Band 7.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.5 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-09-12

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 7.5)

The primary purpose of science has been a subject of debate. While some people argue that research should mainly focus on improving human lives, others believe that expanding knowledge is equally important. I strongly agree that improving people’s lives should be the principal aim of science, although fundamental research should not be neglected.

One compelling reason is that scientific discoveries can directly address major challenges facing humanity. Advances in medicine, for example, have resulted in vaccines, antibiotics and treatments that have dramatically increased life expectancy and reduced suffering. Similarly, research in renewable energy can help societies reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, thereby limiting pollution and mitigating climate change. These examples demonstrate that science can have a impact on individuals and communities.

Furthermore, scientific progress can improve everyday life in ways that are overlooked. Developments in communication, transportation and information technology have made it easier for people to work, study and maintain relationships across distances. The internet and modern smartphones, for instance, provide access to education, information and essential services. Consequently, scientific innovation can enhance not only physical well-being but also people’s opportunities and quality of life.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that not every scientific investigation produces an immediate practical benefit. Research into subjects such as astronomy, particle physics and theoretical mathematics may appear unrelated to everyday problems. However, history shows that seemingly abstract discoveries can eventually lead to transformative technologies and applications. Therefore, funding fundamental research remains essential, even when its benefits cannot be predicted in advance.

In conclusion, I believe that improving human lives should be the central objective of science because scientific knowledge can alleviate suffering, solve global problems and enhance living standards. At the same time, governments and research institutions should continue supporting fundamental research, as today’s theoretical discoveries may become tomorrow’s practical solutions.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 7.5

The response fully addresses all parts of the task by debating whether science's primary aim should be improving lives and offering a well-reasoned, nuanced stance that balances this view with the necessity of fundamental research. In the second paragraph, the student provides clear examples such as vaccines, antibiotics, and renewable energy to support the main position. The third paragraph extends this by exploring everyday technological conveniences. The counter-argument acknowledging theoretical research in astronomy and particle physics is thoughtfully introduced and integrated into the overarching thesis. The position is maintained clearly from the introduction through to the conclusion, with all ideas fully developed and supported. This performance aligns comfortably with the Band 8 descriptor.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 7.5

Ideas are logically sequenced and progress naturally throughout the essay. Each paragraph has a clear central topic, starting with an introduction of the debate and the writer's position, followed by body paragraphs dedicated to direct health and environmental benefits, everyday technological improvements, and a balanced counter-argument regarding fundamental research. Cohesive devices such as 'Furthermore', 'Nevertheless', and 'Consequently' are managed well without being overly mechanical or intrusive. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and appropriately, ensuring the essay flows smoothly from one point to the next, displaying the organisational skills characteristic of a Band 8 response.

Lexical Resource — Band 7.5

The student demonstrates a wide, fluent, and flexible range of vocabulary appropriate for an academic discussion. Less common lexical items and collocations are used skillfully, such as 'compelling reason', 'mitigating climate change', 'transformative technologies', and 'fundamental research'. Word choice and collocations are generally precise, though there is a minor slip in the second paragraph where the student writes 'can have a impact' instead of 'can have an impact'. This isolated inaccuracy does not impede communication and is fully consistent with a Band 8 level of lexical control.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 7.5

The response exhibits a wide range of complex grammatical structures used with a high degree of accuracy. The majority of sentences are error-free, featuring well-controlled subordinate clauses, conditional elements, and participial phrases, such as 'While some people argue that...' and 'Research into subjects such as astronomy, particle physics and theoretical mathematics may appear unrelated...'. Punctuation and sentence boundary control are sound throughout. Only very occasional minor slips occur, such as the missing article mentioned under lexical resource, representing the rare non-systematic errors permitted within the Band 8 descriptor.

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.