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)

All houses should have a clean water connection for free as access to clean water is a fundamental human right. I strongly agree with this view because it would improve the public health and reduce the rate of lowering of ground water due to water extraction from the ground.

A clean water connection free of charge to every building would raise the status of public health. A number of diseases are caused by drinking unsafe water. Having sufficent free supply of safe drinking water would reduce the spread of water of borne diseases, which means less or people would go to hospitals than before. Reduce burden on health infrastructure means improved facilities and less financial demand. The government can spend this saving in other areas of need.

Another advantage of free clean water supply is slow degradation of ground water table. Scientific studies show that extracting an amount of water from multiple bores lowers the water table more than extracting the same amount of water from a single bore. Therefore a centralized supply as in the case of free water supply would reduce the rate of lowering of water table. Furthermore, it is observed especially in Pakistan, that people who have bores in their homes uses more water than those who have an external connection. This could mean if a connection is provided, people could possibly convert to a more responsible consumption than before.

To sump it up, every household should have a free safe water connection. This would reduce the stress on ground water table and benefit the health of many.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

Your position is clear from the opening and conclusion: you strongly support free household water, and both body paragraphs give relevant reasons—public health and reduced pressure on groundwater. You extend these points with explanations about waterborne illness, healthcare costs, bore extraction and household consumption, so the response addresses the task and is supported rather than merely asserting an opinion. The discussion of centralized supply, however, relies on broad claims such as “Scientific studies show” without identifying or illustrating the evidence, and the link between free provision and more responsible consumption is tentative. To strengthen the response further, develop that second argument more precisely and acknowledge a relevant consideration, such as the cost of maintaining the supply, while explaining why universal access should still be free.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The essay has a clear overall structure: an introduction states your view, each body paragraph develops a separate reason, and the final paragraph restates the position. The progression within the health paragraph—from unsafe water to illness, hospital demand and public spending—is easy to follow. You also use linking expressions such as “Another advantage,” “Therefore” and “Furthermore” to signal relationships. At times, however, these links feel mechanical, and some connections need clearer explanation: the move from reduced hospital demand to government savings is compressed, while “This could mean” leaves the final groundwater point somewhat tentative. Use more precise referencing and explain the causal steps between claims so the argument flows naturally rather than relying mainly on signposting phrases.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “public health,” “water table,” “centralized supply” and “waterborne diseases,” which helps communicate the main ideas. There are also attempts at more specific phrasing, such as “financial demand” and “responsible consumption,” though some combinations are not natural or precise. Examples include “the rate of lowering of ground water,” “less or people,” and “water of borne diseases”; “sufficent” and “sump” are spelling errors. These do not prevent the reader from understanding your argument, but they limit the accuracy and flexibility of the vocabulary. Aim to learn common collocations for water and public services, and proofread spelling and word forms before submitting.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including a reason clause in the introduction (“because it would improve…”) and a relative clause in “people who have bores in their homes.” Most of the argument remains understandable, and some sentences are controlled, such as “This would reduce the stress on ground water table and benefit the health of many.” Some grammatical errors remain, however: “people … uses” has subject–verb disagreement, “less or people” disrupts the comparative construction, and “Reduce burden on health infrastructure means…” lacks a clear grammatical subject. Articles and plurals also need attention in phrases such as “the public health” and “a single bore.” Check agreement and sentence completeness, and vary complex structures while keeping each clause clear.

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.