Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-11-13

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 5.5)

These days, scientists are very relevent to newly medical research and generally, it is funded by private companies. In my point of view, government should fund the research as it is about the nation thing.

Honestly, government has a lot of things to focus on and it became difficult to fund everything on their own. Medical research itself needs to funded by the large number of money and government has not so much of budget for one project. But funding from government for research can help the result own by the government and becuse of that reasson a positive research things can easily be of the normal citizen. For instance, if government invest on it then, it belongs to every citizen out there from the nation.

Funded by private companies can lead to research own by only the company's investors. And they will not ready to share it with the other citizen. On the crisis, anything positive result comes out then it will be owned by them on their conditions. Firstly, they will be get selfish and enjoy benefit of the result. And after that, they will charge high amount of money. For example, on 2020 covid crisis, the private companies invested a high amount of fund and after they got the antidots, there first preference was themself and to other citizen they charged higher price and enjoyed the profit from the middle class family earning.

In conclusion, government should fund for the research of medical projects as it will bw very accessible to the every other citizen at the same level than the private companies should.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

Your position is clear: you believe governments should fund medical research because its benefits should be available to the public. You address the alternatives by contrasting public funding with private-company ownership, and the example of COVID-19 vaccines is relevant to your concern about access and price. However, the discussion is unevenly developed. The point that governments have limited budgets is introduced but not fully explained or reconciled with your recommendation that they fund research. The claim that private firms would not share results is also broad; explaining how patents, pricing, or public-private partnerships affect access would make the reasoning more convincing. Overall, the response answers the question and gives relevant support, but some ideas remain unclear or insufficiently developed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction states your view, two body paragraphs compare government and private funding, and a conclusion restates your position. This gives the reader an overall route through the argument. Within paragraphs, however, some links are mechanical or unclear. For example, “Firstly” and “And after that” list consequences without showing how one follows from the other, while “On the crisis” does not clearly connect the general point to the example. References such as “it” and “them” can also leave the reader unsure whether you mean the research, its results, or the companies. Use clearer topic sentences and explicit links between each claim and its explanation or example to make progression smoother.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use vocabulary relevant to the topic, including “medical research,” “investors,” “citizen,” and “profit,” and you attempt to express ideas about ownership, access, and cost. However, the range and control are limited by repeated general words such as “things,” “positive,” and “fund,” as well as inaccurate or unnatural combinations. Phrases such as “nation thing,” “large number of money,” and “the antidots” make parts of the argument difficult to interpret. Spelling errors, including “relevent,” “becuse,” and “reasson,” also reduce accuracy. Build a more precise set of topic-specific expressions and check spelling and collocations; this will help you communicate your ideas more clearly without changing the argument.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more extended sentence forms, including conditional reasoning (“if government invest on it then…”) and a contrast between public and private funding. The overall meaning is usually recoverable, but errors in sentence construction and grammatical forms sometimes make the reader work to understand the point. Examples include “it needs to funded,” “government has a lot of things … and it became difficult,” and “they will be get selfish.” Articles, agreement, verb forms, and sentence boundaries also need attention, as in “government should fund for the research” and the long sentence beginning “For example, on 2020 covid crisis.” Practise accurate clause patterns and verb forms, then proofread for agreement and punctuation while retaining your attempts at complex sentences.

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.