Should the Main Aim of Science Be Improving Lives

The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Annotated response

12 correction notes

Showing 12 correction notes.

Some people that in an era marked by unprecedented scientific advancements, the paramount goal of science should fundamentally be directed towards improving the lives of individuals. I wholeheartedly concur with this notion and will elaborate on the reasons supporting this viewpoint.

The most compelling argument in favour of science's primary aim being the improvement of people's lives pertains to its immense possibility towards contributions to the field of health and medicine. Breakthroughs in medical science, such as the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and advanced surgical techniques, have substantially extended human lifespans and . For instance, the discovery of antibiotics like penicillin and alleviating human suffering. However, there is still in this field. Prioritising people's well-being as the primary objective of scientific advancement can eradicate deadly diseases from the face of the earth and make it a better place to live in.

Another compelling reason to prioritize improving people's lives through science is the pressing need for environmental sustainability. Scientific research and innovation are vital for addressing climate change, resource depletion, and pollution — issues that directly impact the well-being of current and future generations. Innovations like renewable energy technologies, efficient waste management, and are essential for preserving the planet

In conclusion, the central aim of science . Science has consistently demonstrated its capacity to prolong life, alleviate suffering, and address pressing global challenges. And it still has a lot to contribute. play an indispensable role in advancing health, promoting environmental sustainability, and enhancing the overall quality of life.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 7.0

The response presents a clear, consistent position supported by two well-developed arguments with relevant examples, and its language is generally precise and fluent. The main limitation is that the arguments remain somewhat familiar and unevenly extended, and a few awkward collocations and punctuation slips recur across the piece.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

7.0

The response addresses the question directly, states a clear position, and supports it with relevantly developed ideas and examples, though some points remain somewhat general.

Coherence and Cohesion

7.0

Ideas are logically organised with clear paragraphing and cohesive devices used appropriately, although referencing and transitions are occasionally mechanical.

Lexical Resource

7.0

Vocabulary is flexible and mostly precise, including phrases like 'resource depletion' and 'alleviating human suffering', with occasional awkward collocations such as 'immense possibility towards contributions'.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

7.0

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors such as the comma splice 'It, should' and minor article or punctuation slips are occasional and non-impeding.