Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-09-04

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 5.5)

Access to clean water is essential for human survival and good health and it is a basic human need. Some people largely believe that government should provide freshwater to public for free. I firmly agree with this. Nevertheless i also also consider that water should be charged if consumed beyond limits.

Firstly, as the freshwater is vital for humanity, government should make it accessible to public. Water is human body's need and providing it to all for free, especially to lower-income households, can be very positive for them. Since it is hugely used in almost every meal and beverage. In addition, clean water contributes in better human health. For instance, drinkable water can prevent numerous diseases such as irritation, fin rot and cloudy eye.

However, supplying water to public for free is absolutely a fabulous idea but in order to make it reality, government will have to invest in supporting infrastructure which will require capital to build as well as maintain. Furthermore, there is one more issue which is excessive use of water, since freshwater is limited in the world, it must be charged if people use it more than their standard need. Government can introduce water usage limitation, in order to prevent wastage of water. For example, countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom provide water to their public completely free but with limitation threshold, which should not be surpassed.

In conclusion, after briefly and thoroughly examining both points. I largely think that families should have clean water supplies. but also be considered that it should not used lavishly.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5

The response addresses all parts of the prompt by taking a clear position on the provision of free water while acknowledging the necessity of usage limits. The ideas are relevant, though the development is somewhat uneven. For instance, the examples provided for health benefits (e.g., 'fin rot' and 'cloudy eye') are biologically inaccurate for humans, which weakens the argument. The discussion on infrastructure and usage thresholds is more relevant and well-integrated. To reach a higher band, ensure that supporting examples are factually grounded and that the argument is fully extended rather than relying on brief, sometimes repetitive, explanations.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.0

The essay is organized into logical paragraphs, each with a clear focus. Cohesive devices such as 'Firstly', 'In addition', 'However', and 'In conclusion' are used to guide the reader through the argument. However, there are instances where the flow is slightly mechanical or repetitive, such as the repeated use of 'also' in the introduction. Referencing is generally clear, though the transition between the health benefits and the infrastructure argument could be smoother. Overall, the progression of ideas is logical, and the paragraphing is appropriate for the task.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.5

The vocabulary is adequate for the task, allowing the writer to express their position clearly. There are some attempts at less common vocabulary, such as 'lavishly' and 'infrastructure', which are used correctly. However, there are some inaccuracies in word choice, such as 'freshwater to public' (missing article) and the aforementioned biological terms which are inappropriate for the context. The range is sufficient to communicate the main points, but it lacks the precision and flexibility required for higher bands. Improving collocation and avoiding minor errors would enhance the lexical quality.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.5

The essay uses a mix of simple and complex sentence structures. While the meaning is generally clear, there are frequent grammatical errors, particularly regarding articles ('to public', 'to lower-income households') and punctuation (e.g., 'Nevertheless i also also consider'). There are also some awkward phrasings, such as 'it must be charged if people use it more than their standard need'. While these errors do not impede communication, they occur frequently enough to prevent a higher score. Focusing on subject-verb agreement and article usage would significantly improve the accuracy of the writing.

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.