Nature is the mother, origin and root of everything. Everything is part of nature and the humankind is not . Yet, we, mankind, have a distinctive difference of nature, the capability of thinking or so-called “Rationale”. This ability sometimes leads to cruel actions, for example, neglecting ill or old people. Nowadays, some people healthy people and those who are sick and ill. In greater detail, the discussion is on the subject of spending money for normal and healthy people instead of taking care of ill people. In the following, reasons and examples are stated about this debate. Every person has heard this proverb: ”Preventing is cheaper than cure”. This generates a theory which one of its basis is leaving ill people and focusing on future. Actually, it is a rule of nature that . At first sight, it is true but when you look at it from above it is an absolutely wrong rule. A life cycle of a person consists of birth, childhood, youth, growing old and eventually death. Considering the topic of our essay, being old or ill is associated with diseases. It is . On the whole, ill people, whether they are old or not, shouldn’t be evaluated by their health status. History is a great witness & supports for this fact, for example, “Steven Hawking”, the great . He could not even move his fingers but contributed to the significant developments in the world. On the other hand, a person is not just . Everybody has a soul, memory and feelings. When we intend to forget them and just considering future, thinking with regards to and future, to unhealthy people. To sum up, it can be argued that, we, humans, shouldn’t care just about pleasant and apparently right people and occasions. Ill people are like us. They feel, enjoy and think. They via spending money or paying attention to them.
Spending Public Money on Health Prevention Versus Treatment
Some people think it is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Annotated response
10 correction notes
Overall assessment
Why this response received Band 5.0
The strongest aspect is the writer's willingness to argue a moral position with an attempt at supporting examples, such as Stephen Hawking. The main limitation is that the argument remains confused and underdeveloped, with digressions about nature and frequently inaccurate wording that obscures the message.
IELTS criteria
How each score was decided
Task Response
5.0The response addresses the topic and implies disagreement with neglecting ill people, but the position is not stated clearly, ideas drift into irrelevant claims about nature, and development is uneven with loosely connected examples.
Coherence and Cohesion
5.0There is an evident overall structure with introduction, body and conclusion, but progression is often unclear, links between ideas are mechanical, and some statements interrupt rather than advance the argument.
Lexical Resource
5.0Vocabulary shows some range of topic-related terms, but word choice is frequently imprecise or erroneous, for example 'physic', 'this origin a great harm', and 'should have behaved well', reducing precision of meaning.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
5.0A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but errors in verb form, agreement and sentence construction, such as 'considering' misuse and 'They should have behaved well', are frequent though meaning is often still recoverable.