Six versions of the same email, from fully effective to empty, each with the reason it sits where it does, followed by two more prompts whose reference emails are annotated requirement by requirement.
Test Ninjas Research · Updated October 1, 2026
These are Test Ninjas’ original practice rubrics, not official ETS scoring. They are written to match the published TOEFL task descriptions, and they use a 0–5 practice band so you can judge one response at a time. The real TOEFL reports each section on a 1–6 band scale (see TOEFL score range), and there is no conversion from a practice band to an official score.
The quickest way to understand a writing rubric is to watch it sort real-looking answers. Below, one email prompt is answered six ways. The band-5 email is not longer or fancier than the band-4 one; it is more precise about the problem and easier for the reader to act on. The lower bands show what happens as grammar starts to hide the meaning and the requested actions get lost.
After the band examples come two separate prompts. Each shows the full task, how the reference response meets every requirement, and notes on why it works. To attempt more prompts under the 7-minute timer, use the practice page linked below.
Every example answers the same prompt, so the only thing that changes is how well the writer handles it. Read each one before its explanation and decide on a band yourself.
About these examples. Original worked illustrations of the six response-level practice bands. These are editorial teaching judgments, not ETS ratings or human-calibrated samples.
Prompt behind every example: Email the oral-history supervisor: distinguish interview participation from public identification, propose separate choices, and ask about reviewing previously collected interviews.
Practice band 5
Dear Dr. Park,
Could we clarify the oral-history consent form before the next interviews? A contributor may want to share an experience without having their real name displayed publicly, so willingness to participate does not necessarily settle how that person should be identified.
I suggest using one choice for interview participation and a separate choice for publication under a real name or a pseudonym. That would let us record both decisions clearly instead of treating them as one agreement.
How should we review interviews collected with the current form before preparing the exhibit? It would be helpful to confirm each contributor's identification preference while there is still time to change the captions.
Thank you,
Jordan
Why this band: The message explains the two decisions, proposes a workable distinction on the form, and makes a specific retrospective-review request. The language and respectful tone help the recipient understand both the problem and the next steps.
Boundary note: This is one effective proposal. The response need not use these exact options or this wording to reach the same practice band.
Practice band 4
Dear Dr. Park,
I think we should change the consent form. One person is willing to do the interview but wants a pseudonym in the exhibit. Joining the interview and showing the person's name are different choices.
Could the form have one question about joining and another about which name we can use? This would make the choices easier to see. Could you also tell us how to check the interviews we already collected before they are published? I want to make sure those people have the right name on their material too.
Thanks for your helps,
Jordan
Why this band: All requested actions are covered with adequate explanation and a suitable tone. The message is clear, although phrasing such as 'the right name' is less precise and 'your helps' is a noticeable word-form slip.
Boundary note: The slip alone does not force a 4. This illustration is placed here for the overall adequacy of development and language; a reviewer may judge a boundary case differently.
Practice band 3
Dear Dr. Park,
The form need changing because interview and name is not same choice. The person can tell us a story but not want the real name in public. Please make two choices on form so the person can choosing each one. Also, how we check the old interviews before publish? Some people may think different when they sign. I hope you can explain us what to do.
Thank you,
Jordan
Why this band: The three requested actions are recognizable, and the central distinction is understandable. Repeated agreement, verb-form, article, and complement errors reduce precision and ease of reading. The proposal and retrospective check are only briefly developed.
Boundary note: Grammar feedback should quote the actual problem, such as 'can choosing,' and show a repair. Do not deduct a separate fixed point for every error.
Practice band 2
Dear Dr. Park,
The interview person is name not wanting. Form together make problem. You can two form choices for person and name, because public different. Old interview I not know it already yes or no. Please do checking and tell.
Jordan
Why this band: The response attempts the relevant consent problem, but readers must reconstruct several relationships. The proposed choices and request about earlier interviews are unclear. Persistent sentence-level problems prevent the message from functioning effectively.
Boundary note: Recognizable topic words receive acknowledgement, but the evaluator should not silently supply missing explanations from the prompt.
Practice band 1
Dear supervisor. Name no. Interview yes. Two choices. Before exhibit old interviews. Please.
Why this band: A few related fragments suggest an attempted message, but they do not explain the distinction or communicate a usable proposal and review request.
Boundary note: This assumes these are the learner's attempted response, not an entirely copied prompt. Copy-only work belongs to the zero case.
Practice band 0
No response — a deliberately empty submission.
Why this band: The learner intentionally submitted no written response through a functioning attempt.
Boundary note: A lost draft or failed submission is a technical problem with a null score, not this example.
Score your own email
The Writing rubric explains each band and gives a step-by-step self-scoring method.
These prompts come from the Test Ninjas TOEFL course. The reference responses are one good way to answer, not a template: other proposals and wording can score just as well if they cover all three requests in a suitable tone.
1. A consent form that bundles two choices
The prompt
To: Dr. Elena Park, supervisor of the student oral-history activity
Subject: Consent form clarification
You are reviewing the consent form for the student oral-history project. The form currently says that if someone agrees to be interviewed, their real name will appear in the public exhibit too. One participant is happy to talk about their experiences but only if the project uses a pseudonym. You need to ask for a clearer form before more interviews are collected.
In your email:
Explain why participation and identification are separate decisions
Propose separate choices on the form
Ask how already collected interviews will be checked before publication
Write an email that addresses all three points. You have 7 minutes.
What the email must do
Requirement
How the reference response meets it
Explain why participation and identification are separate decisions
This explains why agreeing to be interviewed and agreeing to name publication are different decisions. “Right now it makes interview participation and name publication one choice, but those are separate decisions.”
Propose separate choices on the form
This proposes separate choices on the form and names both options clearly. “Could we revise the form so it has separate choices: one for agreeing to be interviewed and another for choosing whether the project may publish the real name or should use a pseudonym?”
Ask how already collected interviews will be checked before publication
This asks directly about checking the interviews already collected before publication. “I would also like to know how the interviews already collected will be checked before publication.”
Reference response · illustrative practice band 4–5
Dear Dr. Park,
I am reviewing the oral-history consent form, and one part is causing confusion. Right now it makes interview participation and name publication one choice, but those are separate decisions. Someone may be willing to share personal experiences and still prefer a pseudonym in the public exhibit.
Could we revise the form so it has separate choices: one for agreeing to be interviewed and another for choosing whether the project may publish the real name or should use a pseudonym? That would match what contributors actually decide.
I would also like to know how the interviews already collected will be checked before publication. If some forms were signed under the current wording, it may help to review them carefully so no one is identified by mistake.
Thank you for considering this,
Jordan
Why it works: This model answers the exact consent-form problem instead of broadening it. It explains why participation and identification are separate, proposes a form with two choices, and ends by asking how already collected interviews will be checked before publication. The tone is polite and specific, and the email stays within the uncertainty boundary by asking for a revision rather than assuming approval.
The email stays focused on the bundled consent issue instead of turning into a broad policy complaint.
It clearly separates the two decisions the participant wants to make: being interviewed and being named.
The proposed fix is concrete, with two form choices and a follow-up about review before publication.
The tone is respectful and practical, which suits a supervisor who can act on the form.
This model is one suitable response. Other wording and proposals can receive credit when they address all three requested points, respect the stated facts and constraints, and use appropriate language and tone. No fixed email word count is required.
2. A fee after a held deposit
The prompt
To: Ms. Farah Haddad, member services manager
Subject: Overdraft fee on my checking account
Last Friday you deposited your paycheck at your credit union's branch before the posted 3 p.m. cutoff. The credit union held the money for two days, and meanwhile an automatic rent payment pushed your account below zero, triggering an overdraft fee. In six years as a member, you have never had one. Write to the member services manager.
In your email:
Describe what happened to your deposit.
Ask the credit union to reconsider the fee.
Suggest how members could be warned about holds in the future.
Write an email that addresses all three points. You have 7 minutes.
What the email must do
Requirement
How the reference response meets it
Describe what happened to your deposit.
Describes the deposit, the timing and how the hold caused the overdraft. “Last Friday I deposited my paycheck at the Main Street branch at about 1:30 p.m., well before the 3 p.m. cutoff.”
Ask the credit union to reconsider the fee.
Requests reconsideration while accepting that holds can be legitimate, using the six-year record as support. “so I would be grateful if you could reconsider the fee as a one-time courtesy”
Suggest how members could be warned about holds in the future.
Proposes two concrete ways to warn members about holds. “it might help to print the release date on deposit receipts or to send a text alert whenever a hold is placed”
Reference response · illustrative practice band 4–5
Dear Ms. Haddad,
I am writing about an overdraft fee charged to my checking account on Monday. Last Friday I deposited my paycheck at the Main Street branch at about 1:30 p.m., well before the 3 p.m. cutoff. I expected the money to be available that evening, but it was held for two days. In the meantime, my automatic rent payment went through, and the account dropped below zero.
I understand that holds are sometimes necessary, but nobody at the counter mentioned one, and my receipt did not show it. I have been a member for six years without a single overdraft, so I would be grateful if you could reconsider the fee as a one-time courtesy.
For the future, it might help to print the release date on deposit receipts or to send a text alert whenever a hold is placed. That way, members could move money before a payment fails.
Thank you for your time,
Daniel Mensah
Why it works: The email gives the manager a clear timeline, links the hold to the fee, and asks for a courtesy refund rather than accusing the credit union of an error. It supports the request with the writer's long record and closes with practical ideas for warning members about holds. The tone is firm but respectful, which suits a formal complaint to a financial institution.
The writer must ask for a fee to be waived without claiming the credit union broke its own rules; the strongest responses acknowledge that holds can be legitimate.
A clear sequence of events (deposit, hold, rent payment, fee) lets the manager act without asking follow-up questions.
The six-year record works as a reason for goodwill, not as a demand.
The suggestion should target the actual gap in the story: members were not told about the hold.
This model is one suitable response. Other wording and proposals can receive credit when they address all three requested points, respect the stated facts and constraints, and use appropriate language and tone. No fixed email word count is required.
Try more prompts yourself
4 more prompts, each with a timer, a short checklist and a model to compare against once you have written your own, are on the Write an Email practice questions page:
No. The bands are Test Ninjas’ editorial teaching judgments on our original 0–5 practice scale. They are not ETS ratings and have not been calibrated against official scores. The official TOEFL reports Writing on a 1–6 band scale.
There is no required word count in our practice rubric. The reference responses here run from about 130 to 160 words because that is roughly what it takes to handle three requests clearly in 7 minutes. A shorter email that does all three jobs well beats a longer one that misses one.
Use one that suits the recipient. A note to a friend and a request to a supervisor should not sound the same. The rubric does not require any particular greeting formula, but the overall tone does matter.
Use them to see what “addressing a requirement” looks like, then write in your own words. The prompts on test day are different, and a memorized template rarely fits a new situation well.