Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore, every home should have a water supply that is provided free of charge.
Do you agree or disagree?
Read the original writing alongside its overall assessment. Open a full review for criterion explanations and sentence-level feedback.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 01
322 words
It is widely recognised that clean water is a fundamental human right and that all people should be provided with a free water supply to their home. This essay will entirely agree but acknowledge that it is nonetheless highly unlikely that this will happen soon.
First of all, given that it is a basic human right, water should of course be provided free of charge to all citizens. A government’s duty should be first and foremost to protect its people and of the various essentials for life, probably none are as important as fresh water. It is even more important than food and shelter. Beyond just survival, people are naturally going to be more productive when they do not need to worry about water access and this will be beneficial for governments, meaning that it is not just the ethically right thing to do but it should be logically justifiable from a practical standpoint.
In spite of all that, it does seem unlikely that all governments can achieve such a feat. Even in countries like China, which have vast amounts of wealth and extremely powerful governments, the water that people get in their homes is not potable. In poorer nations, it is not only unpotable but quite often unclean, meaning that it can only be used for things like flushing toilets. In many parts of the world, it is currently impractical to even provide an unclean water supply and so people have to collect it from elsewhere and bring it home or else they must gather rainwater during certain seasons. Thus, even if it is ethical for all governments to provide clean water and practical for some of them, it is not realistic that it will happen in the near future.
In conclusion, this essay agrees that water should be provided to all homes free of charge but admits that it almost certainly will not happen in certain parts of the world.
Estimated band7.0
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 02
216 words
Clean water is essential to human survival, and I strongly agree that access to it should be considered a basic right, provided free of charge to every household. Governments should treat clean water as a public good, not a commodity .
To begin with, water is as vital as air—both are elements of nature that should not be owned or controlled by individuals or corporations. If clean water were monetized, it could become inaccessible to low-income families, leading to inequality and even health crises. Charging people for something so fundamental contradicts the principle of universal human rights.
Furthermore, from an ethical and historical standpoint, water has always existed as a shared natural resource. No one created it, and thus, no one should profit from it. Governments are merely stewards of resources, not owners. Like air and sunlight, clean water must be protected and distributed fairly.
Some argue that charging for water encourages responsible usage and reduces waste. However, this issue can be addressed through public education, improved infrastructure , and water-saving technologies rather than imposing fees.
In conclusion, clean water is a life-sustaining necessity that should be guaranteed to all, regardless of income or status. Free access reflects both moral responsibility and practical need. Governments must prioritize this right and ensure universal access to safe, affordable water.
Estimated band7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Response 03
327 words
It is often argued that since access to clean water is a fundamental human right, it should be given to every household free of charge. I agree that clean water is essential and should be universally accessible, despite the potential expense of such a proposal.
One the one hand, providing unlimited free water to every home engenders serious logistical and financial challenges. Water treatment, maintenance of pipelines, and distribution all require funding, skilled labor, and dedicated infrastructure. If water were completely free, there would be little incentive for consumers to use it responsibly, leading to wastage and overconsumption. Consider the example of California during its 2011–2017 drought: despite public campaigns, many affluent neighborhoods continued to overwater their lawns and fill large swimming pools, as water prices were heavily subsidized. This overuse strained reservoirs and forced emergency water restrictions. As a response, nations like Singapore have implemented a tiered pricing system where basic water needs are affordable, but excessive use is charged at higher rates.
On the other hand, the argument that clean water is a human right is supported by strong moral and humanitarian reasoning. Water is vital not only for drinking, but for cooking, hygiene, and sanitation. Without it, communities are vulnerable to diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid, all of which are preventable with access to clean water. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, where millions still lack safe water access, avoidable waterborne illnesses cause more deaths each year than armed conflicts. In this context, expecting individuals to pay for water they cannot afford fosters an unjust system where survival equates to income. Governments, therefore, have a duty to ensure that no citizens are denied this basic resource, especially in less affluent or rural areas.
In conclusion, I strongly agree that every individual deserves access to clean water as a basic human right, despite the practical challenges posed. A fair solution would safeguard free access to water for the general public regardless of the financial ramifications.
Estimated band8.0
8.0
7.5
8.0
7.5
Response 04
397 words
Access to clean water is undeniably fundamental to human survival and well-being. While I strongly agree that everyone should have access to safe drinking water, I partly disagree that it should be completely free of charge for all households.
On the one hand, there are compelling reasons why some people believe that clean water should be provided free of charge. Firstly, ensuring universal access to clean water plays a vital role in safeguarding public health and hygiene. In many developing countries, individuals with financial constraints often lack access to safe water, which exposes them to infectious diseases such as cholera and dysentery. Therefore, providing them with safe drinking water can greatly lower the risk of these serious illnesses. For example, in rural parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, free water programs have significantly reduced waterborne diseases and child mortality rates. Secondly, offering clean water at no cost promotes equality and social justice. Since water is a basic element of human existence, it should not be distributed based on income. Making it freely available to everyone would help narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and promote a more equitable society.
On the other hand, making water completely free could lead to serious consequences. The first is that providing water infrastructure, treatment, and maintenance requires vast public funds, which would put enormous pressure on the national budget. Due to this, governments might have to divert financial resources away from other crucial sectors such as healthcare and education. For instance, in some developing nations, the cost of maintaining free water systems has forced authorities to cut spending on school facilities. Furthermore, when people are not charged for water use, it can result in overconsumption. Without a sense of cost, individuals may use water irresponsibly, leading to significant waste and depletion of this essential resource. A good example is seen in areas with unlimited water subsidies, where domestic water usage often doubles compared to regions that apply fair pricing.
In conclusion, while the vast majority would agree that clean water is a human right because of its role in maintaining public health and contribution to social equality, I believe it should not be entirely free since the national budget can be stressed and overconsumption may occur. A balanced approach, which is offering free access for the poor while encouraging responsible consumption through fair pricing, would ensure both equity and sustainability.
