The question of whether we should oblige parents to immunise their children against common diseases is a social rather than a medical one. Since we are free to choose what we eat or drink or how much exercise we take, why should the medical treatment we decide to undergo be any different? Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes, which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations, which can sometimes result in growth problems in children or even death. The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. When children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society, which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before. the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on must be considered when any decisions are made. For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.
Mandatory Childhood Vaccination vs Parental Choice
Many childhood diseases can now be prevented through the use of vaccines. Should parents be made by law to immunise their children against common diseases or should individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?
Annotated response
2 correction notes
Overall assessment
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response presents a clear, consistently maintained position against compulsory immunisation, organised into well-linked paragraphs with a logical progression of ideas. Its strongest aspect is the fluent, flexible language throughout; the main limitation is that some central claims, such as vaccines causing death or weakened societal immunity, are asserted rather than supported with evidence or examples.
IELTS criteria
How each score was decided
Task Response
7.0The task is fully addressed with a clear position maintained and developed across several relevant ideas, though support for some claims remains general and unsupported.
Coherence and Cohesion
7.5Ideas are logically organised into distinct paragraphs with a clear progression and effective cohesive devices throughout the response.
Lexical Resource
7.5A good range of vocabulary is used flexibly and precisely, including terms like 'obliged', 'artificial immunity', and 'potentially harmful practice', with only rare inaccuracy.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
7.5A variety of complex structures, including conditionals, relative clauses, and rhetorical questions, are handled with flexibility and generally strong accuracy.