Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-23

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 5.0)

Medical research projects are sponsored by many private companies nowadays to support students in academics and final year projects, and I believe that the funders do deserves the credit.

funds are very important for research projects and very beneficial for those students who can not afford their research projects. As we all know that not all students are from well financial background so, affording equipment and medical stationary can be hefty for researchers. funds are supposed to support such students and taking care of their extra budget on researches.

Furthermore, funds can make students lives easy and stress free because now they do not need to worried about their finance.

However, this can make students to be more focused about their researches and studies instead of worrying about sustainable fees. as for as benefits of funders are concerned, researchers should give credit to that particular company, govt. or individual with dew respect but if we say that the sponsor owns the research they help with, than it would be unfair to the researcher. for example, a person who is doing all the hectic stuff in his to build a business on their own but the investor started claiming the business just because he pay for it. giving them a suitable shear would be great but the whole business. same like that giving credit of the project would be more then enough.

In conclusion, supporting researchers doesn't make you to own their hard word and dedication but it owns you appreciation and fair credit.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response addresses the prompt by discussing whether medical research should be funded by private companies, individuals, or governments, and takes a clear position that private funders deserve appreciation and credit rather than ownership of the research. However, the development of ideas is limited and somewhat repetitive. The student focuses heavily on the financial relief provided to students and the analogy of a business investor, while missing a broader exploration of the ethical implications of corporate-funded research versus government-funded research. While all parts of the task are touched upon, the arguments remain under-developed and lack extension. These limitations place the performance at a Band 5.5, reflecting a partial address of the prompt with underdeveloped ideas.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The text demonstrates a basic overall organisation, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. However, the logical progression is frequently disrupted by poor paragraphing and abrupt transitions. For example, sentences such as 'Furthermore, funds can make students lives easy...' and the subsequent paragraph flow into one another without a clear overarching structure. Cohesive devices are either misused or absent, resulting in a mechanical feel. Referencing is occasionally unclear, as seen in phrases like 'taking care of their extra budget on researches' and the extended business analogy. While the text is generally readable, the lack of sophisticated cohesive control and faulty logical sequencing keeps the score at a Band 5.0.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is adequate for basic communication but lacks the precision and flexibility expected at higher bands. The student attempts some less common phrases like 'well financial background' (which contains a grammatical collocation error) and 'hefty for researchers'. There are noticeable lexical errors, such as 'medical stationary' instead of 'stationery', 'hard word' instead of 'hard work', and 'suitable shear' instead of 'suitable share'. Repetition of words like 'funds', 'research', and 'students' restricts the lexical range. Although meaning is generally conveyed despite these errors, the frequent inaccuracies in word choice and spelling place this criterion at a Band 5.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The writer attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, but control over grammar and punctuation is weak. There are frequent errors that impede clarity, such as subject-verb agreement issues ('funders do deserves', 'companies... does not need to worried'), punctuation errors (lowercase 'as for as', missing apostrophes in 'students lives'), and run-on sentences. For instance, the sentence starting with 'as for as benefits...' is overly convoluted and grammatically flawed. The frequent presence of basic and complex structural errors that cause difficulty for the reader indicates that the performance aligns with a Band 5.0 for grammatical range and accuracy.

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.