Band 7.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-30

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 7.5)

Medical research is indispensable to the advancement of public health, yet the question of who should finance and conduct it has become increasingly contentious. Although private companies and individual researchers can make valuable contributions through investment, innovation and specialised expertise, I believe that governments should bear the primary responsibility for medical research because they are accountable to the public and are better positioned to fund research according to societal need rather than commercial profitability.

There are several reasons why private companies should continue to play a significant role in medical research. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms can mobilise enormous financial resources and frequently possess highly specialised laboratories, technologies and scientific expertise. Their commercial incentives can also accelerate the development of treatments that might otherwise take decades to reach patients. For example, a company expecting substantial returns from a new drug has a strong incentive to invest in clinical trials, refine the treatment and bring it to market efficiently. Individual researchers, meanwhile, can make breakthroughs that larger institutions might overlook because of their willingness to pursue unconventional hypotheses. Private-sector involvement can therefore complement public research by increasing the amount of capital and expertise available to the scientific community.

However, relying predominantly on private interests creates a fundamental problem: the priorities of medical research may become determined by profitability rather than public necessity. Companies naturally have to consider whether a prospective treatment will generate sufficient revenue to justify its development costs. Consequently, diseases that predominantly affect poorer populations, for instance, may attract less investment than conditions prevalent among affluent consumers. A government, by contrast, is not required to make research decisions according to expected financial returns. It can allocate public funds to neglected diseases, preventive medicine, basic scientific research and treatments whose social value is substantial even when their commercial potential is limited. This distinction is particularly important because some of the most consequential medical advances begin as basic research whose practical applications are not immediately apparent.

Government involvement also provides an essential layer of accountability and long-term stability. Medical research frequently requires sustained investment over many years, whereas private companies may abandon projects if their expected returns diminish. Public institutions can maintain funding for strategically important research despite such fluctuations. Moreover, governments can establish ethical and regulatory standards governing clinical trials, patient consent, data protection and the distribution of medical innovations. This does not mean that governments should monopolise research; rather, they should create an environment in which universities, individual scientists and private companies can collaborate under transparent standards and with public interests safeguarded.

In conclusion, private companies and individual researchers have an important role to play because they contribute capital, specialised expertise and innovation. Nevertheless, I believe governments should remain the principal funders and coordinators of medical research, as their responsibility is ultimately to maximise public welfare rather than commercial returns. The most effective model is therefore a collaborative one in which government provides long-term direction and oversight while private organisations and researchers contribute their resources and scientific expertise.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response fully addresses all parts of the task by evaluating the roles of private companies, individuals, and governments in funding medical research. The student takes a clear, well-developed position in the introduction that governments should bear the primary responsibility, and this stance is consistently maintained throughout the essay. Ideas are thoroughly extended and supported with relevant reasoning, such as discussing commercial profitability versus societal need, and the need for ethical regulatory standards. The arguments are logical, persuasive, and directly answer the prompt's multi-part question. There are no notable omissions, and the depth of the discussion aligns exceptionally well with the Band 8 descriptor for Task Achievement.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.5

The essay displays a clear logical organisation and progression throughout. Each paragraph has a distinct central topic, moving smoothly from the introduction and acknowledgement of private-sector benefits, to the counterarguments regarding profitability, down to governmental accountability and the conclusion. Cohesive devices are used naturally and flexibly, with effective transitional markers such as 'Although private companies', 'However, relying predominantly', and 'Moreover'. Paragraphing is used skillfully and appropriately to separate distinct thematic blocks of the argument. Referencing is clear and precise, ensuring that the reader can easily follow the logical flow of ideas without any confusion, satisfying the criteria for Band 8.

Lexical Resource: Band 7.5

The writer demonstrates a wide, fluent, and flexible lexical resource suitable for an academic response. There is a skillful use of less common and sophisticated vocabulary items, such as 'indispensable', 'contentious', 'mobilise enormous financial resources', 'unconventional hypotheses', 'prosecute treatment', and 'consequential medical advances'. Word choice and collocations are generally natural and accurate. While there are a few minor lexical choices that could be slightly more polished, the range is broad and allows the writer to convey precise meanings effortlessly. The vocabulary deployed throughout comfortably meets the standards of a Band 8 level.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 7.5

The response features a wide range of complex grammatical structures used with a high degree of control. The majority of sentences are error-free, and the writer successfully employs subordinate clauses, conditional structures, and participial phrases without losing clarity. For instance, complex constructions like 'Although private companies and individual researchers can make valuable contributions through investment, innovation and specialised expertise, I believe that governments should bear the primary responsibility...' are handled seamlessly. Punctuation is accurate, and only very occasional minor slips occur that do not impede communication in any way. The grammatical accuracy and variety fully support a Band 8 score.

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.