Common Mistakes: Writing Task 2

Task 2 mistakes are especially easy to overlook because they often coexist with genuinely strong grammar and vocabulary — a fluent, accurate essay can still score poorly on Task Response if it answers the wrong question, structures itself incorrectly for the prompt type, or runs out of time before reaching a conclusion. Because these are structural and procedural failures rather than language failures, they are worth a dedicated review pass of their own, since eliminating them is often the fastest available way to move up a band, independent of any further vocabulary study.

Answering the topic generally rather than the specific question asked is the most fundamental of these errors. A prompt asking "to what extent do you agree that social media has damaged real-world friendships" requires a clear position on that specific spectrum of agreement, not a general essay about social media's pros and cons that never actually commits to a stance on the extent of agreement. The fix is to identify the precise question type — opinion, discussion, problem-solution, or advantages-disadvantages — and to restate its specific demand to yourself in one sentence before planning any paragraphs.

Writing the wrong essay structure for the prompt type follows directly from that first mistake and compounds it. Treating a "discuss both views and give your opinion" prompt as if it were a straightforward opinion essay — arguing for only one side throughout — fails to fulfil the discussion the prompt specifically required, and this costs Task Response marks even in an otherwise well-written essay, because the structure itself doesn't match what was actually asked. The fix is to memorise the handful of standard structures matched to each prompt type in advance, so the correct shape is chosen automatically once the prompt type is identified.

Not fully addressing every part of a multi-part question is a related but distinct failure. A prompt that asks both "why has this trend occurred" and "is this a positive or negative development" requires a response to both questions, and an essay that spends four paragraphs on causes while only mentioning the positive-or-negative judgement in a single closing sentence has not actually completed the task, regardless of how well-developed the causes section is. The fix is to underline every distinct question within the prompt before planning, and to allocate genuine paragraph space to each one.

Giving one-sided treatment to a "discuss both views" prompt, developing one side fully while giving the opposing view only a token sentence, undermines the discussion structure the prompt specifically required. If a prompt asks you to discuss both the benefits and drawbacks of remote work, and the response spends three paragraphs on benefits and one sentence dismissing drawbacks before stating an opinion, the imbalance itself is penalised, independent of how well-argued the favoured side is. The fix is to plan roughly equal space and equal seriousness for both sides before writing, treating the balance itself as part of the task's requirement, not just the content.