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

20 correction notes

Showing 20 correction notes.

Nowadays, are in a race to achieve their aim with science. The key to many problems humans face is science for reducing hunger, finding new cures, and creating a better economy. However, there is a strong argument that the public should be the priority and the essential goal of science should make humans live better. This essay will examine why I agree with this statement.

To begin with, the development of science benefits people’s lives. Many invented cures and . For example, , someone who was since there was no knowledge about the cure and how to prevent it. However, science has been growing, scientists invented the vaccine, and the public nowadays can . As a result, .

Furthermore, science aims to broaden people’s knowledge to be aware of the environment. Many nations in this world do not have a . Africa and some parts of Asia have severe drought, and most of them cannot produce their own food because of the . In addition, scientists discovered how to make some vegetation suitable for this condition, For instance, , there is a place with poor land conditions, but with some experiments on vegetation, nowadays, they have poor land conditions, but with some experiments on , nowadays, they are able to grow some plants that suit poor soil. This by growing their own food.

To conclude, . Moreover, many positive impacts, and we are waiting for more discoveries to make our lives better.

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 6.0

The strongest aspect is the clear, consistent position that science should improve people's lives, supported with relevant examples such as vaccines and crop cultivation. The main limitation is uneven development and noticeable repetition, including a garbled, duplicated sentence in the second body paragraph that weakens clarity.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

6.5

The response addresses the task with a clear position of agreement and relevant, supported main ideas, though development is uneven and the second example is muddled and repetitive.

Coherence and Cohesion

6.0

Progression is broadly clear with basic linking devices, but cohesion is partly mechanical and the repeated, incoherent sentence in the third paragraph disrupts the flow.

Lexical Resource

6.0

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations, but there are noticeable word-choice errors such as 'science safe many lives' and imprecise phrasing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

6.0

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used, yet frequent grammar errors in tense, agreement, and structure reduce accuracy without fully blocking meaning.