IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Band 7.5
IELTS Essay Sample Band 7.5
7.5
Overall Score
20 Aug 24, 12:59
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. The grammar and vocabulary are strong, but the essay could benefit from more varied examples and slightly improved coherence in transitions.
| Overall score | 7.5 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 9.0 | |
| Lexical resource | 5.0 | |
| Coherence & cohesion | 8.0 | |
| Task response | 7.0 |
| Total Errors | 17 | |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | 0 | |
| Lexical resource | 11 | |
| 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:351
Paragraphs:4
Task Response
Readability
Coherence
Cohesion
Vocabulary Usage
Ideas Development
Logical Flow
In contemporary
society
, the discourse surrounding the government
's role in financing the creative
arts
has grown increasingly contentious. Advocates argue that artists
and musicians merit financial
backing owing to the significant advantages they provide to society
. Conversely, critics maintain that the enjoyment and fulfillment these individuals derive from their vocation diminish the necessity for public
funding. I assert that government
support for the creative
arts
is crucial, as the societal
benefits considerably overshadow the argument for personal satisfaction.Proponents of
public
funding argue that creative
individuals contribute immensely to society
through cultural
enrichment, social cohesion, and economic advancement. Art
is not merely a source of personal gratification; it plays a vital role in preserving cultural
heritage and serving as a catalyst for societal
advancement. For example, government
-sponsored public
art
initiatives can invigorate communities, strengthen social bonds, and stimulate local economies through increased tourism. Hence, investing in the arts
equates to an investment in societal
well-being and cultural
sustainability.On the other hand, detractors contend that
artists
, who inherently relish their work, should not rely on public
funds. They argue that the intrinsic joy experienced by artists
can be seen as
a form of self-sustenance, thus diminishing the rationale for external financial
support. However, this viewpoint neglects the broader implications of art
on society
and the economic challenges that many artists
face. While some successful artists
may flourish without government
assistance, numerous others grapple with precarious financial
conditions that impede their capacity to create and disseminate their work to a wider audience. Public
financing can enhance artistic expression, ensuring that art
remains accessible to all members of society
, not solely those with financial
means.In conclusion, while the intrinsic satisfaction that
artists
derive from their craft is undeniably significant, the extensive societal
benefits associated with supporting the arts
are compelling. I firmly believe that public
funding for the creative
sector is not only warranted but also essential for the ongoing enhancement of society
. Consequently, a balanced approach that recognizes both the intrinsic and societal
worth of the arts
is vital for the comprehensive development of our cultural
landscape.