Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-16

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)

It is belived by some people that every household shall have access to water supply due to the fact that water is a basic human right. Although I can see reasoning of both sides, I disagree with that view mainly because society often does not care about things that are free of charge and production of drinkable water is not free.

First of all, people often do not appreciate things that are free of charge. Therefore, if water were provided for every household without any additional fees, people would waste huge amounts of it; however water supplies are not unlimited. For example, people would use drinkable water for watering plants just because it is free and they do not have to pay any additional fees. It would not only be irresponsible, but could result in huge water shortage in the near future.

Secondly, it has to be emphasied that production of drinkable water is usually not free of charge. Nowadays, due to strict health regulations, drinkable water has to be regurally filltered and checked by special authorities. Taking these actions is usually coastly for local authorities, meaning that providing free water supplies would generate enormus costs for local governments. Consequently, providing free water for every household would not only be major part of every government budget but also trigger smaller budgets for other important actions and programmes.

In conclusion, although water is crucial for humans to survive, based on aboved reasoning I believe it should not be provided for free.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

Your position is clear from the introduction—“I disagree”—and remains consistent in the conclusion. You address the central issue with two relevant reasons: free provision may encourage waste, and treating water requires public expenditure. The examples about watering plants and the costs of filtering and inspection help extend these points, so the response is more than a list of opinions. However, the argument sometimes generalises, particularly the claim that people “often do not appreciate things that are free,” and the possible water shortage is asserted rather than explained or supported. The cost argument could also be developed by considering how charges might be structured to protect access while discouraging waste. More precise explanation of these implications would make the reasoning more fully developed and persuasive.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The essay has a clear, effective structure: an introduction states your view, two body paragraphs each present a separate reason, and the conclusion restates your position. Progression is easy to follow, and signposting such as “First of all,” “Secondly,” and “In conclusion” makes the organisation explicit. You also use cause-and-effect links, including “Therefore” and “Consequently,” to connect claims. At times, however, the linking is somewhat formulaic, and the relationship between a claim and its consequence could be made more explicit—for example, explain how free household water would lead to a shortage rather than moving directly from waste to that outcome. Varying transitions and using clearer references between sentences would make cohesion more flexible and less dependent on signposting.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “drinkable water,” “health regulations,” “water shortage,” and “local authorities,” which allows you to discuss both conservation and public costs. Some less common choices, such as “irresponsible” and “trigger,” show an attempt to express consequences precisely. However, several spelling errors—“belived,” “emphasied,” “regurally,” “filltered,” “coastly,” and “enormus”—reduce accuracy. There are also awkward or imprecise combinations, such as “generate enormous costs” and “trigger smaller budgets,” where the intended meaning is not natural or clear. Aim to check spelling carefully and choose collocations that express the relationship precisely, such as “place a significant burden on public budgets.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including a concession in “Although I can see reasoning of both sides” and a conditional structure in “if water were provided … people would waste.” Most sentences communicate the argument clearly, and punctuation generally helps the reader follow longer ideas. Some grammatical errors remain. For example, “I can see reasoning” needs a determiner (“the reasoning” or “the arguments”), and “based on aboved reasoning” has an incorrect form and article pattern (“the reasoning above”). In “would not only be major part … but also trigger,” the parallel construction needs an article and a matching structure. Continue practising accurate articles and parallel phrasing while retaining the complex structures you already attempt.

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.