Some people think it is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
Health funds are always included in every country's national budget since the early stages of the world. Every year the government has allocated a lot of money for the prevention and cure of the public most common diseases. It is agreed that spending public money to promote a healthy lifestyle for the prevention of illnesses is more importantly than for the treatment of already ill people. This argument will be proven that prevention is better than cure, and already ill people are expected to be at their terminal life. For one, spending state funds on promoting a healthy lifestyle to prevent illnesses is better because prevention is better than cure. For instance, when I was working as an RHU (Rural Health Unit) nurse in a small community called San Pablo situated in the province of Pangasinan in the Philippines; we disseminated multivitamins and done vaccinations for children in the area because our government had a program called "Eliminate Diseases by Prevention", so we, as health officials and workers implemented it. It is actually a good campaign because no children in that particular community have had serious children diseases. Thus, they became healthier and the public money has been used wisely. In addition to this, it is no sense using the people's money for those who are already ill because it is expected that they will be at their terminal life. For instance, in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) of Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital where I am currently assigned to a hospital as a duty nurse, we have a terminally ill colon cancer patient, Mrs Corazon Cojuanco. When she is in her final stage and any further medications or treatments will not work in prolonging her life. So, cancer patients who are at their last stage, such as colon, lung or breast, should not be funded anymore because it is useless. It is really better to allocate the money for the promotion of healthy lifestyles. In conclusion, spending more public money on a healthier lifestyle is better because prevention is always better than treating an already ill patient as well as it is no sense using it because they are already at their terminal stage of their life. Thus, it has proven that it is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment for people who are already ill. Thus, improving healthy lifestyles is highly recommended.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Fix tense and number Original: Every year the government has allocated Suggested revision: Every year, governments allocate Why it matters: The recurring time phrase requires the present simple, and the general claim calls for a plural subject.
- 2. Add possessive form Original: public Suggested revision: public's Why it matters: The possessive form is required to show that the diseases affect the public.
- 3. Use adjective form Original: importantly Suggested revision: important Why it matters: The comparison describes spending, so it requires the adjective important rather than the adverb importantly.
- 4. Improve parallel structure Original: for the treatment of already ill people Suggested revision: for treating people who are already ill Why it matters: The gerund phrase creates a clearer comparison with spending money to promote prevention.
- 5. Use correct collocation Original: children Suggested revision: childhood Why it matters: Childhood diseases is the standard expression for illnesses affecting children.
- 6. Remove unnecessary article Original: the public money Suggested revision: public money Why it matters: Public money is used as an uncountable general noun here and does not take the definite article.
- 7. Keep past tense Original: has been used wisely Suggested revision: was used wisely Why it matters: The simple past matches the completed campaign described in the example.
- 8. Fix fixed expression Original: this, it is no sense using Suggested revision: this, there is no point in using Why it matters: There is no point in is the correct fixed expression for saying an action is futile.
- 9. Use natural expression Original: they will be at their terminal life Suggested revision: they will be nearing the end of their lives Why it matters: The revision expresses the intended stage of life in natural English.
- 10. Remove redundant complement Original: assigned to a hospital as a duty nurse Suggested revision: assigned as a duty nurse Why it matters: The hospital is already identified before where, so the repeated location phrase is unnecessary.
- 11. Fix sentence fragment Original: When she is in her final stage and Suggested revision: She is in the final stage, and Why it matters: Replacing the subordinate opener with an independent clause creates a complete sentence.
- 12. Use concise verb Original: will not work in prolonging her life Suggested revision: will not prolong her life Why it matters: Prolong directly expresses the intended effect without the awkward work in construction.
Suggested Rewrites
- Every year the government has allocated Every year, governments allocate
- public public's
- importantly important
- for the treatment of already ill people for treating people who are already ill
- children childhood
- the public money public money
Why this response received Band 5.5
The response is strongest in its clear position and use of detailed professional examples to support preventive health spending. Its main limitation is the unsupported assumption that people who are already ill are generally terminal, which weakens the relevance and persuasiveness of a major argument. The highest-priority improvement is to compare prevention with treatment more fairly, using reasoned distinctions between ordinary care, chronic illness, and end-of-life care.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear position is maintained and supported with examples, but a major claim about ill people being terminal is overgeneralised and insufficiently justified.
Develop a balanced funding argument that recognises the continuing need for treatment while explaining why prevention merits greater investment.
Coherence and Cohesion
The overall sequence is discernible, but the single-block presentation, repetitive reasoning, and mechanical transitions weaken progression.
Separate the introduction, each main argument, and the conclusion into focused paragraphs with clearer internal topic development.
Lexical Resource
The response has sufficient health-related vocabulary, but frequent inaccurate collocations and word forms reduce precision.
Correct expressions such as more importantly than, done vaccinations, children diseases, and at their terminal life.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A mix of simple and complex sentences communicates the main meaning, though frequent structural, agreement, and clause errors reduce control.
Prioritise complete sentence boundaries and accurate verb forms, then revise overloaded sentences into clearly linked clauses.
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 it is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.