Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 13 · 2026-10-07

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Some people say History is one of the most important school subjects. Other people think that in today’s world subjects like Science and technology are more important than History.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant example form your own knowledge or experience.

Student answer (Band 6.5)

History is regarded as one of the most important subjects that students should study at school. However, some people argue that subjects such as science and technology are more valuable in today's rapidly changing world. Although scientific and technological education is essential for modern life, I personally believe that history remains equally important for students to study and understand the past to make better decisions about the future. On the other hand, there are several reasons why science and technology are considered more important than history. Firstly, technological advancements have become an integral part of almost every aspect of modern life. Students who develop good skills in the area are more likely to adapt to the demands of the contemporary job market, particularly in fields such as medicine, engineering, information technology and artificial intelligence. Secondly, Scientific knowledge can directly contribute to solving some of the world's most pressing issues, including climatic change, infectious diseases and energy shortages. therefore, giving greater emphasis to these subjects can equip young people with practical skills that are highly relevant to the modern economy.

On the contrary, history should not be regarded as an outdated or less useful subject. Studying about the past enables students to understand how society have developed in accordance with the political, social and economical conditions that exist today. Mosty importantly, it also teaches us valuable lessons from the past successes and failures. History encourages students to think critically by examining various perspectives and evaluating evidences, rather tham simply memorising dates and events.

In conclusion, although science and technology are unavoidable in today's world, history continues to play a fundamental role in education of students at school. Rather than prioritising one over the other, schools should ensure that students develop both scientific competence and an understanding of the past.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response addresses both views and gives a clear, consistent opinion: history remains important, and schools should teach it alongside science and technology. The arguments are relevant and extended with examples, such as technology’s role in medicine and engineering and science’s contribution to tackling disease and energy shortages. The explanation of history’s value through understanding social development and learning from past successes and failures also supports the position. This meets the task well, although some claims remain broad: the discussion would be more convincing with a specific historical example or a clearer explanation of how a lesson from the past informs a present-day decision. Overall, the main ideas are supported, but not all are developed with the same depth.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The essay has a clear overall structure: it introduces the debate and position, discusses the case for science and technology, presents the value of history, and concludes with a balanced recommendation. Ideas generally progress logically within paragraphs, and linking expressions such as “Firstly,” “Secondly,” and “In conclusion” help guide the reader. However, some transitions are mechanical or imprecise. “On the contrary” suggests a direct contradiction, whereas the history paragraph is better understood as a contrasting perspective; “On the other hand” also introduces the science argument without a particularly clear link to the opening. The long opening paragraph combines the introduction with most of one side’s argument. More deliberate paragraphing and clearer links between claims and explanations would make cohesion more flexible and natural.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.5

The response uses an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “technological advancements,” “contemporary job market,” “pressing issues,” and “think critically.” These choices communicate the main ideas clearly and show some ambition beyond basic vocabulary. However, several spelling and word-choice errors reduce precision: “climatic change” is not the usual term for the issue discussed, “Mosty” is misspelled, and “evidences” is generally uncountable in this context. “Scientific knowledge” is also capitalised inconsistently, while “economical conditions” is less natural than the intended expression. These slips do not prevent understanding, but more accurate collocations and careful proofreading would make the vocabulary more controlled and natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

There is a useful mix of simple and complex structures, including the concession in “Although scientific and technological education is essential…” and the relative clause in “Students who develop good skills…”. Most sentences are understandable, and the writer can express relationships between ideas. Some grammatical errors remain, however. In “how society have developed,” the singular subject requires “has developed”; “in education of students” needs an article or a different construction, such as “in students’ education”; and the sentence beginning “therefore” should start with a capital letter after the full stop. The opening sentence of the history paragraph also has an awkward construction around “Studying about the past enables…”. Improving agreement, articles, and sentence boundaries would strengthen accuracy while preserving the range of structures.

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.