Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-11-06

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answers and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

 

Student answer (Band 6.0)

Some people believe that the most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives. I agree with this idea to a large extent because science helps us in our daily life. However, I also think that scientists should be free to study new things.

Firstly, science makes our life better and easier. For example, doctors use medicine and vaccines to save people from dangerous diseases. In the past, many people died from small infections, but now we can treat them quickly. Also, science has given us useful things like electricity, mobile phones and the internet. These things help us to save time and stay in touch with our family and friends.

Secondly, governments spend a lot of money on science, so scientists should work on important problems. For example, they should find solutions for health, food and pollution. In many poor countries, people do not have enough clean water or good food. If scientists help to solve these problems, millions of people can have a better life. If science does not help people, this money is wasted.

On the other hand, sometimes scientists study things only because they are curious. For example, Einstein studied space and time, and many years later his ideas helped to make GPS. This shows that research without a clear purpose can also be useful in the future. So, I think we should not stop this type of research.

In conclusion, I agree that the main aim of science should be to improve people’s lives, but scientists should also have the freedom to learn new things because they can help us in the future.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

Your position is clear throughout: you agree that improving lives should be science’s main aim, while allowing curiosity-driven research. You address both sides and support your view with relevant examples, including vaccines, clean water and Einstein’s research. However, some points are asserted rather than fully explained. For instance, the claim that science funding is wasted if it does not help people immediately overlooks the possible long-term value of basic research, which you discuss later. Develop this tension more explicitly and explain why improving lives should remain the priority without restricting scientific freedom. The response is also one word below the required 250-word minimum; the 23 words copied from the task prompt are not counted.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a coherent overall structure: an introduction states your position, body paragraphs present practical benefits and the value of curiosity-driven research, and the conclusion restates your view. Paragraphing is appropriate, and signposts such as “Firstly,” “Secondly,” and “On the other hand” make the sequence easy to follow. At times, however, these transitions feel mechanical, and the links between ideas could be more precise. For example, the paragraph about government spending ends by saying money is wasted if science does not help people, while the next paragraph argues that research without an immediate purpose can be useful. Add a sentence that explicitly reconciles these points, and use a wider range of linking and referencing rather than relying mainly on basic sequencing phrases.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

Your vocabulary is adequate for communicating the main ideas, and terms such as “vaccines,” “pollution,” “curious,” and “purpose” suit the topic. The examples are generally clear, but the range is limited and several broad or repeated expressions reduce precision, including “things,” “help,” “better,” and “useful.” For example, “useful things like electricity, mobile phones and the internet” could be expressed more specifically, and “find solutions for health, food and pollution” is vague. Aim to use more precise topic vocabulary and vary repeated words while keeping collocations natural. This would make the argument more flexible and exact; the current wording remains understandable but does not yet show a consistently broad range.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, and several structures are controlled well, including the conditional “If scientists help to solve these problems, millions of people can have a better life” and the contrast introduced by “On the other hand.” Most sentences are easy to understand, and errors do not obstruct your meaning. However, the sentence patterns are often simple and repetitive, with frequent reliance on “science” or “scientists” followed by a basic verb. There is also a punctuation issue in “In conclusion, I agree …, but scientists…”: the comma before “but” is appropriate, but the long sentence could be made more controlled by separating or reshaping its ideas. Practise varied subordinate clauses and more complex sentence combinations while maintaining accuracy.

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.