Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-12

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 6.5)

Since access to clean water is considered a basic human right, every house should have it provided free of charge. I partially agree with the statement because it would result in a waste of such a precious resource in rich countries, while it could be beneficial in the less developed ones.

Allowing everyone free access to water would increase its waste, especially in developed countries. Therefore, in order to use it, it should require a payment in most of the countries. However, the sole exception would be for developing countries, where the possibilities of having water directly in the houses is lower. For instance, if water fees will be completely removed, the outcome would be negative in many countries, since people are not educated enough in not wasting water the environment would be damaged. While, if we consider only the less developed ones, it can be beneficial, because their lack of financial resources do not allow them to obtain water in their buildings and they are well aware of how to manage its usage.

Moreover, I believe that less developed countries should be able to have direct access to water. So in this case, I agree that, since it is a basic human right, it should be available for them without paying for it. For example, people who do not have access to water are deprived of other basic activities such as showering, cooking or doing the laundry.

To conclude, I partially agree with the statement, because allowing everyone the access to this resource without paying for it would harm the whole environment. However, if only countries in a disadvantageous situation can have access to water without a payment, it would have a positive outcome.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear from the introduction and conclusion: you partially agree, supporting free access in less developed countries but opposing it in wealthier ones. You address the question and give relevant reasons, including the risk of waste and the effects of water scarcity on everyday activities. The examples of showering, cooking and laundry help show why access matters. However, the distinction between countries is not fully justified: the claim that people in less developed countries are “well aware” of managing water is asserted rather than supported, and the environmental harm from free water is also explained broadly. To develop the argument further, clarify how a basic right could be protected while still discouraging excessive use, and support each main claim with a more specific example.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a coherent overall structure, moving from your position to reasons against universal free provision, then to the case for access in less developed countries, and finally to a conclusion. Paragraphing is appropriate, and signposts such as “Moreover,” “For instance” and “To conclude” make the stages easy to follow. Some connections are less smooth or precise, however. The sentence beginning “However, the sole exception” introduces a distinction that is not fully explained, and “While, if we consider…” is an awkward transition that interrupts the flow. The conclusion repeats the central contrast but does not add much synthesis. For stronger progression, make the relationship between affordability, access and conservation explicit, and use linking phrases that show the exact contrast or consequence.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “basic human right,” “precious resource,” “financial resources” and “deprived,” which helps communicate the argument clearly. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “a disadvantageous situation.” Some word choices and collocations are imprecise or unnatural, though: “increase its waste” would be more naturally expressed as “increase water wastage,” and “the possibilities of having water directly in the houses” is unclear compared with “access to household water connections.” “The whole environment” is also too broad for the intended meaning. These choices do not prevent understanding, but they limit precision. Aim for natural collocations and use specific terms for water access, affordability and conservation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including conditional and subordinate clauses, as in “if water fees will be completely removed” and “because their lack of financial resources do not allow them…”. This shows an attempt to express cause, contrast and hypothetical outcomes. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly with verb forms and subject–verb agreement. In the conditional, “if water fees will be… removed” should use “if water fees are… removed”; “lack… do not allow” should be “lack… does not allow.” The construction “people are not educated enough in not wasting water” is also grammatically awkward and needs restructuring. Most meaning remains clear, but more accurate control of these patterns and a careful proofread 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.