• — examiners count. Aim for .

Under 250 = automatic

penalty on Task Response. Over 300 = you're eating into your proofreading time
and increasing your error surface for no extra marks.
• Task 2 is worth as many marks as Task 1. Most
people spend too long on Task 1 and rush Task 2 — don't.
• 4 min planning → 30 min writing → 4 min proofreading → 2 min
bu�er. Non-negotiable.
• Full connected prose only — anything else is
penalised.
• These are di�erent
essays with di�erent requirements.
• Task 2 is an — first person is allowed (especially for opinions), but
keep it formal. No contractions ("it's" → "it is"), no slang.

Each criterion is scored 1–9 and averaged. The final band is the average of all four. One
weak criterion drags down the whole score — there's no compensating for a 5 in one area
with a 9 in another.

Are you actually answering the question asked?

This is the most commonly mishandled criterion because people answer a question, just
not the question. Every essay type asks for something specific. Read the prompt twice.
Identify every part of it.

• Band 5: addresses the task only partially; position unclear or undeveloped

• Band 6: addresses all parts but some less fully; main ideas present but not fully
extended
• Band 7: all parts addressed; position clear and relevant throughout; ideas extended
and supported
• Band 8: su�ciently addresses all parts; well-developed with relevant, extended,
supported ideas
• Band 9: fully addresses all parts; fully developed position; every idea relevant,
extended, well-supported

• If the question asks for your opinion, your opinion must be

from intro to conclusion. Wavering midway through =
automatic TR penalty.
• If the question has two parts ("What are the causes? What are the solutions?"), you
must address BOTH with roughly equal depth. Spending 200 words on causes and
50 on solutions = partial task completion = capped at band 6.
• "Fully extended and well-supported ideas" is the band 9 requirement. That means:
topic sentence → explain why → give a specific example → link back. Not just stating
a point and moving on.

Can the examiner follow your argument without working for it?
 • = logical order of ideas. Does the essay build an argument, or is it just a
list of loosely connected points?
• = the glue between sentences and paragraphs. Correct use of linking
words, pronouns, referencing ("this," "these," "such"), and substitution (avoiding
repeating the same noun over and over).

• Band 5: some organisation; may lack overall progression; cohesive devices used
inaccurately or over-used; paragraphing may be inadequate
• Band 6: coherently arranged with some progression; cohesive devices e�ective but
may be faulty or mechanical; referencing not always clear
• Band 7: clear overall progression; cohesive devices used flexibly; paragraphing
used
• Band 8: sequences ideas logically; manages cohesion well; paragraphs used
appropriately
• Band 9: cohesion "attracts no attention" (meaning it's invisible — it just flows);
paragraphing is skilful

overusing linking words mechanically. "Firstly...

Secondly... Thirdly... In addition... Furthermore... Moreover... Last but not least..." — this is
the #1 pattern examiners call out. Examiners describe this as "signposting instead of
arguing." Linkers should connect ideas, not just mark which paragraph you're on.

"This is particularly significant because..." / "Such policies

have been shown to..." / "While this argument has merit, it overlooks..." — the ideas are
doing the cohesive work, not just the linking word.

(or indent first line — pick one, don't do both). A

single block of unbroken text cannot exceed band 5 for CC.
Range, accuracy, and appropriateness of your vocabulary.

Three distinct things:

�. — are you using varied vocabulary, or repeating the same 20 words?

�. — are you using words correctly (right meaning, right collocation, right
form)?
�. — is the register right for an academic essay?

• Band 5: limited range; noticeable spelling/word formation errors; inappropriate

choices
• Band 6: adequate range; attempts less common vocabulary; some inaccuracies in
word choice, spelling, word formation
• Band 7: su�cient range for complex topics; some less common vocabulary used;
occasional inaccuracies in word choice/collocation
• Band 8: wide range; fluent and flexible; uncommon lexical items used skillfully; rare
inaccuracies in word choice/collocation
• Band 9: wide range with very natural, sophisticated control; rare minor errors only
as slips
 • Memorised phrases. "In this day and age," "It is undeniable that," "It goes without
saying that," "As a matter of fact" — examiners see these thousands of times and
they actively lower your CC score too (classed as formulaic). Stop using them.
• Wrong collocations. You can't say "make a crime" (commit), "strong rain" (heavy),
"do damage" (cause), "big importance" (great). Collocations are natural word
pairings — wrong ones signal over-learning from a vocab list.
• Word formation errors. "Knowledgeful," "importantness," "solvation" — these come
from knowing the root word but not its correct form in context.
• Lexical overreach: attempting sophisticated vocabulary you can't actually control,
resulting in wrong-meaning substitutions. "Obtain" ≠ "get" in every context.
"Mitigate" ≠ "reduce" always. Using a word slightly incorrectly is worse than using a
simpler word correctly.

• Paraphrasing the question in the intro with genuinely di�erent vocabulary (not
swapping one word for its dictionary synonym)
• Using precise, topic-specific vocabulary: "urban congestion," "socioeconomic
disparity," "biodiversity loss," "cognitive development" — not "tra�c problems,"
"di�erences in money," "animals dying," "brain learning"
• Varying noun/verb/adjective forms: "employ → employment → employed →
employer"
• Using hedging language naturally: "may," "tends to," "is likely to," "suggests that" —
these are sophisticated, accurate, and common in academic writing

Variety and correctness of sentence structures.

Both and matter separately. Lots of complex sentences with lots of

errors = not band 7. Simple sentences with no errors = not band 7 either. You need both.
 • Band 5: limited range; tries complex sentences but less accurate than simple ones;
frequent errors
• Band 6: mix of simple and complex structures; some errors but not impeding
communication
• Band 7: variety of complex structures; majority of sentences error-free
• Band 8: wide range; flexible; majority error-free; occasional non-systematic errors
• Band 9: wide range; full flexibility; rare errors only as slips

• Relative clauses: "Governments that invest in renewable energy tend to..."

• Conditional clauses: "If stricter regulations were introduced, pollution levels would
fall significantly."
• Participle clauses: "Having considered both arguments, I believe that..."
• Passive voice (used appropriately): "It has been argued that..."
• Noun clauses: "What concerns many experts is the rate at which..."
• Concessive clauses: "Although this approach has certain merits, it fails to address..."

Don't only write complex sentences — a band 9 essay uses BOTH simple and complex
structures. Short, punchy sentences for emphasis; complex ones for developed
argument.

This is the first thing to identify before you write a single word. Getting the type wrong
means your structure is wrong, which caps TR regardless of how well-written everything
else is.
Most common type.

• "To what extent do you agree or disagree?"

• "Do you agree or disagree?"
• "Do you think...?"
• "In your opinion...?"

Take a clear position — fully agree, fully disagree, or partially agree

(with one condition or nuance). State your position in the intro and hold it consistently
throughout. in this type. Sitting on the fence ("there are advantages
and disadvantages") when the question asks for your opinion = partial task completion =
capped at band 6.

Introduction Paraphrase topic + state your position clearly

Body 1 First reason supporting your position + explanation + example

Body 2 Second reason supporting your position + explanation + example (or a

concession + rebuttal for sophistication)

Conclusion Restate position + summarise both reasons

"While X has some merit,

I believe Y is more significant overall because..." — this is NOT sitting on the fence; it's
taking a nuanced but still clear position.
 • "Discuss both views and give your own opinion"
• "Some people think X, others think Y. Discuss both and give your view."
• "Some believe X while others believe Y. Discuss."

Present BOTH sides fairly and roughly equally, then give your own
opinion. You must give an opinion — even if the question doesn't say "give your opinion,"
you must still give it. Not doing so = partial task completion.

Introduction Paraphrase topic + briefly introduce both views + state which you lean toward

Body 1 View 1 — argument(s) in favour of this position + example

Body 2 View 2 — argument(s) in favour of this position + example

Conclusion Restate your position, acknowledge both, explain why one outweighs the other

don't make Body 1 a strawman — the view you disagree with still needs to
be presented fairly and developed with real arguments. Weak counterarguments make
your essay look one-sided, not balanced.
 • "Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of..."
• "What are the advantages and disadvantages?"
• Sometimes: "Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?" (this adds a required
opinion)

"Discuss advantages and disadvantages" = no opinion required (unless

the question says "and give your opinion"). "Do advantages outweigh disadvantages?" =
opinion is required. These are di�erent prompts.

Introduction Paraphrase topic + state essay will examine both sides (+ your view if required)

Body 1 Advantages — 2 advantages developed with explanation + example

Body 2 Disadvantages — 2 disadvantages developed with explanation + example

Conclusion Balanced summary (+ your view if required)

• "What are the causes of this? What solutions can you suggest?"
• "What problems does this cause and how can they be solved?"
• "What are the reasons for X and what measures can be taken?"
 listing lots of causes without developing any, OR correctly
identifying a cause but giving a solution that doesn't address that cause. Each body
paragraph should ideally link a specific cause to its specific solution — or split cause/
solution clearly between the two body paragraphs.

Introduction Paraphrase + acknowledge the problem exists

Body 1 1-2 key causes, each developed with explanation + example

Body 2 1-2 specific solutions to those causes, each developed + explained

Conclusion Summarise cause-solution relationship; may include outlook

Body 1: Cause 1 →
Solution 1 Body 2: Cause 2 → Solution 2 (This version shows more logical connection
between causes and solutions — slightly more sophisticated)

• "Is this a positive or negative development?"

• "Is this a positive or negative trend?"
• Ends with after the statement

missing the second question, or writing 150 words on the first and
30 on the second. Both parts must be addressed with equal depth.
 Introduction Paraphrase topic + indicate you'll address both questions

Body 1 Full answer to question 1, with explanation + example

Body 2 Full answer to question 2, with explanation + example

Conclusion Briefly summarise both answers

Two sentences only. Nothing more is needed; anything extra is usually wasted words.

Same rules as Task 1: don't copy, don't just swap

one synonym, restructure the whole sentence. The topic stays the same; the words
change. Don't start with "Nowadays" or "In today's modern world" or "It is a well-known
fact that" — examiners flag these instantly as filler.

Tell the examiner exactly what position you're taking

and/or what the essay will cover. This should be specific, not "This essay will discuss both
sides." What both sides? What's your conclusion? Be direct.

Opinion: "The question of whether governments should fund public transportation over
road construction has generated considerable debate. This essay argues that investment
in public transit is the more e�ective policy, as it reduces both urban congestion and
carbon emissions more e�ciently than expanding road networks."
Discussion: "While some argue that children benefit from starting formal education at a
young age, others maintain that early schooling places excessive pressure on developing
minds. Although there is merit in both perspectives, this essay contends that a play-
based approach in early years produces better long-term outcomes."

Adv/Disadv: "Remote working has become increasingly prevalent as technological

infrastructure has advanced. This essay will examine the key benefits and drawbacks of
this shift for both employees and employers."

• A definition ("The word 'technology' means...")

• A statistic or data point
• Your main arguments in detail (save that for the body)
• More than 2 sentences (unless one is truly earning its place)

Every single body paragraph follows . Internalise this.

One sentence. States the central idea of the paragraph.

Everything that follows must support this one idea. If a sentence doesn't connect back to
the topic sentence, it doesn't belong in that paragraph.

Bad: "There are many reasons why technology is important in education." Good:
"Integrating technology into education significantly improves student engagement by
enabling interactive, personalised learning experiences."

The bad version is vague — the examiner doesn't know what the paragraph will argue.
The good version is specific — the paragraph will argue that tech improves engagement
via interactive/personalised learning.
 1-2 sentences. Explain why the topic sentence is true. Don't state a new
point here — develop the current one. Ask yourself: "Why is this true? How does this
work? What's the mechanism?"

Example: "This is because digital platforms can adapt content to individual learning
speeds, ensuring students are consistently challenged without becoming overwhelmed."

1 sentence. Specific, realistic, concrete. You don't need real statistics — you
can say "in many developed countries" or "studies have shown" without citing a source.
But vague pseudo-examples like "for example, many people" don't count. Name a place,
describe a scenario, or give an approximate figure.

Bad example: "For example, many students use technology in school." Good example:
"For instance, in Finland, where tablets have been integrated into primary education
since the early 2010s, student performance in literacy and numeracy has remained
among the highest globally."

1 sentence. Connect the paragraph's evidence back to the essay's main

argument (thesis). Don't just restate the topic sentence — add something. "Therefore...,"
"This demonstrates that...," "Consequently, it is clear that..."

Example: "Therefore, technology does not distract students from learning; rather, when
implemented e�ectively, it serves as a catalyst for academic achievement."

Integrating technology into education significantly improves student engagement by

enabling interactive, personalised learning experiences. This is because digital
platforms can adapt content to individual learning speeds, ensuring students are
consistently challenged without becoming overwhelmed. For instance, in Finland,
where tablets have been integrated into primary education since the early 2010s,
student performance in literacy and numeracy has remained among the highest
globally. Therefore, technology does not distract students from learning; rather,
when implemented e�ectively, it serves as a catalyst for academic achievement.

That's 4 sentences, ~90-100 words, one complete argument. That's a band 7+ paragraph.
 ONE main idea per paragraph, developed fully. Don't
try to cram two di�erent points into one paragraph — you'll underdevelop both and
produce a list instead of an argument. Two well-developed paragraphs > three rushed
ones.

The conclusion does two things:

�. Restates your position using — not a copy-

paste of your thesis.
�. Briefly summarises the main reasons/arguments you made.

It does NOT:

• Introduce new ideas (this tanks CC and TR)

• Provide a new example
• Start with "In conclusion, this essay has discussed..." (mechanical, adds nothing)
• Go on for 6+ sentences

"In summary...," "Overall...," "To conclude...," "It can therefore

be argued that...," "In light of the above..."

In summary, while concerns about screen time are understandable, the evidence
suggests that technology, when used purposefully, is a powerful tool for enhancing
educational outcomes. Governments and educators should therefore prioritise
structured digital integration rather than limiting access to these resources.

Two sentences. Position restated. Main argument echoed. Done.

Intro Paraphrase + "This essay argues that [position] because [reason 1] and [reason 2]"

Body 1 PEEL — strongest argument for your position

Body 2 PEEL — second argument for your position (OR: concession + rebuttal)

Conclusion Restate position + echo both reasons

"Opponents of this view argue that [counterargument]. While this concern is not
without basis, [rebuttal that shows why your position still holds]." This shows the
examiner you can evaluate both sides even in an opinion essay — directly earns CC
and TR marks for sophistication.
 Intro Paraphrase + "While some argue X, others believe Y. This essay contends that
[your view]."

Body 1 PEEL — arguments for View 1 (even if you disagree — present it fairly)

Body 2 PEEL — arguments for View 2 (if this is your view, develop it more strongly)

Conclusion Acknowledge both views + clearly state which you ultimately find more
persuasive and why

Intro Paraphrase + "This essay will examine the principal benefits and drawbacks of this
trend [+ your view if required]."

Body 1 PEEL — 1-2 advantages, with explanation + example for each

Body 2 PEEL — 1-2 disadvantages, with explanation + example for each

Conclusion Balanced summary [+ your view if the question asked for it]

Pick 2 strong ones per side and develop

them fully. Band 9 is "fully extended and well supported" — breadth does not equal
depth.
 Intro Paraphrase + acknowledge the problem + "This essay will identify the primary
causes of this issue and propose viable solutions."

Body 1 1-2 causes — developed with explanation + example. Don't list 6 causes in one
paragraph.

Body 2 1-2 solutions — specifically addressing the causes from B1. Each solution: what it is
+ how it addresses the cause + example of where it works

Conclusion Summarise the cause-solution relationship; may include a forward-looking

statement

make sure each solution connects logically to a specific cause you raised.
Mismatched cause-solution pairs suggest you didn't actually engage with the question.

Intro Paraphrase + "This essay will address both questions in turn."

Body 1 Full PEEL answer to Question 1

Body 2 Full PEEL answer to Question 2

Conclusion Briefly summarise both answers

• Goes from "main ideas present but limited" to "all parts addressed, ideas
extended." The jump is in — not listing more points, but
developing existing points further with explanation and example.
• Goes from "cohesive devices may be faulty/mechanical" to "used with some
flexibility." Meaning: stop using "Firstly, Secondly, Furthermore" as your only
connectors and start connecting ideas with logical reasoning language.
• Goes from "adequate but may produce errors in word choice/spelling" to
"su�cient range for complex topics with occasional inaccuracies." The jump is in
and attempting less common vocabulary even if
occasional inaccuracies occur.
• Goes from "mix of simple and complex with errors" to "variety of complex
structures, majority error-free." The jump is in — not just
trying complex sentences, but getting them right more often than not.

• Goes from "all parts addressed, though some less fully" to "su�ciently
addresses all parts." The jump is in — every idea is followed through
completely, no half-argued points.
• Goes from "manages cohesion with some flexibility" to "manages all aspects of
cohesion well; sequences logically." The jump is in — ideas flow
so naturally that the linking almost doesn't need signposting.
• Goes from "some less common vocabulary" to "wide range, fluently and
flexibly used." The jump is in and near-flawless word choice.
• Goes from "majority error-free" to "wide range used flexibly, most sentences
error-free." The jump is in — using a genuinely wide range of
complex structures, not just relative clauses.
• "This essay argues that..."
• "I am firmly of the view that..."
• "In my opinion..." / "In my view..."
• "It is my contention that..."
• "This essay will contend that..."

• "While X is true, Y is a more significant factor..."

• "Although there is some merit in X, it fails to account for..."
• "To some extent, X is valid; however..."
• "Despite the apparent benefits of X, the evidence suggests that..."

• "Furthermore," / "Moreover," / "In addition,"

• "A further consideration is..."
• "Equally significant is..."
• "This is compounded by..."

• "However," / "Nevertheless," / "Nonetheless,"

• "In contrast," / "Conversely,"
• "Despite this," / "Notwithstanding this,"
• "On the other hand," (use sparingly — only when a real contrast exists)
• "While..." / "Whereas..." / "Although..."
• "This leads to..." / "This results in..."
• "As a consequence," / "Consequently,"
• "This can be attributed to..."
• "A direct outcome of this is..."
• "This stems from..."

• "For instance," / "For example,"

• "This is evident in..." / "This can be seen in..."
• "A case in point is..."
• "To illustrate this,"

• "In summary," / "In conclusion," / "Overall,"

• "To conclude," / "In light of the above,"
• "It can therefore be argued that..."
• "The evidence presented above suggests that..."
big / large substantial, significant, considerable

small minimal, negligible, modest

good beneficial, advantageous, favourable

bad detrimental, adverse, harmful, counterproductive

people individuals, citizens, the population, society

say / think argue, contend, maintain, assert, suggest

show / prove demonstrate, indicate, reveal, illustrate

help facilitate, enable, support, contribute to

use utilise, employ, implement (but don't over-use "utilise" — it's a common
overreach)

rise / surge, escalate, climb, grow significantly

increase

fall / decline, plummet, diminish

decrease

important significant, crucial, paramount, fundamental

 • Not fully addressing all parts of the task (most common — misidentifying the
question type)
• No clear or consistent position in opinion essays
• Mechanical linker use ("Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly, In addition, Furthermore,
Moreover")
• Body paragraphs that list points without developing any of them
• No conclusion, or a conclusion that introduces new ideas

• Going significantly under 250 words

• Not writing in paragraphs (or inadequate paragraphing)
• Using the same vocabulary throughout with no variation
• Writing the essay as a single block of text

• Copying phrases directly from the prompt → examiners discount copied text, so it
doesn't count toward your word count either
• Memorised template phrases (examiners are trained to spot them and they reduce
your CC mark)
• Changing your opinion midway through an opinion essay
• Writing a third body paragraph instead of developing two properly (most of the
time, two well-developed paragraphs = higher score than three thin ones)
• Using "I" so frequently it becomes a list of personal anecdotes rather than an
academic argument

Prepare vocabulary sets for each of these because they appear constantly:
 — university access, online learning, traditional vs. practical skills,
homework, private vs. public schools, standardised testing — social media,
AI, smartphones, privacy, remote work, digital dependency — climate
change, individual vs. government responsibility, renewable energy, plastic,
deforestation — diet, exercise, public health campaigns, healthcare funding,
mental health — globalisation, cultural identity, gender roles, elderly
care, inequality — punishment vs. rehabilitation, prevention, technology and
crime — tourism, free trade, developing vs. developed countries,
immigration and work — urbanisation, infrastructure, transport, housing

Many people believe that individuals can do little to protect the environment.
Only governments and large companies can make a real di�erence. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

While there is some validity in the view that environmental protection primarily requires
action from governments and corporations, this essay argues that individuals also play a
crucial role, and that lasting change demands coordinated e�ort at both levels.

On one hand, there is no question that large-scale environmental damage — industrial

carbon emissions, deforestation, and plastic manufacturing — is largely driven by
corporations and permitted by inadequate government regulation. The scale of these
activities far exceeds anything individuals can o�set through personal behaviour. In
China, for example, industrial emissions have historically accounted for over 70% of the
country's total carbon output, a proportion no consumer campaign could meaningfully
reduce. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that structural change — binding
environmental legislation, carbon pricing, and renewable energy investment —
represents the highest-leverage intervention available.
However, to conclude that individuals are powerless is to overlook both their direct
environmental impact and their collective political influence. Consumer behaviour,
aggregated across millions of people, fundamentally shapes market demand: the
dramatic decline in single-use plastic in European countries over the past decade has
been driven substantially by shifts in consumer preference that preceded legislative
bans, not the reverse. Furthermore, individual citizens form the democratic base that
elects the governments and patronises the companies they wish to hold accountable.
Where populations consistently demand environmental accountability, policy change
follows.

In summary, while governments and corporations undeniably bear the greater share of
responsibility for environmental protection, dismissing individual action is both
factually inaccurate and politically counterproductive. A comprehensive solution
requires both institutional reform and an engaged, environmentally conscious public
acting in tandem.

(~290 words)

Some people believe that children benefit from starting formal education at a
young age. Others think children should not start school until they are six or seven years
old. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The appropriate age at which children should begin formal schooling is a subject of
ongoing debate among educators and parents. While proponents of early education
argue that it builds foundational cognitive skills, others contend that premature
academic pressure can be harmful to young children's development. This essay will
discuss both perspectives before arguing that a play-based approach in early years is
ultimately more conducive to long-term success.
Those who favour early formal education argue that the years between three and five
represent a critical window for cognitive development, during which children's capacity
to absorb language, numeracy, and social skills is at its peak. Research from the United
States, where many states o�er pre-kindergarten programs from age four, suggests that
children who receive structured early education demonstrate measurable advantages in
school readiness compared to those who do not.

Conversely, a growing body of evidence from Scandinavian countries suggests that

delaying formal instruction until age six or seven, and prioritising play in the interim,
produces better long-term academic and social outcomes. In Finland, children do not
begin formal schooling until age seven, yet consistently rank among the highest
performers globally in reading, mathematics, and wellbeing. This suggests that early
pressure to achieve academic benchmarks may, in fact, hinder rather than accelerate
development.

In conclusion, while structured early education can o�er certain advantages, the
evidence from high-performing educational systems indicates that play-based learning
in early childhood better serves children's holistic development. Governments should
therefore prioritise creating enriching, low-pressure early learning environments rather
than replicating formal classroom structures for very young children.

(~280 words)

In many cities, tra�c congestion is a major problem. What are the causes of this,
and what measures could be taken to reduce it?

Urban tra�c congestion has become an increasingly serious issue in cities worldwide,
undermining productivity and contributing to air pollution. This essay will identify two
principal causes of this problem and propose corresponding solutions.
The primary cause of urban congestion is the overwhelming reliance on private vehicles,
driven largely by inadequate public transport infrastructure. When bus and rail
networks are unreliable, infrequent, or expensive, commuters have little viable
alternative to driving. This is evident in many rapidly urbanising cities in Southeast Asia,
where population growth has outpaced transport investment, leaving residents
dependent on private cars or motorcycles for daily travel. A second contributing factor is
poor urban planning, which has resulted in residential areas being built far from
employment centres, making long car commutes structurally unavoidable for large
portions of the workforce.

Addressing these causes requires targeted intervention at the policy level. In response to
inadequate public transport, governments should invest in integrated, a�ordable transit
systems — including bus rapid transit corridors and light rail — as demonstrated by
Bogotá's TransMilenio network, which has measurably reduced journey times and
private vehicle use since its introduction. To counter the e�ects of poor urban planning,
local authorities should adopt mixed-use zoning policies that locate housing,
workplaces, and commercial services in closer proximity, reducing the necessity of long
daily commutes.

In summary, tra�c congestion is primarily the result of insu�cient public transport and
misaligned urban planning, both of which are amenable to well-designed policy
interventions. Cities that address these structural causes, rather than simply expanding
road capacity, are likely to see more sustainable reductions in congestion over the long
term.

(~285 words)
 Did I correctly identify the question type?
Did I address ALL parts of the question?
Did I state my position clearly in the intro (for opinion/discussion)?
Is my position consistent from intro to conclusion?
Does every body paragraph follow PEEL (topic sentence → explain → example → link)?
Is there ONE main idea per body paragraph?
Are my linkers used accurately (no contrast words where there's no contrast)?
Did I avoid memorised filler phrases ("In today's modern world," "Last but not least,"
etc.)?
Is my vocabulary varied, precise, and collocated correctly?
Did I use a mix of simple and complex sentence structures?
Does my conclusion restate my position without introducing new ideas?
Is my essay 250+ words? (Aim for 270-290)
Did I leave paragraphs properly separated?
Did I spend max 40 minutes on this?