Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to be shared freely. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Sample Response
In this modern era, restricting information for the sake of public security and national importance seems irrational to many while others opine that information should be available only when the authority deems them suitable for access. Both views will be examined in this essay. I personally believe that scientific studies, the academic arena, and businesses can greatly benefit if the information is made open to them without restrictions.
The proponents of restricting sensitive information believe that unrestricted access to information could penetrate state security, lead to public outcry, hand over technologies to terrorists, and facilitate corporate monopoly. So information has to be properly scrutinized before making it public. In this digital era, information spreads like wildfire and for the sake of maintaining global peace, it should be delimited, according to this group of people. For instance, if nuclear technology is shared with all nations for scientific studies, the world will soon stand on the verge of obliteration, despite the incredible possibility this technology possesses to facilitate the citizens' energy demands.
On the contrary, those who advocate for unobstructed access to information say that scientific research largely depends on available data and previous findings. If valuable information and past findings are not shared openly with academics and researchers, global progress will come to a standstill. For instance, the Internet is probably the most significant invention the modern world has produced and if this technology had not been shared by the US military, we would still be living in the pre-internet era. Moreover, clandestine information has no value if it is not implemented in the real world and thus curbing them is like slaughtering the potential for progress. World history suggests that the human race has advanced due to discoveries and inventions shared with the world as each finding went through profound modification and advancement. I thus personally favour the ideology that supports "free information for all".
In conclusion, information has limited value when it is constrained and not shared with great minds. For true global progress, restrictions on valuable information should be debarred and let people know the truth instead of keeping them in the dark.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Clarify security purpose Original: for the sake of public security and national importance Suggested revision: to protect public and national security Why it matters: The revised phrase states the protective purpose directly and naturally.
- 2. Use direct reporting verb Original: opine Suggested revision: argue Why it matters: Argue is clearer and more natural in this academic contrast.
- 3. Fix agreement and reference Original: the authority deems them Suggested revision: the authorities deem it Why it matters: Authorities is the natural plural agent, while information takes the singular pronoun it.
- 4. Use availability collocation Original: made open to them Suggested revision: made openly available Why it matters: Information is made available rather than made open to a group.
- 5. Use accurate security verb Original: penetrate state security Suggested revision: undermine state security Why it matters: Penetrate does not express weakening or threatening security in this context.
- 6. Refine transfer phrase Original: hand over technologies to terrorists Suggested revision: place technologies in terrorists’ hands Why it matters: This idiomatic phrase expresses the claimed transfer risk more naturally.
- 7. Use countable plural Original: corporate monopoly Suggested revision: corporate monopolies Why it matters: The statement refers generally to possible monopolies rather than one specified monopoly.
- 8. Use formal result link Original: So information Suggested revision: Therefore, information Why it matters: Therefore clearly links the listed risks to the proposed scrutiny.
- 9. Fix dangling clause Original: before making it public Suggested revision: before it is made public Why it matters: The passive clause supplies a subject and matches information being scrutinised.
- 10. Specify what is limited Original: it should be delimited Suggested revision: its dissemination should be limited Why it matters: Delimited is unnatural here, while dissemination names the act of spreading information.
- 11. Reduce unsupported hyperbole Original: stand on the verge of obliteration Suggested revision: face catastrophic consequences Why it matters: This preserves the severe warning without the absolute claim of worldwide destruction.
- 12. Use intended category Original: clandestine information Suggested revision: restricted information Why it matters: Clandestine means secret or illicit, whereas the argument concerns information withheld from public access.
Suggested Rewrites
- for the sake of public security and national importance to protect public and national security
- opine argue
- the authority deems them the authorities deem it
- made open to them made openly available
- penetrate state security undermine state security
- hand over technologies to terrorists place technologies in terrorists’ hands
Why this response received Band 7.5
The essay presents both perspectives clearly, sustains a definite preference for open access, and supports each side with relevant explanations and examples. Its structure is strong, but precision is reduced by repeated overstatement and several misused or strained expressions, while the conclusion contains an awkward coordinated construction. Retain the balanced argument while choosing more exact academic vocabulary and explicitly reconcile unrestricted sharing with the security risks acknowledged earlier.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
Both views are directly discussed through developed reasons and examples, and the writer's preference for sharing information remains clear throughout.
Qualify the final support for unrestricted sharing by explaining how genuinely dangerous information should be handled.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response progresses logically through a clear introduction, one paragraph for each view, and a consistent conclusion, with cohesive devices generally well managed.
Tighten the longer pro-sharing paragraph so each supporting point contributes directly to the central argument.
Lexical Resource
A broad academic vocabulary conveys complex ideas, but expressions such as ‘penetrate state security’, ‘slaughtering the potential’, and ‘restrictions should be debarred’ are strained or inaccurate.
Prefer precise conventional collocations, such as ‘compromise national security’, ‘limit progress’, and ‘remove restrictions’.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though pronoun agreement and coordination errors appear in several sentences.
Check reference to the uncountable noun ‘information’ and ensure coordinated verbs share a grammatically compatible subject.
Use this task for your next draft
Feedback is more useful when you actively apply it in a draft, rather than only recognising improvements on the page.
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.
The question will be loaded automatically.