Writing Task 2: answering "do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?"

"Do the advantages of X outweigh the disadvantages?" looks like an invitation to write two lists, and that is exactly the essay that stalls at band 6: two tidy body paragraphs — three advantages, three disadvantages — and a conclusion that suddenly announces a winner nobody argued for. The question's verb is outweigh: it asks for a weighing, which means a verdict, stated early and then actually defended. Task Response at band 7 requires "a clear position throughout"; an essay that inventories both sides and only picks one in the final sentence has no position throughout, however good its English.

Verdict first, then asymmetric bodies

State the verdict in the introduction — the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages, or the reverse; a genuine 50/50 is technically arguable but strategically the hardest position to sustain, because "they weigh exactly the same" still needs demonstrating. Then structure the bodies asymmetrically, matching the verdict:

• Body 1 — the losing side, taken seriously. Present the strongest disadvantage (if you argue advantages win), concede its reality, and show why it weighs less: it is temporary, it affects few people, it can be mitigated, it is a cost of transition rather than of the thing itself. This is the actual "outweighing" — the intellectual work the question asks for lives in this paragraph.
• Body 2 — the winning side, developed. One or two advantages argued deep rather than three listed shallow: mechanism, example, consequence. The band 7 descriptor rewards extended, supported ideas; it never rewards coverage for its own sake.

The word that does the heavy lifting is although: "Although remote work erodes informal mentoring — a real cost, particularly for juniors — this is a coordination problem companies are already solving, whereas the time returned by removing commutes is structural and accrues to every worker, every day." That single sentence weighs; three sentences of listed advantages don't.

Language that weighs rather than counts

Comparative machinery is what this question type uniquely rewards, and it doubles as Grammatical Range evidence: far outweigh / marginally outweigh, a price worth paying, the benefits accrue broadly while the costs fall narrowly, what tips the balance is…, this drawback, though real, is neither permanent nor unmanageable. Note these are all verdict-bearing phrases — each one commits you to a side while acknowledging the other, which is precisely the register the question demands.

Keep the conclusion a restatement, not a revelation: the verdict appeared in the introduction, was earned in the bodies, and is confirmed — in fresh words — at the end. If your conclusion contains an idea appearing nowhere above it, the essay is missing a paragraph, not gaining a flourish. The remaining structure questions — paragraph count, thesis, which side first — are settled in Task 2 structure, decided on the descriptors.