Band 7.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-09-30

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 7.5)

The issue of whether water should be free of charge in every home has sparked considerable debate. Some believe that since water is a basic human right, it should never carry a cost, while others argue that a completely free supply is impractical. From my perspective, I agree that clean water is a right that governments must guarantee, but I disagree that it should be provided entirely free of charge, because a free system fails to fund the infrastructure needed to sustain it.

One of the main reasons why I oppose a fully free water supply is that it removes the funding needed to maintain the system. This is because pipes, treatment plants, and pumping stations require constant investment, and without revenue from users, that investment tends to be neglected. For instance, Flint, Michigan, switched to a cheaper, poorly treated water source in 2014 to cut costs, and the resulting lead contamination left residents without safe water for years. This supports the idea that underfunded water systems, not the absence of a fee itself, are what put communities at risk.

Another reason I firmly believe some form of payment is necessary is that free water tends to encourage waste at exactly the moments when conservation matters most. This can be demonstrated by Cape Town's 2018 water crisis, when the city came close to what officials called "Day Zero," the day taps would run dry. The city responded by pricing water more steeply for higher usage, which cut consumption sharply within months. A charge tied to usage gave households a direct reason to fix leaks and use water carefully, which a free supply does not.

While some people may argue that charging for water contradicts the idea of a basic right, I believe that the two positions are not opposed. Those who hold this view argue that any fee excludes the poorest households. However, this argument is not entirely valid because governments can guarantee the right to water through a low-cost allowance rather than an unlimited free supply. South Africa's Free Basic Water policy, introduced in 2001, provides every household with 6,000 litres a month at no cost, which covers basic drinking, cooking and hygiene needs, while charging only for consumption above that amount.

In conclusion, while there are arguments on both sides, guaranteeing a basic free allowance rather than an entirely free supply seems to be the most logical stance on this issue because it protects the right to water while funding the system that delivers it. Taking everything into account, treating water as a right does not require treating it as unlimited, and a modest free allowance achieves both goals at once.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The student presents a well-developed position throughout the response, fully addressing all parts of the task prompt. The stance is nuanced: the author agrees that clean water is a human right that governments must guarantee, but disagrees that it should be provided entirely free of charge. Ideas are thoroughly extended and supported with relevant examples, such as the mention of Flint, Michigan, and Cape Town's 2018 water crisis to illustrate the consequences of underfunded water systems and water waste. The arguments are logical, cohesive, and directly address the prompt's complexities, demonstrating a high level of task response fitting a Band 8.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.5

Ideas are logically sequenced, and there is a clear progression throughout the entire essay. Each paragraph has a distinct central topic, starting with the introduction of the dual stance, moving through infrastructure funding and conservation, addressing counter-arguments regarding the poorest households, and concluding effectively. Cohesive devices such as 'For instance', 'Another reason', and 'While some people may argue' are managed very effectively and naturally without becoming mechanical. Paragraphing is used skillfully and appropriately, fulfilling all requirements for a Band 8 in this criterion.

Lexical Resource: Band 7.5

The student displays a wide, fluent, and flexible range of vocabulary suited to an academic discussion. Less common and precise lexical items such as 'infrastructure', 'contamination', 'consumption', and 'allowance' are used with good awareness of style and collocation. Word choices are generally accurate and natural, with only rare minor awkwardness. The student successfully integrates topic-specific vocabulary related to municipal management and resource economics, reflecting the descriptors for a Band 7.5 to 8, comfortably earning an 8.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 7.5

A wide variety of complex sentence structures is used effectively throughout the essay. The majority of sentences are error-free, demonstrating a high level of control over grammar and punctuation. Complex clauses are integrated smoothly, as seen in sentences like 'While some people may argue that charging for water contradicts the idea of a basic right, I believe that the two positions are not opposed.' Only very occasional minor slips occur, which never impede communication, aligning the response clearly with the Band 8 descriptors.

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.