Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Sample Response
The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?
Medical researchers and governments focus primarily on overall statistics, trends, and cost-saving policiesare primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes that may overlookwhich fail to take into consideration individual concerns and rightsthe individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.
The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through exposure to diseasethrough contact with that disease. Consequently, whenSo when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society thatwhich is entirely dependent on immunisation. IfIn the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, society as a wholethe society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.
In addition, there isIn addition there is the issue of individual rightsthe issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.
For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response presents a firm, consistently argued position and supports it with a clear sequence of reasons, while its sophisticated language remains controlled throughout. Its main limitation is that several broad medical claims are asserted rather than convincingly substantiated, which weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. The highest-priority improvement is to qualify these claims and engage more directly with the public-health case for compulsory immunisation before rebutting it.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear position is maintained and developed through several relevant reasons, although some key claims rely on assertion rather than sufficient support.
Strengthen the argument by acknowledging the collective-health rationale for immunisation and rebutting it with carefully qualified evidence.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas progress logically through well-focused paragraphs, with cohesive devices used naturally and effectively.
Refine the transition into the individual-rights paragraph so it adds a sharper new stage to the argument rather than partly restating earlier concerns.
Lexical Resource
A wide and precise vocabulary conveys abstract social and medical ideas effectively, with only occasional slightly strained phrasing.
Use more measured wording for contested claims and replace broad expressions such as money-saving schemes with more exact terms.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A broad range of complex structures is handled accurately, and the few minor imperfections do not impede communication.
Polish occasional overloaded sentences by simplifying their clause structure while preserving the strong grammatical range.
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
Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.