Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-10

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 5.0)

Some people think that access to clean water is a basic human right. Others think every home should have a free water supply. I disagree because people don't value water; they use it for free and waste too much of it, which is an environmental loss.

In my opinion, people need to worry about water use; climate change happens every year when we cut trees for no reason. goverment give free of water use people dont get realise about that how to use water people using water every where it not ethical. For example, when people wash cars, it wastes water; when they clean their homes, most of the water is wasted there. In rare cases, people don't get water for free; people worry about water use; they don't waste water after all; it is a basic thing we need to improve.

Some people will disagree with that statement because some people can't afford to use water every month, like poor people; they value water. For example, poor people know the value of water; they don't waste water, but rich people don't value it, so governments conduct penalties for water waste or set meters for water usage, then people think about water.

In conclusion, the government should focus on how people get fresh water, but they should also install meters in homes to monitor water use, set charges for water use, and take action; this will improve people's awareness of water use. These are the main points the government should focus on.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You give a clear disagreement and offer relevant reasons, especially that free provision may encourage waste and that meters or penalties could promote responsible use. The examples of washing cars and cleaning homes help illustrate your concern. However, the response addresses the issue only partially: it does not fully explain how charging for water can be reconciled with the claim that clean water is a basic right, and the point about poorer households is not developed into a clear position or solution. Some statements, such as the link between cutting trees and climate change, are not clearly connected to the argument. The response is 243 words, so it falls 7 words short of the 250-word minimum; 9 words copied from the prompt were not counted. Develop the central reasoning and address affordability more directly.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has an introduction, two body paragraphs and a conclusion, and the reader can identify the main position. You also use basic linking expressions such as “For example,” “In conclusion,” and “Some people will disagree.” However, there is no clear progression within parts of the body: the second paragraph moves from climate change to government provision, examples of household waste, and then a confusing point about people who do not receive free water. Repeated references to “people” and “water use” make the argument feel circular, while semicolons and repeated clauses do not always show how ideas relate. Organise each paragraph around one main claim, explain it, and then give a directly relevant example. Use clearer referencing and avoid repeating the same point.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use enough basic vocabulary to communicate the topic and your position, including “basic human right,” “waste,” “penalties,” and “meters.” Some topic-related terms help make your suggestions understandable. However, the range is limited and several phrases are repeated, particularly “people,” “water,” and “value water.” Some word choices and combinations are unclear or unnatural, such as “an environmental loss,” “free of water use,” and “conduct penalties.” Spelling errors, including “goverment” and “dont,” also reduce accuracy. Aim for more precise expressions for water supply, affordability and conservation, and check spelling and collocations. This would make the argument easier to follow without changing its basic meaning.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple sentences and longer sentences with examples and reasons, and the overall meaning is usually recoverable. However, the range of structures is limited, and attempts to combine several ideas often contain frequent errors that make parts difficult to understand. For example, “goverment give free of water use people dont get realise” lacks clear sentence boundaries and has problems with verb forms and clause structure. In “when they clean their homes, most of the water is wasted there,” the reference and construction are awkward, while “people using water every where it not ethical” is missing a finite verb and clear punctuation. Practise building accurate subject–verb sentences, then connect them with conjunctions. Check articles, verb agreement, and sentence boundaries before submitting.

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.