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

8 correction notes

Showing 8 correction notes.

In spite of the fact that parents can make their decisions in terms of immunising or not immunising their children from deadly diseases, they have to feel a responsibility to their children. From my point of view, it must not be optional and all children have to be vaccinated.

We all know that children who are are vulnerable to diseases and should have fatal results or big problems in their forthcoming future life if they are not protected from . Though these childhood illnesses might seem very simple, parents must pay attention to their children who are at these ages. By the way, it must not be voluntary for parents to decide what they must do. It is also the future of the country and the nation in terms of having a strong nation. Namely, children comprise the basis of education in the country, so children in the country in terms of education and future. For this reason, governments have to , such as . These sorts of regulations will make parents feel responsible for their children.

Children, who suffer from deadly diseases and get affected by that in future, actually start hating their parents. Think about how sad it would be when a child suffers from physical disability only because his parents decided not to vaccinate him in his childhood? That is something we never want to happen to our nation. Actually, there are also some families who want to immunise their children but haven't got sufficient budget to spend for that. In that way, governments have to undertake immunising such children and assign subsidies for . People haven't got the rights not to vaccinate their children. This is not an option, this is a must. Because it is inhumane for both children and parents who might become the victim of deadly diseases.

To sum up, parents must be responsible for their children and they mustn't choose to immunise or not immunise, that should be a must for parents.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 6.0

The response presents a clear, consistent position that vaccination should be mandatory and develops it with several relevant reasons, which is its strongest aspect. The main limitation is imprecise word choice and awkward phrasing that regularly distracts from otherwise understandable arguments.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

6.0

The response maintains a clear position that immunisation should be compulsory and develops supporting reasons about children’s protection and government assistance. It does not develop a separate parental-choice argument. Some supporting claims are broad or insufficiently explained, reducing the depth of the reasoning.

Coherence and Cohesion

6.0

Progression is generally clear across the paragraphs, but cohesive devices are at times mechanical or misused, as in 'By the way' and 'Namely', which weakens the flow of the argument.

Lexical Resource

6.0

There is sufficient range for the argument, but accuracy is limited by unnatural collocations such as 'bulk and vital role', 'make something special for that', and 'should have fatal results', which reduce precision.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

6.0

A mix of complex structures is attempted, including relative clauses and conditionals, but frequent errors such as 'children who are less than 6 or 7 age' and a sentence fragment beginning with 'Because' show only adequate grammatical control.