An ageing nation, and how to unclog a city
A Task 1 pair of population pyramids (Japan, 1990 vs 2020) and a Task 2 discuss-both-views essay on urban traffic, 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 population pyramids.
Recommended 20 minutes · at least 150 words
The two population pyramids below show the age and sex structure of the population of Japan in 1990 and 2020. Each bar represents the proportion of the total population accounted for by males or females in a given ten-year age band.
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
Many large cities suffer from severe traffic congestion. Some people argue that the most effective solution is to invest heavily in public transport, building new metro lines, expanding bus networks and subsidising fares. Others believe a more direct approach is to make car ownership more expensive through higher fuel taxes, road tolls, congestion charges and parking levies.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
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. Two pyramids of the same population thirty years apart, so this is a comparison over time. The biggest trap is describing 1990 in full, then 2020 in full, with no comparison and no overview, or reading out all nine bands on each side. A Band 7.5 opens with the headline change (the population has aged), then compares the two years feature by feature: where the peak sits, how wide the base is, and what has happened at the top.
The target · Band 7.5+ · modelThe two pyramids compare the age and sex structure of Japan’s population in 1990 and 2020. Overall, the population aged markedly over the three decades: the largest cohorts moved up the chart, the youngest age groups shrank as a proportion of the total, and the share of elderly people, women in particular, grew considerably. In 1990 the structure was still broadly pyramidal. The biggest single group, for both sexes, was the 40 to 49 band, and the base was relatively wide, with the under-twenties making up a substantial proportion. The older cohorts then tapered steadily, and those aged 70 and above formed only a small share of the whole. By 2020 the shape had shifted upward. The peak had moved up a decade to the 50 to 59 band, while every group below 40 had contracted, leaving a noticeably narrower base. At the same time the upper bands had swollen: the combined proportion aged 70 and over was far greater than in 1990, and at these ages women clearly outnumbered men, most strikingly in the 80-plus group.
Why it scores. A single overview that names the real story (an ageing population), then a feature-by-feature comparison of the two years rather than two separate descriptions; the right register throughout (proportion and change language, the share of, contracted, outnumbered); and key features selected as evidence rather than every band listed.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Describing 1990 and 2020 in separate blocks with no comparison; giving no overview; listing all nine bands on each side with equal weight; and figure slips, the number of old people raised, woman are more than man, 70 years up, that quietly cap accuracy.
What the task wants. A discuss-both-views essay needs three things: a fair account of view one (invest in public transport), a fair account of view two (price car use up), and a clear opinion of your own. The commonest trap is summarising both sides and then dodging the question; the rubric explicitly requires a position. A strong answer treats both views with comparable depth, then takes a clear, defensible stance, ideally a qualified one, stated in the introduction and reaffirmed at the end.
The target · Band 7.5+ · model paragraphsIntroduction. Traffic congestion blights many large cities, and there is debate over whether the remedy lies in expanding public transport or in making private car use more expensive. This essay will consider both approaches before arguing that, while pricing measures are the more powerful tool, they work only once a credible alternative is already in place.
View one, public transport. Those who favour investment argue, persuasively, that congestion is at root a problem of capacity. New metro lines, wider bus networks and subsidised fares give commuters a faster and cheaper alternative to the car, and where such systems are good, as in Vienna or Singapore, many people give up driving willingly. The weakness is cost and time: major transit projects take years and vast public funds to deliver, so the relief they bring is far from immediate.
View two, pricing. The opposing camp holds that demand must be curbed directly, through fuel taxes, road tolls, congestion charges and parking levies. London’s congestion charge is often cited as evidence that pricing can cut traffic quickly while raising revenue at the same time. The objection is fairness: such charges fall hardest on lower-income drivers, and where no decent alternative exists they punish people rather than offering them a genuine choice.
Opinion and conclusion. In my view the two are not rivals but stages of a single policy. Pricing is the sharper lever, yet imposing it before a reliable alternative exists is both unjust and politically doomed. The sensible sequence is to invest first, so that a good network is in place, and then to use charges to steer commuters towards it. On balance, therefore, I favour pricing as the decisive measure, provided it follows rather than precedes serious investment in public transport.
Why it scores. Both views given comparable depth and a fair best-case; a clear, qualified opinion stated up front and reaffirmed at the close; each side developed with a real example (Vienna, the London charge); and precise topic lexis (commuters, congestion charge, levies, deterrent, capacity) used accurately.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Summarising both views but giving no opinion; backing one side while barely addressing the other; asserting points with no example or development; and the recurring Task 2 ceiling, comma splices joining two full sentences with only a comma, which holds an otherwise strong 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.
Earlier, online: Paper 07, multiple charts and a causes-and-effects essay · Paper 06, a data table and an outweigh essay · Paper 05, a map comparison and a two-part essay · 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.