Task 2 is two-thirds of your Writing band, and it is won by three decisions made before you write: a clear position, two ideas you can actually extend, and a fixed development pattern inside each paragraph. This lesson installs that sequence — and shows precisely why a memorised structure cannot take you past band 6.
Decision 1: position in the introduction, not the conclusion
The examiner should know your answer by the end of your first paragraph. "Position" does not require an extreme; it requires clarity:
Question: Some people think it is more important to maintain old buildings than to replace them with new ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Clear: I largely agree, although I believe protection should be reserved for buildings of genuine historical value rather than everything old.
A position like this is one sentence, it is nuanced, and every paragraph that follows can serve it. What kills Task Response is the essay that agrees in paragraph two, disagrees in paragraph three, and announces "it depends" at the end. That reads as no position at all.
Introduction formula, two sentences: paraphrase the question's topic in your own words + state your position. No "nowadays with the development of society," no memorised throat-clearing — the examiner recognises filler instantly and credits none of it.
Decision 2: two ideas you can extend beat four you can only mention
Each body paragraph carries exactly one idea. Two body paragraphs, two ideas. The selection test is not "is this idea impressive?" but two humbler questions:
- Can I explain it for three more sentences? If the idea is one sentence deep, it will die in the paragraph.
- Can I say it accurately in English I control? A brilliant idea you cannot express scores lower than a plain idea you can. Choose ideas at the level of your English, not the level of your ambition.
This is the quiet skill of Task 2: idea selection is a language decision. "Old buildings attract tourism revenue" is easy to extend in controlled English. "Old buildings constitute an irreplaceable palimpsest of civic memory" is a trap you set for yourself.
Decision 3: development = explain → example → consequence
Inside every body paragraph, after the topic sentence, run the same three-step chain:
| Step | What it does | Sounds like |
|---|---|---|
| Explain | Why is the topic sentence true? What is the mechanism? | This is because... In practice, this means... |
| Example | One concrete case — real, specific, yours | In my city, for instance... A clear case is... |
| Consequence | What follows? Why does it matter for the question? | As a result... This suggests that... |
Worked, on the old-buildings question:
Topic sentence: The strongest reason for preserving historic buildings is economic rather than sentimental. Explain: Districts with intact old architecture draw visitors in a way that new construction rarely does, and those visitors support hotels, restaurants and local jobs. Example: In my hometown, the restored nineteenth-century market quarter now attracts more weekend visitors than the modern shopping centre built at twice the cost. Consequence: Demolishing such buildings therefore destroys not just heritage but a permanent source of income that a new office block cannot replace.
Four sentences, one idea, fully developed. Notice the grammar is unspectacular — one relative clause, one comparison, one therefore. Development depth is a Task Response and Coherence score; it never required difficult grammar.
Why band 6 is the template ceiling
Templates promise a shortcut: memorise the skeleton, insert the topic. Here is why the ceiling is real, dial by dial:
Examiners are trained to spot memorised language — and the scripts they read all day make template phrases glow. Memorised stretches are discounted, so your Lexical and Grammar scores rest only on the sentences you actually produced, now surrounded by suspiciously fluent boilerplate.
Task Response cannot rise on generic ideas. The template gives you "this improves the economy / this harms society" — sentences that fit every question and therefore answer none. TR band 7 requires ideas developed for this question. A template has never met this question.
Coherence becomes hollow. Template linking (Moreover... Furthermore... In a nutshell) is exactly the "mechanical cohesion" the band 6 descriptor describes. The structure is visible, but nothing inside it connects.
A template essay with correct grammar lands at 6.0 with remarkable consistency: adequate structure, generic response, discounted language. The three decisions in this lesson are not slower than a template — position, two extendable ideas, and the explain→example→consequence chain take the same five minutes of planning. They are simply yours, which is the only thing the top of each dial pays for.
Your drill (20 minutes)
- Pick one real Task 2 from this season's reported questions — recent sittings favour concrete social topics: urban development, packaging and the environment, how children should be raised.
- Five minutes, plan only: one-sentence position, two topic sentences, and under each a three-word note for explain / example / consequence.
- Write one body paragraph with the four-sentence chain. Then check it: does the example actually come from your knowledge or life? Could the paragraph be pasted under a different question? If yes, the idea is generic — sharpen it.
- Browse the recall wall and repeat the five-minute planning step (not the writing) on two more current questions. Planning is the skill; it compounds fastest when trained on live topics.