Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-10-19

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)

Many people believe that the science should primarily strive for the betterment of human life. I agree to the extent that scientific discoveries should aim to improve human lives due to the incurable diseases that haunt us. Concurrently, it also should work towards the other existing members of our planet. This is because our survival depends on them.

Our planet consists of several living and non-living organisms that contribute to our survival. Many of them provide us with food, oxygen and necessary elements for our living. Research and studies are the only way that can help us understand these creatures. For example, plants needing specific amount of light, water and fertilizer can only be ascertained through different studies and trials. Hence, if these beings can be understood by us, we can maintain and protect them. In return, we get to live a healthier life on this world.

However, science shouldn't only focus on the other members of our world. Many diseases and disabilities still plague a major part of our population. Most of these are incurable and hard to treat. For example, many forms of cancers are still incurable and the available treatment is not enough to warrant a full recovery. If these diseases and conditions become treatable, many lives would be saved and humanity can leap beyond their usual capabilities.

Overall the aim for bettering human life should be prioritised as well as the caring and understanding for the other lives by using science. Because the more we understand our neighbours and ourselves, the better lives can be lived for all of us.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

Your position is clear: you agree that science should improve human life, while also arguing that it must protect other forms of life on which people depend. Both aspects are relevant and are supported with examples, including research into plant requirements and the need for better cancer treatments. This addresses the question directly, and the conclusion restates your balanced view. The discussion is generally extended, but some claims remain broad: for instance, the link between studying organisms and “a healthier life” could be explained through a specific consequence, and the point that treatment could let humanity “leap beyond their usual capabilities” is not clarified. Developing these implications more precisely would make the support more consistently convincing.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction states your position, two body paragraphs develop the environmental and medical arguments, and a conclusion brings them together. The contrast signalled by “However” helps distinguish the second argument, while “For example” introduces relevant illustrations. This gives the essay a coherent progression. At times, though, connections feel mechanical or the reference is not fully clear. “Concurrently” is an awkward transition into the point about other life, and “these beings” and “them” require the reader to infer exactly which organisms are meant. The conclusion’s opening sentence also combines two ideas without showing their relationship precisely. Use simpler, more natural links and make references explicit to strengthen cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.5

You use an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “scientific discoveries,” “incurable diseases,” “fertilizer,” “treatment,” and “recovery.” Some less common expressions, such as “plague” and “ascertained,” show an effort to vary your language, and the meaning remains clear throughout. However, several choices are imprecise or unnatural in context: “the other existing members of our planet” is an unusual way to refer to other living things, while “warrant a full recovery” and “better lives can be lived” are not natural collocations. “Necessary elements for our living” is also vague. Aim for precise, conventional phrasing and check collocations, rather than choosing formal-sounding words that do not fit the intended meaning.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including a conditional structure in “if these beings can be understood by us, we can maintain and protect them” and a relative clause in “plants needing specific amount … can only be ascertained.” Most sentences communicate the intended meaning, and punctuation generally supports readability. Some grammatical inaccuracies remain, however. In the opening, “the science” uses an unnecessary article, and “it also should work” has awkward adverb placement. “Specific amount” needs an article or plural form, while “the aim … should be prioritised as well as the caring and understanding” creates an unbalanced construction. Revise these patterns and vary complex structures more accurately to improve control.

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.