In the future, people may have to live on other planets. Some think that it is therefore important to spend money researching other planets such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
It is becoming increasingly likely that humanity will have to someday resort to the colonisation of other planets. Though some suggest that we should divert important resources towards research of other planets now, I believe it is more pragmatic to focus on our current planet.
Advocates of increased funding for interplanetary research hold that leaving Earth is inevitable. This conclusion is underpinned by studies showing the potentially irreversible and undoubtedly catastrophic effects of climate change. So far the habitats devastated have belonged to remote polar regions and the fragile ecosystems of already vulnerable animals. Climate scientists believe this degradation will rapidly extend to the lives of ordinary people and result in a global scarcity of natural resources and more intense natural disasters. If these predictions are accurate then we need a backup plan involving the evacuation of Earth to ensure human survival and prosperity for future generations.
However, the best safeguard against the doomsday scenarios laid out above is to salvage the planet we currently inhabit. It would require an immense amount of time, money, and resources to colonise even the nearest neighbor to Earth, Mars. Instead of directing those energies towards a fantastical plan to terraform an alien planet, the easier option is to invest more in protecting Earth’s environment. Governments could enact stricter regulations on individuals and private companies to cut carbon emissions, while also funding clean energy initiatives. By collectively signing the numerous international accords, policymakers could strike a balance between economic development and environmental conservation. These solutions are both more realistic in terms of the sacrifices entailed and have a much better chance of actual success.
In conclusion, investing in colonising other planets should not be a priority when there are better solutions to current global problems. Interplanetary dreams should be left to private companies or wealthy individuals who are passionate about humanity’s future in space.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Place the adverb naturally Original: have to someday resort to Suggested revision: someday have to resort to Why it matters: Placing someday before the verb phrase gives the time adverb a more natural position.
- 2. Fix research collocation Original: towards research of other planets Suggested revision: to research other planets Why it matters: Research is naturally followed directly by its object when used as a verb.
- 3. Fix verb collocation Original: extend to the lives Suggested revision: affect the lives Why it matters: Environmental degradation affects lives rather than extending to them.
- 4. Use natural number Original: a global scarcity of natural resources Suggested revision: global shortages of natural resources Why it matters: Shortages more naturally describes limited supplies of several resources worldwide.
- 5. Add conditional comma Original: accurate then Suggested revision: accurate, then Why it matters: A comma separates the conditional clause from the main clause that follows.
- 6. Use concise phrasing Original: backup plan involving the evacuation of Earth Suggested revision: backup plan for evacuating Earth Why it matters: The revised phrase states the plan’s purpose more directly.
- 7. Choose precise wording Original: salvage Suggested revision: protect Why it matters: Protect more accurately describes preventing further environmental damage.
- 8. Keep the reference precise Original: energies Suggested revision: resources Why it matters: Resources refers clearly to the time, money, and resources named in the preceding sentence.
- 9. Sentence rewrite Original: So far the habitats devastated have belonged to remote polar regions and the fragile ecosystems of already vulnerable animals. Suggested revision: So far, the devastation has mainly affected remote polar regions and the fragile habitats of already vulnerable animals. Why it matters: The rewrite removes the faulty idea that habitats belong to regions and ecosystems belong to animals.
- 10. Sentence rewrite Original: By collectively signing the numerous international accords, policymakers could strike a balance between economic development and environmental conservation. Suggested revision: By signing international accords collectively, policymakers could strike a balance between economic development and environmental conservation. Why it matters: The revision removes the unsupported definite article and clarifies that collective action modifies the signing.
- 11. Sentence rewrite Original: These solutions are both more realistic in terms of the sacrifices entailed and have a much better chance of actual success. Suggested revision: These solutions are more realistic in terms of the sacrifices entailed and have a much better chance of success. Why it matters: Removing both restores parallel coordination between are and have and eliminates the redundant modifier actual.
Suggested Rewrites
- have to someday resort to someday have to resort to
- towards research of other planets to research other planets
- extend to the lives affect the lives
- a global scarcity of natural resources global shortages of natural resources
- accurate then accurate, then
- backup plan involving the evacuation of Earth backup plan for evacuating Earth
Why this response received Band 8.0
The essay is persuasive, well organised, and linguistically assured, with a clear preference for investing in environmental protection and substantial support for that position. Its main limitation is that it repeatedly treats research into other planets as equivalent to immediate colonisation, narrowing the exact issue in the prompt; the priority is to distinguish scientific research from settlement costs and evaluate whether research funding itself is justified.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear position is developed with relevant arguments on human survival and environmental investment, but the response partly shifts from research funding to colonisation.
Address the precise proposal by distinguishing exploratory research from terraforming or evacuation and weighing the value of funding each activity.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay progresses coherently from the opposing rationale to a developed rebuttal, with strong paragraph focus and controlled linking.
Make the transition into the rebuttal explicitly compare research funding with Earth-focused spending to strengthen the argumentative bridge.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is flexible, precise, and topic-appropriate, including effective use of interplanetary research, irreversible, terraform, and environmental conservation.
Refine the few less natural combinations, such as habitats devastated have belonged to remote polar regions and directing those energies, for greater idiomatic precision.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The response demonstrates a wide variety of accurately controlled complex structures, with punctuation and sentence boundaries handled confidently.
Polish occasional dense sentences by clarifying reference and clause relationships, especially where several abstract ideas are compressed together.
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
In the future, people may have to live on other planets. Some think that it is therefore important to spend money researching other planets such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.