Band 8 model answer
A model answer written to illustrate a Band 8 response to this question, with the rubric breakdown and what carries it. Written by us as a teaching example, not a verified exam script.
“Many manufactured food and drink products contain high levels of sugar, which causes many health problems. Sugary products should be made more expensive to encourage people to consume less sugar. Do you agree or disagree?”8
Overall
8
Task response
8
Coherence & cohesion
8
Lexical resource
8
Grammar
Excessive sugar consumption is a well-documented driver of obesity, dental disease, and metabolic disorders, placing significant strain on public health systems. I agree that making sugary products more expensive through taxation is a justified response, provided it is designed carefully and accompanied by complementary measures.
Price signals are among the most reliable levers available to governments seeking to modify population behaviour without outright prohibition. When food and drink products containing high sugar concentrations are taxed, the cost increase directly reduces their affordability relative to healthier alternatives. The effect is most pronounced among younger consumers and households with limited disposable income, groups that also tend to bear the heaviest burden of sugar-related illness. A well-calibrated tax therefore targets precisely the cohorts where health gains would be most significant.
The reformulation incentive is equally important and often overlooked. Manufacturers facing a sugar tax have a commercial incentive to reduce the sugar content of their products before the levy applies, thereby protecting their price competitiveness. This effect played out clearly when several countries introduced soft-drink levies: significant reformulation occurred across product lines within the anticipation period, delivering population-wide reductions in sugar intake that would have taken years to achieve through voluntary guidelines.
Opponents argue that such taxes unfairly penalise low-income consumers, who spend a larger share of their earnings on food and are less able to absorb price increases. This concern has merit. However, it is an argument for thoughtful revenue deployment, directing proceeds towards subsidised healthy food access or community health services, rather than a reason to abandon the policy altogether.
The case for taxing high-sugar products is strong. No government should rely on taxation alone, but used alongside education, labelling reform, and reformulation incentives, it is a proportionate and effective tool.
- •Reformulation mechanism is explained clearly and linked to actual policy experience
- •Identifies that the most price-sensitive groups are also those most affected by sugar-related illness, a strong equity inversion argument
- •Regressivity objection is fairly addressed with a practical revenue-deployment suggestion
- •Slight thematic overlap with the sugar-tax-effectiveness essay; the reformulation point could be differentiated more from that treatment
Write your own. Get a real band read.
Reading a model answer only takes you so far. Write your own response to this question and we’ll grade it against the four official rubrics, the same way we scored this one.
Attempt this question