Tags:
Share:
7. IELTS Writing Task 2: Band 7+ Step-by-Step Tutorial & Practice
-
August 12, 2025
IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 — Minimal Mastery Tutorial
Master the 40‑minute essay by building a question‑first plan, writing a two‑sentence introduction, developing two tightly focused body paragraphs with logic chains and mini‑evidence, and finishing with a one‑minute conclusion. Hover each step to see micro‑tips and phrasing patterns. Everything stacks one after another for mobile clarity.
12 Pro Steps to a Band 7.5–8.5 Essay
Diagnose the exact question type & tasks
Underline the topic, circle the task verbs (e.g., To what extent do you agree?, Discuss both views…, Advantages/Disadvantages), and box any scope limiters (e.g., in your country, for young people).
State the type in one label: Agree/Disagree, Both‑views, Problem/Solution, Advantages/Disadvantages, or Mixed (two‑part direct).
Write a one‑line paraphrase of the prompt using safe synonyms; avoid changing technical terms.
Identify how many things the examiner wants (e.g., “both views + your opinion” = three outputs).
Mark the stance constraint: full, balanced, or partial agreement; never claim extremes you can’t support.
Check whether examples should be general or specific; IELTS accepts realistic, non‑fabricated examples.
Time‑box this diagnosis to 90 seconds so you still have time to plan.
Final check: if you misread the type, your band for Task Response collapses; this step protects it.
Create a tiny header on your notes: Type | Outputs | Stance.
Only after this do you touch ideas. Structure first, content second.
Pick a defensible stance (clarity beats drama)
Select a viewpoint that allows two distinct reasons you can expand logically.
Prefer a measured stance (e.g., “largely agree”) if the topic is nuanced; it eases coherence.
Avoid hedging every sentence; be clear once, then argue consistently.
Check each reason for cause → effect → mini‑evidence potential.
Reject reasons that overlap; redundancy kills paragraph focus.
If “both views,” phrase a neutral overview first, then signal your side.
If “problem/solution,” ensure each solution targets a named cause.
Write your stance in 10–15 words; it will become sentence two of the intro.
Reality‑test with a quick example: if none fits, swap the stance.
Lock the stance to prevent mid‑essay drift.
Create a 3‑line micro‑outline
Line 1 (Intro): Paraphrase topic + stance line.
Line 2 (BP1): Reason A → mechanism → consequence → mini‑evidence.
Line 3 (BP2): Reason B (different dimension) → mechanism → consequence → mini‑evidence.
Use arrows (→), plus/minus (±), and short nouns only—no full sentences.
Ensure A and B are different dimensions: e.g., access vs fairness, or individual vs society.
Add one “anti‑drift” word to each body point (e.g., because, therefore).
Keep this plan visible while writing to preserve coherence.
This outline should take 60–90 seconds, max.
Good plans make conclusions effortless; bad plans force patchwork endings.
If stuck, downshift to simpler reasons that you can prove.
Craft a two‑sentence introduction
Sentence 1 = Paraphrase: Reframe the topic neutrally with safe synonyms; keep technical terms.
Sentence 2 = Stance preview: State your position and name the two dimensions you’ll cover.
Avoid definitions, background history, or quotes—save words for arguments.
Target 35–45 words total; clarity over complexity.
Examples: “This essay largely agrees that … because Reason A and Reason B.”
Do not reveal examples here; keep them for body paragraphs.
Promise only what you can deliver; the examiner will check.
Finish the intro in 3 minutes to protect body time.
If “both views,” end with “This essay will examine both sides before giving a reasoned opinion.”
If “two‑part direct,” preview answers to both parts concisely.
Build Body Paragraph 1 (Reason A) with a logic chain
Topic sentence: Name Reason A clearly; promise mechanism + result.
Mechanism: Explain how/why Reason A leads to your claim.
Consequence: State a concrete outcome for individuals/society.
Mini‑evidence: Add a short, plausible example or data point.
Use cohesive devices: first, as a result, therefore, for instance.
Limit to one main idea to protect coherence and band score.
Keep sentences 12–20 words for smooth control.
Avoid anecdotal “I” unless task invites personal perspective.
End with a mini‑wrap that echoes the topic sentence.
Target 110–140 words for balanced development.
Build Body Paragraph 2 (Reason B) without repeating A
Choose a different dimension (e.g., economic vs educational impact).
Repeat the logic chain format (topic sentence → mechanism → consequence → mini‑evidence).
Use a new set of connectors to avoid monotony.
Check that your example doesn’t duplicate BP1.
Keep sentences balanced; avoid long, nested clauses.
Tie the final sentence back to your stance.
Aim for similar length to BP1 for visual and logical symmetry.
Avoid introducing counterarguments here unless you planned space.
If tackling “both views,” dedicate BP1 and BP2 to each view, then signal your position.
Quality over quantity—one focused idea beats three weak points.
Write a one‑minute conclusion
Mirror the stance and the two reasons in one compact sentence.
Optionally add a forward look (policy/implication) in a second sentence.
Do not add fresh evidence; it cannot be developed.
Keep ~30–45 words; end confidently, not abruptly.
If “problem/solution,” restate the primary solution link to the main cause.
If “both views,” summarize balance then state your justified stance again.
Leave 60–75 seconds at the end of the 40 minutes for this.
Use a decisive connector: In short, Overall, Therefore.
Avoid clichés and memorized sentences that don’t match your content.
A neat close boosts examiner confidence in your control.
Use safe paraphrase & precise lexis
Replace only non‑technical words; keep key terms to avoid distortion.
Prefer precise verbs (facilitates, discourages) to inflated adjectives.
Use collocations common to the topic domain.
Avoid repetition: rotate synonyms carefully without changing meaning.
Maintain consistent tone—academic but readable.
Check pronoun references to prevent ambiguity.
Limit idioms; they often sound informal or off‑register.
Use hedging where appropriate (tends to, may) for nuanced claims.
Balance variety with accuracy; errors cost more than using simpler words.
Read each sentence aloud in your head for clarity.
Keep grammar accurate and purposeful
Mix clauses (simple + complex) for rhythm and clarity.
Use cause‑effect structures (because, therefore, consequently).
Control articles and count/non‑count nouns carefully.
Maintain tense consistency; present simple is default for general claims.
Avoid long chains of prepositional phrases.
Prefer active voice unless passivization clarifies responsibility.
Check parallelism in lists (“A, B, and C” share form).
Use conditional and concession structures to show nuance.
Punctuation guides reading—use commas to separate clauses correctly.
One clean idea per sentence is safer than two tangled ones.
Engineer coherence & cohesion deliberately
Start paragraphs with clear topic sentences that forecast logic.
Use signposting adverbs sparingly but effectively.
Repeat keywords strategically to maintain topic focus.
Use pronoun chains correctly to refer back to ideas, not vague nouns.
Connect sentences with cause, contrast, and result linkers.
Avoid over‑linking; clarity beats heavy connector use.
End each paragraph with a micro‑wrap that matches the opener.
Keep paragraphing conventional (Intro / BP1 / BP2 / Conc.).
White space and short sentences improve readability.
Check the paragraph’s one‑idea rule before moving on.
Manage the 40 minutes with a fixed schedule
3–4 min: Diagnose + outline.
3–4 min: Introduction.
13–14 min: Body Paragraph 1.
13–14 min: Body Paragraph 2.
2–3 min: Conclusion.
2 min buffer: Proofread for grammar and cohesion.
If behind time, shorten examples, not logic links.
Use the plan to keep writing forward—don’t backtrack heavily.
End one minute early rather than be cut mid‑sentence.
Discipline on time is a free band‑saver.
Proofread with a 5‑item high‑impact checklist
1) Do intro and body topics match your stance exactly?
2) Does each body paragraph contain one main idea?
3) Are there clear cause→effect links, not just statements?
4) Are articles, plurals, and verb forms correct in key sentences?
5) Is the conclusion a mirror, not a new argument?
Circle any repetition that adds no value, then trim.
Replace any awkward long sentence with two shorter ones.
Scan for over‑generalizations and soften if needed.
Reconfirm you answered every part of the question.
Stop editing when the checklist is green; preserve time.
Universal IELTS Task 2 Planning Template (Click to Copy)
1) Paraphrase the topic neutrally.
2) State your stance and name the two dimensions you will discuss.
[Body Paragraph 1 — Reason A]
Topic sentence → Mechanism (how/why) → Consequence (visible result) → Mini‑evidence (short, realistic example) → Micro‑wrap.
[Body Paragraph 2 — Reason B]
Different dimension → Mechanism → Consequence → Mini‑evidence → Micro‑wrap.
[Conclusion — 1–2 sentences]
Mirror stance + two reasons (no new information). Optionally add a forward‑look line.
Tip: Keep each logic chain obvious with “because/therefore/for example” to maximize Coherence & Cohesion.
Part 2 — IELTS Writing Task 2: Practice Task
Question
In many countries, the use of algorithmic systems is expanding in areas such as university admissions, loan approvals and recruitment. Some people argue that decisions with significant impact on individuals should never be left to algorithms, while others believe these systems lead to fairer and more efficient outcomes. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Write at least 250 words.
Timer & Progress
Default time: 40 minutes. You can set a custom time before starting.
Your Answer (Max 1000 words)
Type your essay below. The counter updates live. The box will warn you when you approach the 1000-word limit.
Submit for Feedback
Enter your details, then choose Send via WhatsApp or Send via Email. Your submission will include the full question, your essay, word count, and the time taken.
Part 3 — Model Answer & How It Was Built
Sample Band-Level Essay (≈ 290 words)
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Introduction. Across admissions, lending and hiring, algorithmic systems are increasingly used to filter applications and forecast outcomes. While some claim that life-shaping decisions should never be delegated to code, others argue that data-driven tools can reduce human error and accelerate fairer choices. This essay contends that algorithms can improve consistency and efficiency, provided they operate under transparent rules and meaningful human oversight.
Body Paragraph 1 — Why some oppose algorithmic decisions. Critics fear that algorithms inherit the prejudices embedded in their training data, which may mirror historical inequalities in education, credit access or labour markets. Because many models are opaque, applicants may be unable to understand or challenge a negative result, undermining procedural justice. Furthermore, reducing complex profiles to numerical scores can ignore context, such as atypical educational paths or community work that demonstrates potential but is hard to quantify. For these reasons, opponents believe that consequential decisions should remain with accountable humans who can weigh nuance.
Body Paragraph 2 — Why others support them. Proponents counter that well-audited systems can minimise inconsistent judgments and fatigue-based errors that affect human panels. If calibrated with carefully curated data and monitored for disparate impact, algorithms can surface comparable candidates more quickly and at scale. In lending, for example, combining traditional credit data with verified alternative indicators may widen access for thin-file borrowers, while enforcing the same criteria for every applicant. From this perspective, technology enhances both efficiency and equity when designed responsibly.
Conclusion — Opinion. In my view, the question is not whether to use algorithms but how to govern them. Institutions should publish criteria in plain language, allow appeals, and require periodic bias testing by independent auditors. Final decisions ought to involve trained staff who can override automated outputs when evidence warrants an exception. With transparency and human accountability, algorithmic tools can support, rather than supplant, fair decision-making.
Step-by-Step Explanation (20 sentences)
1) Diagnose the task: The prompt is a “Discuss both views + opinion” question, so the essay must summarise both sides and then give a clear stance.
2) Fix the stance early: I chose a balanced position — algorithms are useful if governed transparently with human oversight — which is easy to defend with two dimensions (fairness and efficiency).
3) Micro-outline: Intro (topic + stance); BP1 = reasons for opposition (bias, opacity, loss of context); BP2 = reasons for support (consistency, scale, broadened access); Conclusion = governance + oversight.
4) Introduction design: Two sentences: neutral paraphrase of the trend, then a stance sentence promising both efficiency and fairness under conditions.
5) Lexis control: Keep technical terms (“algorithmic systems”, “training data”, “disparate impact”) to be precise but avoid jargon overload.
6) BP1 topic sentence: Signals the opposition view first to maintain symmetry and show awareness of risks.
7) Risk set in BP1: Data bias → opaque models → loss of human context; each is a distinct sub-reason to prevent repetition.
8) Evidence strategy: Use realistic, generic examples (historical inequalities, atypical paths) rather than unverifiable statistics.
9) Micro-wrap in BP1: End by stating why opponents demand accountable humans — this ties back to the topic sentence.
10) BP2 contrast opener: Switch to proponents and introduce the benefits: consistency, fatigue reduction, and scale.
11) Calibration detail: Mention “curated data”, “monitoring” and “disparate impact” to show practical guardrails, not vague optimism.
12) Concrete domain example: Lending is used to illustrate how alternative indicators can responsibly expand access, keeping criteria uniform.
13) Connector variety: Use cause-effect linkers (because, therefore), contrast (however, while), and exemplification (for example) sparingly but clearly.
14) Sentence control: Keep average sentence length moderate (≈ 16–22 words) and avoid heavy noun stacks.
15) Conclusion structure: Mirror stance + give a policy-style forward look: publish criteria, allow appeals, audit bias, enable human override.
16) Tone & register: Formal but readable; minimise idioms and personal anecdotes to fit academic style.
17) Task Response alignment: Both views are described with balanced development, and a clear opinion is stated and justified.
18) Coherence & cohesion: Each paragraph follows a logic chain (reason → mechanism → consequence → example → wrap).
19) Lexical resource: Topic-appropriate collocations (“procedural justice”, “independent auditors”, “human oversight”) demonstrate range with accuracy.
20) Final check: No new ideas in the conclusion; it only restates stance and governance steps, satisfying examiner expectations.
Part 4 — 20 Crucial Words for This Question
Algorithm — UK /ˈælɡərɪðəm/ · US /ˈælɡərɪðəm/ — noun
Word pattern(s) algorithm for X; algorithm to do X; algorithm-based decision
Definition A step-by-step computational procedure used to make or support decisions.
Example Admissions offices now deploy an algorithm to rank applicants by multiple criteria. (Shows automated, rule-based selection.)
Synonym procedure, model
Common mistakes ❌ “a algorithm” → ✅ “an algorithm”; confusing algorithm (procedure) with “AI” (broader system).
Bias — UK /ˈbaɪ.əs/ · US /ˈbaɪ.əs/ — noun, verb
Word pattern(s) bias against/towards sb/sth; biased outcomes; training-data bias
Definition Systematic unfairness that favours one group over another in data or decisions.
Example Historical records can bias loan models against first-generation borrowers. (Past data skews results.)
Synonym prejudice, skew
Common mistakes ❌ “bias on” → ✅ “bias against/towards”; overusing “biased” without naming the source of bias.
Opaque — UK /əʊˈpeɪk/ · US /oʊˈpeɪk/ — adjective
Word pattern(s) opaque to users; an opaque model/process
Definition Not easily understood; lacking transparency about how decisions are made.
Example Rejected candidates complained that the scoring was opaque and could not be appealed. (No clear rationale.)
Synonym non-transparent
Common mistakes Confusing with “translucent”; writing “opaqued”. Correct: opaque (adj.).
Oversight — UK /ˈəʊvəsaɪt/ · US /ˈoʊvərsaɪt/ — noun
Word pattern(s) regulatory oversight; oversight of systems
Definition Supervision that ensures processes follow rules and ethical standards.
Example Without independent oversight, automated rejections may go unchecked. (Need external supervision.)
Synonym supervision
Common mistakes Confusing with “to overlook” (miss by accident). Oversight = supervision, not a mistake.
Audit — UK /ˈɔːdɪt/ · US /ˈɔːdɪt/ — noun, verb
Word pattern(s) audit of outcomes; audit for bias; audit a model
Definition A systematic check of a system’s accuracy, fairness, and compliance.
Example The university commissioned an external audit to test disparate impact. (Formal evaluation.)
Synonym review, inspection
Common mistakes Mixing up with “audition”. Different meaning.
Calibrate — UK /ˈkælɪbreɪt/ · US /ˈkælɪbreɪt/ — verb
Word pattern(s) calibrate X to a standard; calibrate X for fairness
Definition Adjust a system so its outputs align with desired standards.
Example Recruiters calibrated the score thresholds to minimise false negatives. (Adjusted cut-offs.)
Synonym adjust, tune
Common mistakes ❌ “calibrate for to” → use either to or for, not both.
Criterion — UK /kraɪˈtɪəriən/ · US /kraɪˈtɪriən/ — noun (countable)
Word pattern(s) a key criterion; criteria for selection
Definition A standard used to judge or decide something.
Example Work experience became a primary criterion in the final round. (Specific standard.)
Synonym standard, benchmark
Common mistakes Plural is criteria, not “criterias”; singular is criterion.
Disparate — UK /ˈdɪs.pər.ət/ · US /ˈdɪs.pə.rət/ — adjective
Word pattern(s) disparate impact/treatment; disparate groups
Definition Markedly different; in policy, unequal effects on protected groups.
Example The screening tool showed disparate impact on older applicants. (Unequal outcomes.)
Synonym unequal, divergent
Common mistakes Confusing with “desperate” (very anxious). Different words.
Equity — UK /ˈekwɪti/ · US /ˈɛkwɪti/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) equity in access; promote equity
Definition Fairness in the way people are treated, accounting for different needs.
Example Alternative data were added to improve equity for thin-file applicants. (Fair access.)
Synonym fairness
Common mistakes Mixing up with “equality” (same treatment for all). Equity ≠ equality.
Efficiency — UK /ɪˈfɪʃənsi/ · US /ɪˈfɪʃənsi/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) efficiency in processing; boost efficiency
Definition Ability to do tasks quickly and with minimal waste.
Example Automated triage increased efficiency during peak application periods. (Faster processing.)
Synonym productivity
Common mistakes Confusing with “efficacy” (effectiveness/works as intended).
Consistency — UK /kənˈsɪstənsi/ · US /kənˈsɪstənsi/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) consistency across cases; ensure consistency
Definition Making similar cases receive similar decisions.
Example Algorithms can improve consistency by applying the same rules to every profile. (Uniform criteria.)
Synonym uniformity
Common mistakes Using “consistence” (rare). Preferred noun: consistency.
Nuance — UK /ˈnjuː.ɑːns/ · US /ˈnuː.ɑːns/ — noun (countable/uncountable)
Word pattern(s) capture the nuances of X; nuanced judgement
Definition Subtle or small distinctions that affect meaning or fairness.
Example A rigid score may miss the nuance of a non-traditional academic path. (Subtle context lost.)
Synonym subtlety
Common mistakes Spelling “nuances” is fine for plural; avoid “nuanced of”. Use “nuance of”.
Context — UK /ˈkɒntekst/ · US /ˈkɑːntekst/ — noun
Word pattern(s) in the context of X; context-aware model
Definition The surrounding facts that make data meaningful.
Example Reviewers re-read applications in the context of local school resources. (Background matters.)
Synonym background, setting
Common mistakes ❌ “on the context” → ✅ “in the context”.
Evidence — UK /ˈevɪdəns/ · US /ˈevɪdəns/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) evidence for/of X; present/assess evidence
Definition Information indicating whether a belief or claim is true.
Example There is limited evidence that the tool improves long-term outcomes. (Support is unclear.)
Synonym proof (informal), support
Common mistakes Don’t pluralise in academic style: avoid “evidences”.
Legitimacy — UK /lɪˈdʒɪtɪməsi/ · US /lɪˈdʒɪtɪməsi/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) legitimacy of a process/decision
Definition Perception that a decision process is lawful and socially accepted.
Example Publishing criteria increased the system’s legitimacy among applicants. (Public trust rose.)
Synonym validity, authority
Common mistakes Overusing slang “legit” in formal essays — keep academic register.
Accountability — UK /əˌkaʊntəˈbɪlɪti/ · US /əˌkaʊntəˈbɪlət̬i/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) be accountable to the public; ensure accountability
Definition The obligation to explain and justify decisions, and accept responsibility.
Example A human panel preserves accountability by reviewing edge cases. (Named decision-makers.)
Synonym answerability
Common mistakes Using “accountable for” vs “accountable to” (entity). Both exist but mean different things.
Transparency — UK /trænˈspærənsi/ · US /trænˈspærənsi/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) transparency about criteria; increase transparency
Definition Openness about methods and reasons behind decisions.
Example Explaining score weights improved transparency and reduced complaints. (Clear rules.)
Synonym openness, clarity
Common mistakes Avoid “transparence” (rare/old-fashioned).
Governance — UK /ˈɡʌvənəns/ · US /ˈɡʌvərnəns/ — noun (uncountable)
Word pattern(s) data governance; governance framework
Definition The structures and rules that control how systems are run and checked.
Example A clear governance framework assigns roles for reviews and appeals. (Formal control.)
Synonym management, control
Common mistakes Confusing with “government” (the state). Governance = how an organisation is directed.
Threshold — UK /ˈθreʃhəʊld/ · US /ˈθreʃhoʊld/ — noun (countable)
Word pattern(s) pass/fail threshold; threshold for acceptance
Definition The cut-off point at which a decision changes (e.g., accept vs reject).
Example Raising the GPA threshold reduced false positives in the shortlist. (Higher cut-off.)
Synonym cut-off
Common mistakes Spelling error “treshold” — missing the first “h”.
Proxy — UK /ˈprɒksi/ · US /ˈprɑːksi/ — noun
Word pattern(s) a proxy for X; use X as a proxy
Definition A stand-in measure used when the true variable is hard to observe.
Example Zip code is a poor proxy for ability and can encode unfair group differences. (Indirect, risky indicator.)
Synonym substitute, stand-in
Common mistakes Over-trusting proxies as if they were the real trait; not checking unintended bias.
Part 5 — 20 Phrases & Expressions for This Question
data-driven decision-making — UK /ˈdeɪ.tə ˌdrɪv.ən dɪˈsɪʒ.ən ˌmeɪ.kɪŋ/ · US /ˈdeɪ.t̬ə ˌdrɪv.ən dɪˈsɪʒ.ən ˌmeɪ.kɪŋ/ — noun phrase
Pattern(s) adopt/embrace data-driven decision-making; shift to data-driven decision-making
Definition Making choices based primarily on analysed information rather than intuition.
Example Universities argue that data-driven decision-making reduces inconsistency across admissions panels. (Focus on measurable evidence.)
Synonym evidence-based decisions
Common mistakes Over-hyphenating: keep hyphens with data-driven, not with “decision making” when used as a noun (both “decision making” and “decision-making” are acceptable; be consistent).
human-in-the-loop — UK /ˌhjuː.mən ɪn ðə ˈluːp/ · US /ˌhjuː.mən ɪn ðə ˈluːp/ — adjective/noun phrase
Pattern(s) a human-in-the-loop system; keep humans in the loop
Definition A design where humans can review, override, or refine automated outputs.
Example A human-in-the-loop workflow lets officers reconsider borderline rejections. (Human oversight preserved.)
Synonym human oversight
Common mistakes Writing “human on the loop” (military term, different nuance). Use in the loop for review control.
meaningful oversight — UK /ˈmiː.nɪŋ.fəl ˈəʊ.və.saɪt/ · US /ˈmiː.nɪŋ.fəl ˈoʊ.vɚ.saɪt/ — noun phrase
Pattern(s) require/provide meaningful oversight of X
Definition Supervision that is independent, informed, and able to change outcomes.
Example Lenders must ensure meaningful oversight of third-party scoring tools. (Power to intervene.)
Synonym effective supervision
Common mistakes Using oversight to mean “mistake.” Here it means supervision.
procedural justice — UK /prəˈsiː.dʒə.rəl ˈdʒʌs.tɪs/ · US /prəˈsiː.dʒɚ.əl ˈdʒʌs.tɪs/ — noun (uncountable)
Pattern(s) uphold procedural justice; a lack of procedural justice
Definition The sense that decision processes are fair, transparent, and allow appeals.
Example Opaque rankings can undermine procedural justice for rejected applicants. (Process feels unfair.)
Synonym fairness of process
Common mistakes Confusing with “substantive justice” (fairness of outcomes).
disparate impact — UK /ˈdɪs.pər.ət ˈɪm.pækt/ · US /ˈdɪs.pə.rət ˈɪm.pækt/ — noun phrase
Pattern(s) test for disparate impact; show/mitigate disparate impact
Definition Unequal effects on different groups even when rules appear neutral.
Example Audits revealed disparate impact on mature students. (Uneven outcomes.)
Synonym unequal effect
Common mistakes Spelling “desperate” instead of disparate.
black-box model — UK /ˌblæk ˈbɒks ˈmɒd.əl/ · US /ˌblæk ˈbɑːks ˈmɑːd.əl/ — noun phrase
Pattern(s) rely on a black-box model; move from black-box to interpretable models
Definition A system whose inner workings are not understandable to users.
Example Applicants criticised the black-box model for offering no reasons for rejection. (Lack of transparency.)
Synonym opaque system
Common mistakes Using “black box” as a verb; keep it as a noun phrase.
opt-out mechanism — UK /ɒpt ˈaʊt ˈmek.ə.nɪ.zəm/ · US /ɑːpt ˈaʊt ˈmek.əˌnɪ.zəm/ — noun phrase
Pattern(s) provide an opt-out mechanism for X
Definition A formal way for users to refuse automated processing or switch to manual review.
Example An opt-out mechanism lets candidates request human review for borderline cases. (Alternative path.)
Synonym manual review option
Common mistakes Writing “opt-of”; correct preposition is out.
appeals process — UK /əˈpiːlz ˈprəʊ.ses/ · US /əˈpiːlz ˈprɑː.ses/ — noun phrase
Pattern(s) establish an appeals process; file an appeal through the process
Definition A structured way to challenge and review a decision.
Example A transparent appeals process protects candidates from erroneous scores. (Procedural safeguard.)
Synonym review procedure
Common mistakes Confusing plural: “appeal process” is also used; be consistent.
calibrate thresholds — UK /ˈkæl.ɪ.breɪt ˈθreʃ.həʊldz/ · US /ˈkæl.ɪ.breɪt ˈθreʃ.hoʊldz/ — verb phrase
Pattern(s) calibrate thresholds to/for fairness/accuracy
Definition Adjust cut-off points to meet performance or equity targets.
Example Committees calibrate thresholds each year to avoid excluding capable candidates. (Adjust cut-offs.)
Synonym tune cut-offs
Common mistakes Doubling prepositions: don’t write “calibrate to for”. Use one.
edge case — UK /edʒ keɪs/ · US /edʒ keɪs/ — noun (countable)
Pattern(s) handle an edge case; review edge cases manually
Definition An unusual situation that falls outside normal patterns.
Example Applicants with interrupted study histories are often treated as edge cases. (Non-typical profiles.)
Synonym exception
Common mistakes Using “corner case” (tech jargon) in formal IELTS essays; prefer edge case or simply exception.
false positive / false negative — UK /fɔːls ˈpɒz.ɪ.tɪv/ · /fɔːls ˈneɡ.ə.tɪv/ · US /fɔːls ˈpɑː.zə.tɪv/ · /fɔːls ˈneɡ.ə.tɪv/ — noun phrases
Pattern(s) reduce false positives/negatives; trade-off between them
Definition Incorrect acceptance vs incorrect rejection produced by a classifier.
Example Raising the bar cuts false positives but risks more false negatives. (Performance trade-off.)
Synonym Type I / Type II error
Common mistakes Confusing which is which; remember: positive = “accept” side, negative = “reject” side.
weigh the evidence — UK /weɪ ði ˈev.ɪ.dəns/ · US /weɪ ði ˈev.ɪ.dəns/ — verb phrase
Pattern(s) carefully weigh the evidence before deciding
Definition Consider the strength and relevance of available information.
Example Reviewers must weigh the evidence instead of trusting a single score. (Judgement over automation.)
Synonym assess the proof
Common mistakes Writing “weight the evidence” (noun vs verb). Use weigh.
broaden access — UK /ˈbrɔː.dən ˈæk.ses/ · US /ˈbrɔː.dən ˈæk.ses/ — verb phrase
Pattern(s) broaden access to opportunities/services
Definition Make opportunities available to a wider range of people.
Example Alternative indicators can broaden access to fair loans for thin-file applicants. (Inclusivity benefit.)
Synonym widen access
Common mistakes Preposition error: access to, not “access for” (unless “provide access for [group] to [thing]”).
level the playing field — UK /ˈlev.əl ðə ˈpleɪ.ɪŋ fiːld/ · US /ˈlev.əl ðə ˈpleɪ.ɪŋ fiːld/ — idiom/verb phrase
Pattern(s) help (to) level the playing field for X
Definition Make competition fairer by removing advantages/disadvantages.
Example Clear criteria can level the playing field for students from under-resourced schools. (Fairness gain.)
Synonym equalise conditions
Common mistakes Using in very formal tone is acceptable sparingly; avoid overuse of idioms in IELTS.
real-world constraints — UK /rɪəl ˈwɜːld kənˈstreɪnts/ · US /rɪəl ˈwɝːld kənˈstreɪnts/ — noun phrase (plural)
Pattern(s) work within real-world constraints; acknowledge the constraints of X
Definition Practical limits such as time, data quality, or resources.
Example Panels rely on tools because of real-world constraints like large applicant pools. (Operational reality.)
Synonym practical limits
Common mistakes Writing “constraint” when several limits exist; use plural if appropriate.
unintended consequences — UK /ˌʌn.ɪnˈten.dɪd ˈkɒn.sɪ.kwənsɪz/ · US /ˌʌn.ɪnˈten.dɪd ˈkɑːn.sɪ.kwən.sɪz/ — noun phrase (plural)
Pattern(s) lead to unintended consequences; mitigate the unintended consequences
Definition Results that were not planned and may be negative.
Example A zip-code proxy can create unintended consequences for minority communities. (Hidden harms.)
Synonym unforeseen effects
Common mistakes Writing “not intended consequences”; prefer the fixed phrase.
due process — UK /ˌdjuː ˈprəʊ.ses/ · US /ˌduː ˈprɑː.ses/ — noun (uncountable)
Pattern(s) ensure due process; deny someone due process
Definition The right to fair procedures, including notice and the chance to respond.
Example Applicants deserve due process through explanations and appeals. (Procedural rights.)
Synonym fair procedure
Common mistakes Capitalising it randomly; keep lower-case in general usage.
on balance — UK /ɒn ˈbæl.əns/ · US /ɑːn ˈbæl.əns/ — discourse marker
Pattern(s) On balance, S + V (writer’s final judgement)
Definition After considering both sides, introducing your overall view.
Example On balance, algorithms should support humans rather than replace them. (Reasoned stance.)
Synonym overall, all things considered
Common mistakes Overusing in every paragraph; best for conclusion or opinion line.
it stands to reason (that)… — UK /ɪt ˌstændz tə ˈriː.zən/ · US /ɪt ˌstændz tə ˈriː.zən/ — fixed clause
Pattern(s) It stands to reason that + clause
Definition It is logical to conclude that…
Example It stands to reason that transparent criteria increase public trust. (Logical inference.)
Synonym it is reasonable to say
Common mistakes Avoid “it stands for reason”; correct is to reason.
a case in point — UK /ə ˈkeɪs ɪn ˈpɔɪnt/ · US /ə ˈkeɪs ɪn ˈpɔɪnt/ — fixed noun phrase
Pattern(s) A case in point is …
Definition A typical example that clearly illustrates the argument.
Example A case in point is the use of alternative data to widen access to credit. (Specific illustration.)
Synonym a telling example
Common mistakes Don’t write “case and point”; the fixed form is case in point.
Part 6 — Interactive Exercise 1 (10 MCQs)
Choose the best answer. After you click, you’ll immediately see whether you were correct and a deep explanation (10–12 sentences) connecting meaning, patterns, and IELTS-style use.
Answer: B. Procedural justice concerns the fairness of the process, not just the final result. Clear criteria tell candidates what matters before they apply. Explanations show how those criteria were used in an individual case. An appeals path lets people challenge potential errors, which increases legitimacy. Options A and C ignore fair procedures and focus on outcomes or preferences. Option D undermines fairness by blocking transparency. In IELTS essays, define the concept briefly and illustrate with a realistic procedure. Use collocations like “ensure due process,” “transparent criteria,” and “right to appeal.” Avoid informal phrasing or legalistic overkill. Link the idea to accountability and trust. Finish the paragraph with how procedural justice supports equity and consistency.
Answer: C. A threshold is a cut-off that flips an outcome, such as being shortlisted or not. Calibrating thresholds means tuning these cut-offs to meet fairness or accuracy goals. In IELTS writing, pair it with verbs like “set,” “raise,” or “lower.” Avoid spelling mistakes like “treshold.” Option A refers to variables, not decision points. Option B concerns code, which is different. Option D is operational cost, unrelated to the cut-off boundary. Mention trade-offs: raising thresholds may reduce false positives but increase false negatives. Show cause-effect with connectors like “therefore” or “as a result.” End by linking thresholds to transparency—publishing criteria helps applicants understand decisions.
Answer: A. The correct preposition is “bias against” or “bias towards.” Options B–D misuse prepositions. In academic style, always name the source of bias (data, method, or human judgement). Explain the mechanism briefly, such as sampling issues or historical patterns. Connect bias to disparate impact to show policy relevance. Avoid vague claims like “the algorithm is biased” without evidence. Use precise nouns: “training-data bias,” “label bias,” or “measurement bias.” Provide a realistic example rather than an invented statistic. Keep tone neutral and analytical. Conclude by recommending audits or calibration to mitigate bias.
Answer: D. A human-in-the-loop system lets trained staff examine borderline cases and overrule errors. This design keeps accountability visible to applicants. It also captures nuance that fixed rules may miss. Options A–C remove meaningful control after deployment. In IELTS, connect this phrase to appeals, oversight, and legitimacy. Use patterns like “keep humans in the loop for edge cases.” Pair with verbs “review,” “override,” and “escalate.” Emphasise benefits (fairness, trust) while acknowledging costs (time, resources). Show balance to meet Task Response. Conclude with how this supports procedural justice.
Answer: B. “Opaque” means non-transparent rather than colourful. In fairness debates, opacity blocks explanations and weakens appeals. It may reduce legitimacy even if accuracy is high. IELTS markers value precise definitions with short, relevant examples. Option C confuses opacity with inaccuracy; a model can be accurate but opaque. Option D is unrelated. Use collocations like “black-box model,” “model interpretability,” and “post-hoc explanation.” Add a cause-effect line: “Without explanation, rejected applicants cannot identify errors.” Keep register academic and avoid emotive language. Link to governance by recommending published criteria and audits. Close with how clarity supports trust.
Answer: A. “Disparate impact” is a fixed noun phrase meaning unequal outcomes across groups. It can occur even when rules seem neutral. Option B confuses “disparate” with “desperate.” Option C misuses the form; say “there was disparate impact.” Option D invents “impactors.” In IELTS writing, define briefly and then show one mechanism (e.g., proxy variables). Use verbs like “measure,” “mitigate,” and “monitor.” Connect with “equity” and “fair access.” Avoid moralising; keep analytical tone. Conclude with a governance step such as periodic audits.
Answer: D. “Weigh the evidence” means assessing quality and relevance, not status or popularity. It encourages reasoned judgement beyond raw scores. Options A–C skip evaluation. In IELTS, combine with hedging verbs (may, tends to) for nuance. Show linkers like “however” and “nonetheless” to balance perspectives. Provide a short example of conflicting indicators. Keep sentences clear and avoid heavy jargon. Pair with “due process” and “transparency” to show systemic fairness. Use active voice for clarity. Close the paragraph by stating the final, justified decision.
Answer: C. “Transparency” fits the collocation “increase transparency about criteria.” Option A (efficacy) concerns effectiveness, not openness. Option B (equality) is different from equity and does not collocate with “about criteria.” Option D (proxies) is unrelated. In IELTS, use precise nouns with correct prepositions: “transparency about criteria,” not “on criteria.” Give a one-line benefit such as improved legitimacy. Add a short mechanism: clarity reduces suspicion of hidden rules. Then link to procedural justice and appeals. Keep register formal. End with a micro-wrap that echoes the main claim.
Answer: A. A proxy is a substitute indicator for something hard to measure. Zip code can correlate with opportunity rather than ability. Options B–D misuse the word semantically. In IELTS, show why a proxy is convenient but risky. Mention unintended consequences and fairness audits. Use the pattern “a proxy for X.” Provide a balanced view: proxies can help coverage when primary data are missing. However, they require monitoring for disparate impact. Keep examples realistic, not sensational. Finish by recommending better features or human review.
Answer: D. “On balance” introduces a considered overall judgement, typically in the conclusion. Options A–C present facts, not a final stance. In IELTS, place “On balance” at the beginning of a sentence that states your opinion. Keep the statement concise and defensible. Follow with a short justification referencing your body paragraphs. Avoid repeating evidence in detail here. Do not overuse the marker; once per essay is usually enough. Combine with forward-looking recommendations if appropriate. Maintain formal tone. End your conclusion with a confident, mirrored restatement.
Part 7 — Interactive Exercise 2 (10 NEW MCQs)
Choose the best answer. Explanations expand immediately and connect meaning, patterns, and IELTS-ready phrasing.
Answer: C. In admissions and lending, equity refers to fairness that accounts for different needs, not merely identical treatment. Option C pairs the noun with the collocation “equity in access,” which is standard. Option A describes equality, a related but distinct concept. Option B pluralises the uncountable noun incorrectly. Option D falsely claims synonymy. For IELTS, define equity in one concise clause, then show a mechanism (e.g., waiving fees or weighting context). Use thematic collocations like “equitable access,” “equity considerations,” and “equity impact assessment.” Keep tone analytical. Avoid moralising language; focus on criteria and outcomes. Close by linking equity to procedural justice and transparent thresholds.
Answer: A. The idiom means removing unfair advantages so that merit can be compared fairly. It does not imply lowering standards (B) or giving identical outcomes (C). Random selection (D) ignores evidence and undermines legitimacy. In IELTS, use sparingly and support it with concrete measures such as publishing weights or offering fee waivers. Combine with “broaden access” to show positive outcomes. Keep register formal by pairing the idiom with precise nouns like “criteria” and “eligibility.” Provide a short mechanism sentence to illustrate change. Show cause–effect relationships using connectors like “therefore” or “as a result.” Conclude by linking fairness to public trust.
Answer: D. A governance framework specifies accountability, review cycles, documentation, and escalation paths. It assigns who audits, who can override, and how appeals are handled. Options A–C misrepresent the term. In IELTS, define it in one clear sentence, then offer one practical example, such as “quarterly bias testing by an independent committee.” Pair with “transparency,” “oversight,” and “due process.” Avoid conflating governance with “government”; governance concerns organisational control. Keep verbs active: “publish,” “monitor,” “escalate.” This vocabulary signals precision and boosts Lexical Resource. End by linking governance to public legitimacy and consistent outcomes.
Answer: B. Efficiency concerns resource use (time, cost, effort), while efficacy tests whether the intervention works as intended. Option A reverses meanings. Option C is incorrect; careful writers keep them distinct. Option D is too narrow; efficacy can describe programmes and policies. In IELTS essays, use efficiency for processing speed or throughput and efficacy for outcome validity. Demonstrate both in one sentence: “The system improved efficiency but its efficacy in predicting success remains unclear.” Add a balancing connector (however, while). This contrast shows nuanced reasoning. Finish with an implication, such as a need for further evaluation.
Answer: A. Use criterion for singular and criteria for plural. Option B adds an incorrect plural ending. Option C mismatches plural noun with singular determiner. Option D mismatches plural subject with singular verb. In IELTS, prefer precise phrasing like “admissions criteria include A, B, and C.” Pair with “transparent,” “published,” or “weighted” for clarity. If naming one, write “the primary criterion is…”. Keep article use accurate and avoid noun stack clutter. Provide an example to ground the abstract term. Close by linking criteria to fairness and consistency.
Answer: D. The term highlights a lack of interpretability, not colour, price or accuracy. Options A–C misrepresent the phrase. In IELTS, define it briefly, then explain one consequence: limited appeals or reduced trust. Pair with “transparency,” “explainability,” and “procedural justice.” Avoid jargon like “SHAP values” unless you paraphrase it in plain English. Provide a compact example such as hiring scores with no rationale. Use hedging (“may reduce…”, “can undermine…”) to keep tone balanced. End with a practical remedy like publishing criteria or enabling human review.
Answer: B. Nuance means recognising subtle, context-dependent factors and interpreting them fairly. Option A ignores nuance by using a rigid cut-off. Option C removes judgement entirely. Option D confuses visuals with reasoning. In IELTS, demonstrate nuance through small but meaningful details, not dramatic anecdotes. Use phrases like “context-aware review,” “qualitative evidence,” and “holistic assessment.” Show how nuance can correct for data gaps or proxies. Maintain academic tone without moralising. Conclude by linking nuance to human-in-the-loop designs that preserve accountability.
Answer: A. The idiomatic preposition is “audit for bias.” Option B can appear in “audit to ensure X,” but without “ensure” it sounds odd. Options C and D are nonstandard here. In IELTS, use “conduct an audit,” “commission an external audit,” or “undergo periodic audits.” Pair with “disparate impact testing” to show domain accuracy. Keep sentences tight and avoid overloading with statistics you cannot verify. Provide a brief mechanism explaining what the audit checks. Close by stating how audit results inform calibration or corrective actions.
Answer: C. Use “accountable to” for the entity you must answer to, and “accountable for” for the action or outcome. Options A and B reverse the logic. Option D personifies the tool and misuses the preposition. In IELTS, pair accountability with “oversight,” “appeals,” and “transparency.” Demonstrate who holds responsibility and how it is exercised. Keep syntax parallel for clarity. Provide one practical example, such as naming the role that signs off on overrides. Conclude by linking accountability to legitimacy and trust.
Answer: D. The phrase refers to effects that decision-makers did not intend, which can be negative or mixed. Options A and C emphasise planning, the opposite idea. Option B restricts the meaning to positive effects. In IELTS, use the phrase to show critical thinking: describe the mechanism by which a proxy or threshold could produce harm. Provide a succinct example relevant to admissions or lending. Use hedging to avoid over-claiming. Suggest mitigations such as piloting, monitoring, and human review. Finish by connecting this analysis to balanced conclusions and policy recommendations.
Part 8 — Learn More with LingExam (Free Daily Tips)
Boost your band with short daily lessons, model answers, and interactive drills.
Join our channels for bite-size strategies, weekly challenges, and exclusive walkthroughs. Everything is designed for fast, focused practice — perfect on a busy schedule.
- Daily 60-second technique tips you can apply immediately.
- Weekly model answers with line-by-line explanations.
- Live Q&A mini-sessions and community practice prompts.
Prefer to save the links?
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lingexam
Telegram: https://t.me/LingExamAcademy
You May Also Like
-
Sep 25, 2025
-
Sep 25, 2025
-
Sep 25, 2025
-
Sep 25, 2025