An expert grader reveals the key differences in vocabulary, structure, and argumentation that separate each band score, using a real IELTS Writing Task 2 topic.
Topic: Some people believe that parents should be held legally responsible for their children’s behavior. Others argue that children must be accountable for their own actions. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Band 6.5 Essay
It is often said that parents are the one who should be in charge of their children’s doings, even in the eyes of the law. However, other people think that every child is their own person and must face the music for what they do. In this essay, I will look at both sides of this argument and give my own opinion.
On the one hand, there are good reasons why parents should be legally responsible. Firstly, parents are the primary caregivers and they are the ones who teach their kids right from wrong. If a child does something bad, like vandalism or stealing, it might be because the parents did not teach them properly. For example, if a teenager is caught shoplifting, maybe the parents should pay a fine. This would make parents more careful about their children’s upbringing. Secondly, young children do not always understand the consequences of their actions, so it is fair that the parents, who are the adults, should be the ones to take responsibility.
On the other hand, it is not always the parents’ fault. Children have their own minds and they are influenced by many things outside the home, like friends, the internet, and school. A parent might be very good and teach good values, but the child might choose to disobey. For instance, if a child bullies another kid at school, it seems unfair to punish the parents who might have done everything right. Furthermore, holding children accountable from a young age helps them learn to be responsible citizens in the future. If they are always protected by their parents, they might not learn this important lesson.
In my opinion, the truth is probably in the middle. I believe that for very young children, parents should be legally responsible because the kids are too young to know better. But for teenagers, they are old enough to understand their actions and should be held accountable themselves, although the parents should still guide them. This balanced approach seems the most fair for everyone.
(Word count: 321)
Band 7.0 Essay
The question of whether parents should bear legal responsibility for their children’s actions or whether the onus should lie with the children themselves is a complex societal issue. This essay will examine both perspectives before concluding that while parental guidance is paramount, the degree of legal accountability must be dependent on the child’s age and the nature of the transgression.
Proponents of holding parents legally accountable often base their argument on the foundational role parents play in a child’s moral development. Parents are not only caregivers but also the first and most influential educators. They instill values, discipline, and a sense of conscience. Therefore, if a child engages in criminal behavior such as theft or violence, it can be construed as a failure of parental supervision and moral instruction. Imposing legal consequences on parents, such as fines or mandatory parenting classes, could incentivize more proactive and responsible parenting, potentially reducing juvenile delinquency. For example, laws that hold parents financially liable for vandalism committed by their children are common in many countries and are seen as a practical deterrent.
Conversely, advocates for children’s own accountability emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in the maturation process. They argue that absolving children of consequences, by shifting blame entirely to their parents, can be detrimental to their development into responsible adults. From a certain age, children are exposed to a multitude of influences beyond the home, including peers and media, and possess the cognitive ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Punishing a parent for a conscious decision made by a teenager, for instance in a case of cyberbullying, may be unjust to the parent and fail to address the root cause: the child’s own poor judgment. This approach ensures that the punishment is directly linked to the perpetrator, which is a cornerstone of a fair legal system.
In my view, a blanket policy for either view is impractical. A more nuanced approach is necessary. For pre-adolescent children, parental legal responsibility is more appropriate as their cognitive and moral faculties are still developing. However, for adolescents, the focus should shift towards holding them accountable, with the legal system employing age-appropriate sentencing and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the law should reflect the evolving capacity of the child, ensuring fairness for both parents and their children.
(Word count: 343)
Band 8.0 Essay
The debate surrounding the locus of legal responsibility for juvenile actions pits the formative influence of parenting against the principle of individual agency. While compelling arguments exist on both sides, I firmly believe that a rigid adherence to either standpoint is flawed; a more sophisticated, graduated legal framework is required, one that acknowledges the developmental stages of childhood and the complex interplay of influencing factors.
Those who advocate for parental legal liability often do so on the grounds of moral and practical causation. From a philosophical standpoint, parents are the primary architects of a child’s early value system and behavioural norms. Negligent upbringing, whether through a lack of discipline, poor role modelling, or outright neglect, can be a direct contributor to antisocial behaviour. Consequently, legal instruments such as parental fines or court-ordered counselling sessions are not merely punitive but also preventive and corrective. They serve as a powerful societal mechanism to compel negligent parents to fulfil their duties, thereby safeguarding the community and the child’s own welfare. For instance, “parental responsibility laws” in various jurisdictions can hold parents civilly liable for damages caused by their children, a system that recognises the parent’s role in the causal chain.
Conversely, the counterargument rests on the tenets of personal autonomy and the realities of external influence. To hold parents exclusively accountable is to ignore the agency that even young people possess and the plethora of external socializing agents, such as educational institutions, peer groups, and digital media, that shape a child’s worldview. From a certain age, typically adolescence, individuals develop the cognitive capacity for moral reasoning and are therefore capable of making independent choices. Legally penalizing parents for the deliberate acts of a 16-year-old, who is fully aware of the criminality of their actions, is not only inequitable but also counterproductive. It fails to impart the crucial lesson of personal consequence to the young offender, potentially fostering a culture of impunity and hindering their moral development.
In my opinion, the legal system must eschew a one-size-fits-all solution. Liability should be apportioned on a sliding scale that considers the child’s age, the severity of the act, and evidence of parental negligence. For very young children, parental responsibility is paramount. For teenagers, the primary legal onus should be on the individual, with parental liability reserved for cases where proven neglect or facilitation is a factor. This balanced approach upholds the principles of justice for all parties involved while promoting the ultimate goal: the raising of responsible, accountable citizens.
(Word count: 371)
Band 9.0 Essay
The allocation of legal responsibility for juvenile misconduct is a contentious issue that sits at the crossroads of jurisprudence, developmental psychology, and sociology. It forces a examination of the very concepts of blame, causation, and rehabilitation. While some posit that parents must be the legal guarantors of their children’s behaviour, others contend that this undermines the child’s burgeoning autonomy. This essay will argue that an absolutist position is untenable; instead, a legally nuanced and developmentally-aware approach is imperative for a just and effective society.
Proponents of holding parents legally accountable ground their reasoning in a causal relationship between upbringing and behaviour. Parents are not merely caregivers but the chief moral and social architects during a child’s most formative years. Instances of persistent juvenile delinquency can often be traced to environments characterised by inadequate supervision, the absence of positive role models, or even the tacit endorsement of deviant values. In such scenarios, legal sanctions against parents—be they reparative fines or mandatory therapeutic interventions—are not simply punitive. They represent a societal imperative to enforce responsible parenting, thereby acting as a deterrent and a corrective measure. This approach recognises that the parent, as the primary socializing agent, shares a degree of complicity in the child’s actions.
Opponents, however, rightly point to the philosophical and practical pitfalls of this view. Ethically, it risks punishing individuals for actions they did not directly commit, potentially violating principles of individual justice. From a practical standpoint, as children mature, their cognitive autonomy expands, and their social ecosystem diversifies. Influences from peers, educational institutions, and the digital realm often outweigh parental guidance. Consequently, holding a conscientious parent liable for the independent, calculated transgressions of a teenager—such as cyber-fraud or bullying—is manifestly unjust. Moreover, it is pedagogically counterproductive, as it insulates the young offender from the consequences of their actions, stunting the development of personal accountability and moral reasoning that is crucial for adulthood.
In my view, the resolution lies in a sophisticated legal framework that moves beyond binary blame. The law must reflect the developmental continuum of childhood. For pre-adolescents, whose moral compass is primarily shaped by the home, presumptive parental liability is more appropriate. For adolescents, the system should pivot towards holding them directly accountable, with age-appropriate sentencing focused on rehabilitation. Crucially, parental liability should only be invoked where a clear and demonstrable link of neglect or facilitation exists. This calibrated approach does more than achieve fairness; it fosters a collaborative model of responsibility where both parents and the state are invested in nurturing ethically autonomous individuals.
(Word count: 398)
| IELTS Marking Criteria | Band 6.5 | Band 7.0 | Band 8.0 | Band 9.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Addresses all parts but develops ideas generally. Position is clear but simplistic. | Clear, relevant position. Ideas are extended and supported (may be predictable). | Addresses all parts skillfully. Develops well-reasoned, nuanced ideas. | Fully addresses all parts with authority, depth, and precision. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Information is organized logically. Uses basic linking words effectively. | Logical progression throughout. Uses a range of cohesive devices appropriately. | Manages cohesion skillfully. Links ideas seamlessly. Paragraphing is effective and logical. | Uses cohesion effortlessly. Progression is intuitive and sophisticated. |
| Lexical Resource | Adequate range of vocabulary. Some errors in word choice or collocation. | Sufficient range of less common words. Some style awareness, minor errors. | Wide, fluent, flexible vocabulary. Precise word choice & collocation. | Sophisticated, natural, idiomatic control. Flawless precision. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Mix of simple & complex sentences. Some errors that don’t impede meaning. | Variety of complex structures. Many error-free sentences. | Wide range of structures with full flexibility. Virtually error-free. | Full range of structures used naturally and accurately. Consistently error-free. |
Analysis of Key Differences Between Band Scores
The progression from Band 6.5 to Band 9 is marked by increasing sophistication in four key areas: Task Response, Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy.
1. Task Response (Addressing the prompt)
- Band 6.5: Addresses all parts of the prompt but the development of ideas is somewhat general. The opinion is clear but simplistic (“the truth is probably in the middle”).
- Band 7.0: Presents a clear position throughout. Ideas are extended and supported, but the reasoning may be more predictable and less nuanced than in higher bands.
- Band 8.0: Sufficiently addresses all parts of the prompt with well-developed, extended, and supported ideas. The opinion is sophisticated and specific (“a graduated legal framework”).
- Band 9.0: Fully addresses all parts of the prompt with extended, well-developed, and highly nuanced ideas. The essay explores the implications and complexities of the issue (e.g., “philosophical and practical pitfalls,” “developmental continuum”).
2. Coherence and Cohesion (Structure and Flow)
- Band 6.5: Information is arranged coherently with clear paragraphs and basic linking words (Firstly, On the other hand, For example). The structure is functional but may be mechanical.
- Band 7.0: Logically organizes information and ideas; there is a clear progression throughout. Uses a range of cohesive devices (Conversely, Therefore, For instance) appropriately, though perhaps not always seamlessly.
- Band 8.0: Manages all aspects of cohesion skillfully. Uses a wide range of cohesive devices flexibly and appropriately to create a seamless flow of ideas. Paragraphing is used effectively and logically.
- Band 9.0: Uses cohesion in such a way that it attracts no attention. The essay flows effortlessly from one idea to the next. Paragraphing is expert, and the progression of the argument is logical and intuitive.
3. Lexical Resource (Vocabulary)
- Band 6.5: Uses an adequate range of vocabulary for the task. Attempts to use less common words but with some inaccuracy (“face the music,” “the truth is probably in the middle” is clichéd).
- Band 7.0: Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision. Uses less common lexical items with some awareness of style and collocation (onus, proponents, transgression, nuanced).
- Band 8.0: Uses a wide range of vocabulary fluently and flexibly to convey precise meanings. Uses sophisticated lexical items skillfully and accurately (locus, tenets of personal autonomy, socializing agents, eschew).
- Band 9.0: Uses a wide range of vocabulary with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features. Uses rare, idiomatic, and precise vocabulary with flawless accuracy (contentious, jurisprudence, burgeoning autonomy, complicity, calibrated approach).
4. Grammatical Range and Accuracy
- Band 6.5: Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. Makes some errors in grammar and punctuation, but they do not impede communication (e.g., “parents are the one who”).
- Band 7.0: Uses a variety of complex structures. Produces frequent error-free sentences. Has good control of grammar and punctuation but may make occasional minor errors.
- Band 8.0: Uses a wide range of structures with full flexibility and accuracy. The majority of sentences are error-free. Uses complex grammar to enhance meaning rather than to simply demonstrate skill.
- Band 9.0: Uses a full range of structures naturally and appropriately. Consistently produces accurate, error-free sentences. Grammar is used to create sophisticated nuances of meaning and to control the argument’s pace and focus.
In summary, the journey from a 6.5 to a 9 is a shift from general to precise, from functional to sophisticated, from adequately organized to skilfully seamless, and from occasionally inaccurate to consistently flawless.
How to Write Like a Band 9 Candidate.
Need feedback on your essay? Book a writing assessment with us today!
