Some people think that governments should focus on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems to help people to prevent illness and disease. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
It is often argued that governments must prioritise the reduction of environmental pollution and the improvement of housing conditions to prevent illness and disease. While I agree that cleaner environments and secure dwellings are foundational to public health, I contend that a more balanced strategy is necessary for optimal disease prevention.
Addressing environmental contaminants and poor living conditions can directly curb the prevalence of many illnesses. One primary reason is that cleaner air and water result from stringent emission limits and modern sewage treatment systems. In other words, enforcing tight caps on industrial emissions and upgrading wastewater facilities can remove toxins before they reach communities. This will cause reduced exposure to pollutants, hence fewer respiratory and water-borne diseases. Additionally, healthy, secure housing arises when homes are dry, well-ventilated, and equipped with basic sanitation. Ensuring that residences meet hygiene and structural standards prevents mold growth and vector proliferation. In the UK, for example, the “Decent Homes” programme’s upgrades to insulation and ventilation corresponded with significant drops in childhood asthma hospital admissions.
However, singularly targeting pollution and dwelling standards fails to address all factors that drive disease, suggesting the need for complementary interventions. One notable reason for this is that expanding access to preventive healthcare—such as free vaccinations and routine health screenings—detects and halts disease progression early. Therefore, early detection and treatment is highly likely to reduce the overall burden of chronic and infectious diseases, even in otherwise clean settings. A further aspect worth considering is lifestyle-education programmes in schools promoting better long-term health outcomes. Curriculum components on nutrition, exercise, and tobacco avoidance equip young people with practical self-care skills. For instance, Finland’s North Karelia project, which combined dietary guidance and anti-smoking education, halved the region’s heart-disease mortality rates over two decades.
In conclusion, although reducing pollution and improving housing are essential steps toward disease prevention, I maintain that integrating these measures with robust preventive healthcare services and comprehensive lifestyle education offers the most effective—and sustainable—path to safeguarding public health.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use natural wording Original: secure dwellings Suggested revision: safe housing Why it matters: “Safe housing” is a more natural public-health expression in this context.
- 2. Reduce abstraction Original: foundational Suggested revision: essential Why it matters: “Essential” conveys the importance directly and with less abstraction.
- 3. Use measured wording Original: optimal Suggested revision: effective Why it matters: “Effective” is more precise and less absolute than “optimal” in this claim.
- 4. Use clear collocation Original: curb Suggested revision: reduce Why it matters: “Reduce the prevalence” is the more direct standard collocation for illnesses.
- 5. Simplify phrasing Original: singularly targeting Suggested revision: targeting only Why it matters: “Targeting only” expresses the limitation more naturally and directly.
- 6. Fix subject agreement Original: is Suggested revision: are Why it matters: The coordinated subject has two elements and therefore requires the plural verb “are.”
- 7. Reduce nominalisation Original: the reduction of environmental pollution and the improvement of housing conditions Suggested revision: reducing environmental pollution and improving housing conditions Why it matters: Verb forms make the two government actions more direct while preserving their parallel structure.
- 8. Clarify the process Original: Addressing environmental contaminants Suggested revision: Reducing environmental contamination Why it matters: The revision describes lowering pollution rather than vaguely addressing individual contaminants.
- 9. Use formal wording Original: tight caps Suggested revision: strict limits Why it matters: “Strict limits” is the more formal and precise expression for emissions policy.
- 10. Use natural construction Original: healthy, secure housing arises Suggested revision: healthy, secure housing is achieved Why it matters: Housing does not naturally “arise” from conditions, so the passive construction expresses the result more clearly.
- 11. Sentence rewrite Original: This will cause reduced exposure to pollutants, hence fewer respiratory and water-borne diseases. Suggested revision: This will reduce exposure to pollutants and thereby lower rates of respiratory and water-borne diseases. Why it matters: The rewrite replaces the awkward causative phrase and makes the consequence grammatically complete.
- 12. Sentence rewrite Original: A further aspect worth considering is lifestyle-education programmes in schools promoting better long-term health outcomes. Suggested revision: A further measure worth considering is the use of school-based lifestyle-education programmes to promote better long-term health outcomes. Why it matters: The rewrite fixes the mismatch after singular “aspect” and clarifies the purpose of the programmes.
Suggested Rewrites
- secure dwellings safe housing
- foundational essential
- optimal effective
- curb reduce
- singularly targeting targeting only
- is are
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response is strongest in its fully developed, nuanced position: it explains how pollution and housing reforms prevent disease while convincingly justifying complementary healthcare and education measures. The main limitation is occasional over-engineered or awkward phrasing that slightly reduces naturalness; the highest-priority improvement is to simplify these expressions and tighten a few cause-and-effect sentences while preserving the essay's precise support and clear progression.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The response fully addresses the question with a clear qualified position and develops both the proposed priorities and complementary measures in depth.
Refine the supporting examples by linking their outcomes even more explicitly to the precise prevention claim being made.
Coherence and Cohesion
The argument is sequenced clearly, paragraphs have distinct functions, and cohesion is managed effectively throughout despite occasional heavy signposting.
Reduce formulaic transitions such as repeated reason markers where the logical relationship is already clear from the sentence content.
Lexical Resource
A wide and precise academic vocabulary supports nuanced discussion, with only occasional awkward combinations such as singularly targeting and cause reduced exposure.
Prefer simpler, more natural collocations when they express the same idea as accurately as the more elaborate alternatives.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex sentence forms is used accurately and flexibly, with only isolated agreement or construction lapses.
Proofread long sentences for subject-verb agreement and ensure introductory noun phrases connect cleanly to their grammatical complements.
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 governments should focus on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems to help people to prevent illness and disease. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.