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

12 correction notes

Showing 12 correction notes.

The world health care system has been facing enormous pressure due to frequent outbreaks of diseases. It is argued that the state should increase on raising the citizens’ awareness of a healthy way of living providing timely treatments when the diseases have occurred.

the government should have policies in making its people adopt a healthy lifestyle. Through national and local awareness enhancement campaigns, people can be better informed of potential health risks associated with their bad habits. For example, instead of consuming too much fast food on a daily basis, teenagers or busy workers will therefore choose more nutritious foods or try to cook by themselves, which can prevent the high incidence of obesity, diabetes and other fatal diseases.

In addition to their long-term positive effects on people’s frame of mind, such campaigns are cost-effective. on conveying messages , newspapers or conducting various workshops to the public. By contrast, the medical treatment fees for a single patient with liver or lung cancer can amount to dozens of millions or billions, meaning a huge financial burden to the state and the family.

However, the government cannot ignore medical system as well as their medical fees. The hospital fees are so expensive in some countries that only the rich can afford, so the government’s role in offering aid for treating the sick is a moral duty. As well as this, constructing more hospitals and buying modern equipment should also be as it is more effective in the short run.

In conclusion, raising the level of public awareness is more important, but the government cannot neglect its concern on the supply of medical treatment for .

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 7.0

The response takes a clear, well-developed position that prioritizes prevention while acknowledging treatment obligations, supported by relevant examples and cost arguments. The main limitation is recurring grammatical and phrasing inaccuracy, such as faulty constructions and imprecise expressions, which keeps the language from reaching full flexibility.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

7.0

The response directly addresses the question with a clear, consistent position favoring prevention, develops both sides logically, and supports ideas with relevant examples such as obesity prevention and cancer treatment costs.

Coherence and Cohesion

7.0

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with effective cohesive devices like 'By contrast' and 'However', though some referencing and linking within sentences is occasionally loose.

Lexical Resource

6.5

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with terms like 'cost-effective' and 'incidence of obesity', but some expressions are imprecise or awkward, such as 'frame of mind' and 'dozens of millions or billions'.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

6.5

There is a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but frequent errors such as 'What needed', 'rather on', and 'those currently being ill' reduce accuracy without blocking meaning.