From falling water to electricity, and the food we throw away
A Task 1 cross-section diagram of a hydroelectric dam and a Task 2 causes-and-solutions essay on food waste, 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 process.
Recommended 20 minutes · at least 150 words
The diagram below shows a simplified cross-section of a typical hydroelectric dam and explains how it converts the energy of stored water into electricity.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features of the system.
Write the essay.
Recommended 40 minutes · at least 250 words · carries twice the marks
In many developed countries, vast quantities of edible food are thrown away each year by households, supermarkets and restaurants, even as some communities continue to face food insecurity. Government bodies, charities and the food industry have begun to treat this paradox as both an ethical and an environmental problem in need of urgent attention.
Why does so much food go to waste, and what practical measures could be taken to reduce it?
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. A process or system diagram, so this is description in sequence, not comparison. The biggest trap is naming the parts as a list (there is a reservoir, there is a turbine) instead of tracing what happens to the water as it moves through the system. A Band 7.5 opens with an overview of the whole process (stored water is converted into electricity), then walks through the stages in order, using the passive and sequence markers to carry the reader from one step to the next.
The target · Band 7.5+ · modelThe diagram illustrates how a hydroelectric dam generates electricity from the water held in a reservoir behind it. In essence, the potential energy of the stored water is converted, in a continuous sequence, into electrical energy that is then carried away to the grid. At the start of the process, a large volume of water is held back at a high level in the upstream reservoir by a thick concrete dam wall. When electricity is required, an intake gate near the top of the wall is opened, allowing water to enter the system under pressure. From there, the water falls steeply down a large pipe known as the penstock, gathering speed as it descends towards the base of the dam. At the bottom, this fast-moving water is directed into the powerhouse, where it strikes the blades of a turbine and causes it to rotate. The spinning turbine is connected by a shaft to a generator, which converts the rotational movement into electricity. Finally, the current produced is fed into transmission lines and distributed to the wider grid, while the water itself, its energy now spent, flows out into the river downstream.
Why it scores. A genuine overview that says what the whole system does before any part is named; the stages then traced in order with sequence markers (at the start, from there, finally) and the passive used naturally (is held back, is directed, is converted); and the labelled parts woven into the action rather than listed.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Listing the components with no sense of flow; giving no overview; over-using and then… and then instead of varied sequencing; and tense slips into the past (the water fell down the pipe) where the present simple and present passive are wanted for a general process.
What the task wants. This is a causes-and-solutions question, so both halves must be answered with comparable depth: why the waste happens and what can be done about it. The commonest trap is to diagnose the causes thoroughly and then offer solutions only in a rushed final sentence, or the reverse, which is penalised under Task Response. A strong answer organises around the actors in the supply chain, gives each cause a matching, practical remedy, and develops both with explanation and a concrete example.
The target · Band 7.5+ · model paragraphsIntroduction. It is a striking contradiction that so much edible food is discarded in wealthy nations while parts of the same societies go hungry. The waste arises at several points in the supply chain, from farms to family kitchens, and tackling it will require action from each of the parties responsible. This essay examines the main causes before proposing a set of practical remedies.
Causes. The reasons are partly commercial and partly behavioural. Supermarkets reject produce that fails to meet cosmetic standards and over-stock their shelves to keep them looking full, so a great deal is thrown out unsold. Confusing date labels compound the problem: many shoppers treat a "best before" date as a hard deadline and bin food that is still perfectly safe. In the home, bulk promotions and poor planning lead households to buy more than they can eat, and the surplus is quietly forgotten at the back of the fridge.
Solutions. Each of these causes has a workable answer. Retailers can relax cosmetic specifications and sell imperfect produce at a discount, as several European chains now do, and they can redirect unsold stock to food banks through redistribution schemes rather than sending it to landfill. Governments can standardise and clarify date labelling so that "best before" is no longer mistaken for "use by". At the household level, public-awareness campaigns and simple habits, planning meals and writing a shopping list, can make a surprising difference, and charges on food sent to landfill give councils a direct incentive to compost instead.
Conclusion. In short, food waste is not a single failing but the sum of decisions made by retailers, regulators and consumers alike. Because the causes are shared, so too must be the remedies, and a combination of commercial reform, clearer labelling and changed household habits offers the most realistic route to reducing it.
Why it scores. Both halves answered with equal weight, and each cause paired with a matching solution so the essay reads as one argument rather than two lists; the response organised around the actors in the supply chain; real development (cosmetic standards, redistribution to food banks, date-label reform); and accurate topic lexis (edible surplus, the supply chain, redistribution, landfill) used without strain.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Diagnosing the causes at length and then tacking on solutions in a single closing sentence (or the reverse), which caps Task Response; listing causes with no remedy attached; 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 08, population pyramids and a discuss-both-views essay · Paper 07, multiple charts and a causes-and-effects 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.