Energy, and what we choose to fund
A Task 1 line-graph report and a Task 2 opinion essay, written, self-assessed, and shown beside the Band 7.5+ models, with the moves that earn the marks.
How to use this. Write both tasks in the boxes below, Task 1 in twenty minutes, Task 2 in forty, as in the real test. When you have finished, open Self-assessment to mark your own work against the four criteria, then compare it with the Band 7.5+ models and the notes on exactly what lifts a response up a band. You can download a copy of everything to keep. For a person to mark your writing against the criteria, the first lesson includes one marked Task 2.
Describe the line graph.
Recommended 20 minutes · at least 150 words
The line graph below shows the share of electricity generation from four sources, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewables, in Germany between 2005 and 2024.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write the essay.
Recommended 40 minutes · at least 250 words · carries twice the marks
In many developed countries, a growing share of public research funding is directed towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics, whilst the arts and humanities receive diminishing support. Some argue this shift is justified, as the sciences contribute more directly to economic growth and technological progress. Others contend that the arts and humanities are essential to a thoughtful, creative and cohesive society, and deserve comparable investment.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Mark your own work.
Be honest with yourself against the four criteria, the same four an examiner uses. Then read the model answers and the notes on exactly what moves a response up a band.
Task Response
Coherence & Cohesion
Lexical Resource
Grammatical Range & Accuracy
The Band 7.5+ models, and what earns the marks
What the task wants. Four lines across twenty years. The mark is not in describing every point but in seeing the shape: two sources move dramatically and cross, two barely move. A Band 5 lists each line in turn; a Band 7.5 leads with the crossover and groups the rest underneath it.
The target · Band 7.5+ · modelThe line graph illustrates how the proportion of Germany’s electricity drawn from coal, nuclear power, natural gas and renewables changed between 2005 and 2024. Overall, the most striking development was a reversal of fortunes between coal and renewables: coal, by far the largest source at the outset, was overtaken by renewables, which grew from a minor contributor into the dominant one. Natural gas, by contrast, remained broadly flat throughout. In 2005, coal accounted for 47% of generation, with nuclear supplying roughly a quarter (26%) and renewables just 10%. Over the following two decades renewables climbed steadily, reaching 24% by 2015 before surging to 52% in 2024, more than a fivefold increase. Coal moved in the opposite direction, slipping gently to 42% by 2015 and then falling sharply to 22%. Nuclear declined throughout, from 26% to a mere 5%, whilst natural gas fluctuated only narrowly, between 14% and 18%, ending the period much as it began.
Why it scores. A genuine overview stated up front (the coal–renewables reversal), grouping by behaviour rather than a line-by-line walk, accurate figures used as evidence rather than a recitation, and a controlled range of movement verbs (overtaken, climbed, surged, slipping, fell, fluctuated) with the right prepositions throughout.
Where weaker responses lose marks. No overview, or one buried at the end; describing all four lines at the same flat level of detail so the reader cannot tell the story from the noise; repeating increased and decreased with no variation; and figure slips, rose at 52% for rose to 52%, 52 percents, a missing percentage sign, that quietly cap Grammatical Range and Accuracy.
What the task wants. An agree or disagree prompt asks for a position and a defence of it. The strongest answers do not pretend the other side has no case; they concede its strongest point and then explain why, on balance, their own position holds. A partial agreement is legitimate, provided the balance is made explicit and held to the end.
The target · Band 7.5+ · model paragraphsIntroduction, stating the position. It is increasingly common for governments to channel research funding towards the sciences at the expense of the arts and humanities, on the grounds that the former drives growth more directly. While I accept that scientific research has clear and measurable economic value, I disagree that this justifies starving the humanities of comparable support, for a society needs more than the things its engineers can build.
Conceding the opposing case before answering it. The economic argument is not without force. Investment in science and engineering yields patents, industries and jobs whose returns can be counted, whereas the value of a history department or a school of music resists such accounting. Faced with finite budgets, a government can be forgiven for funding what most visibly repays the investment. Yet this reasoning mistakes what is easily measured for what is genuinely valuable. The humanities train the judgement, the language and the historical memory on which a functioning democracy depends, and a country that produces brilliant technology but no one able to think critically about how it should be used has made a poor bargain.
Conclusion, restating the position. In conclusion, although the economic case for prioritising the sciences is understandable, I believe the arts and humanities deserve investment on a comparable footing. The two are not rivals but complements: the first equips a society to act, the second to decide wisely what is worth doing.
Why it scores. The position is declared in the introduction and never wavers; the opposing view is given its strongest form before being answered, which reads as confidence rather than evasion; the reasoning runs as a chain (measurable → mismeasured → the cost of mismeasuring) rather than a list; and the conclusion lands the position cleanly without introducing anything new.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Sitting on the fence with no real position; agreeing in the introduction and then drifting; listing reasons without developing any; and the common Task 2 ceiling, comma splices joining two full sentences with only a comma, which holds an otherwise able essay at 6.5 on accuracy.
These are model answers I wrote for this paper, shown with the criterion marks they would earn and the reasons. The first lesson includes one of your own Task 2s, marked the same way against the four criteria and returned annotated, line by line.
Take your work with you.
Download your two answers alongside the target models, so you can revise them later or bring them to a lesson.
Next, online: Paper 03, pie charts and a problem-and-solution essay · or back to Paper 01.
Send a task. Get it back marked.
A paper tells you the question. It can’t tell you why your answer sits at 6.5.
Write your response to the Task 2 above and send it to me. I’ll mark it in detail against the four assessment criteria and return it to you annotated, line by line, so you can see exactly where the band is sitting and what is holding it down. Written work is handled this way around the lessons, sent over and returned marked between sessions, which keeps the fifty minutes themselves free for speaking. The first lesson is a full assessment. Regular lessons are £20 for fifty minutes, one to one, in proper British English.