Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-06

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore every home should have a water supply that is provided free of charge.

Do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Student answer (Band 6.0)

Access of clean water is considered one of the primary pillars of human rights, and I largely and drawn to the idea of that everyone should be able to obtain it, albeit no one should receive unlimited water supply free of charge.

On one hand water is a crucial neccesity of life as its mostly used for survival and hygiene. According to many world organization including NATO and UN billions of people still lack the ability to access clean water which lead to many safety issues such as disease outbreaks. Therefore governments have a duty to supply their people with clean water, therefore adding small low-bugdet schemes to enable people of low income families to access clean water will help the protect the vulnerable.

However providing unlimited free water is undeniable an impossible task. Treating and delivering clean water is also quite expensinve along with the infrastructure that is required for it with proper maintanence.Moreover if people pay nothing for a resource they are given they tend to lose its importance and up wasting it.

A more balanced solution would e to provide minimum amount for each household to cover the basics while charging for additional usage. this would protects individuals basic rights and would increase awareness and encourage responsible consumption.

In conclusion, though clean is a basic right and nobody should live without it its is also our responsibly to protect and carefully manage it in a fair mannner so its sustainable. A free basic allowance with charges of extra usage in my opinion is the best approach.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear: you support access to clean water but reject unlimited free supply, proposing a basic allowance with charges for extra use. This directly answers the agree/disagree question, and the contrast between water’s importance and the cost of treatment gives the response a relevant line of reasoning. The reference to people lacking clean water and the risk of disease supports the first point, while infrastructure costs and waste support the second. However, some ideas are asserted rather than fully explained: for example, the claim that people waste resources when they pay nothing would benefit from a specific illustration. The proposed allowance is promising but needs clearer detail about how it would work. More developed support would make the argument more convincing.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a coherent overall structure: an introduction states your position, two body paragraphs present contrasting considerations, and the conclusion restates your proposed compromise. Linking phrases such as “On one hand,” “However,” and “In conclusion” help readers follow this progression. The main limitation is that some connections are mechanical or unclear. “Therefore” is repeated in close succession in the second paragraph, and the relationship between the global access problem and the proposed low-income schemes could be explained more smoothly. The final paragraph also moves quickly from the basic allowance to sustainability without showing the link in detail. Use a wider range of transitions and clearer references between claims so the argument flows more naturally.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “human rights,” “disease outbreaks,” “infrastructure,” “vulnerable,” and “responsible consumption.” These choices help communicate the central argument and show attempts to use more precise language than basic everyday terms. However, several spelling errors and inaccurate word choices reduce control, including “neccesity,” “expensinve,” “maintanence,” and “mannner.” Some phrases are also unnatural or imprecise, such as “primary pillars of human rights,” “low-bugdet schemes,” and “lose its importance.” Aim to check spelling carefully and learn common collocations for this topic. More accurate phrasing would make your ideas sound clearer and more assured.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and complex sentence forms, including a concession in the opening (“albeit…”) and a conditional structure in “if people pay nothing… they tend to…”. This gives the response some variety, and the main meaning is generally understandable. However, some grammatical errors remain in sentence construction, agreement, articles, and punctuation. For example, “which lead to many safety issues” has a subject–verb agreement problem, while “this would protects” uses an incorrect verb form. The opening sentence is also difficult to control, and several sentences run together without appropriate spacing or punctuation. Review agreement and verb forms, and divide longer sentences where needed. Greater accuracy across these structures would strengthen the response.

See this exact question answered at other band scores. The same prompt compared across bands.

Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.