The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizen’s health rather than on protecting the environment. Do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
Some people think that the government should allocate more financial resources to medical research instead of environmental protection. I entirely disagree with this statement.
Both medical researchBoth medical research activities and environmental protection are equally critical to human well-being. Throughout history, we have had to deal with the many consequencescope with countless consequences of environmental damage, some of which have even threatenedsome of which even threatened the survival of whole communities. We have also been struggling to combat diseases that could cripple the healthcaremedical systems of entire countries. The dangers posed by these threatsThe peril that people face from those threats cannot be compared with one another by any measuremeasures; if boththey were to be addressed, tremendous government funding would be needed.
Furthermore, preserving the environment is a necessary part of protecting human health. It is true that funding medical researchfunding medical research activities is the best way to cure many serious diseasesthe many serious diseases that are now causing so many problems all over the world, such as Covid-19. However, it is flawed to use this argumentreason to downplay the significance of environmental protection and the need for government funding. In reality, we are facing many other severe health crises that arise from environmental pollution. For example, high levels of air and water contamination are leading to an increasing numberthe increased number of cancer cases and deaths. Extreme weather conditions caused by global warming are also among the greatest drivers ofbehind the deterioration of public health.
In conclusion, although medical research is certainly important and should be properly funded, I disagree that it should receive more money from the government than environmental protection.
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response takes a clear position and develops a persuasive connection between environmental protection and public health, supported by relevant examples and consistently strong language control. Its main limitation is that the first body paragraph remains comparatively general and includes an awkward claim about comparing threats. The highest-priority improvement is to support that equality argument with a more concrete explanation or example.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The position is clear throughout, and the argument directly addresses the proposed funding priority with relevant, well-developed support.
Strengthen the first main idea with a specific illustration showing why neither area should receive automatic priority.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas progress logically across well-focused paragraphs, with cohesive devices used smoothly and without distracting repetition.
Make the transition within the first body paragraph more explicit so its two types of threat form one fully unified argument.
Lexical Resource
A wide and precise vocabulary supports nuanced discussion, with only occasional awkward collocations such as comparing threats 'by any measures'.
Refine the few unnatural collocations by choosing idiomatic forms such as 'by any measure' and 'an increased number of cases'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A broad range of complex structures is handled accurately, and minor errors do not affect clarity.
Proofread article and number choices in dense noun phrases to make the already strong grammatical control more consistent.
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
The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizen’s health rather than on protecting the environment. Do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.