Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-13

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 6.0)

There is an ongoing debate regarding fundings of medical research projects. Nowadays, many medical researches are carried out in supervision of private industries. Some people believe that, it should be done under the supervision of government, whereas other argue that private industries have better research facilities and they also provide enough fundings for medical researches. Therefore, ahead of my opinion both views will be discussed further.

Examining the former opinion, the primary arguments the supporters would put forward is that medical researches should be done under the supervision of government as it would be beneficial for the country. Government will provide fundings for these projects. Furthermore, it will boost the quality of health care sector and improve the overall economy of the country. For instance, when initial trials of any medicine will become successfull, it will not only be beneficial for this country but also opens many doors of social relations with other countries as they will also make contracts for this medicine.

On the contrary, those who favour the latter opnion have their own arguments. To begin with, they claim that government is not providing sufficient funding for these projects. They are allocating very small budget for the research projects related to medical fields. Moreover, they argue that private companies have better research facilities and infrastructure than government.

To conclude and offer my position, there are convincing arguments both for and against the sponsorship of medical research projects by private companies. However, I believe that a hybrid approach in which government and private companies both should work together on the facilities and provide better infrastructure for medical researches is more beneficial. Moreover, government should allocate more budget on medical researches as it will improves the quality health care sector and also boost the local companies.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0

The response addresses all parts of the prompt by discussing the role of private companies and the government in funding medical research, and clearly presents a position in the introduction and conclusion favouring a hybrid approach. Ideas are generally relevant, such as discussing the financial resources of private firms versus the broader social benefits of government oversight. However, some arguments lack full extension and remain somewhat repetitive. For example, the points regarding government funding and facility quality reappear across paragraphs without deep development or varied supporting examples. The student also misinterprets the prompt slightly by framing the question around whether research should be carried out by private companies, individuals, or government, but largely omits 'individuals' from the discussion. Nevertheless, the main task requirements are met with a clear overall stance, aligning well with the Band 6 descriptor where all parts are addressed though some are under-developed.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.0

The essay displays a coherent overall arrangement with a clear logical progression from introduction to body paragraphs and conclusion. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate distinct viewpoints and the writer's final stance. Cohesive devices are employed to link ideas, such as 'Examining the former opinion,' 'On the contrary,' and 'To conclude and offer my position.' However, referencing and cohesion are occasionally faulty or mechanical. For instance, the transition 'Therefore, ahead of my opinion both views will be discussed further' is awkward and unnatural. Furthermore, some repetitive use of transitional markers occurs, and referencing words lack precision in places. This demonstrates the characteristics of Band 6, where the arrangement is coherent overall, but cohesion can be faulty or mechanical and referencing is not always entirely clear.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task and permits the student to convey their ideas about medical research, funding, and government roles. There are attempts to use less common and topic-specific vocabulary, such as 'supervision,' 'infrastructure,' 'sponsorship,' and 'hybrid approach.' However, there are noticeable lexical inaccuracies and word-choice errors throughout the text. Examples include 'fundings' (which is uncountable and repeated multiple times), 'successfull' (spelling error), 'opnion,' and collocation slips like 'allocate very small budget' instead of 'allocate a very small budget.' Additionally, phrase choices such as 'ahead of my opinion' are inappropriate. Despite these errors, the vocabulary is sufficient to make the meaning clear, placing the response solidly at Band 6, which indicates an adequate range with some inaccuracy and spelling or word-choice errors that do not impede overall communication.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The student demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, attempting relative clauses and conditional-like structures, such as 'when initial trials of any medicine will become successfull, it will not only be beneficial...'. However, control over grammar and punctuation is inconsistent. There are several grammatical errors, including tense issues ('will become successfull' instead of 'become successful' or 'are successful'), missing articles ('boost the quality of health care sector'), subject-verb agreement errors ('it improves' instead of 'it improve'), and incorrect pluralisation ('fundings' and 'researches'). Despite these frequent errors, they rarely impede communication, as the core message remains understandable. This performance matches Band 6 descriptors, which feature a mix of simple and complex sentence structures alongside some errors in grammar and punctuation that do not obstruct the reader's understanding.

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.