Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-08-29

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)

Although scientific innovations have significantly improved people's living standards, they also cause serious consequences to the environment and animals. I do not agree with this statement that scientific research should solely aim to enhance human life; I firmly believe that scientific discoveries should take nature and animal welfare into consideration.

Scientific innovations have crucially advanced the lives of people in many aspects, particularly in the health sector and technology. Moreover, scientific breakthroughs have also strengthened the country's ability to defend against any military threat. However, during any unpleasant circumstances, such as war, these weapons exalate toxic chemicals into the air, which results in air pollution and water pollution. For instance, numerous harmful gases are released by these developed weapons, such as lead, which has long-term negative effects on our surroundings. If scientific research does not take nature into consideration, more damage will result in the future.

In addition, scientists are consistently focusing on human health by using different animal models for their research, particularly when they intend to introduce a novel drug. This means humans are being prioritised over other creatures, which is ethically worse. I believe all creatures deserve to live a happy and peaceful life, as animals also have emotions. Therefore, scientific development should also focus on the alternative to protect animal rights.

However, new scientific technology has made magnificent positive changes in human lives, such as novel treatment for cancer. However, all other living organisms and our surroundings also deserve to be treated equally. Therefore, I disagree with the aforementioned statement that science should prioritise the living standard of peoples. I believe keeping balance among them would be an acceptable approach.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0

The response addresses the prompt by taking a clear position against the idea that science should solely focus on human life. You provide relevant arguments regarding environmental damage and animal welfare. However, the development of these ideas is somewhat limited. For instance, the point about military threats and toxic chemicals is a bit tangential to the core debate of 'improving lives' versus 'broader ethical responsibility.' To reach a higher band, ensure that every argument directly supports your stance on the primary aim of science. The conclusion effectively summarizes your position, but the overall depth of the discussion could be enhanced by exploring the counter-argument more thoroughly before refuting it.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.5

The essay is logically organized with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. You use cohesive devices such as 'Moreover,' 'However,' and 'Therefore' to link ideas. While the progression is generally clear, some transitions feel slightly mechanical. For example, the shift between the second and third paragraphs could be smoother to better connect the concepts of environmental impact and animal ethics. Paragraphing is used appropriately, with each paragraph focusing on a distinct aspect of your argument. Overall, the structure is sound and supports the reader's understanding of your position.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

You demonstrate a sufficient range of vocabulary to convey your ideas clearly. Phrases like 'scientific innovations,' 'crucially advanced,' and 'ethically worse' are used effectively. There are some minor issues with word choice, such as 'exalate' (likely a misspelling of 'exhale' or 'emit') and 'keeping balance among them' (which is slightly unnatural). To improve, try to incorporate more precise academic collocations and avoid repetitive phrasing. While the vocabulary is adequate for the task, it lacks the sophistication and flexibility required for higher bands, as some word choices are quite basic or slightly imprecise.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The essay uses a mix of simple and complex sentence structures. You show control over basic grammar, and your meaning is consistently clear. However, there are occasional errors, such as 'I do not agree with this statement that...' (which is slightly awkward) and 'the alternative to protect animal rights' (which lacks clarity). There are also minor punctuation and phrasing slips throughout. While you attempt complex sentences, they are not always perfectly executed. To improve, focus on refining your use of articles and prepositions, and ensure that complex sentence structures are used with greater precision.

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.