HealthDiscussion (Both Views + Opinion)
IELTS Essay: Do More Sports Facilities Improve Health? (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
Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others, however, believe that this would have little effect and that other measures are required. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
How to approach a Discussion (Both Views + Opinion) question
A discussion question asks you to do two distinct things: present both views fairly, and give your own opinion. Devote one body paragraph to each view, then make sure your position is clear — either woven through or stated plainly in the conclusion. The classic mistake is discussing both sides but forgetting to give an opinion at all, which directly costs Task Response marks.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the facilities-versus-other-measures debate and signal your view — facilities help but are not the best single measure.
- 02Body 1: the case for facilities — access removes a real barrier to exercise and visible venues normalise activity.
- 03Body 2: the sceptics' case and your opinion — facilities serve the already motivated; diet, education and preventive care reach further.
- 04Conclusion: facilities belong in the mix, but broader public-health measures deliver more health per pound spent.
Band 9 model answer
How governments should spend limited health budgets is fiercely debated, and one popular proposal is simply to build more gyms, pools and pitches. While I accept that sports facilities make a genuine contribution, I side with those who argue that they are far from the best lever for improving a population's health.
The argument for facilities is straightforward: people cannot exercise in venues that do not exist. In crowded cities where parks are scarce and streets unsafe for running, an affordable local pool or court removes a real, practical barrier. There is also a subtler effect: visible, well-used facilities make physical activity a normal part of community life, which can gradually shift habits in a way that health warnings never do.
Nevertheless, the sceptics hold the stronger position. The chief weakness of the facilities approach is that it mostly serves people who already intend to exercise, while the groups whose health is poorest — the overworked, the elderly, the unconvinced — rarely walk through the door. Public health, moreover, is determined far more by diet, smoking, alcohol and early detection of disease than by sport alone. A government that taxed sugary drinks, taught nutrition in schools and funded routine screening would likely prevent more illness than one that built a stadium in every town, and at a fraction of the cost. Health, in short, is made in kitchens, classrooms and clinics more than on running tracks.
In conclusion, sports facilities are a worthwhile component of health policy, since access genuinely enables activity. But because they fail to reach the least healthy and ignore the larger determinants of wellbeing, I believe broader preventive measures deserve the greater share of investment.
The same question at Band 6.5
Health is very important for everyone, and governments always try to find the best way to make people more healthy. Some people think that building more sports facilities is the best method, but others think different measures are more effective. This essay will discuss both views before giving my opinion.
On the one hand, sports facilities can help people to do more exercise. Many people want to play sport, but there is no gym or swimming pool near their house, or it is too expensive. If the government builds more cheap facilities, more people will exercise and become healthier. For example, if there is a free football pitch in the neighbourhood, young people will play there instead of sitting at home with their phones. Exercise is good for the body and it also reduces the stress.
On the other hand, many people believe that sports facilities are not enough. First, many health problems come from bad food, smoking and drinking, and a gym cannot solve these problems. Second, some people are just lazy, and they will not go to the sports centre even if it is free. So the government should also teach people about healthy lifestyle in schools and on television, and make the junk food more expensive. Regular check-up in the hospital is also important to find diseases early.
In my opinion, both views are right, but I agree more with the second one. Sports facilities are useful, but if people do not have knowledge about health, they will not use them. So the best way is education about healthy life, together with some new facilities.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Both views are examined and the opinion is argued with a clear mechanism — facilities miss the least healthy, while diet and screening reach everyone. | Discusses both views and gives an opinion, but support is thin ('some people are just lazy') and the final position is stated more than justified. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Paragraphs are internally sequenced from obvious point to subtler point, and the pivot 'Nevertheless, the sceptics hold the stronger position' announces the essay's direction cleanly. | Conventional 'On the one hand / On the other hand' frame is handled correctly, but points inside paragraphs are strung together with 'First', 'Second', 'So', 'also'. |
| Lexical Resource | Fresh, precise phrasing: 'the best lever for improving health', 'the larger determinants of wellbeing', 'made in kitchens, classrooms and clinics'. | Clear but plain, with repetition of 'people', 'health', 'facilities' and awkward article use ('reduces the stress', 'make the junk food more expensive'). |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Consistently accurate complex sentences, including conditionals and parallel structures used for rhetorical effect. | Good control of simple forms and some conditionals; errors are minor but frequent enough to be noticed ('think different measures', 'Regular check-up in the hospital'). |
Examiner's note
This question rewards candidates who can explain why a plausible-sounding policy underdelivers, and the Band 9 does exactly that: it grants the case for facilities, then dismantles it with the observation that they serve the already motivated. The Band 6.5 actually reaches a similar conclusion but supports it with assertions rather than reasoning, and its everyday vocabulary gives the examiner nothing to reward on Lexical Resource. The lesson: at higher bands, your best idea deserves your fullest paragraph.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| the best lever for | the most effective tool for achieving something |
| a practical barrier | a real-world obstacle that stops people acting |
| to normalise an activity | to make a behaviour seem ordinary and expected |
| the already motivated | people who intended to act even without help |
| early detection | finding an illness at a stage when it is easily treated |
| routine screening | regular medical tests offered to the whole population |
| at a fraction of the cost | for far less money |
| the determinants of wellbeing | the underlying factors that decide how healthy people are |
| preventive measures | actions that stop illness before it starts |
Frequently asked questions
Can I agree with the second view but still praise the first?
Yes — that is exactly what a strong discussion essay does. Present the facilities argument at its best, then explain why the alternative measures matter more. Dismissing one side in a sentence reads as failing to discuss both views.
Do I need medical knowledge for health topics?
No. Common-knowledge factors — diet, smoking, exercise, check-ups — are all the content you need. The marks come from developing these familiar ideas logically and expressing them precisely, not from specialist detail.
Is it a problem that my opinion matches one of the two views?
Not at all; most opinions will. What matters is that your reasoning adds something — the Band 9 agrees with the sceptics but contributes its own argument about facilities serving only the motivated, which is what lifts Task Response.