Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

Access to clean water is essential for human survival and should be available for free. However, in my opinion i disagree with this idea that every house has unlimited water supply completely free of charge , goverments should gurantee for access to a basic amount of safe water by charging fees for excessive consumption.

Firstly,providing free safe water to each households could place a significant financial burden on goverments. Treating and distributing safe water requires a high level infrastructure, electricity , maintenance and regular testing , all of this invovles considerable costs, if it is supplied for free to consumers then government could recover this expense through taxation or other public funds.For instance goverment should supply considerable amount of water which is most suitable approach.

Another consideration is that completely free supply of water encourage people for unnecessary consumption, if individuals do not have to pay then they may be less careful about how much they spend . For instance, households might waste water by leaving taps running , frequently using water for washing vehicles and excessive amounts for gardening.So a resonable charge for the resource is must required.

Nevertheless, clean drinking water is a fundamental necessity, so governments should ensure that low-income households are not deprived of it because they cannot afford the cost. A practical solution would be to provide every household with a basic quantity of water either free of charge or at a highly subsidised rate, while charging progressively higher prices for consumption beyond this limit. This system could protect people's basic rights while also discouraging waste.

In conclusion, although clean water should be accessible to everyone, I do not believe that an unlimited household water supply should be completely free. Providing a basic amount at no or very low cost, combined with charges for excessive use, would be a fairer and more sustainable solution.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

The candidate has effectively addressed all parts of the task, presenting a clear position that while clean water is a fundamental right, an unlimited free supply is unsustainable. The introduction establishes a stance, and the subsequent body paragraphs provide relevant arguments, such as the financial burden on governments and the prevention of unnecessary water wastage. For instance, the student supports their points by highlighting specific examples of domestic misuse, such as leaving taps running and excessive gardening. Furthermore, a nuanced and practical solution is offered in the penultimate paragraph, suggesting a basic subsidised amount with progressive pricing for excess use. Ideas are well developed and extended throughout, earning a solid band 7.0 for fully answering the prompt with a well-supported argument.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The essay displays clear logical organisation and progression throughout. Each paragraph has a distinct central topic, starting with the financial implications, moving to the issue of consumption habits, and offering a balanced solution before concluding. Cohesive devices are employed reasonably well to link ideas, such as 'Firstly', 'Another consideration', 'Nevertheless', and 'In conclusion'. However, there are minor cohesion and punctuation flaws, such as comma splices (e.g., 'costs, if it is supplied' and 'consumption, if individuals do not') and occasional spacing issues. Paragraphing is used appropriately to structure the response, ensuring a coherent overall arrangement that guides the reader smoothly from the introduction to the final conclusion.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The candidate demonstrates an adequate to good range of vocabulary appropriate for an academic discussion on resource management and public policy. Phrases like 'financial burden', 'excessive consumption', 'subsidised rate', and 'fundamental necessity' show a sufficient range with some awareness of style. However, there are occasional lexical errors, imprecise word choices, and spelling mistakes that detract from precision, such as 'goverments' (misspelled multiple times), 'gurantee', 'invovles', and 'must required'. Despite these minor slips, the vocabulary is flexible enough to convey complex ideas clearly without impeding communication, placing the response securely in the band 6.0 to 6.5 range.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The response exhibits a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating attempts at varied structures such as conditional and concessive clauses (e.g., 'if it is supplied for free to consumers then government could recover...'). There are frequent error-free sentences, particularly when expressing straightforward arguments. Nevertheless, grammatical control is somewhat inconsistent, featuring punctuation errors (run-on sentences, comma splices, and missing commas after introductory transitional phrases), spelling mistakes in base words, and minor article omissions (e.g., 'a high level infrastructure' instead of 'a high level of infrastructure'). Because errors are noticeable but rarely impede overall communication, a band 6.0 is appropriate.

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.