Art is essential for people and society but they are often overlooked and poorly funded. Some think that the government should pay for those art projects, and of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent and on what type of projects it is being used. How far do you agree with this opinion?
Same question Compare all 2 answers See different approaches and band scores for this IELTS task.Sample Response
Nowadays creative projects have become very expensive and can not bring pay-off to their authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects and of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent and on what type of projects it is being used. Though I agree with state-funded art projects, I do not agree with strict monitoring of the projects and funds as creative artists should be given full freedom.
To commence with, it is quite obvious that no entity or organisation knows a nation's cultural aspects and needs better than the government. This is why a government can evaluate which sphere of cultural life has the necessity of development. It also achieves its goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of Art and by controlling the budget by giving maintenance only to projects they are interested in.
However, funding Art selectively can lead artists to lack freedom in expressing themselves. In other words, then those who have power will use the money to regulate cultural life. As a consequence, it can then limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democratic principles. For example, a similar situation emerged in some countries, where the government funded and fully controlled Art projects and therefore the only career artists could pursue is praising the political party with their creations. This shows how artworks can become political works when they are very strictly controlled.
As an alternative to letting a government control Art projects, a non-governmental independent organisation could be established and given the charge to select, and fund creative art projects. It must consist of the best cultural activists from a country. This would guarantee that there are no limits for the arts and artists and that the budget is properly utilised.
To conclude, I believe that funding Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the purpose of it should be the development and enhancement of the arts, not making it serve the government's political needs. Therefore, the government should fund Art projects while also ensuring creative freedom for the artists.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use one-word form Original: can not Suggested revision: cannot Why it matters: The standard spelling of this modal negative is one word.
- 2. Use natural collocation Original: bring pay-off to their authors Suggested revision: generate returns for their creators Why it matters: The replacement expresses financial return and artistic authorship more naturally.
- 3. Set off the aside Original: and of course, observe Suggested revision: and, of course, observe Why it matters: The parenthetical phrase “of course” needs commas on both sides.
- 4. Match the plural noun Original: on what type of projects it is being used Suggested revision: on what types of projects they are being used Why it matters: The pronoun and verb must agree with the plural noun “funds.”
- 5. Clarify the intended meaning Original: goals of public loyalty Suggested revision: aim of securing public support Why it matters: The original phrase is not a natural expression for gaining citizens' support.
- 6. Use concise phrasing Original: funding Art selectively Suggested revision: selective funding of art Why it matters: The replacement is more concise and uses conventional lower-case “art” for the general field.
- 7. Remove conflicting linker Original: In other words, then Suggested revision: In other words, Why it matters: “Then” is redundant after a phrase that already signals reformulation.
- 8. Use concise wording Original: those who have power Suggested revision: those in power Why it matters: The replacement is the conventional concise expression.
- 9. Clarify the reference Original: it can then limit the imagination Suggested revision: this control can limit artistic imagination Why it matters: The replacement identifies the cause clearly and specifies whose imagination is affected.
- 10. Fix the metaphor Original: put artists into borders Suggested revision: confine artists within boundaries Why it matters: The original phrase is not an idiomatic way to describe restrictions on artists.
- 11. Use formal cause wording Original: Thus, here comes censorship Suggested revision: This can result in censorship Why it matters: The replacement states the consequence clearly in an appropriate academic register.
- 12. Use a precise adjective Original: nothing in common with Suggested revision: incompatible with Why it matters: “Incompatible with” expresses the conflict with democratic principles more precisely.
Suggested Rewrites
- can not cannot
- bring pay-off to their authors generate returns for their creators
- and of course, observe and, of course, observe
- on what type of projects it is being used on what types of projects they are being used
- goals of public loyalty aim of securing public support
- funding Art selectively selective funding of art
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response’s strongest feature is its nuanced and consistent position: public funding is supported, while strict political control is rejected in favour of independent oversight. Its main limitation is that some supporting claims are expressed through awkward or imprecise phrasing, which occasionally blurs otherwise thoughtful reasoning. The highest-priority improvement is to refine collocations and sentence construction while making the case for government funding as fully developed as the censorship argument.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
The response directly addresses both funding and oversight, sustains a nuanced position, and supports it with a relevant censorship example and an alternative model.
Develop the positive case for government funding with the same depth given to the risks of political control.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay is logically organised, with clear movement from government responsibility to censorship risks, independent oversight, and a consistent conclusion.
Make the relationship between selective funding, budget monitoring, and political control more explicit so the middle of the argument progresses more precisely.
Lexical Resource
The response uses a good range of abstract and topic-specific vocabulary, though several awkward collocations reduce naturalness and precision.
Replace phrases such as giving maintenance, put artists into borders, and given the charge with idiomatic academic alternatives.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A variety of complex structures is used successfully, but some article, agreement, reference, and construction errors remain noticeable.
Edit long sentences for cleaner clause relationships and accurate reference, particularly where singular and plural nouns or pronouns interact.
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
Art is essential for people and society but they are often overlooked and poorly funded. Some think that the government should pay for those art projects, and of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent and on what type of projects it is being used. How far do you agree with this opinion?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.