This is an answer written by a candidate who achieved a Band 7.0 score.

Here is the examiner’s comment:
This is a well-organised piece of writing, presenting ideas on both sides of the debate, developing these ideas effectively and also showing the candidate’s own position throughout the response. Ideas are logically organised and there is a clear progression in the train of thought. Each paragraph has a clear central topic, which is developed, and there is effective use of cohesive devices. The lexical resource sufficient to allow some flexibility and precision and there is use of less common items [natural ecosystem | human settlement | engineering projects | the most extreme supporters of | in harmony with surrounding nature]. There are occasional errors in spelling and collocation [prominance | heavy debates | go extinct), but these do not detract from overall clarity. There is a variety of complex structures, used with flexibility and accuracy, while grammar and punctuation are generally well controlled. Errors do not adversely affect the overall message.
Presently, the problem of a living space has risen into prominance in many places of the country. There is absolutely no way to build new houses in some cities, and a lot of people suggest to carry out construction in the countryside. However, it is a controversial topic introducing heavy debates.

“Opponents of urbanisation of former rural areas state that it would cause a dramatic effect on the natural ecosystem of such places. The most drastic consequences are caused by infrastructure that necessarily follows any human settlement that is, roads, power knes, means of water supply and such. The construction of those engineering projects leads to destruction of natural bioms of ponds, rivers and forests, causing many animals to migrate or go extinct. The arguments of environmentalists do make sense, but there also valuable ideas supporting the countryside occupation.
First of all, not even the most extreme supporters of spreading urbanization maintain that all of the countryside should be filled with homes all over the place. In fact, there are good examples of even larger cities living perhaps not in harmony with surrounding nature, but at least in some form of cooperation. Having a considerable amounts of parks inside inhabited area help both people to feel themselves better and planks and animals to have some sort of home. If I may to present an example, the city of Zaporizha where I live has a large island between the parts of the city which is covered with trees and largely unoccupied, being a nice counterpart to heavily populated nearby districts.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that while opponents of countryside settlements have many valid points, the situation is not as drastic as they portray it, and the co-existence of human population with nature is quite possible.”