TOEFL Writing Examples: Annotated Responses at Every Band Level

TOEFL writing examples are the fastest way to understand what the rubric actually rewards, because reading a scoring description and seeing it applied to a real response are two different things. The 2026 TOEFL iBT Writing section has two tasks that produce rubric-scored responses: Write an Email and Write for an Academic Discussion. Both are scored from 0 to 5. This article provides original sample responses at Band 5 and Band 3 for each task, with a line-by-line rubric annotation explaining exactly why each response earned its score. If you already know the templates for both tasks, these TOEFL writing samples show what those templates look like when filled in well and when filled in with common gaps.

Key Takeaways

• Each TOEFL writing task is scored from 0 to 5. A Band 5 response is "fully successful." A Band 3 is "partially successful," meaning the message gets across but has clear rubric-level gaps.
• Write an Email rewards four things: addressing every required point, matching tone to the situation, organizing clearly, and using accurate language. Missing even one required point costs you credit regardless of everything else.
• Write for an Academic Discussion rewards a relevant, well-elaborated contribution. Responses that never engage with the classmates' posts read as generic and score lower on relevance.
• The difference between Band 5 and Band 3 is rarely about grammar alone. It is usually about elaboration, specificity, and whether the response addresses the full prompt or only part of it.

How Are TOEFL Writing Responses Scored?

Before looking at the TOEFL essay examples themselves, it helps to know what the scoring rubric actually measures. Both writing tasks use a 0-to-5 scale, but they weight different things.

Write an Email is scored on four dimensions: elaboration that supports the communicative purpose, syntactic variety and precise word choice, appropriate social conventions (greeting, register, politeness), and accuracy of grammar and vocabulary. A Band 5 response hits all four consistently. A Band 3 response partially supports the purpose but shows noticeable errors in structure, word forms, or social conventions.

Write for an Academic Discussion is scored on three main areas: relevance and elaboration of the contribution, variety of syntactic structures and word choice, and lexical and grammatical accuracy. The key difference from the email task is that "relevance" here means relevance to the discussion thread, not just the topic. A response that ignores what the classmates said and writes a standalone opinion is penalized even if the language is clean.

For the full scoring criteria, see our upcoming scoring rubrics guide. For template structures to organize your response before you write it, see TOEFL writing templates.

Write an Email: The Prompt

All four TOEFL writing samples below respond to one of two prompts. Here is the email prompt.

Scenario: You are a university student. Your professor, Dr. Chen, emailed the class to say that the group project deadline has been moved from Friday to Wednesday of the same week. You have a conflict because you work part-time on Tuesday evenings and your group planned to meet Tuesday night to finalize the project.

Task: Write an email to Dr. Chen. In your email:

1. Explain your scheduling conflict
2. Suggest a solution that would allow your group to complete the project on time
3. Ask about the possibility of a short extension for your group

What Does a Band 5 Email Look Like?

Sample response (Band 5):

Dear Dr. Chen,

Thank you for letting us know about the new deadline. I am writing because the change from Friday to Wednesday creates a scheduling conflict for our group. We had planned to meet Tuesday evening to finalize our project, but I work part-time every Tuesday from 6 to 10 p.m. and cannot attend that session. Since Tuesday night was our last planned working meeting, the shortened timeline affects our ability to review the final draft together.

One solution that could work is for the group to meet Monday evening instead. I am available all Monday night, and shifting the meeting by one day would still give us Tuesday to make any remaining edits individually before the Wednesday deadline. I have already checked with two of my group members, and they are available on Monday as well.

Would it be possible for our group to receive a one-day extension, submitting by Thursday instead of Wednesday? That extra day would give us the safety margin we lost when the deadline moved forward. If a full extension is not possible, even submitting by Wednesday at 11:59 p.m. instead of the start of class would help.

Thank you for considering this. I want to make sure our group submits the strongest work we can.

Best regards, Alex

Why Does This Response Earn a Band 5?

Elaboration supporting the communicative purpose. The response addresses all three required points with specific detail. The scheduling conflict is not just stated ("I have a conflict") but explained with concrete information: the Tuesday shift runs from 6 to 10 p.m., and that timing clashes with the group's planned meeting. The solution is specific (Monday evening) and backed by the fact that two group members have already confirmed availability. The extension request offers a fallback (end of day Wednesday) in case a full extra day is not granted. This level of detail is what the rubric describes as elaboration that "effectively supports the communicative purpose."

Syntactic variety and precise word choice. The sentences vary in length and structure. Some are simple ("I am available all Monday night"), and others use subordinate clauses ("Since Tuesday night was our last planned working meeting, the shortened timeline affects our ability to review the final draft together"). Word choice is precise rather than vague: "shifting the meeting by one day" instead of "changing our plans."

Social conventions. The register is consistently formal and polite throughout. The opening thanks the professor for the notification. The request for an extension is framed as a question ("Would it be possible") rather than a demand. The closing ties back to academic responsibility. There is no shift in formality between the greeting and the sign-off.

Accuracy. No grammatical or vocabulary errors. The response reads cleanly from start to finish.

What Does a Band 3 Email Look Like?

Sample response (Band 3):

Dear Dr. Chen,

I am writing to you about the project deadline. The new deadline is a problem because I work on Tuesday and we were going to meet that night. My group needs more time to finish the project.

I think we should meet on a different day instead. Can we maybe get an extension? Even one more day would be helpful for us.

Thank you.

Alex

Why Does This Response Earn a Band 3?

Elaboration partially supports the purpose. The scheduling conflict is mentioned but not explained in detail. The response says "I work on Tuesday" without specifying the hours, and it does not explain why Tuesday is particularly important (the group's final meeting). The solution ("meet on a different day") is vague, with no proposed day or confirmation that group members are available. The extension request is present but generic: "even one more day would be helpful" without explaining what that extra time would be used for. The rubric describes Band 3 as "elaboration that partially supports the communicative purpose," and this fits.

Moderate range of syntax and vocabulary. Sentences are mostly short and structurally similar. Three of the five sentences follow a simple subject-verb-object pattern. Vocabulary is adequate but not varied: "problem," "need," "meet," "helpful" carry the entire response without more precise alternatives.

Some noticeable errors in social conventions. The greeting and closing are appropriate, but the body of the email reads more like a note to a friend than a formal academic request. "Can we maybe get an extension?" is casual in a context where "Would it be possible to request a short extension?" would better match the register. The rubric calls this "some noticeable errors in structure, word forms, use of idiomatic language and/or social conventions."

How Could This Band 3 Response Reach a Band 5?

Three changes would move this response up significantly.

First, add specific details to each required point. Instead of "I work on Tuesday," write "I work from 6 to 10 p.m. on Tuesday evenings." Instead of "meet on a different day," propose a specific alternative: "Our group could meet Monday evening instead." Instead of "even one more day would be helpful," explain why: "That extra day would allow us to review the final draft after our rescheduled meeting."

Second, vary sentence structure. Mix short sentences with longer ones that use subordinate clauses. For example: "Since our Tuesday meeting was planned as the final review session, losing that evening means we have no scheduled time to check each other's work before submitting."

Third, match the register consistently to the situation. A request to a professor should use formal phrasing throughout. "Would it be possible" instead of "can we maybe." "I want to ensure our group submits strong work" instead of ending abruptly after "Thank you."

You can try a free Write an Email question to practice with AI scoring that evaluates these same rubric dimensions.

Write for an Academic Discussion: The Prompt

Here is the discussion prompt used for the two TOEFL essay examples below.

Professor's question: Some universities require all first-year students to live on campus, while others allow students to choose their own housing from the start. Which policy do you think is better for students, and why?

Classmate 1 (Maria): I think requiring on-campus housing is a great policy. When I started university, living in the dorms helped me make friends quickly and feel like part of the community. Students who live off campus sometimes miss out on social events and study groups that happen naturally in the dorms.

Classmate 2 (James): I disagree. Forcing students to live on campus takes away their freedom to choose. Some students have families, jobs, or financial limitations that make dorm life impractical. A blanket requirement ignores the different circumstances students are in.

What Does a Band 5 Discussion Response Look Like?

Sample response (Band 5):

I agree with James that a mandatory on-campus housing requirement creates unnecessary barriers for some students, though I think Maria raises a valid point about the social benefits of dorm life.

James mentioned that some students have financial limitations that make dorm life impractical, and I think this is the strongest argument against a blanket requirement. At my previous university, on-campus housing cost nearly twice as much as renting a shared apartment nearby. Students who could not afford the dorm had to take on additional loans or reduce their course load to work more hours, which actually hurt their academic performance. A policy meant to strengthen the university experience ended up weakening it for the students who could least afford it.

That said, Maria's point about community building is worth addressing. The social advantages she describes, making friends quickly and accessing informal study groups, are real, but they do not require a mandate to exist. Universities could offer priority dorm placement to first-year students who want it while keeping the option open for those whose circumstances make off-campus housing a better fit. This approach preserves the community benefits without creating financial hardship.

A housing policy works best when it expands student options rather than limiting them, and a flexible approach does both.

Why Does This Response Earn a Band 5?

Relevant and well-elaborated contribution. The response takes a clear position (agreeing with James), engages with both classmates by name, and extends the discussion rather than repeating what they said. The financial example is specific: "on-campus housing cost nearly twice as much as renting a shared apartment nearby." The response also addresses Maria's point rather than ignoring it, which shows full engagement with the discussion thread. The rubric describes Band 5 as "relevant and well-elaborated explanations, exemplifications and/or details."

Variety of syntactic structures and precise word choice. Sentences range from short and direct ("This approach preserves the community benefits without creating financial hardship") to complex structures with embedded clauses ("Students who could not afford the dorm had to take on additional loans or reduce their course load to work more hours, which actually hurt their academic performance"). Word choice is precise: "blanket requirement," "priority dorm placement," "financial hardship" rather than vague alternatives.

Accuracy. No grammatical or vocabulary errors. Transitions between ideas are smooth and logical.

What Does a Band 3 Discussion Response Look Like?

Sample response (Band 3):

I think students should be able to choose where they live. James said that some students have jobs and families, and I agree with this. It is not fair to make everyone live on campus when some people cannot afford it.

Living off campus can also be good for learning. When you live on your own, you learn how to cook, pay bills, and manage your time. These are important life skills that you do not learn in a dorm.

I think the university should let students decide for themselves.

Why Does This Response Earn a Band 3?

Elaboration where part of the explanation is missing or unclear. The response states a position and references James, but the engagement is surface-level: it restates his point ("some students have jobs and families") without extending or adding new reasoning. Maria's post is not addressed at all. The life-skills argument in the second paragraph is relevant to the topic but not to the discussion thread, since neither classmate brought it up and the response does not connect it back to what they said. The rubric describes Band 3 as "elaboration in which part of an explanation, example or detail may be missing, unclear or irrelevant."

Some variety in syntactic structures. The sentences have a moderate range: some use subordinate clauses ("When you live on your own, you learn how to cook"), while others are simple statements. However, the second-person "you" appears repeatedly, which shifts the register away from an academic discussion tone and limits the structural variety.

Some noticeable lexical and grammatical errors. While the grammar is technically correct, the vocabulary is limited. "Good for learning," "important life skills," and "let students decide for themselves" are functional but lack the precision that distinguishes a Band 5. The rubric at this level notes "a range of vocabulary" that is adequate but not varied.

How Could This Band 3 Response Reach a Band 5?

Three changes would move this response up.

First, engage with both classmates, not just one. The response references James but ignores Maria entirely. Even a single sentence acknowledging Maria's point about community and then explaining why you see it differently would strengthen the relevance score: "Maria's argument about dorm friendships is understandable, but those social connections can form through clubs, classes, and shared activities without requiring everyone to live in the same building."

Second, replace general claims with specific examples. "Some people cannot afford it" becomes stronger as: "On-campus housing at many universities costs $8,000 to $12,000 per year, while off-campus alternatives can be half that price." The life-skills argument would be more effective with a concrete scenario instead of a list.

Third, connect every paragraph back to the discussion. The life-skills paragraph is about housing in general, not about the specific policy the professor asked about. Tying it back to the prompt would keep the response on track: "A policy that forces students into dorms actually delays this independence by removing the need to make housing decisions."

Try a free Write for an Academic Discussion question →

What Separates Band 5 from Band 3 Across Both Tasks?

Looking at all four TOEFL writing samples together, three patterns emerge.

Specificity over generality. Every Band 5 response contains concrete details: a shift time, a cost comparison, a proposed alternative day. Every Band 3 response stays at the level of general statements that could apply to any prompt. Specificity is what the rubric means by "elaboration that effectively supports the communicative purpose."

Full prompt coverage. Both Band 5 responses address every element in the prompt. The email covers all three required points. The discussion post engages with both classmates and the professor's question. Both Band 3 responses skip at least one element: the email leaves out the specific solution, and the discussion post ignores one classmate. Skipping a required element costs you credit on the dimension that rewards completeness, no matter how well the rest is written.

Consistent register and varied language. Band 5 responses maintain the same level of formality from the first sentence to the last and use a range of sentence structures. Band 3 responses tend to shift register (formal greeting followed by casual body) or repeat the same simple sentence patterns. The rubric rewards "syntactic variety and precise, idiomatic word choice" at Band 5 and notes only "a moderate range of syntax and vocabulary" at Band 3.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I memorize these TOEFL writing examples and use them on the exam?

No. The prompts change every time, so a memorized response will not match the scenario or discussion you receive. What transfers is the pattern: address every required element, include specific details, engage with the full prompt, and keep your register consistent. Practice applying that pattern to different prompts rather than memorizing a fixed response.

What is the difference between Band 4 and Band 5 in TOEFL Writing?

Band 4 is described as "generally successful" with "adequate elaboration" and "few errors." Band 5 is "fully successful" with elaboration that "effectively" supports the purpose and "almost no" errors. The practical difference is usually specificity: a Band 4 response addresses the prompt and is clear, but its details are less concrete or its language less precise than a Band 5.

Does word count affect my TOEFL Writing score?

There is no published minimum or maximum word count that automatically changes your score. However, very short responses rarely have enough elaboration to reach Band 4 or 5. The email task typically targets 100-120 words, and the academic discussion typically targets 100-130 words. Writing significantly more than that under timed conditions often introduces errors without adding substance.

How are TOEFL Writing scores combined into the overall section score?

Write an Email and Write for an Academic Discussion are each scored from 0 to 5. These scores, along with Build a Sentence, contribute to the overall Writing section band on the 1-6 scale. The section band is then averaged with Reading, Listening, and Speaking to produce your total TOEFL score.

Where can I practice TOEFL Writing tasks with scoring feedback?

You can try a free Write an Email question with AI scoring that evaluates your response against the same rubric dimensions discussed in this article. For a broader overview of all exam sections and how they connect, see the complete guide to the TOEFL iBT 2026. For free practice across all sections, try a free TOEFL practice test.