IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Band 7.5
IELTS Essay Sample Band 7.5
7.5
Overall Score
20 Aug 24, 11:34
Want to practice?
Try this question
Overall Feedback
The essay is well-structured and demonstrates a high level of grammatical accuracy and lexical resource. However, it could benefit from a clearer personal opinion and slightly more cohesive transitions between ideas.
| Overall score | 7.5 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 9.0 | |
| Lexical resource | 6.0 | |
| Coherence & cohesion | 8.0 | |
| Task response | 7.0 |
| Total Errors | 12 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 0 | |
| Lexical resource | 5 | |
| Coherence & cohesion | 3 | |
| Task response | 4 |
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:325
Paragraphs:4
Task Response
Readability
Coherence
Cohesion
Ideas Development
Logical Flow
Thesis Statement
government
funding for the arts
has become increasingly contentious. Proponents argue that artists
and musicians contribute immeasurably to societal well-being and therefore merit financial support. Conversely, opponents contend that the intrinsic satisfaction derived from creative endeavors should suffice as compensation, negating the need for public subsidies. This essay will expound upon both perspectives, highlighting the complexities inherent in this debate.Advocates for state patronage posit that the
arts
play a pivotal role in shaping cultural
identity, fostering social cohesion, and stimulating economic development. The arts
are not merely a source of aesthetic pleasure but also a conduit for cultural
preservation and intellectual enrichment. For instance, countries like France and Germany, which allocate substantial resources to the arts
, boast vibrant cultural
scenes that attract tourism and enhance national identity. Consequently, government
funding is often viewed as an investment in the nation's cultural
capital, ensuring the continuity of artistic traditions that might otherwise be imperiled by the vagaries of the market.Conversely, detractors assert that
artists
, who derive intrinsic fulfillment from their work, should not be reliant on public funds. The joy and personal satisfaction associated with creative pursuits are often perceived as sufficient recompense, rendering government
subsidies unnecessary. Many artists
and musicians, driven by passion rather than financial gain, rely on private patrons or commercial success to sustain their practices. This perspective, while acknowledging the personal gratification of artists
, may overlook the broader societal benefits conferred by the arts
, such as the preservation of cultural
heritage and the fostering of collective identity.In summary, the debate over
government
funding for the arts
hinges on the balance between recognizing the societal value of artistic contributions and acknowledging the autotelic
nature of creative work. Both perspectives offer valuable insights into how society might best allocate its resources to support the arts
in a way that honors both their cultural
significance and the personal fulfillment they provide.