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

10 correction notes

Showing 10 correction notes.

Every infant needs any danger at their early age. One of the most predominant perils is absolutely illnesses. Any disorder can be able to face them with the risk of death, even a single flu because children are vulnerable and a potential target for viruses and other threatening creatures. Their to grow and improve. If they are not fed well and protected from cannot thrive and the body will destroy soon.

That's why they are in need of their protectors at certain ages of weakness. It is evident that these protectors are their parents or responsible relatives. Hands of kind-hearted and generous parents are especially given for that reason. to the age of being an individual, parents look after their children with great patience and attention.

They devote their whole life to their protection like precious jewellery. This dedication includes health, happiness, culture and other qualities of their own personality. Kind-hearted parents always want their children to be healthy, because of that they immunise them very well. In their opinion, it is their obligation to do that. Unfortunately, some parents . They refuse to inoculate their children. It must be a scandal, because if parents decline to vaccinate them, then who should do the issue.

I think it is obviously the obligation of parents to their children. Another variant could not be perceptible. And the government should impose a law for this type of parents to either immunise their own children or pay the expense of looking after them.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 5.0

The response states a clear position favouring legal enforcement of vaccination and ends with a concrete policy proposal, which is its strongest feature. Its main limitation is that much of the essay discusses parental care in general rather than the vaccination question itself, and frequent inaccurate word choices and grammatical errors repeatedly obscure the message.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

5.0

The position in favour of legally requiring immunisation is eventually stated and a supporting measure is proposed, but most of the response addresses general parental care rather than the question, leaving ideas only partially developed and relevantly supported.

Coherence and Cohesion

5.0

Ideas are arranged into paragraphs but progression is often unclear because general remarks about parenting and health are not linked to the vaccination issue, and cohesive devices such as 'That's why' and 'because of that' connect ideas imprecisely.

Lexical Resource

5.0

Vocabulary shows some attempt at less common items but includes frequent inappropriate choices, such as 'threatening creatures', 'it must be a scandal', 'another variant could not be perceptible' and 'immunity system', which limit precision of meaning.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

5.0

A limited range of sentence structures is attempted, but frequent errors, including 'an aid of protection', 'their immunity system is just started', 'the body will destroy' and 'pay attentions', regularly obscure meaning in places.