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, inheritance taxes on wealth passed down within families are being increased by governments to reduce economic inequality. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

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

452 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.

Taxing inherited wealth more heavily has become a favoured tool for narrowing the gap between rich and poor, but treating it as the main lever of equality policy is a mistake. While I accept that such taxes have a legitimate role, I disagree that raising them substantially is the most effective way to tackle inequality, since they address only one source of advantage and can be circumvented or resented in ways that blunt their impact. There is a genuine case for higher inheritance tax. Wealth passed between generations, rather than earned through labour, entrenches privilege regardless of the recipient's effort or talent: a son who inherits a Parisian apartment block starts life with an asset base that a nurse earning the median French wage could never accumulate through decades of saving. Taxing such transfers and redirecting the revenue towards public housing or scholarships can, in principle, give children from poorer households a more comparable starting point, which is why countries like Japan maintain inheritance tax rates above 50 percent for large estates. However, the policy's effectiveness is limited by the behaviour it provokes. Wealthy families routinely use trusts, lifetime gifting and offshore structures to move assets beyond the reach of the tax authority long before death, so even if the headline rate climbs, the burden tends to fall hardest on the moderately prosperous, such as a small business owner whose family farm must be sold to cover the levy, while the very richest escape largely unscathed through planning that the law effectively permits. This creates a perception of unfairness that erodes public support for redistribution generally, and it does nothing to address the inequality generated during a person's lifetime through unequal access to education, housing markets or professional networks, which arguably matters more for social mobility than what happens at death. A more balanced approach would therefore target the loopholes that make inheritance tax porous in the first place, for instance by taxing gifts made within a set number of years before death as though they were part of the estate, while simultaneously investing in early childhood education and maintaining progressive income taxation during working life. Such measures work earlier in a citizen's life, before advantage has hardened into an asset that a death duty can only partially claw back, and they are harder for professional advisers to route around than a single tax applied at one moment. In conclusion, I partially agree that inheritance tax can contribute to fairer societies, but I do not accept that increasing it is sufficient on its own. Genuine progress depends less on the headline rate than on closing the avenues of avoidance and intervening earlier in people's lives, where the roots of inequality actually lie.

Why this answer earns band 8.5

The 70-word sentence beginning 'Wealthy families routinely use trusts, lifetime gifting and offshore structures' strings together a cause, a concession and a result clause without losing control, which is the kind of sustained complex sentence that distinguishes a band 8 script from a band 6 one that would break it into three short sentences.
A weaker essay would simply assert 'inheritance tax is unfair to small business owners'; this answer instead builds the claim through 'such as a small business owner whose family farm must be sold to cover the levy', giving Task Response a textured example rather than a bare assertion.
The cohesive device 'which is why' in 'which is why countries like Japan maintain inheritance tax rates above 50 percent' links evidence directly to the claim it supports, avoiding the disconnected listing of facts that weaker Coherence and Cohesion produces.
The collocations 'erodes public support' and 'entrenches privilege' are precise and idiomatic choices for a policy essay; a less proficient script would likely substitute the vaguer 'makes people upset' or 'gives advantage', showing why this counts as strong Lexical Resource.
The final paragraph's 'closing the avenues of avoidance and intervening earlier in people's lives' reformulates the thesis in new wording rather than repeating body paragraph three verbatim, which is the kind of controlled paraphrase that keeps a conclusion from reading as mechanical repetition.

The plan, reusable on any question of this type

Introduction paraphrasing the issue and stating a partial-agreement thesis (~75 words)
Body 1: the legitimate case for inheritance tax reducing inherited privilege (~97 words)
Body 2: the limitations - avoidance strategies and unfair burden on the moderately wealthy (~129 words)
Body 3: proposal for closing loopholes and intervening earlier in life, argued rather than merely asserted (~97 words)
Conclusion restating the partial agreement with a fresh final judgement (~54 words)

Phrases worth learning

I partially agree that	to signal a balanced opinion essay stance on any two-part question
which is why	to link a piece of evidence directly to the claim it supports
while simultaneously	to show two measures operating together rather than as alternatives
this creates a perception of unfairness that erodes	to describe an unintended negative consequence of a policy
genuine progress depends less on	to redirect an argument from a surface-level factor to a deeper underlying cause

Questions about this answer

What band is this model answer?

It is written to band 8.5, and the notes under it quote the answer's own words to show why.

How long should my answer to this question be?

Write at least 250 words and aim for 250 to 290 in the 40 minutes Task 2 allows. This model answer is 452 words.

What is the most common mistake on a opinion question?