IELTS Writing Task 2: Scientific Funding (Agree/Disagree) Band 6-9 Answers

Related guides:

• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Agree Disagree Sample…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Plastic Pollution (Advantages…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Recycling (Discussion) — Band 6/7/8/9…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Climate Change Discussion Sample Band…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Two Part Question…

The Prompt

Some people argue that governments should fund scientific research, while others believe private companies should take responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Model Answers with Scoring Breakdown

Band 6.0 Answer

**Scientific research is very important for society's development. Governments should fund it because it benefits everyone. Companies only want to make money. They will not fund important research that doesn't make profit. For example, medical research for rare diseases. Few companies will spend money on this because not many people have these diseases. But governments can use tax money to pay for this research. It helps society and saves lives.

On the other hand, some people say companies should fund research. They say companies have more money and can do research faster. Also, companies pay taxes so they should decide where this money goes. But I disagree. Governments know what society needs. They can make sure research helps everyone, not just rich people. In my opinion, governments should fund most research. Companies can help with things that make money, like new technology.**

Scoring Breakdown

• Task Response (5.0): Presents a position but with some irrelevant content. Some arguments are unsubstantiated.
• Coherence & Cohesion (6.0): Ideas are organized but with some unclear progression. Cohesive devices are used but sometimes incorrectly.
• Lexical Resource (5.5): Attempts varied vocabulary but makes some errors in word choice and collocations.
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy (5.5): Uses a mix of simple and complex sentences with frequent errors in verb forms and article usage.

Band 7.0 Answer

The question of whether governments or private companies should fund scientific research is complex. Both have advantages, but I believe government funding is more beneficial for society as a whole.

Governments have several compelling reasons to fund scientific research. First, they have a responsibility to serve the public interest. This includes supporting research that may not be immediately profitable but offers long-term societal benefits. For instance, basic medical research often requires significant initial investment before any commercial applications emerge. Governments can allocate funds to such areas without the pressure of immediate returns. Second, government funding allows for more equitable distribution of research benefits. Private companies typically focus on projects with high profit potential, potentially neglecting areas that affect marginalized communities or developing regions. Government funding can help address these disparities.

On the other hand, proponents of private sector funding argue that companies have more efficient systems for research and development. They claim that market competition drives innovation more effectively than government bureaucracy. Additionally, private companies can invest in cutting-edge technology and attract top talent with competitive salaries. However, this view overlooks the potential for short-term profit motives to override long-term scientific goals. Companies may prioritize research with immediate commercial applications, potentially neglecting fundamental scientific inquiries.

In conclusion, while private companies play a crucial role in certain areas of scientific research, governments are better positioned to fund research that benefits society as a whole. A balanced approach, where both sectors contribute, would likely yield the best results.

Scoring Breakdown

• Task Response (7.0): Presents a clear position throughout and extends and supports main trends, arguments, and relevant examples.
• Coherence & Cohesion (7.0): Uses a mix of cohesive devices flexibly and appropriately. Logical progression is clear but may occasionally be unclear.
• Lexical Resource (7.0): Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to convey precise meanings, though some inappropriate choices and collocations may occur.
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy (7.0): Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms with some errors in verb forms and article usage.

Band 8.0 Answer

The debate over who should fund scientific research—governments or private companies—is multifaceted. While both entities have valid roles, I contend that government funding is more aligned with the public good.

Governments are uniquely positioned to fund scientific research for several reasons. First, they have a mandate to serve the public interest, which includes supporting research that may not have immediate commercial applications but offers significant long-term benefits. For example, fundamental research in fields like climate science or public health often requires substantial initial investment before yielding tangible results. Governments can provide this funding without the pressure of immediate returns. Second, government funding can help mitigate the inequities that arise when private companies dominate research funding. Companies typically focus on projects with high profit potential, which can lead to the neglect of areas that affect marginalized communities or developing regions. Government funding can help address these disparities by prioritizing research that benefits a broader cross-section of society.

Proponents of private sector funding argue that companies have more efficient systems for research and development. They claim that market competition drives innovation more effectively than government bureaucracy. Additionally, private companies can invest in cutting-edge technology and attract top talent with competitive salaries. However, this view overlooks the potential for short-term profit motives to override long-term scientific goals. Companies may prioritize research with immediate commercial applications, potentially neglecting fundamental scientific inquiries that require sustained investment.

In conclusion, while private companies play a crucial role in certain areas of scientific research, governments are better positioned to fund research that benefits society as a whole. A balanced approach, where both sectors contribute, would likely yield the best results. Governments should take the lead in funding research that serves the public interest, while companies can focus on areas with high commercial potential.

Scoring Breakdown

• Task Response (8.0): Presents a clear position throughout and extends and supports main trends, arguments, and relevant examples.
• Coherence & Cohesion (8.0): Uses a mix of cohesive devices flexibly and appropriately. Logical progression is clear and easy to follow.
• Lexical Resource (8.0): Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to convey precise meanings, though some inappropriate choices and collocations may occur.
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy (8.0): Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms with some errors in verb forms and article usage.

Band 9.0 Answer

The question of who should fund scientific research—governments or private companies—is a contentious one. While both have valid roles, I argue that government funding is more conducive to the public good.

Governments are uniquely positioned to fund scientific research for several compelling reasons. First, they have a mandate to serve the public interest, which includes supporting research that may not have immediate commercial applications but offers significant long-term benefits. For instance, fundamental research in fields like climate science or public health often requires substantial initial investment before yielding tangible results. Governments can provide this funding without the pressure of immediate returns. Second, government funding can help mitigate the inequities that arise when private companies dominate research funding. Companies typically focus on projects with high profit potential, which can lead to the neglect of areas that affect marginalized communities or developing regions. Government funding can help address these disparities by prioritizing research that benefits a broader cross-section of society.

Advocates of private sector funding contend that companies have more efficient systems for research and development. They argue that market competition drives innovation more effectively than government bureaucracy. Additionally, private companies can invest in cutting-edge technology and attract top talent with competitive salaries. However, this perspective overlooks the potential for short-term profit motives to override long-term scientific goals. Companies may prioritize research with immediate commercial applications, potentially neglecting fundamental scientific inquiries that require sustained investment.

In conclusion, while private companies play a crucial role in certain areas of scientific research, governments are better positioned to fund research that benefits society as a whole. A balanced approach, where both sectors contribute, would likely yield the best results. Governments should take the lead in funding research that serves the public interest, while companies can focus on areas with high commercial potential. This dual approach would maximize the benefits of scientific research for society as a whole.

Scoring Breakdown

• Task Response (9.0): Presents a clear position throughout and extends and supports main trends, arguments, and relevant examples.
• Coherence & Cohesion (9.0): Uses a mix of cohesive devices flexibly and appropriately. Logical progression is clear and easy to follow.
• Lexical Resource (9.0): Uses a wide range of vocabulary with very natural and sophisticated collocations.
• Grammatical Range & Accuracy (9.0): Uses a wide range of complex sentence forms with only very occasional errors in verb forms and article usage.

Key Vocabulary

1. Compelling (adjective): Highly convincing or compelling. Example: The evidence presented a compelling case for government funding.
2. Mandate (noun): An official order or commission to do something. Example: The government has a mandate to serve the public interest.
3. Mitigate (verb): To make less severe, serious, or painful. Example: Government funding can help mitigate the inequities in research funding.
4. Tangible (adjective): Clear and definite; real or concrete. Example: The research yielded tangible results that benefited society.
5. Marginialized (adjective): Treated as insignificant or peripheral. Example: The research neglected areas that affect marginalized communities.
6. Sustained (adjective): Continued over a long period or maintained at a particular level. Example: Fundamental scientific inquiries require sustained investment.
7. Contentious (adjective): Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. Example: The question of who should fund scientific research is a contentious one.
8. Conducive (adjective): Making a certain situation or outcome likely or possible. Example: Government funding is more conducive to the public good.
9. Efficient (adjective): Achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. Example: Companies have more efficient systems for research and development.
10. Cutting-edge (adjective): Including or using the most recent or advanced techniques or technology. Example: Private companies can invest in cutting-edge technology.
11. Attract (verb): Cause to come to a place or participate in a venture by offering something of interest or advantage. Example: Companies can attract top talent with competitive salaries.
12. Overlook (verb): Fail to notice or consider. Example: The perspective overlooks the potential for short-term profit motives to override long-term scientific goals.
13. Dual (adjective): Consisting of two parts, elements, or aspects. Example: A dual approach would maximize the benefits of scientific research.
14. Maximize (verb): To increase something as much as possible. Example: The dual approach would maximize the benefits of scientific research.
15. Innovation (noun): The introduction of new things or methods. Example: Market competition drives innovation more effectively than government bureaucracy.
16. Bureaucracy (noun): A system of government or organization in which decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives. Example: Government bureaucracy can slow down the research process.
17. Talent (noun): Natural aptitude or skill. Example: Companies can attract top talent with competitive salaries.
18. Sustained (adjective): Continued over a long period or maintained at a particular level. Example: Fundamental scientific inquiries require sustained investment.
19. Equitable (adjective): Fair and impartial. Example: Government funding can help address these disparities by prioritizing research that benefits a broader cross-section of society.
20. Tangible (adjective): Clear and definite; real or concrete. Example: The research yielded tangible results that benefited society.

Common Mistakes

1. Overgeneralizing: Students often make sweeping statements without sufficient evidence. Example: All companies only care about profit. Instead, use specific examples and data.
2. Ignoring Counterarguments: Failing to address the opposing viewpoint weakens the argument. Always acknowledge and refute counterarguments to strengthen your position.
3. Vague Language: Using unclear or imprecise language can confuse the reader. Example: Some people think research is important. Instead, specify who these people are and why research is important.
4. Inconsistent Argument Structure: Jumping between points without clear transitions can make the essay difficult to follow. Use cohesive devices to connect your ideas logically.
5. Overuse of Personal Opinions: IELTS Writing Task 2 requires objective analysis. Avoid statements like I think or In my opinion without supporting evidence.

Get Your Own Response Scored by AI on English AIdol

Practice makes perfect. Get your own IELTS Writing Task 2 responses scored by AI on English AIdol. Our advanced AI provides detailed feedback on Task Response, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Start improving your writing skills today!