IELTS · Guide 11 · 10 min read
IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answers: opinion essay on remote work
An IELTS Task 2 opinion essay on working from home, with three sample answers at bands 8, 6.5 and 5 and commentary on all four criteria.
How to use this worked session
This page takes one opinion question ("To what extent do you agree or disagree?") and shows three answers at different levels, with comments on what lifted or limited each one. To get the most from it, write your own answer first: give yourself 40 minutes and aim for at least 250 words. Then read the three responses and the commentary, and use the checklist at the end to judge your own essay.
The task
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Many companies now allow staff to work from home for some or all of the week. Some people say this arrangement benefits both employees and employers.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Explain your view with reasons and relevant examples. Write at least 250 words.
What the question is really asking
- It is an opinion question, so you need a clear position and you must keep it to the end.
- There are two groups in the statement: employees and employers. A full answer says something about both.
- "To what extent" allows a partial position, such as agreeing with conditions, as long as you state it clearly.
Strong response (around band 8)
Over the past decade, working from home has moved from a rare privilege to a normal arrangement in many offices. I largely agree that it can benefit both sides, but only when it is part of a mixed pattern rather than a complete replacement for the workplace. For employees, the most obvious gain is time. Someone who used to spend ninety minutes a day commuting recovers more than seven hours a week, which can be spent on rest, family or exercise. This flexibility also widens access to work: a parent with young children or a person with a disability may be able to hold a demanding job that a rigid office schedule would rule out. Employers, in turn, can recruit from a far larger pool of applicants, since the best candidate no longer needs to live within reach of a single building. Many firms have also reduced their spending on office space, which is often one of their largest fixed costs. However, these advantages are not automatic. Newer staff in particular learn a great deal by overhearing how experienced colleagues handle problems, and this informal learning is difficult to reproduce on a video call. Teams that never meet can also become isolated, and people who feel disconnected from their organisation are more likely to leave. For employers, high staff turnover can quickly cancel out any savings on rent. For this reason, I believe the strongest arrangement is a hybrid one, in which staff spend two or three days together for meetings, training and collaborative work, and do focused tasks at home. In this way, the benefits of flexibility are kept while the costs of isolation are limited. In conclusion, remote working can serve both employees and employers well, but its value depends on how it is organised. A balanced pattern, rather than working from home full time, is most likely to benefit everyone.
Commentary
- Task Response: The position ("largely agree ... but only when it is part of a mixed pattern") appears in the first paragraph and is still the same in the last. Both employees and employers are covered, and each point is pushed one step further: time saved becomes "seven hours a week", and lower rent is weighed against the cost of staff leaving. The limits on the writer's agreement are explained, not just mentioned.
- Coherence and Cohesion: Each paragraph has one job: benefits, limits, the writer's solution, conclusion. Linking is mostly quiet and accurate ("in turn", "However", "For this reason", "In this way"), and pronouns such as "this informal learning" point back clearly. The reader never has to work out how one idea connects to the next.
- Lexical Resource: Precise, natural combinations such as "widens access to work", "a larger pool of applicants", "fixed costs" and "staff turnover" show topic vocabulary used correctly. Words are chosen for accuracy rather than to impress, and there are no noticeable errors in word choice or spelling.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: A good mix of relative clauses ("which can be spent ..."), a reduced clause, passives and complex sentences with "since" and "in which". The sentences vary in length, and errors are hard to find.
What kept it from the top band: the second paragraph packs four separate points together; a slightly more selective approach, developing two of them more fully, would read even more confidently.
Pass-level response (around band 6.5)
Nowadays, a lot of companies let their workers work from home some days or every day. In my opinion, I mostly agree that this is good for both employees and employers, although there are some problems. Firstly, working from home is good for employees because they do not need to travel to the office. Travelling every day takes a lot of time and money, especially in big cities where there is heavy traffic. If people work at home, they can use this time to relax or spend with their family, so they will be happier. Also, workers can organise their day in a more flexible way, for example they can start early and finish early. Secondly, employers can also get benefits. For example, they do not need a big office, so they can save money on rent and electricity. Moreover, some research shows that people who work from home are more productive, because there are less distractions than in a busy office. As a result, the company can make more profit. On the other hand, there are some disadvantages. Some employees feel lonely when they work at home all the time, and it can be difficult to communicate with colleagues. Furthermore, managers cannot see what their staffs are doing, so some workers may not work hard. However, I think these problems can be solved by using online meeting and by asking staff to come to the office one or two days a week. In conclusion, I believe that working from home has more advantages than disadvantages for both employees and employers. Although there are some problems like loneliness, companies can reduce them with good planning.
Commentary
- Task Response: The essay answers the question and gives a position ("mostly agree") that stays consistent. Both groups are covered. The ideas are relevant but fairly predictable, and several are stated and then left: "the company can make more profit" ends the paragraph without explaining why it matters. "Some research shows" is vague support.
- Coherence and Cohesion: The structure is clear and easy to follow. However, the linking is mechanical: "Firstly", "Secondly", "Moreover", "As a result", "On the other hand", "Furthermore", "However" sit at the start of sentences almost in a row. "In my opinion, I mostly agree" doubles up the same idea.
- Lexical Resource: Vocabulary is adequate for the topic ("heavy traffic", "productive", "flexible way") but general, with phrases such as "get benefits", "good for" and "a lot of" repeated. There are some errors in word form and countability: "less distractions", "their staffs", "using online meeting".
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: There is some variety, including conditionals and relative clauses, and most sentences are correct. Errors are noticeable but do not block meaning. The run-on "in a more flexible way, for example they can start early" needs a full stop or a dash.
What would lift it: develop two points more deeply instead of listing several, replace mechanical linkers with references back to earlier ideas, and fix the countable/uncountable errors.
Weaker response (around band 5)
In this days, many company allow the workers to work in home. Some people think it is good for employee and employer. I am agree with this opinion and I will explain why in this essay. First, work from home is very good for employee. They don't need go to the office every day. In my country the traffic is very bad and people waste many time in the bus. When they stay at home they can sleep more and they are not tired. Also they can eat home food which is more healthy and cheap. Second, it is good for the employer also. The company can save money. Because they don't need big office and they don't need pay for electricity. The company have more money and they can give more salary to workers. This is good for everybody. But some people say work from home is not good. Because the workers can be lazy at home and they watch TV and they don't work. Also the children make noise and it is difficult to working. I think this is true for some people but not for all people. If the person is responsible he will work good at home. In my opinion, technology is very important today and many people use computer and internet in every job. So the company must to use the technology. In conclusion, I agree that work from home is good for employee and employer. Because they save time and money and they are more happy.
Commentary
- Task Response: There is a position (agree), and both groups are mentioned, so the task is addressed. But the ideas are thin and partly off the point: "eat home food" and "give more salary" are not developed, and the fourth paragraph about technology in general does not answer the question at all. The essay meets the word count only because of this padding.
- Coherence and Cohesion: Paragraphs exist and follow a basic order, but the linking is limited to "First", "Second", "Also", "But" and "Because". "Because" is repeatedly used to start a sentence that has no main clause, which breaks the flow.
- Lexical Resource: The range is narrow ("good" appears six times), and there are frequent errors in word choice and form: "In this days", "work in home", "many time", "more healthy", "work good". The meaning is still mostly clear.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Almost all sentences are simple, joined with "and". Errors are frequent: "I am agree", "don't need go", "must to use", "The company have", "difficult to working". Sentence fragments starting with "Because" appear three times.
What would lift it: cut the off-topic paragraph and use the space to explain one idea properly, check verb patterns ("need to go", "must use"), and combine short sentences with "which", "although" and "if".
The three answers side by side
| Feature | Band 8 | Band 6.5 | Band 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Clear, qualified, consistent | Clear and consistent | Present but simple |
| Development | Each point explained and weighed | Points stated, some left hanging | Thin, with an off-topic paragraph |
| Linking | Natural and varied | Clear but mechanical | Basic and often faulty |
| Vocabulary | Precise topic phrases | Adequate, some errors | Narrow, frequent errors |
| Grammar | Wide range, very accurate | Some range, noticeable slips | Mostly simple, many errors |
Self-check checklist
Ask these questions of your own essay:
- Can a reader find my position in the introduction, and is it the same in the conclusion?
- Have I said something about both employees and employers?
- Does each body paragraph have one main idea, explained with a reason and an example?
- Did I include anything that does not answer this exact question?
- Do my linking words connect ideas, or do they just start sentences?
- Have I checked verb patterns such as "need to", "must + verb" and "agree" (not "am agree")?
- Have I checked countable and uncountable nouns ("fewer distractions", "staff", "advice")?
- Is my essay at least 250 words, without padding?
About the band levels
The band levels on this page are our own estimates for practice purposes. They are not official scores and are not produced or endorsed by any IELTS partner. Only a certified examiner marking a real test can give you an official band.