Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-08-13

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 6.5)

It is often argued that the primary purpose of scientific research should be the enhancement of human life. i completely agree with this viewpoint because science exists to solve practical human problems, and focusing on human well being ensures that scientific advancement remain ethical and constructive.

The fundamental reason why science should be prioritize human lives is that its history is rooted in problem solving. Throughout human history, major breakthroughs have emerged from the necessiety to overcome existential threats or daily hardships. For instance the development of vaccines and antibiotics directly tackled global health crisis,dramatically increasing life expectancy and lowering infant mortaility rates. Similarly innovations in agriculture science such as high yield crop variety, have mitigated mass faminies in developing countries.

Furthermore aligning scientific objectives with human welfare provides a cruical ethical work for innovation.When research is conducted without human human life as a guiding principle, it can easily lead to destructive outcomes. A prominent example of this is the development of nuclear weaponry during the mid of 20th century . By contrast ,when modern reserches focus on humanitrain goals such as developing renewable energy to flight climate change ,science servers as a protective shields for future generations, therefore centuring science on human prevents the exploation of knowledge for harmful purpose.

In conclusion, i strongly believe that improving human lives must remain the core objective of science.by focusing on practical challenges and ethical responsibilites, scientific endeavors can continue to uplift global living standards and safeguard humanity from harm.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0

The essay addresses the prompt clearly and maintains a consistent position throughout. The ideas are relevant and supported by examples such as vaccines and nuclear weaponry. However, the response falls slightly short of the 250-word minimum requirement (248 words), which necessitates a penalty in this criterion. While the arguments are well-developed, the conclusion is somewhat brief. To reach a higher band, ensure that all parts of the prompt are fully explored and that the essay meets the minimum length requirement to avoid a negative impact on the overall score.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 7.0

The essay is logically organized with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Cohesive devices such as 'Furthermore', 'For instance', and 'By contrast' are used effectively to guide the reader through the argument. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate distinct ideas. However, there are minor issues with referencing and flow, such as the repetition of 'human human' in the second body paragraph. Overall, the progression of ideas is clear, and the structure is coherent, though it lacks the sophisticated, seamless transitions required for the highest bands.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

The vocabulary is generally appropriate for the task, with some good topic-specific terms like 'existential threats', 'mitigated', and 'humanitarian goals'. However, there are several spelling errors ('necessiety', 'faminies', 'cruical', 'reserches', 'humanitrain', 'servers', 'centuring', 'exploation') and minor word-choice inaccuracies ('work' instead of 'framework', 'mid of 20th century' instead of 'mid-20th century'). While these errors do not impede communication, they indicate a need for more careful proofreading and a wider range of precise vocabulary to reach a higher band.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence structures. There are several grammatical errors, including subject-verb agreement issues ('science should be prioritize', 'scientific advancement remain') and punctuation errors, such as missing spaces after commas and periods. While the meaning is generally clear, these persistent errors in basic grammar and punctuation prevent the essay from reaching a higher band. To improve, focus on ensuring subject-verb agreement and refining punctuation habits, as well as incorporating a greater variety of complex grammatical structures with higher 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.