A band 5 Write for an Academic Discussion response, annotated

The task in brief

Write for an Academic Discussion is one of three Writing tasks on the 2026 TOEFL® iBT, and it carried over from the old test. ETS's research report on the 2026 update says it remained unchanged.

You see a question from a professor and short replies from two classmates on an online class forum. You then write your own post that states and supports your opinion. ETS gives you 10 minutes. There is no maximum length, but ETS says a good response is usually at least 100 words.

Your post is scored from 0 to 5 using ETS's published scoring guide. That task score is combined with your other Writing scores and converted into your 1–6 Writing band. "Band 5" in this guide means C1-level writing on the 1–6 scale, which is the level of the response below.

What the scoring guide rewards

At its top level, ETS's scoring guide describes a post that is a relevant and very clearly expressed contribution to the discussion. It lists three features:

Feature	In plain terms
Relevant and well-elaborated explanations, examples and/or details	You answer the professor's question and support it with reasons and specifics
A variety of sentence structures and precise, idiomatic word choice	Your sentences are not all the same shape, and your words say exactly what you mean
Almost no errors beyond normal typos under time pressure	Mistakes are rare and do not get in the way

Note the word "contribution". ETS's own guidance on this task says raters look for ideas that add to the discussion, and that memorised answers score low because they do not fit the topic.

The prompt

This prompt is original, written for this guide.

Dr. Haddad (Urban Studies): Some cities have experimented with making buses and trams free for everyone. Supporters say this cuts traffic and helps people on low incomes. Critics argue that the money would be better spent on more frequent and reliable services. Should cities make public transport free? Why or why not?

Deniz: I think they should. In my city, a monthly pass is expensive for students and retired people, so many of them drive or take taxis instead. If transport were free, more people would leave their cars at home, and the roads would be less crowded.

Lucas: I'm not convinced. People don't avoid the bus because of the price. They avoid it because it's slow and often late. If a city has a limited budget, it should improve the service first. A free bus that comes every forty minutes still won't attract drivers.

A band 5 response

I partly agree with both Deniz and Lucas, but I think the best answer depends on who the city is trying to help. Lucas is right that drivers rarely switch to buses just because tickets become free; for someone with a car, the real cost of the bus is time, not money. However, for students, pensioners and people on low wages, the price is often the main obstacle. Instead of making transport free for everyone, cities could make it free for these groups and use the rest of the ticket income to run buses more often. In my city, for instance, students already pay reduced fares, and this is the reason why many of my classmates rarely use cars at all. A targeted approach like this would reduce costs for the people who needs it most while still funding a better service.

That is about 140 words, comfortably written in 10 minutes with time to check.

Line-by-line notes

"I partly agree with both Deniz and Lucas, but I think the best answer depends on who the city is trying to help." The opening takes a position and signals a new angle at the same time. It does not repeat the professor's question or announce "In this post I will…". Starting with a clear view tells the reader immediately that this is a contribution, not a summary.

"Lucas is right that drivers rarely switch to buses just because tickets become free; for someone with a car, the real cost of the bus is time, not money." This engages with a classmate directly, then explains why he is right in the writer's own words. The semicolon joins two closely linked ideas. That is sentence variety with a purpose.

"However, for students, pensioners and people on low wages, the price is often the main obstacle." A clear turn. However is a common linker, but here it marks a real change of direction, so it earns its place.

"Instead of making transport free for everyone, cities could make it free for these groups and use the rest of the ticket income to run buses more often." This is the contribution: a third option that neither classmate proposed. It also combines Deniz's concern (price) with Lucas's (service), which shows the writer has read both posts closely.

"In my city, for instance, students already pay reduced fares, and this is the reason why many of my classmates rarely use cars at all." A concrete example from the writer's own experience, which is allowed and encouraged. This is the reason why is a little wordy; which is why would be tighter. Precision like that is the difference between band 5 and band 6 word choice.

"A targeted approach like this would reduce costs for the people who needs it most while still funding a better service." A closing sentence that sums up the proposal and its benefit. It contains one grammar error: people who needs should be people who need. An occasional slip like this fits band 5. At band 6 you would expect almost none.

Why this is band 5 and not band 6

The response is relevant, takes part in the discussion, and is well developed. The sentences vary (a semicolon, an instead of phrase, a while clause), and the vocabulary is precise in most places: obstacle, targeted approach, ticket income. Two things keep it from the very top: one agreement error, and a few phrases that are correct but not as precise or natural as they could be. Fix those, and the same ideas would read as band 6.

A 10-minute plan

Minutes	What to do
0–1	Read the professor's question twice. Read both student posts and note one point you agree or disagree with.
1–2	Decide your position and your one new idea: a reason, an example or a compromise that neither student gave.
2–8	Write: position, response to a classmate, your new idea, a specific example, a one-sentence close.
8–10	Check verb endings (-s, -ed), articles (a, the) and agreement after who and which.

Mistakes that keep posts at band 3 or 4

• Summarising the classmates. Mentioning their names is useful only if you then add something they did not say.
• Copying their sentences. ETS's guidance tells you to use your own words. The scoring guide places responses that rely on language borrowed from the prompt at the lowest levels.
• Two reasons, no example. "Elaboration" means explaining why and showing how. One well-developed example beats three listed reasons.
• A memorised introduction. ETS warns that pre-written answers score low because they do not fit the topic.
• Stopping at 70 words. Short posts rarely have room for real elaboration. Aim for at least 100.

Practise it

Try the prompt above in 10 minutes, then compare your post with the response here, feature by feature. Skorway's practice sets for this task give you a band for each criterion, quote your errors with corrections, and show your own answer rewritten one band higher.

TOEFL® is a registered trademark of ETS. Skorway is not endorsed or approved by ETS.