Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-14

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)

As water is a basic neccasity of every human being on earth. I agree with the following statement, it is a human right to have access to clean water and water supply at every home without any cost.

People around the world having limited or no access to clean water is our failure as a society. Many parts of the world mostly in the rurral areas of third world country have little to none water regulations. Which results into multiple deseases and even death as well. People drinking clean water or have access to water at the cost of money shoud be considered as a crime. Its a basic human right and evry human on the planet should deserve this right. Citizen in different countries have to pay for the access of clean water causes unneccesary econmic burden to the people.

The world leaders and the health organizations should make neccasry adjustments according to it. Initiate water projects for the areas where there is scarcity. Install water filteration plants for clean water so that the people don't die. There should be initiatives to it. I have seen World Health Organization and many NGOs taking this task in there own hands and installing water plants, building well for the people in rural areas. Apart from that the government shoulf impose strict water conditions that the water should be highlty regulated and clean so that everyone could have clean water and they should also consider no money for it to provide water.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear from the opening: you agree that clean water should be available to every home without charge, and you address both access and the role of governments and organisations. The points about disease, deaths, financial burden, water projects and regulation are relevant. This meets the task well, but some ideas are asserted rather than fully explained. For example, you call charging for clean water “a crime” without explaining the principle behind that judgement, and the examples of NGOs and water plants are general rather than specific. To develop the response further, explain how free household supply could be funded and distinguish access to a basic amount of water from the costs of treating and delivering it. The clear stance and relevant reasons are strong, while fuller support is still needed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable progression: it states your view, describes the consequences of limited access, and then proposes action by leaders, health organisations and governments. This gives the reader an overall route through the argument. However, the ideas are grouped into only two substantial paragraphs, and several points are joined together without clear internal organisation. The transition from the burden on citizens to proposed projects is abrupt, while “Apart from that” introduces regulation without showing how it relates to the previous proposals. Some linking is also mechanical, particularly the repeated use of “and” and “so that.” Use separate paragraphs for the problem, practical solutions and conclusion, and make each paragraph develop one main point with clearer references between sentences.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “access to clean water,” “scarcity,” “water projects,” “filteration plants” and “regulated,” so the subject is generally clear. There are also attempts to express strong views, such as describing the financial burden as “unnecessary.” However, the range is limited and several spelling and word-choice errors make the writing less precise, including “neccasity,” “rurral,” “deseases,” “shoud” and “econmic.” Some phrases are awkward or imprecise, such as “little to none water regulations” and “water conditions.” Aim to learn accurate spelling of key topic words and use natural collocations—for example, “limited access to safe drinking water” and “strict water-quality standards.” This would make the argument clearer and more fluent.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt some longer structures to explain causes and consequences, and the main message can usually be understood. However, sentence control is inconsistent, and several sentences are fragments or have faulty clause structure. The opening, “As water is a basic necessity…,” is dependent and needs a main clause; “Which results into…” is also an incomplete sentence. In “People around the world having limited or no access… is our failure,” the subject construction is awkward, and “Citizen … have to pay … causes” does not form a clear grammatical relationship. There are also errors in agreement and punctuation, such as “the government shoulf impose” and the comma splice in the opening. Practise building complete sentences and checking that each clause has a clear subject and verb.

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.