fossil fuels."
You're stuck in hypothetical land with no proof. Just speculation.
Strong (Band 7): "Denmark demonstrates this clearly. Since 2000, the country invested heavily in wind energy and now generates 80 percent of its electricity from renewables while reducing carbon emissions by 40 percent. Critically, it maintains one of Europe's lowest electricity costs. This proves renewable investment doesn't require economic sacrifice—a misconception that prevents many governments from acting."
Concrete country (Denmark), specific timeline (since 2000), exact percentages (80%, 40%), measurable outcome (low electricity costs), and a connection back to your argument. That's evidence.
Quick check: Does your example include specificity, detail, relevance, measurable outcomes, and a clear connection back to your claim? If you're missing two or more, rewrite it.
Strong narrative examples don't need to hit all five every time, but aim for most of them. This is what separates Band 6 essays from Band 7.
Real talk: Aim for 2 to 3 extended examples per body paragraph, not 5 or 6 quick mentions. Depth beats breadth.
You've written your essay. You've got 15-20 minutes left on the clock. Use this checklist to spot weak examples and fix them before submitting.
For each example, ask yourself:
If you answer "no" to more than one, rewrite that section. You don't need more words. You need specificity.
Real edit example: Original: "Many companies now allow flexible working. This helps employees balance work and life." Rewritten: "Tech companies like Google and Microsoft piloted four-day work weeks, reducing burnout-related turnover by 18 percent while maintaining output levels, proving flexibility benefits workers and employers equally."
Same core idea. Similar length. But now it's Band 7 specific.
Your examples should come from real knowledge, general knowledge, or credible research you actually know. Don't invent.
Safe sources: News articles you've read, historical events you know, scientific studies you've encountered, statistics from organizations like the WHO or UN, company case studies you're familiar with, general observations about your own region.
Risky moves: Making up statistics, inventing percentages, or claiming a study exists when you've never read it. Examiners spot fabrication. If they suspect it, you lose marks on Task Response and Lexical Resource.
Safe rule: if you can't roughly recall where you learned it, don't use it as hard fact. You can say "Research suggests" or "Studies have shown" if you genuinely know it's true, but never fabricate numbers.
When in doubt: "China has invested roughly 300 billion dollars in renewable energy over the past decade" is safer than an exact figure you half-remember. The word "roughly" signals honesty. Examiners respond to that.
Not all IELTS Task 2 essays reward examples the same way.
Opinion essays: Use examples that show real consequences or proof of your stance. Your examples should demonstrate why you're right.
Discussion essays (both sides): Use one well-developed example for the first perspective and another for the second. Balance matters. Don't spend 150 words developing one side and 30 on the other.
Problem-solution essays: Use one example showing the problem in action (proving it's real), then an example of a solution working elsewhere (proof of viability). This structure naturally calls for two types of examples.
Advantages-disadvantages essays: Mirror your structure. One solid advantage example plus one solid disadvantage example, both detailed. Then conclude which outweighs which.
Match your example type to your question type. Don't throw generic examples at every essay.
Here's a structure that works across most Task 2 writing:
"Take [specific example: country/person/company]. [Specific context or background]. For instance, [detailed scenario with numbers or specifics]. This resulted in [measurable outcome]. This demonstrates that [connection back to your argument]."
In action: "Take Singapore, a city-state with limited natural resources. In 1965, it began investing in education and technology rather than raw materials. The government funded technical institutes that trained 40,000 workers annually in semiconductor manufacturing and finance. Within three decades, Singapore became a global hub for both industries, and per capita GDP rose from $428 to over $37,000. This demonstrates that education investment, even without natural resources, can drive long-term economic growth."
That's one paragraph. It hits all five elements. Two or three of these per body paragraph lands you Band 7 on Task Response.
If you're writing a discussion essay or opinion essay with opposing views, your counterargument examples matter as much as your main ones. Our guide on counterarguments and evidence walks through how to present opposing examples with the same rigor you'd use for supporting ones. The difference between Band 6 and Band 7 often comes down to how fairly you represent the other side.
The best way to strengthen your narrative examples is to see them checked by someone trained on Band 7 essays. Use our free IELTS writing checker to get instant feedback on whether your examples hit the Band 7 standard for specificity, relevance, and measurable outcomes. It'll tell you exactly where your evidence needs strengthening.
Paste your Task 2 response and get instant feedback on Task Response, your examples' strength, and what you need to change to reach Band 7.
Free IELTS Writing Checker