IELTS Essay Checker - Sample Band 7.5
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Band 7.5 | IELTS Essay Sample Band 7.5
7.5
Overall Score
20 Aug 24, 11:41
Want to practice this question?
Go to IELTS Essay Checker
Overall Feedback
The essay is well-structured and addresses both sides of the argument effectively, with a clear personal opinion. It demonstrates a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical accuracy, though some points could be more deeply elaborated for a higher score.
| Overall score | 7.5 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 9.0 | |
| Lexical resource | 6.0 | |
| Coherence & cohesion | 8.0 | |
| Task response | 7.0 |
| Total Errors | 13 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 0 | |
| Lexical resource | 7 | |
| Coherence & cohesion | 3 | |
| Task response | 3 |
Question
Some people think that the government should fund creative people such as artists and musicians due to the benefits they provide to society, other people believe that as they enjoy their work they should have received no government funding.
Discuss both sides.
#Government Spending
#Discussion
Submitted Answer
English:
Words:340
Paragraphs:4
Task Response
Readability
Coherence
Cohesion
Vocabulary Usage
Ideas Development
Logical Flow
In an era characterized by scarce resources, the allocation of
government
funding
has become a contentious issue, particularly regarding the creative
arts
. Proponents assert that these arts
provide indispensable societal benefits, while critics argue that since artists
derive inherent satisfaction from their work, public investment is unwarranted. This essay will explore both perspectives before asserting the necessity of prioritizing government
funding
for the creative
arts
.Supporters of
government
funding
emphasize the multifaceted societal advantages that stem from artistic endeavors. Creative
arts
foster social cohesion, cultural discourse, and cognitive enrichment by enhancing critical thinking skills. For instance, government
-funded public art
projects can galvanize local communities, fortifying the social fabric and nurturing a sense of belonging. Moreover, the arts
are economic
catalysts; studies have shown that investments in the arts
yield substantial returns through tourism and job creation, underscoring the vital role of artists
in economic
sustainability. Thus, the arts
are not merely aesthetic endeavors but also pivotal contributors to societal well-being and economic
growth.Conversely, detractors posit that
artists
often derive intrinsic joy from their pursuits, rendering external financial support superfluous. They argue that many artists
thrive in their creative
processes regardless of government
backing. However, this viewpoint myopically overlooks the broader implications of art
on society. While it is true that artists
may feel fulfilled by their craft, public funding
can amplify artistic expression to broader audiences, ensuring that art
is accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it. Additionally, this argument fails to consider the precarious financial situations many artists
endure to pursue their passion. Therefore, support from governments
can facilitate artistic engagement and ensure that creative
innovation continues to flourish within society.In conclusion, while it is acknowledged that
artists
may derive personal satisfaction from their work, the broader benefits of investing in the creative
arts
are compelling. Government
funding
should prioritize the arts
not only for their intrinsic value but also for their role in fostering community, driving economic
growth, and ensuring that art
remains an accessible and integral component of our society.