Band 8.5 model answer: opinion (agree or disagree)

A band 8.5 model answer to a real IELTS Writing Task 2 question, with the paragraph plan that fits it. Aim for 250 to 290 words in 40 minutes.

The question

In many countries, an increasing number of people are choosing to keep exotic or wild animals as pets rather than traditional domestic animals. What are the reasons for this trend, and what problems can it cause?

Your 4-paragraph plan

Introduction (40-50 words). Paraphrase the statement and give your clear opinion in one sentence.
Body paragraph 1 (80-100 words). First reason you hold this view, with one specific example.
Body paragraph 2 (80-100 words). Second reason, or address the strongest point on the other side and explain why your view still holds.
Conclusion (40-50 words). Restate your opinion in fresh words and summarise your two reasons.

The trap in this question type

Examiners reward a clear position held from the first paragraph to the last. Do not sit on the fence, and do not switch sides halfway.

Band 8.5 model answer

316 words, the length a strong candidate produces in the 40 minutes Task 2 allows (the minimum is 250). Written for this exact question in the official format. Read it once for ideas, then write your own before comparing.

Keeping pythons, macaws or even small primates in ordinary households is no longer a marginal curiosity but a visible trend across cities from Bangkok to Miami. This shift has identifiable causes, but it also generates consequences that extend well beyond the individual owner's living room. One major driver is the search for social distinction and novelty. In an era saturated with images on platforms such as Instagram, owning a serval cat or a tegu lizard confers a kind of status that a Labrador simply cannot match; the animal becomes a personal brand rather than a companion. Alongside this, the online exotic pet trade has made acquisition remarkably easy: a supplier in Thailand can ship a sugar glider to a buyer in Germany within days, letting hobbyists shop for reptiles the way they would for electronics. A third cause is documentary-driven fascination: a viewer who watches a nature programme on axolotls might buy one soon after, only to discover too late that the species needs precise water chemistry that an ordinary tank cannot provide. The problems that follow are considerable. First, animal welfare suffers, since most owners lack the specialised knowledge to replicate a species' natural habitat, and vets in exotic-pet clinics routinely report reptiles arriving with malnutrition or burns from poorly regulated heat lamps. Second, public safety and local ecosystems can be compromised: in Florida, escaped or deliberately released Burmese pythons have established breeding populations in the Everglades, showing how a single household decision can devastate a regional ecosystem. Third, disease transmission is a genuine concern, as reptiles can carry pathogens such as salmonella for which owners are unprepared. In conclusion, the appeal of exotic pets lies in status, accessibility and fascination, yet the resulting harm to animal welfare, ecosystems and public health is disproportionate to the pleasure it provides. Left unaddressed, this imbalance is likely to widen as online trade continues to outpace public awareness.

Why this answer earns band 8.5

The scaffolding 'First... Second... Third...' in the problems paragraph gives Coherence and Cohesion a visible skeleton; a weaker version that simply lists 'also' and 'another issue is' would blur the boundaries between the three problems, so numbering each one is the more copyable choice.
The clause 'lack the specialised knowledge to replicate a species' natural habitat' packs cause and result into one subordinate clause for Grammatical Range and Accuracy; a flatter version ('owners do not know much about the habitat, so the animal suffers') would need two separate sentences to say the same thing.
The axolotl scenario ('might buy one soon after, only to discover too late') is deliberately hedged with 'might' rather than stated as fact, which keeps Task Response honest about illustrating a plausible pattern rather than reporting a real case.
The introduction avoids a memorised opener by starting with named cities ('from Bangkok to Miami'), which shows Task Response through a genuine paraphrase of the prompt rather than a template first sentence.
'a single household decision can devastate a regional ecosystem' anchors the argument to the real, checkable Everglades python case, showing that Lexical Resource for cause-effect need not rely on invented statistics to sound authoritative.

The plan, reusable on any question of this type

Intro (35-45 words): paraphrase the trend using concrete cities and state that both causes and problems will be covered. (~45 words)
Body 1 (95-115 words): three causes, status, ease of online access, and documentary-driven curiosity, each given one distinct concrete scenario. (~128 words)
Body 2 (95-115 words): three problems, welfare, ecological damage, and disease risk, numbered with First/Second/Third and backed by a real-world case rather than an invented statistic. (~96 words)
Conclusion (35-45 words): weigh causes against harms and close with a judgement rather than an unrequested policy proposal. (~47 words)

Phrases worth learning

a visible trend across cities	opening line to frame a global social phenomenon concretely
confers a kind of status that	linking a possession or behaviour to social prestige in Task 2 essays
lack the specialised knowledge to	explaining why ordinary people fail at a technical or demanding task
a single household decision can devastate	showing disproportionate consequences in cause-effect arguments
disproportionate to the pleasure it provides	closing an evaluative comparison between benefit and harm in a conclusion