Some people believe that governments should spend money on searching for life on other planets. However, others argue that this money should be used to solve problems on Earth first. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Stance: I will argue that although the search for extraterrestrial life holds genuine long-term value, urgent and tangible problems on Earth should take priority for government funding.
This answer stays fully correct and covers both views plus an opinion as required, but uses plain transitions like 'On the other hand', develops each view with a single supporting reason and example, and relies on safe general vocabulary such as 'urgent human problems' rather than precise terms like 'opportunity cost'.
The way governments choose to spend public money is always a difficult topic, and one common debate is whether money should be spent on searching for life on other planets or on solving problems here on Earth. This essay will discuss both views before giving my own opinion.
People who support space exploration say it can lead to important scientific discoveries. Searching for life on other planets could help us understand how the universe and life began, and technology made for space missions, such as new materials and better energy systems, is often later used in everyday life on Earth. Space missions can also make young people more interested in science and encourage countries to work together on big projects.
On the other hand, there is also a strong argument for spending money on problems closer to home. Millions of people around the world still do not have clean water, good healthcare, or enough food, and climate disasters are happening more often. The money used for one big space mission could instead build water systems, support health programmes, or protect coastal areas from flooding. If governments used even part of this money for these needs, it would improve people's lives immediately, unlike the uncertain, long-term results of searching for life in space.
In my opinion, although space exploration has real scientific value, it should not be more important than solving urgent human problems. Spending large amounts of public money on searching for life elsewhere, when millions of people are struggling with poverty, illness, or environmental damage, is not a wise choice. This does not mean space research should stop completely, but it should not take money away from programmes that could save lives now.
In conclusion, although searching for life on other planets is an exciting idea for the future, the size and urgency of problems on Earth mean that government money should be spent there first. Once the most urgent problems on Earth are solved, it will make more sense to spend more money on space.
Collocations
Examiner Notes
- CC“On the other hand, there is also a strong argument for spending money on problems closer to home.” — The basic contrastive linker 'On the other hand' clearly marks the shift from the pro-space-exploration paragraph to the counter-argument.
- LR“important scientific discoveries” — A correct, simple collocation describing the benefit of space research, safe and accurate but more generic than the higher-band phrasing.
- GRA“If governments used even part of this money for these needs, it would improve people's lives immediately, unlike the uncertain, long-term results of searching for life in space.” — A correctly formed second conditional sentence with a closing comparison, showing controlled use of a complex structure.
- TR“In my opinion, although space exploration has real scientific value, it should not be more important than solving urgent human problems.” — A clear, direct statement of the writer's own opinion, correctly fulfilling the 'give your own opinion' part of the task.
- TR“In conclusion, although searching for life on other planets is an exciting idea for the future, the size and urgency of problems on Earth mean that government money should be spent there first.” — The conclusion correctly restates the writer's sustained position without introducing new, unaddressed ideas.
This answer reaches 7.0 through richer topic vocabulary such as 'climate-related disasters' and 'speculative search' and a conditional-plus-gerund sentence that echoes the 7.5 answer's grammar, and even manages the same subject-auxiliary inversion with 'Only when...does it become', though its transitions and collocations remain a notch plainer than the 7.5 answer's 'Set against this, however' and 'transcends national rivalries'.
Deciding how governments should spend public money is rarely simple, and one debate that captures this well is whether funding should go toward searching for life on other planets or toward solving problems here on Earth. This essay will consider both sides of the argument before giving my own opinion.
Those in favour of space exploration argue that it can lead to major scientific and technological progress. Searching for extraterrestrial life could improve our understanding of how the universe and life began, and technologies developed for space missions, from advanced materials to more efficient energy systems, have often ended up benefiting everyday life on Earth. Beyond the science itself, ambitious space projects can inspire young people to pursue research careers and encourage international cooperation, as seen in joint missions that bring together scientists from many different countries.
On the other hand, there is a strong case for prioritising problems closer to home. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide still lack reliable access to clean water, basic healthcare or sufficient food, and climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent. The budget needed for a single major space mission could instead fund water treatment systems, support vaccination programmes, or strengthen flood defences in vulnerable coastal regions. When resources are limited, redirecting even part of space-exploration spending toward these needs would create an immediate, noticeable improvement in people's lives, unlike the uncertain and long-term benefits of extraterrestrial research.
In my view, while the scientific value of space exploration is real, it should not come before addressing urgent human needs. Spending scarce public funds on a speculative search for life elsewhere, while millions face daily hardship from poverty, disease or environmental damage, is difficult to justify. This is not an argument for abandoning space research completely, but for making sure it does not take resources away from programmes that could improve lives today.
In conclusion, although searching for life on other planets offers an exciting look into humanity's scientific future, the scale and urgency of problems on Earth mean that government funding should go there first. Only when pressing needs on Earth are being properly addressed does it become reasonable to expand our efforts further into space.
Collocations
Examiner Notes
- CC“On the other hand, there is a strong case for prioritising problems closer to home.” — A clear transitional sentence that pivots from the pro-space paragraph to the counter-argument, functionally similar to but less stylistically marked than the fronted 'Set against this, however' used at band 7.5.
- LR“ambitious space projects can inspire young people to pursue research careers” — A solid, accurate collocation describing the inspirational effect of space missions, though less vivid than the 7.5 answer's 'a shared goal that transcends national rivalries'.
- GRA“When resources are limited, redirecting even part of space-exploration spending toward these needs would create an immediate, noticeable improvement in people's lives, unlike the uncertain and long-term benefits of extraterrestrial research.” — A conditional clause plus a gerund subject plus a closing comparative clause ('unlike...') mirrors the grammatical range of the 7.5 answer's equivalent sentence, though 'unlike' is a simpler comparative device than 'in contrast to'.
- TR“In my view, while the scientific value of space exploration is real, it should not come before addressing urgent human needs.” — A clear evaluative statement of the writer's opinion that directly justifies the essay's stated position.
- TR“Only when pressing needs on Earth are being properly addressed does it become reasonable to expand our efforts further into space.” — The clause 'Only when...does it become' correctly triggers subject-auxiliary inversion, though it is a slightly more common inversion trigger than the 7.5 answer's 'Only once...'.
The 7.5 answer is distinguished by its economics-flavoured precision (the term 'opportunity cost'), the vivid collocation 'transcends national rivalries', and a final sentence that fronts 'Only once...' to trigger subject-auxiliary inversion, a high-level structure used accurately and naturally to close the essay on a decisive note.
How governments allocate public money is rarely uncontroversial, and few debates illustrate this better than the question of whether funds should go toward searching for life on other planets or toward solving problems here on Earth. This essay will weigh both sides of the argument before setting out my own position.
Advocates of space exploration point to its potential for major scientific and technological breakthroughs. The search for extraterrestrial life could deepen our understanding of how the universe and life itself began, and the technologies developed for such missions — from advanced materials to more efficient energy systems — have historically found their way into everyday applications on Earth. Beyond the science, ambitious space missions can inspire public interest in research careers and foster international cooperation, as seen in multinational projects that bring together scientists and engineers from dozens of countries around a shared goal that transcends national rivalries.
Set against this, however, is a compelling case for prioritising problems closer to home. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide still lack reliable access to clean water, basic healthcare, or adequate nutrition, and climate-related disasters are growing more frequent and severe. The budget required for a single major planetary probe could instead fund water treatment infrastructure for an entire region, support vaccination programmes, or strengthen flood defences in vulnerable coastal areas. When resources are limited, redirecting even a fraction of space-exploration spending toward these needs would produce an immediate, measurable improvement in people's lives, in contrast to the speculative and long-term payoff of extraterrestrial research.
In my view, while the scientific promise of space exploration is genuine, it should not take precedence over addressing urgent human suffering. The opportunity cost of directing scarce public funds toward a speculative search for life elsewhere, when millions face daily hardship from poverty, disease, or environmental collapse, is simply too high. This is not an argument for abandoning space research altogether, but for ensuring that it does not come at the expense of programmes that could save lives and improve livelihoods today.
In conclusion, although the search for life on other planets offers an exciting glimpse into humanity's scientific future, the scale and urgency of problems on Earth mean that government funding should be directed there first. Only once pressing terrestrial needs are being adequately met does it become reasonable to expand our reach further into space.
Collocations
Examiner Notes
- CC“Set against this, however, is a compelling case for prioritising problems closer to home.” — The fronted 'Set against this, however' construction cohesively pivots the essay from the pro-space-exploration paragraph to the counter-argument.
- LR“a shared goal that transcends national rivalries” — Sophisticated, precise phrasing that captures the idea of international cooperation without resorting to clichéd vocabulary.
- GRA“When resources are limited, redirecting even a fraction of space-exploration spending toward these needs would produce an immediate, measurable improvement in people's lives, in contrast to the speculative and long-term payoff of extraterrestrial research.” — A conditional clause plus a gerund subject plus a closing comparative clause ('in contrast to...') shows sustained grammatical range within one sentence.
- TR“The opportunity cost of directing scarce public funds toward a speculative search for life elsewhere, when millions face daily hardship from poverty, disease, or environmental collapse, is simply too high.” — A firm evaluative claim using economic terminology ('opportunity cost') that directly justifies the writer's stated position.
- GRA“Only once pressing terrestrial needs are being adequately met does it become reasonable to expand our reach further into space.” — Fronting the negative-like adverbial 'Only once...' triggers subject-auxiliary inversion, a high-level grammatical structure used accurately.