Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-10-30

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)

The most significant aim of science should be to enhance and improve people's lives, I strongly agree with this statement. As science has helped us throughout the years to improve the way of living in many ways and that should continue eternaly.

Firstly, science has helped the world to grow in a better way and also improved how people have lived there life. Science has improved the way of living by providing better technology, ideas and studies as well. It has analysed how people used to live before and what mistakes they made, so the same can avoided and help us humans improve in an efficient way. For instance, science analyse and evaluate history and what caused generations to go extinct, so precautions can be taken and can overcome those mistakes.

Secondly, science already is improving on how we can cure certain diseases that are almost uncureable. This would surely help in improving people's lives, as lethal diseases are still present in today's world and is one of the reasons for millions of death. By finding a solution people can cure those diseases and live longer than expected. For example, the corona virus became a main reason for millions of death, in 2020. It was science that found the cure to that disease and helped people cure it who are still alive today.

In conclusion, science main aim is to improve people's lives drastically. This statement is backed by the fact that it has provided technology and ideas that helped people improve there lives. Moreover, finding a solution for uncureable diseases is what made people live longer.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

Your position is clear from the opening: you strongly agree that science should improve people’s lives, and the conclusion returns to this view. You support it with relevant points about technology, learning from past events, and medical research, including the coronavirus example. However, the discussion is unevenly developed. The point about analysing history and preventing extinction is difficult to follow and needs a clearer explanation of how this demonstrates science’s role in improving lives. The disease paragraph is more directly relevant, but the claim that science “found the cure” is too broad and would benefit from a precise example and explanation. Develop each main idea with a clear link to your position.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, two body paragraphs signposted by “Firstly” and “Secondly,” and a conclusion. The ideas generally progress from science’s broader contributions to its medical benefits, and the conclusion summarises the argument. This meets the expectations of a coherent response. To make the organisation more effective, ensure that each paragraph develops one clearly stated point. The first body paragraph moves from technology and ideas to historical analysis and extinction without explaining the connections. Some linking is also mechanical, particularly the repeated use of “science” and “improve.” Use clearer references and transitions to show how each example supports the paragraph’s main claim.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a relevant range of topic vocabulary, including “technology,” “precautions,” “lethal diseases,” and “solution,” so the main ideas are understandable. There are also attempts at more specific phrasing, such as “generations to go extinct.” However, word choice and spelling errors are noticeable and sometimes make the meaning less precise. “Uncureable” is misspelled and “uncurable diseases” is not a natural description; “difficult-to-treat diseases” would be clearer. Phrases such as “the way of living” and “a main reason” are also awkward or imprecise. Aim for accurate collocations and avoid repeating “improve” by choosing alternatives that fit the context.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and complex sentences, including clauses beginning with “as” and “so,” and most of the argument remains understandable. However, some errors in sentence construction, agreement, and verb forms reduce accuracy. The opening joins two independent clauses with a comma: “...people’s lives, I strongly agree”; use a full stop or a conjunction. In “how people have lived there life,” the possessive and plural form should be “their lives.” The sentence “so the same can avoided” is missing “be,” and “science analyse” needs a correctly formed verb. There are also awkward constructions such as “science already is improving on how we can cure.” Practise checking complete clauses and subject–verb agreement.

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.