Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
This response is estimated at Band 8.0. Can you write a better one?
Write yours and get clear feedback on all four criteria.
- Closest to official scores
- What to fix on each criterion
- Feedback in about 20 seconds · free
Sample Response
It is often argued that minority languages facing extinction deserve state funding, while others maintain that such expenditure cannot be justified. Although I accept that public budgets are limited, I believe that preserving endangered languages is a worthwhile investment.
On the one hand, supporters of government funding emphasiseemphasis that minority languages possess irreplaceableirreplacable cultural and historical value. A language is not merely a meanstool of communication, but a repository of a community's history, oral traditions and ecological knowledge; once it disappears, this heritage is lost irreversibly. State subsidies could also finance bilingual education, community language programmes and digital archives, all of which help small groups pass their mother tongue on to the next generation. From this perspective, spending on language preservationperservation is comparable to funding museums or historical buildings, since both protect a nation's cultural identity.
On the other hand, critics argue that the money would be better spent elsewhere. In their view, governments face competing priorities such as healthcare, education and infrastructure, and using taxpayers' money to sustain a language spoken by only a few hundred people benefits very few citizens. They also point out that language shift is a naturalnational consequence of globalisation: as people migrate to cities and adopt dominant languages for work, smaller tongues inevitably decline, and no one can reverse this trend.
In my opinion, both arguments have merit, but the cultural loss is too significant to ignore. Funding does not have to be enormous: onlyFunding does not have to be enormous; only a relatively modest grant for recording and teaching endangered languageslanaguages could preserve them for future research and for communities themselves. This is a matter of cultural diversity rather than nostalgia.
In conclusion, although opponents reasonably highlight the financial burden, I believe that governments should allocate at least some public money to protecting endangered languageslanaguages, because their extinction is irreversible.
Why this response received Band 8.0
This essay presents a clear, well-structured discussion of both perspectives alongside a well-supported personal position. Ideas are logically organised with strong cohesion and sophisticated sentence structures throughout. To reach the highest possible standard, carefully proofread to eliminate minor spelling typos in complex words.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The prompt is fully addressed with well-developed arguments for both views and a consistent, clear personal stance.
Elaborate further on specific examples of successful language preservation initiatives to deepen support.
Coherence and Cohesion
Paragraphing is logical and cohesive devices are used naturally to manage clear progression throughout the essay.
Maintain this high level of structural coherence by ensuring smooth transitions between paragraphs.
Lexical Resource
A wide range of sophisticated vocabulary and natural collocations is used appropriately, despite a few minor spelling typos.
Proofread carefully to eliminate small spelling slips such as 'irreplacable', 'perservation', and 'lanaguages'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A variety of complex grammatical structures is employed with a consistently high degree of accuracy.
Continue practicing diverse structure combinations while maintaining total precision.