IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Band 7.5
IELTS Essay Sample Band 7.5
7.5
Overall Score
20 Aug 24, 12:44
Want to practice?
Try this question
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 the coherence could be slightly improved for a smoother flow.
| Overall score | 7.5 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 9.0 | |
| Lexical resource | 5.0 | |
| 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:348
Paragraphs:4
Task Response
Readability
Coherence
Cohesion
Ideas Development
Logical Flow
In contemporary society, marked by constrained resources and growing
financial
pressures, the allocation of public
funds has become a highly contested issue, particularly concerning the creative
arts
. Advocates underscore the invaluable societal contributions of artists
and musicians, while critics argue that the intrinsic joy derived from creative
pursuits diminishes the need for public
financial
support. This essay will explore both perspectives before ultimately arguing for the prioritization of investment
in the creative
sector.Proponents of
public
investment
in the arts
emphasize the far-reaching benefits that arise from artistic endeavors. Creative
disciplines foster social cohesion, stimulate cultural dialogue, and enhance cognitive development by nurturing critical thinking skills. For instance, state-supported public
art
initiatives can invigorate local communities, strengthening social bonds and cultivating a sense of belonging. Moreover, the arts
serve as significant economic
catalysts; research has demonstrated that cultural investments
yield substantial returns through increased tourism and job creation, underscoring the essential role artists
play in fostering economic
stability. Consequently, the arts
transcend mere aesthetic pursuits, emerging as critical contributors to societal well-being and economic
growth.Conversely, critics contend that the intrinsic satisfaction
artists
experience renders external financial
support superfluous. They maintain that many artists
thrive creatively without reliance on public
funding. However, this perspective fails to acknowledge the broader societal implications of artistic expression. While it is true that artists
may find fulfillment in their craft, public
investment
can significantly enhance the accessibility of their work, ensuring that art
reaches a diverse audience, not limited to those who can afford it. Additionally, this argument overlooks the financial
struggles that many artists
endure while pursuing their passion. Therefore, public
support can facilitate greater artistic engagement and ensure that creative
innovation continues to flourish within society.In conclusion, while
artists
may derive personal fulfillment from their work, the compelling societal benefits of supporting the arts
cannot be overlooked. Public
funding should prioritize the creative
sector, not only for its intrinsic rewards but also for its capacity to nurture community connections, stimulate economic
advancement, and ensure that art
remains an accessible and vital part of our social fabric.