Some people think that people should be given the right to use fresh water as they like. Others believe governments should strictly control the use of fresh water. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Sample Response
The growing scarcity of fresh water has sparked a debate about whether it should be freely accessible to individuals or strictly regulated by the state. While some argue that people may use water as they please, I believe that governmental control is essential for the sustainability of this finite resource.
There are several reasons to oppose attempts to regulate water consumption. Firstly, as fresh water is a basic necessity, individuals should have the right to use it as they see fit. Controlling water, either by restricting or rationing it, would therefore be an infringement on life and personal freedom. Furthermore, it is claimed that people are capable of managing their own water consumption without government interference, especially in regions where water is abundant. If state regulations are imposed, there could be an unnecessary burden in areas where water shortages are not a pressing concern.
However, I contend that governmental control is crucial, as allowing unrestricted use of fresh water poses serious risks to its sustainability. As a matter of fact, water sources on Earth are finite, in addition to being constantly threatened with pollution and contamination. Excessive consumption, consequently, can lead to severe shortages, particularly in regions already facing droughts or over-extraction of groundwater, such as South Asia. Without regulations, individuals may not take into account the long-term consequences of their water usage, which will become detrimental to water reserves for their community. Imposing laws regarding this matter, additionally, may ensure fair distribution of this resource, especially in areas where access is unequal. Having proper regulations would prevent the overuse of water by a few, helping it remain available to all, including future generations.
In conclusion, while ordinary people may feel entitled to use fresh water freely, the risks associated with overconsumption make control by the state a necessity. By implementing the appropriate policies for this purpose, governments can help preserve this essential resource and guarantee its accessibility for mankind’s future.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Clarify water access Original: freely accessible to individuals Suggested revision: freely available for individual use Why it matters: This wording makes the distinction about water use more explicit.
- 2. Use precise policy term Original: governmental control is essential Suggested revision: government regulation is essential Why it matters: “Government regulation” is a more natural term for formal controls on resource use.
- 3. Use a logical linker Original: As a matter of fact Suggested revision: Moreover Why it matters: This connector accurately signals an additional supporting point.
- 4. Simplify coordination Original: finite, in addition to being constantly threatened Suggested revision: finite and constantly threatened Why it matters: Simple coordination makes the two parallel descriptions clearer and more concise.
- 5. Position connector clearly Original: Excessive consumption, consequently, Suggested revision: Consequently, excessive consumption Why it matters: Placing the connector first creates a smoother cause-and-effect transition.
- 6. Streamline the transition Original: Imposing laws regarding this matter, additionally, Suggested revision: Additionally, imposing regulations Why it matters: The revised opening places the connector naturally and removes vague wording.
- 7. Use natural future phrasing Original: guarantee its accessibility for mankind’s future Suggested revision: ensure its availability for future generations Why it matters: This is a more natural and precise expression of long-term access.
- 8. Sentence rewrite Original: Controlling water, either by restricting or rationing it, would therefore be an infringement on life and personal freedom. Suggested revision: Restricting or rationing water would therefore infringe on personal freedom and access to a basic necessity. Why it matters: The original collocation “an infringement on life” is unclear, so the revision states the intended claim precisely.
- 9. Sentence rewrite Original: If state regulations are imposed, there could be an unnecessary burden in areas where water shortages are not a pressing concern. Suggested revision: If state regulations are imposed, they could create an unnecessary burden in areas where water shortages are not a pressing concern. Why it matters: A clear subject and active verb make the cause of the burden explicit.
- 10. Sentence rewrite Original: Without regulations, individuals may not take into account the long-term consequences of their water usage, which will become detrimental to water reserves for their community. Suggested revision: Without regulations, individuals may overlook the long-term consequences of their water usage, potentially harming their community’s water reserves. Why it matters: The revision removes the unclear relative pronoun reference and expresses the consequence directly.
Suggested Rewrites
- freely accessible to individuals freely available for individual use
- governmental control is essential government regulation is essential
- As a matter of fact Moreover
- finite, in addition to being constantly threatened finite and constantly threatened
- Excessive consumption, consequently, Consequently, excessive consumption
- Imposing laws regarding this matter, additionally, Additionally, imposing regulations
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response is strongest in its complete, well-supported comparison of both positions and its consistently clear argument for government regulation. Its main limitation is occasional overuse or awkward placement of formal linking expressions, alongside a few imprecise collocations that slightly reduce naturalness. The highest priority is to streamline these connectors and sharpen phrasing while preserving the strong development and logical progression of the ideas.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both views are explored in depth, the writer's position is explicit throughout, and the supporting reasons and example are relevant and well developed.
Add a little more qualification to the case for unrestricted use so the opposing view is as nuanced as the preferred position.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response is logically sequenced and well paragraphed, with clear progression from the opposing view to the writer's argument.
Reduce conspicuous connectors such as as a matter of fact, consequently, and additionally where the logical relationship is already clear.
Lexical Resource
The essay uses a broad topic-specific vocabulary effectively, though a few combinations sound slightly strained or imprecise.
Replace awkward phrases such as infringement on life and mankind's future with more natural, exact collocations.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex structures is handled with strong control, and nearly all sentences are accurate and easy to follow.
Polish reference and modification in longer sentences so pronouns and participial phrases attach to their intended ideas with complete clarity.
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
Some people think that people should be given the right to use fresh water as they like. Others believe governments should strictly control the use of fresh water. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.