Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-29

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 4.5)

In present, many medical research programmes are funded and driven by private limited companies. Although private firms and individuals have ann important roles in medical projects, but I believe that government should be the primary source for the funding. This essay will support my opinion with valid arguments.

One primary reason, why I support this view is that government shoulf be invloved in all of this and medical projects are driven by officials. This is because, governments ensure the measures for public welfare rather than focusing on profitable measures. For instance, private companies focus on producing large margins instead of concerning about the quality of medicines and their impact on public health. If the government is invloved all these projects should be carried in ethical way. Thats why, I believe governments must look after medical research projects.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.0

The response clearly states a position in the introduction, arguing that the government should be the primary source for funding medical research. However, the text suffers from a severe under-length penalty, containing only 137 words against the minimum requirement of 250 words. Because of this, the ideas are severely underdeveloped. While the writer attempts to provide reasons regarding public welfare versus profit margins, the brevity of the response prevents any thorough exploration of the topic. Consequently, the task response is only minimally fulfilled in terms of development, aligning with Band 4.0 descriptors for Task Achievement.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The text demonstrates a basic attempt at paragraphing, separating the introduction from the body paragraph. There is a general logical progression from stating the thesis to providing an argument about government welfare versus private profit. However, cohesion is faulty and mechanical. The writer uses basic cohesive devices like 'Although', 'One primary reason', and 'For instance', but the transition within the first sentence is flawed due to grammatical interference ('Although private firms... but I believe'). Referencing and paragraphing are rudimentary, making the overall structure basic. This fits the Band 5.0 descriptors well.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is generally basic and repetitive, with several lexical errors and awkward collocations. Examples include 'In present' instead of 'At present', 'ann important roles' (combining an article error with a plural mismatch), and 'profitable measures' instead of 'profit-driven motives'. The writer attempts some less common terms like 'welfare' and 'ethical', but noticeable errors cause some difficulty for the reader and reveal a limited lexical range suitable for Band 5.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.0

The text shows a very limited range of structures with frequent grammatical and punctuation errors. There are multiple errors in basic sentence construction, such as 'Although private firms and individuals have ann important roles in medical projects, but I believe...', which uses an ungrammatical double conjunction. Other errors include spelling mistakes like 'shoulf' and 'invloved', and awkward phrasing such as 'all these projects should be carried in ethical way' (missing an article). While some simple sentences are correct, the frequency of errors places this response firmly at Band 4.0 for grammatical 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.