Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-11-05

IELTS Writing Task 2 question

Nowadays, many medical research projects are funded by private companies. In your opinion, do you think that research should be carried by private companies, individuals or government?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Student answer (Band 6.5)

These days majority of the biological researches are funded by private organizations. I believe that research projects should be carried by governments because it is their duty to protect public heath and it also results in universal access of government-funded medical treatments.

Many private companies provide funding for the short-term research projects because their main aim is to earn profit from the end product. On the other hand, state authorities focus on the public health rather than their own profit because it is the primary duty of the government to protect the people' lives. The advanced therapies introduced by the private medical institutes are quite expensive and most of the people could not be able to afford it. Therefore, people prefer government hospitals because they provide effective medicines and treatments free of cost. If majority of the research is funded privately, it will not be possible to protect public health.

In addition, medical treatments introduced by privately funded organizations would not be accessible to all people worldwide. It is because of the limited amount of funding provided by private firms which makes the availability of drugs in only restricted places. However, government-funded medical projects get greater amount funding which results in the universal access of drugs and therapies, particularly underdeveloped and developing countries. For example, in COVID-19, state authorities from all over the world provided funds to design corona vaccines in a short time period. In this way, people underwent vaccination procedures without paying a single penny. This would not be possible if the drug development was funded by private authorities. Therefore, universal accessbility of emergency medical treatments is the primary responsibility of government organizations by allocating funds to important research projects.

In conclusion, I think research should be carried by government, not by private companies because protecting public health is their primary duty and all people will get the government produced drugs easily, especially the deserving communities.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

Your position is clear from the introduction to the conclusion: you argue that governments should fund medical research because they must protect public health and make treatments broadly accessible. Both reasons are relevant, and the COVID-19 vaccine example gives the second argument a concrete illustration. This meets the task well, while showing some of the development expected at a stronger level. However, parts of the reasoning are asserted rather than fully explained: for example, the claim that private funding is limited and therefore restricts drug availability needs clearer support, and the contrast between private and government-funded treatments is presented quite broadly. You could also acknowledge the potential contribution of private companies before explaining why government funding should lead.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response has a clear overall progression: the introduction states your view, the two body paragraphs develop separate reasons, and the conclusion restates your position. Paragraphing is appropriate, and signposts such as “On the other hand,” “In addition,” and “For example” help readers follow the argument. The ideas generally connect logically, including the move from affordability to access in the second body paragraph. At times, however, the linking is somewhat formulaic, with “Therefore” used to announce conclusions that could be integrated more naturally. Some references are also broad, such as “This” in “This would not be possible,” which could specify the vaccination access being discussed. More varied transitions and clearer links between claims and evidence would make the progression more polished.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary, including “public health,” “advanced therapies,” “universal access,” and “vaccination procedures.” These choices make the subject and your main arguments clear, and some less common terms are attempted. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or awkward, such as “carried by governments,” “greater amount funding,” and “universal accessbility.” “Biological researches” is also an unnatural expression in this context, and “corona vaccines” is less precise than the standard term. These errors do not prevent understanding, but they limit the naturalness and precision of the writing. Focus on accurate collocations and forms, and proofread spelling, particularly in key terms that carry your argument.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including clauses introduced by “because,” “which,” and “if.” Most ideas remain understandable, and the sentence beginning “If majority of the research is funded privately” shows an attempt to express a conditional argument. Some grammatical errors persist, however. Examples include “These days majority” (missing an article), “the people' lives” (incorrect possessive form), and “most of the people could not be able to afford it” (faulty modal construction). There are also agreement and article issues in “it will not be possible” after a plural reference to treatments, and “greater amount funding.” Review articles, possessives, agreement, and modal patterns, then check that pronouns clearly match their nouns.

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.