Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-09-15

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)

Science played a vital role in the overall development of mankind. It is often argued that the focus of science should be on improving people's quality of life. I completely agree with this statement that the focus should be on people rather than unnecessary researches.

To commence with, science should emphasize on improving not only technology but also healthcare, so people can get benefited from this. Technological advancements can help people to ease of their daily lives with better resources and amenities. For instance, artifical intelligence affect individuals' lives to a greater extent, as learning become convenient and individuals can learn different skills from AI such as Graphic Designing, Video Editing, and Website Development. Moreover, some people automated their business using technogy. Similarly, improved health care can increases the life expectancy of population. By finding treatment and vaccine for diseases such as HIV and Maleria, science can save lives of million of individuals.

Furthermore, the amount of money and resources which are spend on irrelevent experiments such as weapons and nuclear bombs should be stop, as these arms and bombs can lead to destruction of mankind on earth. Nowadays, every country is spending a signifcant amount of people's money on armrace. Despite knowing the detrimental affects of such findings, they are exploring further in this field. These resources and effort should be done to make cost-effective fuel options from nuclear energy which directly affects the people's lives.

To sum up, science is a backbone of mankind. I beleive science is a virtue and its completely depend on us how we use it. However, I personally think the focus should be solely on improving people's live rather than wasting resoures on arms and bombs.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 7.0

The response addresses the prompt well by presenting a clear position agreeing that science should focus on improving people's lives. The ideas are relevant and generally supported with examples, such as mentioning healthcare improvements for diseases like HIV and malaria, and the role of artificial intelligence in daily life. However, some arguments lack full extension. For instance, the discussion on weapons and the arms race is introduced effectively in the third paragraph, but the transition to nuclear energy as a cost-effective fuel could be developed with more specific detail. Nonetheless, all parts of the task are addressed with a consistent position throughout, aligning well with the Band 6.5 to 7.0 range. Because the ideas are relevant and the position is clear throughout, the performance comfortably meets the criteria for Band 7.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.5

The essay is logically organised with a clear introduction and conclusion. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate distinct main ideas, such as technological and healthcare benefits in the second paragraph, and the diversion of resources from weapons in the third paragraph. Cohesive devices are employed to guide the reader through the text, using markers like 'To commence with', 'Moreover', and 'Furthermore'. However, referencing and transitions are occasionally mechanical or slightly repetitive in structure, which prevents the essay from reaching a higher band. Overall, the logical progression is clear throughout, fulfilling the descriptors for a Band 6.5 or 7.0.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

The student uses an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task, attempting less common lexical items such as 'life expectancy', 'detrimental affects', and 'cost-effective'. However, there are several lexical errors and spelling mistakes throughout the text, including 'artifical' instead of 'artificial', 'Maleria' instead of 'malaria', 'affect' instead of 'affects' or 'influence', and 'armrace' instead of 'arms race'. While these inaccuracies do not impede communication and the writer's intent remains clear, the frequency of spelling slips keeps the score at a Band 6.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The essay displays a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, including conditional and relative clauses, such as 'It is often argued that the focus of science should be on...' and '...so people can get benefited from this.' There are, however, several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings present, such as 'science should emphasize on improving' (unnecessary preposition), 'learning become convenient' (subject-verb agreement), 'can increases' (modal verb error), and 'resources and effort should be done' (inappropriate collocation). Although these errors do not prevent comprehension, they occur with enough frequency to restrict the score to Band 6.0.

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.