Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-13

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)

Recently there has been a debate whether the clean water should be free to each household or not. Many people believe that it should be free as it is fundamental right of every citizen. As i strongly believe that free water should be accesible to everyone but it should not be completely free of cost as it is impractical to do so and not feasible.

One primary reason for people advocating in favor of free water is that it is the basic necessity of human life and it is used on a daily basis for drinking, washing and cooking. Charging them for this water would deprive low-income families from using it and as a result would be prone to many diseases. As contaminated water is detrimental for health, using it will have adverse effect on the individuals using them, especially kids. But this can be overcome by charging less or certain necessary amount of water would be free and the extra use would cost them money. In that manner, people would be cautious about wasting clean water.

Some affordable fee on provinding water is necessary as the government use resources in order to provide clean water to every household. And making it free of cost not only burdens the tax payers overall but people would be also careless regarding usage of clean water and would not appreciate it

In a nutshell, I firmly believe that everyone should have access to clean water but there should be a fixed small amount of fee for specific amount of usage as it will also remain valuable and at the same time would be there for all

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

Your position is clear throughout: you support universal access but disagree that household water should be entirely free, proposing a small charge and a free basic allowance. You address both the human-rights concern and the practical costs, and the points about low-income families, health, government resources, and avoiding waste are relevant. These ideas are generally extended with explanations, such as linking unaffordable water to unsafe alternatives and illness. However, the argument about public costs is less developed than the discussion of access, and the claim that people would be careless if water were free is asserted rather than supported with an example or explanation. Develop this point and clarify how your proposed allowance would protect vulnerable households while funding supply.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a recognisable progression: it introduces your position, explains the case for affordable access, considers the cost of provision, and concludes with a compromise. Paragraphing broadly supports this structure, and links such as “As a result” and “In a nutshell” help signal relationships. This gives the essay a coherent overall arrangement. However, some connections are mechanical or unclear. The sentence beginning “But this can be overcome” does not specify immediately what “this” refers to, and the shift from health risks to charging for extra use could be signposted more explicitly. The third paragraph is also brief and its ideas would benefit from fuller development. Use clearer referencing and transitions to make the progression between claims more seamless.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “fundamental right,” “low-income families,” “contaminated water,” “detrimental for health,” and “tax payers.” These choices communicate the main argument and show attempts to use more formal language. Some less natural collocations and word forms, however, reduce precision: “advocating in favor of free water,” “deprive … from using it,” and “a certain necessary amount” are awkward in context. There are also spelling errors such as “accesible” and “provinding,” alongside inconsistent capitalisation of “I.” Aim for more idiomatic combinations and check spelling carefully. For example, “advocate for free water,” “deprive families of access,” and “a basic quantity” would express your ideas more naturally.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You attempt a mix of simple and complex structures, including a conditional idea in “if it is free” and cause-and-effect clauses such as “as a result would be prone to many diseases.” Most of the argument remains understandable, but some grammatical errors affect accuracy. For example, “As i strongly believe” creates an incomplete construction after the preceding sentence, and “the government use resources” has a subject–verb agreement error. In “would deprive low-income families from using it,” the preposition pattern is incorrect, while “would have adverse effect” is missing an article. The final sentence also lacks clear punctuation and has an awkwardly joined structure. Review sentence boundaries, agreement, articles, and preposition patterns, then proofread complex sentences.

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.