Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 2 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-14

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 6.5)

In today's world, private companies are actively funding and participating in medical researches. Personally, I believe it's a positive development, rather government or individuals funding the same projects.

Firstly, private firms must bear high research expenditure and risks involved. This is because that, medical researches such as cancer cure findings, require high level of data collection, technical individuals and complete infrastructure, which costs heavily; therefore, there is always high risk, if the project does not provide any lucrative medical treatments. Considering those risks, government of any country must avoid such sorts of research fundings; since, the public funds can be invested onto guranteed benefiting infrastucture building like schools and hospitals, which could elevate people living standards with certanity.

Another, benefit of private sector funding such researches is that, it encourages competition. For instance, if goverment is not conducting any research work into healhcare stream so, it will not have public monopoly in creating certain drugs; hence, it will encourage more competition in private sector that, who will create the treatment of for example- a pandemic more fast. This increased competition will promote innovation in healthcare sector, and efficient procedures will be followed to conduct same findings.

On the other hand, governments and individuals should also play their part in medical findings. For instance, if a company in private sector wishes to begin with research project and has sufficient fundings but, lacks few healthcare professionals, which can be highly experienced; hence, on individual level such vaccany must be filled by required specialists voluntarily for a better cause. Whilst, the government of that specific country, can protect the findings from being copied, through issuance of patents and special rights, to encourage more developments in clinical field.

To conclude, prvate companies must be encoraged to fund medical researches, as this allow reduced risk of public fundings use and promotes fair competition in private sector.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

Your position is clear from the introduction: you favour private companies over government or individual funding, and the conclusion restates this view. You address the alternatives by explaining why public funding may be better spent elsewhere and by describing possible contributions from specialists and governments. The points about research costs and competition are relevant and supported with examples, such as developing a treatment during a pandemic. This gives the response a clear, developed argument overall. However, some claims are broad—for example, that governments should avoid this research and that competition will produce faster treatments—and would be more convincing with qualification or a specific example. The role of individuals is also less fully explained than the case for private firms.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, two paragraphs supporting private funding, a paragraph considering other contributors, and a conclusion. The main ideas generally progress in a logical order, and linking expressions such as “Firstly,” “For instance,” and “On the other hand” help signal the argument. This is a coherent overall arrangement. At times, however, connections feel mechanical or unclear: the second paragraph begins “Another, benefit,” and the long sentence beginning “For instance, if a company…” contains several linked points that are difficult to follow. Some transitions, including “therefore” and “hence,” are used where the relationship between ideas needs clearer explanation. Use shorter sentences and more precise referencing to make the progression smoother.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary, including “research expenditure,” “data collection,” “public funds,” “competition,” “innovation,” and “patents.” These choices help communicate the main argument, and you attempt some less common expressions. However, several word choices, collocations, and spelling errors reduce precision: “medical researches” is not the natural form, “lucrative medical treatments” does not clearly express the intended idea, and “public monopoly” is awkward in context. Errors such as “guranteed,” “infrastucture,” and “prvate” are also noticeable. Aim to learn common academic collocations and proofread spelling; more precise phrasing would make your argument sound more natural without requiring unnecessarily complex vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex structures, including conditional clauses (“if a company… wishes to begin”) and cause-and-effect sentences. The overall meaning is usually understandable, but some grammatical errors and punctuation problems make several sentences awkward or difficult to process. For example, “This is because that” has an incorrect construction, while “Another, benefit … is that, it encourages” contains misplaced punctuation and an unnecessary comma. The sentence beginning “For instance, if goverment is not conducting…” also combines clauses without clear control of their structure. Practise building complex sentences with one clear main clause and correctly attached subordinate clauses, and check articles, agreement, and punctuation. Greater accuracy in these patterns would improve readability.

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.