Loading Blog...
Loading post...
Learn how to build cohesive, well-structured arguments in IELTS Writing Task 2 — with strategies for linking ideas and scoring higher.
Toey
Examiner-informed03/09/2026
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
IELTS Writing Task 2 asks you to write an argumentative essay of at least 250 words in 40 minutes. That sounds straightforward — until you realise the examiner isn't just checking whether your English is correct. They're reading to see whether your holds together as a coherent whole.
This matters because Task 2 is double-weighted compared to Task 1. It contributes more to your Writing band than the graph or letter does. And of the four marking criteria — Task Response, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range & Accuracy — two of them (Task Response and Coherence & Cohesion) are almost entirely about how well you build and connect your argument. That's 50% of your score sitting on argument quality.
So what does a cohesive argument actually look like, and how do you build one under exam pressure? Let me break it down.
Examiners use the word "cohesion" precisely. It doesn't just mean "use linking words." According to the official band descriptors, a Band 7 response shows "a clear central topic within each paragraph" and uses "a range of cohesive devices appropriately." A Band 5 response, by contrast, makes "inadequate, inaccurate or over-use of cohesive devices."
That last phrase — over-use — surprises most test-takers. Many students stuff their essays with connectors like furthermore, moreover, in addition, and additionally in the same paragraph, thinking more connectors equals more cohesion. It doesn't. It signals that you're masking weak logical flow with vocabulary decoration.
Real cohesion comes from two things working together: logical sequencing (each idea follows naturally from the last) and referencing (pronouns, synonyms, and demonstratives that tie sentences to what came before). The connectors are just the surface layer.
The single biggest mistake I see in Task 2 essays is starting to write immediately. Spending 5–7 minutes planning is not wasted time — it's the difference between an essay that wanders and one that argues.
Here's the planning move that actually works: decide your position first, then find two or three reasons that genuinely support it. Don't pick a side because it seems easier to write about. Pick the side you can defend with specific, logical reasons — because vague reasons produce vague paragraphs.
Once you have your reasons, ask yourself: do these reasons connect? Do they build on each other, or are they just three separate points floating side by side? The best essays have reasons that feel like they belong together — they're facets of the same underlying argument, not a random list.
For example, if the question asks whether governments should fund the arts, and your position is yes, three reasons might be:
- Arts funding preserves cultural identity that market forces would otherwise erode.
- Cultural industries generate tourism revenue and employment.
- Access to the arts improves social cohesion in diverse communities.
These three reasons are distinct but they all point toward the same core claim: arts have public value that goes beyond individual enjoyment. That shared logic is what makes an argument cohesive at the structural level — before you've written a single transition word.
Each body paragraph should do one job: prove one reason. The PEEL structure (Point → Evidence/Explanation → Example → Link back) is a reliable frame, but the key is understanding why each part exists.
The topic sentence (Point) tells the examiner exactly what this paragraph will argue. It should be specific enough that the rest of the paragraph can only go one direction.
Governments have a responsibility to fund the arts because cultural heritage cannot survive on commercial viability alone.
That sentence makes a claim. The paragraph now has a job: prove that claim.
The explanation is where most essays fall short. Students state the point and then jump straight to an example. But the examiner needs to see your reasoning — the logical chain between the claim and the evidence. Why does cultural heritage fail without public funding? Because art forms with small audiences — folk music, minority-language theatre, regional crafts — cannot generate enough ticket revenue to sustain themselves, yet they carry irreplaceable historical and social meaning.
The example grounds the explanation in something concrete. It doesn't have to be a famous statistic — a plausible, specific scenario works fine.
In Wales, for instance, the Welsh-language arts scene has survived largely because of sustained public subsidy; without it, productions in a language spoken by under a million people would be economically unviable.
The link back is a one-sentence return to your thesis. It doesn't need a connector like therefore — a well-placed paraphrase of your main argument works just as well and avoids the mechanical feel.
Let me be direct about cohesive devices because this is where students lose marks they don't expect to lose.
Use additive connectors sparingly. Furthermore, moreover, in addition — these are fine in moderation, but if every sentence in a paragraph begins with one, the examiner sees a list, not an argument. An argument has because and this means that and as a result — causal language that shows how ideas lead to each other.
Referencing is your most underused tool. When you write a claim in sentence one and then use this or such policies or these consequences in sentence two, you're creating a thread the reader can follow without being told to. It feels natural rather than mechanical.
Compare these two versions of the same two sentences:
Version A: Arts funding preserves cultural identity. Furthermore, it also generates economic benefits.
Version B: Arts funding preserves cultural identity — and that preservation has a measurable economic dimension too, since culturally distinctive regions attract more tourism.
Version B doesn't use a single traditional connector. But it's more cohesive because the second idea grows out of the first.
Avoid starting every paragraph with the same structure. If every body paragraph opens with One reason is that... / Another reason is that... / A final reason is that..., the essay reads like a numbered list. Vary the opening: sometimes lead with a concession, sometimes with a question the paragraph will answer, sometimes with the evidence itself.
Your introduction needs to do two things: paraphrase the question (to show you've understood it) and state your position clearly. It does not need to list every point you'll make — that's a school essay habit that wastes words in IELTS.
A strong introduction might be two to three sentences:
Whether public money should support the arts is a debate that often pits economic pragmatism against cultural values. I would argue that government funding is not only justifiable but essential, precisely because the arts generate forms of social and economic value that the market systematically underestimates.
Note that this introduction signals a position and hints at the underlying logic without spelling out every body paragraph. That's enough.
Your conclusion should not introduce new ideas. Its job is to restate your thesis in fresh language and, if possible, widen the lens slightly — a brief comment on implications or the bigger picture.
Ultimately, a government that withdraws from arts funding is not saving money so much as outsourcing cultural decisions to commercial interests. The long-term cost — in identity, cohesion, and soft power — is likely to outweigh any short-term fiscal saving.
That conclusion doesn't just repeat the introduction. It reframes the argument in terms of cost, which gives the essay a sense of having moved somewhere.
Cohesion and argument structure are inseparable from Task Response — the criterion that checks whether you actually answered the question. A common trap is writing a beautifully structured essay that answers a slightly different question than the one asked.
Before you write your conclusion, re-read the original prompt. Check: have I addressed every part of the question? Many Task 2 prompts have two parts (e.g., Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Give your opinion.). Missing the second part caps your Task Response score at Band 5, regardless of how well-linked your paragraphs are.
Cohesive argumentation in Task 2 is not a writing trick — it's a thinking discipline. It starts with a clear position, runs through reasons that genuinely connect, builds each paragraph around a single provable claim, and uses language (referencing, causal connectors, varied openings) to make the logical thread visible to the reader.
The examiner is reading your essay once, quickly, with a band descriptor in mind. Your job is to make the argument so clear that they never lose the thread — and so well-reasoned that they have no choice but to follow it to the end.
Cohesion refers to how logically and smoothly your ideas connect throughout the essay. It includes using cohesive devices (connectors, pronouns, synonyms) accurately and appropriately — not just frequently. The official band descriptors penalise over-use of connectors just as much as under-use.
Two well-developed body paragraphs are generally stronger than three thin ones. Each paragraph should fully develop one main idea — with a clear topic sentence, explanation of the reasoning, a concrete example, and a link back to your thesis. Quality of argument matters more than quantity of paragraphs.
It depends on the question type. For 'Do you agree or disagree?' questions, a clear one-sided position typically scores higher because it's easier to argue cohesively. For 'Discuss both views and give your opinion' questions, you must address both sides. Always re-read the prompt carefully to identify exactly what the question is asking.
Overusing additive connectors signals that your ideas are sitting side by side as a list rather than building logically on each other. Examiners look for causal and referential language — words like 'this means', 'as a result', 'such policies' — that show how one idea leads to the next. Mechanical connector use can cap your Coherence & Cohesion score at Band 5.
Around 5–7 minutes of planning before writing is well worth it. Use that time to fix your position, identify two or three reasons that genuinely connect, and sketch the logical flow of each paragraph. An essay written from a clear plan is almost always more cohesive than one written on the fly.
Toey
Verified coachToey is an AI-powered IELTS & TOEIC prep platform. Our guides are written with examiner-informed criteria and tested against thousands of real practice attempts.
