Government & SocietyOpinion (Agree / Disagree)
IELTS Essay: Is Space Exploration a Waste of Money? (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
Space exploration costs taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Governments should spend this money on solving problems on Earth instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
How to approach a Opinion (Agree / Disagree) question
For an agree/disagree question, decide your position before you write and make it unmistakable in the introduction. You can fully agree, fully disagree, or partially agree — all are fine — but you must then defend that single position consistently across both body paragraphs. The most common Task Response error here is sitting on the fence: giving arguments for both sides without ever committing to a view.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the claim and take a clear position - largely disagree, because the choice between space and Earth is a false one.
- 02Body 1: concede the force of the argument - urgent earthly needs and the scale of space budgets - then expose its flaw: cutting space would barely dent those problems.
- 03Body 2: argue the positive case - space research produces technologies, climate monitoring and knowledge that directly serve people on Earth.
- 04Conclusion: restate that well-run space programmes are an investment in solving earthly problems, not a distraction from them.
Band 9 model answer
Because space programmes consume billions in public funds while poverty and disease persist, many argue that the money would be better spent at home. Although I understand the moral force of this view, I largely disagree with it, since it rests on a false choice between exploring space and solving problems on Earth.
The argument for redirecting the money is superficially compelling. When hospitals lack beds and millions lack clean water, a rocket launch can look like an extravagant indulgence, and no democratic government should ignore that instinct. Yet the arithmetic tells a different story: space agencies typically receive well under one per cent of national budgets, a fraction that, if redistributed, would barely register against the cost of healthcare or education systems. Eliminating space programmes would sacrifice something irreplaceable in exchange for a rounding error.
More importantly, space spending is not money fired into the void; most of it is spent on Earth, employing engineers and generating technologies with enormous terrestrial value. Satellite networks underpin weather forecasting, disaster response and precision agriculture, while climate monitoring from orbit provides the very data we need to confront environmental crises. Innovations developed for spaceflight, from water purification to medical imaging, have migrated into everyday life. In this sense, exploration is less a rival to earthly priorities than a laboratory for addressing them.
In conclusion, I disagree that space budgets should be diverted wholesale to terrestrial problems. Governments must of course fund healthcare and poverty reduction first, but a modest, well-directed space programme repays its cost in technology, data and knowledge - it is one of the ways we solve problems on Earth, not an alternative to doing so.
The same question at Band 6.5
Space exploration is very expensive and it uses a lot of money from the taxpayers. Some people think the government should use this money for the problems on the Earth. I disagree with this opinion because space exploration also gives many benefits to the people.
On the one hand, it is true that there are many problems in the world today. Many people are poor and they do not have enough food or clean water. Also, the hospitals need more money for helping sick people. So some people say that spending money on the space is wasting, because we should solve these problems first. This idea is understandable because human life is more important than the rockets.
On the other hand, space exploration brings many good things for us. First, the satellites help us to know the weather and to communicate with other countries. Without the space technology, we cannot use GPS or watch the news from other places. Second, many inventions from space research are used in our daily life now, for example some medical machines. Third, the space programs give jobs to many scientists and engineers. Also, the money for space is actually small compared with other spending of the government, so stopping it will not solve the poverty.
In conclusion, although there are many problems on the Earth, I believe that space exploration should be continued because it gives us useful technology and jobs, and the cost is not so big. The government can do both things at the same time.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Takes a firm position, engages the opposing view seriously ('no democratic government should ignore that instinct') and dismantles it with a specific counter-argument about budget proportions. | Gives a clear opinion and relevant ideas, but they arrive as a list of benefits rather than a developed argument, and the strongest point (small budgets) is mentioned only briefly. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Each paragraph advances the argument in a planned sequence - concede, refute, build - with cohesion inside the sentences ('Yet the arithmetic tells a different story', 'In this sense'). | Clear paragraphs, but structured around formulaic frames ('On the one hand', 'First', 'Second', 'Third') that list rather than connect ideas. |
| Lexical Resource | Precise and idiomatic: 'an extravagant indulgence', 'a rounding error', 'money fired into the void', 'terrestrial value'. | Communicates adequately but repeats simple words ('money', 'problems', 'good things') and shows awkward phrasing ('spending money on the space is wasting'). |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Sophisticated and accurate: conditional structures, appositive phrases ('a fraction that, if redistributed, would barely register'), and controlled long sentences. | Simple structures dominate, with article and preposition errors ('on the space', 'for helping sick people') that are noticeable but not confusing. |
Examiner's note
This pair shows the difference between answering a question and defeating an argument. The Band 6.5 essay lists sensible benefits of space exploration and would satisfy the task at a basic level; the Band 9 essay isolates the opposing view's central weakness - the tiny share of budgets involved - and rebuts it before making the positive case. That argumentative spine, together with precise vocabulary and error-free complexity, is what the top bands reward.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| a false choice | a decision presented as either/or when both options are possible |
| an extravagant indulgence | an expensive luxury that is hard to justify |
| a rounding error | an amount so small it barely affects the total |
| to underpin | to form the essential foundation of something |
| terrestrial | relating to the Earth rather than space |
| precision agriculture | farming that uses data and technology to work more efficiently |
| to migrate into everyday life | to move from a specialised field into common use |
| to divert funds wholesale | to move all of a budget to a different purpose |
| to repay its cost | to produce benefits equal to or greater than the money spent |
Frequently asked questions
Can I partially agree in an agree/disagree essay?
Yes - 'I largely disagree' or 'I agree only to a limited extent' are strong positions, provided you define exactly where you stand and defend that line consistently. What loses marks is drifting between sides without ever committing.
Should I mention the opposing view?
You are not required to, but a brief, fair concession followed by a rebuttal - as in the Band 9 answer here - is one of the most reliable ways to show the 'well-developed response' the descriptors demand at Band 8+.
Do I need facts and statistics about space budgets?
No. Approximate, defensible claims like 'well under one per cent of national budgets' are enough. Examiners assess argumentation, not fact-checking - but avoid inventing precise figures or naming fake studies.