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, 11:38
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 conclusion. It demonstrates a strong command of grammar and a wide range of vocabulary, 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 | 15 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 0 | |
| Lexical resource | 9 | |
| 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:337
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 in relation to the creative
arts
. Proponents argue that these arts
yield substantial societal dividends, whereas critics contend that since artists
derive intrinsic satisfaction from their work, public
investment is unwarranted. This essay will explore both perspectives before asserting the indispensability of prioritizing government
funding
for the creative
arts
.Supporters of
public
investment in the creative
arts
emphasize the multifaceted societal benefits that stem from artistic endeavors
. Creative
arts
foster community cohesion, promote cultural dialogue, and enrich education by enhancing critical thinking and creative
problem-solving skills. For instance, government
-funded public
art
projects can galvanize local communities, enhancing the social fabric and nurturing a sense of belonging. Furthermore, the arts
catalyze
economic growth; studies conducted in various cities reveal that every dollar invested in the arts
generates significant returns through tourism, cultural tourism, and job creation, underscoring the vital role of artists
in economic sustainability.Conversely, detractors assert that
artists
often find intrinsic joy in their pursuits, rendering external financial support superfluous. They argue that many artists
thrive in their creative
processes regardless of government
backing. However, this viewpoint overlooks the broader implications of art
on society. While it is true that artists
may feel fulfilled by their craft, public
funding
can elevate artistic expression to a broader audience, making art
accessible to all, not just the affluent elite. Additionally, the argument fails to consider the sacrifices many artists
make to pursue their passion, often resulting in financial instability. Therefore, support from governments
can facilitate artistic engagement and ensure that creativity 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.