Some people believe that governments should pay for healthcare and education, but others disagree with this opinion. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Sample Response
Given that healthcare and education are crucial for the growth and welfare of any society, some people believe that these essential services should be financed by the government. However, this proposal has been criticised by others who believe that individuals, not their government, should be responsible for their own well-being. Is this a better approach?
Supporters of publicly funded access to education and medical services argue that these are fundamental rights and should be available to all, regardless of their financial status. This policy, according to scholars and city councillors in support of the welfare state, will reduce inequality since underprivileged households can be freed from allocating a substantial portion of their budget here. This can also lead to a healthier and more educated workforce, a crucial contributor to productivity boost and ultimately economic growth.
On the other hand, other people believe that education and healthcare are private matters, so their costs should be borne by individuals. Strategic analysts and futurists tend to reason that, given their finite resources and for maximum cost-effectiveness, governments should focus on other areas such as national security and technological progress. Another point is that running publicly funded schools and hospitals will increase the burden on the government, leading to increased taxes and inflation, among other undesirable consequences.
In my opinion, whether a country should provide free access to healthcare and education to its citizens depends on its financial and material resources. Developed nations typically have accumulated substantial funds, technologies, and experience, allowing them to provide these services for free without compromising other national interests. On the other hand, the developing world, struggling with limited resources, may have no alternative but to prioritise other areas such as infrastructure development and job creation instead.
In conclusion, while publicly funded access to healthcare and education can have many benefits, it may not be feasible for all countries. Ultimately, the decision should be made based on the unique priorities and available resources of each nation.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use natural phrasing Original: status Suggested revision: circumstances Why it matters: “Financial circumstances” is the more natural phrase for a household's economic situation.
- 2. Correct the collocation Original: to productivity boost Suggested revision: to higher productivity Why it matters: The noun phrase “productivity boost” does not fit naturally after “contributor to.”
- 3. Avoid redundant wording Original: other Suggested revision: some Why it matters: “Other” repeats the contrast already expressed by “On the other hand.”
- 4. Specify the burden Original: increase the burden on the government Suggested revision: increase the government's financial burden Why it matters: Specifying a financial burden makes the consequence more precise.
- 5. Use natural collocation Original: increased Suggested revision: higher Why it matters: Taxes are normally described as higher rather than increased in this noun phrase.
- 6. Use uncountable technology Original: technologies Suggested revision: technology Why it matters: “Technology” is normally uncountable when referring generally to technical capability.
- 7. Mark the direct contrast Original: On the other hand, the developing world Suggested revision: By contrast, developing countries Why it matters: This transition directly contrasts developing countries with the developed nations in the preceding sentence.
- 8. Remove redundant marker Original: job creation instead Suggested revision: job creation Why it matters: “Instead” is redundant after the construction “no alternative but to.”
- 9. Sentence rewrite Original: Is this a better approach? Suggested revision: This raises the question of whether individual responsibility is a better approach. Why it matters: The rewrite links the question explicitly to the preceding alternative and maintains an academic tone.
- 10. Sentence rewrite Original: This policy, according to scholars and city councillors in support of the welfare state, will reduce inequality since underprivileged households can be freed from allocating a substantial portion of their budget here. Suggested revision: According to scholars and city councillors who support the welfare state, this policy will reduce inequality because underprivileged households will no longer need to allocate a substantial portion of their budgets to these services. Why it matters: The rewrite fixes the awkward passive construction and replaces the vague reference “here.”
- 11. Sentence rewrite Original: Strategic analysts and futurists tend to reason that, given their finite resources and for maximum cost-effectiveness, governments should focus on other areas such as national security and technological progress. Suggested revision: Strategic analysts and futurists tend to argue that governments with finite resources should focus on other areas, such as national security and technological progress, to maximise cost-effectiveness. Why it matters: The rewrite repairs the faulty coordination between “given” and “for” while preserving the original claim.
Suggested Rewrites
- status circumstances
- to productivity boost to higher productivity
- other some
- increase the burden on the government increase the government's financial burden
- increased higher
- technologies technology
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response is strongest in its balanced treatment of both views and its clear, nuanced position based on national resources. The main limitation is that some supporting language is abstract or awkward, which occasionally reduces precision despite the well-developed reasoning. The highest-priority improvement is to express each causal claim in more concrete, idiomatic terms, especially when explaining budget allocation, productivity, and government priorities.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both views are addressed directly, and the writer's conditional position is clear, relevant, and well developed with reasons and examples.
Deepen the analysis by briefly explaining how a mixed-funding approach might apply to countries with intermediate resources.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response progresses clearly from the two views to a distinct opinion and conclusion, with effective paragraphing and cohesive links.
Remove the rhetorical question in the introduction so the thesis and progression begin with greater directness.
Lexical Resource
The essay demonstrates a wide vocabulary, although several collocations, including 'productivity boost' and 'allocating ... budget here,' are awkward.
Prioritise idiomatic collocations and concrete nouns over elevated but imprecise phrases such as 'strategic analysts and futurists.'
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex structures is handled accurately, and the response contains very few grammatical errors.
Refine occasional compressed constructions, particularly 'given their finite resources and for maximum cost-effectiveness,' for smoother syntax.
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 believe that governments should pay for healthcare and education, but others disagree with this opinion. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.