Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Sample Response
The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?
Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.
The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.
In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.
For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use more precise wording Original: are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes Suggested revision: focus primarily on overall statistics, trends, and cost-saving policies Why it matters: This revision expresses the institutions' focus more directly and avoids the awkward phrase 'interested in schemes'.
- 2. Make the clause concise Original: which fail to take into consideration Suggested revision: that may overlook Why it matters: The shorter verb phrase makes the criticism clearer and less cumbersome.
- 3. Avoid unnecessary singular Original: the individual's concerns and rights Suggested revision: individual concerns and rights Why it matters: The general argument concerns people collectively, so the uncountable modifier is more natural.
- 4. Use concise terminology Original: through contact with that disease Suggested revision: through exposure to disease Why it matters: This phrasing is more concise and avoids repeating 'disease'.
- 5. Use a formal transition Original: So when Suggested revision: Consequently, when Why it matters: A more explicit connector clarifies that the next claim is presented as a consequence.
- 6. Prefer defining relative clause Original: which Suggested revision: that Why it matters: A defining relative clause is more natural because it identifies the type of society being described.
- 7. Simplify conditional wording Original: In the event that Suggested revision: If Why it matters: The simple conditional conjunction states the hypothetical situation more directly.
- 8. Remove unnecessary article Original: the society as a whole Suggested revision: society as a whole Why it matters: The noun refers to society in general here, so the definite article is unnecessary.
- 9. Punctuate the transition Original: In addition there is Suggested revision: In addition, there is Why it matters: An introductory linking phrase should be followed by a comma.
- 10. Reduce wordiness Original: the issue of the rights of the individual Suggested revision: the issue of individual rights Why it matters: The compact noun phrase conveys the same meaning more naturally.
- 11. Sentence rewrite Original: Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different? Suggested revision: Since we are free to choose what we consume and which religion we follow, why should medical 'treatment' be treated any differently? Why it matters: The rewrite removes the illogical suggestion that religion is something to which a body is exposed.
- 12. Sentence rewrite Original: While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death. Suggested revision: Although immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about potentially harmful vaccination outcomes, including stunted growth or death. Why it matters: The rewrite removes the ambiguous relative clause and makes the claimed outcomes grammatically clear.
Suggested Rewrites
- are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes focus primarily on overall statistics, trends, and cost-saving policies
- which fail to take into consideration that may overlook
- the individual's concerns and rights individual concerns and rights
- through contact with that disease through exposure to disease
- So when Consequently, when
- which that
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response presents a firm, consistently argued position and supports it with a clear sequence of reasons, while its sophisticated language remains controlled throughout. Its main limitation is that several broad medical claims are asserted rather than convincingly substantiated, which weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. The highest-priority improvement is to qualify these claims and engage more directly with the public-health case for compulsory immunisation before rebutting it.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear position is maintained and developed through several relevant reasons, although some key claims rely on assertion rather than sufficient support.
Strengthen the argument by acknowledging the collective-health rationale for immunisation and rebutting it with carefully qualified evidence.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas progress logically through well-focused paragraphs, with cohesive devices used naturally and effectively.
Refine the transition into the individual-rights paragraph so it adds a sharper new stage to the argument rather than partly restating earlier concerns.
Lexical Resource
A wide and precise vocabulary conveys abstract social and medical ideas effectively, with only occasional slightly strained phrasing.
Use more measured wording for contested claims and replace broad expressions such as money-saving schemes with more exact terms.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A broad range of complex structures is handled accurately, and the few minor imperfections do not impede communication.
Polish occasional overloaded sentences by simplifying their clause structure while preserving the strong grammatical range.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.