Government & SocietyOpinion (Agree / Disagree)
IELTS Essay: Public Money on Essential Services vs the Arts (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 think that governments should spend public money on essential services such as healthcare and education rather than on the arts, such as museums, theatres, and galleries. 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 question — how a government splits a limited budget between competing needs — and state a nuanced position: agree that healthcare and education must take priority, but disagree that the arts should therefore lose all state support.
- 02Body 1: Argue why essential services come first. They meet basic needs no citizen can do without, whereas a closed gallery causes no comparable harm; with finite resources, a responsible government must fund necessities before luxuries. Make clear you side with protecting frontline services on this point.
- 03Body 2: Concede and rebut. The arts are not an expendable luxury — they preserve cultural heritage, foster creativity, and generate tourism revenue that helps fund hospitals and schools. Cutting all funding would let smaller regional institutions collapse, so a modest subsidy is a prudent investment rather than waste.
- 04Conclusion: Restate the balanced view — essential services deserve the lion's share, but abandoning the arts is a false economy. The soundest policy funds both, generously for necessities and sensibly for culture, rather than pitting one against the other.
Band 9 model answer
How a government divides its finite budget between competing priorities is a perennial source of controversy. While I firmly agree that healthcare and education must be the first call on the public purse, I do not accept that the arts should therefore be deprived of state support altogether; the wisest policy funds both, albeit unequally.
The case for prioritising essential services rests on necessity. Healthcare and education meet needs that no citizen can reasonably forgo: a child denied schooling and a patient denied treatment suffer immediate and lasting harm, whereas a temporarily shuttered gallery causes no comparable distress. Because public resources are finite, a responsible government is surely obliged to fund what people cannot live without before it turns to what merely enriches their lives. On this fundamental point, I side unreservedly with those who would protect frontline provision first.
Nevertheless, to dismiss the arts as an expendable luxury is short-sighted. Museums, theatres and galleries preserve a nation's cultural heritage, nurture the creativity on which modern economies increasingly depend, and draw tourists whose spending ultimately helps to fund the very hospitals and schools at issue. Were public money withdrawn entirely, much of this cultural life would wither, for private patronage rarely reaches smaller regional institutions. A modest subsidy is therefore not extravagance but prudent long-term investment.
In conclusion, although I strongly believe that healthcare and education deserve the lion's share of public spending, I would argue that abandoning the arts amounts to a false economy. The soundest approach is not to pit one against the other, but to fund essential services generously while sustaining cultural institutions at a sensible and affordable level.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, the government has to decide how to spend the public money. Some people think it is better to spend on essential services like healthcare and education, not on the arts like museums and theatres. In my opinion, I agree with this idea because health and education are very important for the people.
Firstly, healthcare and education are basic needs for everyone. If a person is sick, he needs a hospital and doctors, and this is very important for his life. Also, children must go to school to get education and a good job in the future. Without these services, people will face a big problem in their daily life. So the government should spend money on them first.
Secondly, the arts are not so necessary like healthcare. Museums and theatres are good for entertainment, but people can live without them. Many poor people cannot even go to the theatre because they don't have money and time. In addition, if the government spend too much on the arts, there will be less money for hospitals and schools, and this is not good for the society.
However, I think the arts also have some benefits because they keep the culture and give jobs to some people. Maybe the government can spend a little money on them. But in conclusion, healthcare and education are more important, so the government should spend the public money on essential services first.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Takes a clear but nuanced position — agrees essential services deserve 'the lion's share' yet argues abandoning the arts is 'a false economy' — and develops every idea. The concession about the arts is genuinely explored (cultural heritage, tourism revenue, and how 'private patronage rarely reaches smaller regional institutions'), not merely mentioned. | Answers the question and states a clear opinion ('In my opinion, I agree with this idea'), but ideas are asserted rather than developed. 'Museums and theatres are good for entertainment, but people can live without them' is a bare claim with no support, and the counter-point in the final paragraph is raised but never explored. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Cohesion is varied and unobtrusive — 'whereas', 'Nevertheless', 'Were public money withdrawn entirely' — and each paragraph builds a single argument. Reference such as 'the very hospitals and schools at issue' links ideas back without repeating them. | Organised into clear paragraphs, but the linkers are mechanical and formulaic: 'Firstly', 'Secondly', 'Also', 'In addition', 'But in conclusion'. Cohesion is signposted rather than woven, and 'this is' repeatedly opens sentences ('this is very important', 'this is not good'). |
| Lexical Resource | Precise, natural collocation throughout: 'the first call on the public purse', 'preserve a nation's cultural heritage', 'prudent long-term investment', 'a false economy'. Vocabulary is topic-specific and varied, with no reliance on filler. | Leans on high-frequency, repeated words: 'very important' appears twice, alongside 'good', 'big problem', and 'a good job'. Meaning is communicated but imprecise — 'the arts are not so necessary' where a stronger answer would name the actual trade-off. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | A wide range of complex structures used accurately — conditional inversion ('Were public money withdrawn entirely, much of this cultural life would wither'), colon-led elaboration, and layered subordinate clauses. Virtually error-free. | Mostly simple and compound sentences. Meaning is always clear, but minor errors recur: subject-verb agreement in 'if the government spend too much', the faulty comparison 'not so necessary like healthcare' (should be 'as necessary as'), and the redundant article in 'good for the society'. |
Examiner's note
The Band 9 answer wins on every criterion because it does more than address the task — it takes a defensible, nuanced position and builds it, conceding that essential services must come first while showing precisely why the arts still merit support. Its cohesion is invisible, its collocation ('the first call on the public purse', 'a false economy') is precise and natural, and it handles complex structures such as conditional inversion without error. The Band 6.5 answer is competent and entirely on-topic, and an examiner can follow it with ease — but it hits a ceiling: ideas are asserted rather than developed, the linkers are mechanical ('Firstly', 'Secondly', 'In addition'), vocabulary repeats ('very important', 'good'), and small but persistent slips ('the government spend', 'not so necessary like') hold the grammar score down. It is clear writing that never becomes sophisticated writing.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| the first call on the public purse | the thing that should be paid for before anything else out of government money |
| a finite budget | a limited amount of money that cannot be exceeded |
| cannot reasonably forgo | cannot sensibly do without |
| an expendable luxury | something pleasant but non-essential that can be cut when money is tight |
| cultural heritage | the traditions, history and art passed down through a society |
| private patronage | financial support given by wealthy individuals or companies rather than by the state |
| a prudent long-term investment | a wise spending decision that pays off over time |
| a false economy | saving money now in a way that ends up costing more later |
| the lion's share | the largest part of something |
Frequently asked questions
How should I structure an agree/disagree essay like this one?
Decide your position in the introduction and keep it consistent to the end. A reliable structure is four paragraphs: an introduction that paraphrases the question and states your view, two body paragraphs each developing one reason, and a conclusion that restates your position. You do not have to agree or disagree completely — a nuanced stance, such as agreeing that essential services come first while defending some arts funding, scores well provided your overall opinion is unmistakable.
Is it acceptable to partly agree rather than fully agreeing or disagreeing?
Yes. The phrasing 'To what extent do you agree or disagree?' invites a measured answer, and partial agreement can show maturity of thought — as long as you make your dominant view clear and do not sit on the fence. The Band 9 model above agrees that healthcare and education deserve priority but argues the arts should not be abandoned: one clear position with a reasoned qualification, not two opposing views left unresolved.
How many words should I write and how long should I spend?
Write at least 250 words for Task 2; aim for roughly 260-290 so you have room to develop ideas without padding or waffle. Budget about 40 minutes: five minutes planning, thirty writing, and five checking for exactly the kind of slips seen in the Band 6.5 essay, such as subject-verb agreement and articles. Task 2 is worth twice as much as Task 1, so never let it run short.