Task 2 · Sample Essays
IELTS Task 2 Health Essays
at Band 6.5, 7.5 and 9.0
Three authentic responses to the same government health intervention prompt, graded across all four IELTS Writing criteria with examiner commentary at each band level.
What separates the bands
- ▸6.5 → 7.5: Move beyond general agreement or disagreement — introduce the analytical distinction between regulating industries and restricting individuals.
- ▸7.5 → 9.0: Apply a principled framework (e.g. the harm principle) that converts political opinion into logical argument.
- ▸All bands: "To what extent" means your position should be nuanced — full agreement or full disagreement is acceptable only if fully justified.
The Exam Question
"Some people believe that governments should take responsibility for improving the health of citizens by regulating diet and lifestyle choices, while others think that health is a personal matter and individuals should be free to make their own decisions. To what extent do you agree with the view that governments should intervene in citizens' health choices?"
Write at least 250 words. You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Band 6.5 Response
Band 6.5Task Response
6
Coherence & Cohesion
6
Lexical Resource
6
Grammatical Range
7
Nowadays, health has become a major issue in many countries, and there is an ongoing debate about how much responsibility governments should have for their citizens' wellbeing. Some people argue that governments should control what people eat and how they live, while others believe that these decisions should be left to the individual. I partly agree that governments should intervene, but I think direct control over personal choices goes too far.
On one hand, governments have an important role in protecting public health. For example, they can introduce laws that require food companies to display nutritional information on their products, or they can restrict the advertising of unhealthy food to children. These kinds of regulations can help people make better decisions without taking away their freedom. In addition, governments can invest in public health campaigns to educate citizens about the risks of poor diet and lack of exercise.
On the other hand, many people feel that what they eat and how they spend their time is a private matter. If the government starts to ban certain foods or requires people to follow specific health guidelines, this could be seen as an invasion of personal freedom. Furthermore, such strict rules may not work because people will simply find ways to avoid them. It is generally more effective to give people information and allow them to make their own choices.
In conclusion, I believe that governments should intervene in public health to a reasonable degree by regulating the food industry and providing health education. However, directly controlling individual lifestyle choices goes beyond the proper role of government and is unlikely to succeed.
Band 7.5 Response
Band 7.5Task Response
7
Coherence & Cohesion
8
Lexical Resource
7
Grammatical Range
8
The appropriate scope of government intervention in individual health choices is a genuinely contested question, made more urgent as rising rates of diet-related illness place growing pressure on public healthcare systems. My view is that governments are justified in regulating industries and environments that shape health outcomes, but that policies restricting personal behaviour cross an important boundary of individual autonomy.
The strongest argument for intervention concerns market failure rather than personal conduct. Left unregulated, food manufacturers have commercial incentives to engineer products that are highly palatable but nutritionally poor, market them aggressively, and price them below healthier alternatives. Governments can legitimately correct this imbalance through nutritional labelling requirements, taxes on high-sugar products, and restrictions on advertising to children — measures that improve the conditions under which individuals choose without dictating the choice itself.
Policies that directly restrict what individuals may eat or how they must live, however, represent a more problematic overreach. Such measures tend to generate resentment and poor compliance, and they concentrate government authority in a domain traditionally reserved for private judgment. Crucially, the harm that an individual's dietary choices causes falls primarily on that individual rather than on others — a distinction that weakens the public-health justification for compulsory restrictions.
In conclusion, governments should intervene assertively in the commercial and structural conditions that shape health, but should stop well short of controlling individual lifestyle choices. The difference between improving the environment of choice and overriding the choice itself is the key boundary that health policy should not cross.
Band 9.0 Response
Band 9.0Task Response
9
Coherence & Cohesion
9
Lexical Resource
9
Grammatical Range
9
The debate over governmental intervention in personal health choices reflects a deeper tension in liberal political philosophy between the state's duty of care for its citizens and the foundational principle of individual autonomy. Both have genuine force, and a sophisticated response requires distinguishing between the types of intervention involved rather than endorsing or rejecting government action wholesale.
The most defensible case for intervention operates at the level of commercial and environmental conditions rather than personal conduct. Food and beverage industries deploy sophisticated marketing, deliberate formulation for overconsumption, and aggressive lobbying against health-protective regulation — distortions that erode the quality of individual choice without the individual being aware of it. Governments that require transparent nutritional labelling, restrict marketing of high-calorie products to children, or levy taxes on products with demonstrated public health costs are not overriding autonomy — they are restoring the informational and structural conditions under which genuinely autonomous choices can be made.
Direct restrictions on individual consumption or lifestyle occupy quite different moral terrain. The liberal harm principle provides a coherent limiting criterion: where behaviour poses measurable risk to others — passive smoking being the paradigm case — proportionate restriction is justified. Where harm is primarily self-regarding, the calculus changes fundamentally, and paternalistic prohibition carries significant risks, including disproportionate enforcement against lower-income populations.
What the evidence consistently supports is structural redesign: default healthy options in public institutions, urban environments that enable physical activity, and sustained investment in health literacy. These approaches improve population outcomes without the coercive dimension that prohibition entails.
In conclusion, governments not only may but should intervene in the industries and environments that shape citizens' health — but the legitimacy of that intervention depends entirely on its staying upstream of individual choice.
Band Comparison: What Changes at Each Level
How each of the four IELTS Writing criteria looks at Band 6.5, 7.5 and 9.0 on this prompt.
| Criterion | Band 6.5 | Band 7.5 | Band 9.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Position stated; intervention vs. personal freedom contrast drawn; industry vs. individual distinction only implied, not argued. | The industry/individual distinction is made explicit and drives both body paragraphs; "market failure" framing elevates the argument. | The harm principle is applied as an explicit limiting criterion; argument produces a principled conclusion rather than a preference. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | "On one hand / on the other hand" provides the only structural logic; paragraphs do not build on each other. | Logical progression; "however" and "crucially" used accurately and sparingly; conclusion synthesises rather than repeats. | Cohesion is structural, not lexical; each paragraph sets up the next through argument logic; no mechanical markers anywhere. |
| Lexical Resource | Accurate but narrow; "important role", "personal freedom", "make better decisions"; some prompt-word repetition. | Good range; "market failure", "nutritional labelling", "compulsory restrictions"; one or two collocations slightly imprecise. | Wide and precise; "paternalistic prohibition", "self-regarding", "deliberate formulation for overconsumption"; no repetition; register fully academic. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Mostly accurate; simpler structures chosen throughout; "such strict rules may not work" is valid but avoids complexity. | Non-finite clauses, passive voice, and relative clauses used accurately; minor occasional awkwardness; no errors impeding meaning. | Full range including nominalisation, embedded clauses, and conditional structures; all used accurately; virtually error-free. |
What Pushes Your Score Up
- 1. Draw the industry vs. individual distinction explicitly. State in the introduction that you agree with some types of intervention but not others — then build each body paragraph around one type.
- 2. Frame your argument around a cause, not just a conclusion. Instead of "governments should regulate food", argue "food companies have incentives to exploit consumers, so regulation corrects a market failure".
- 3. Use concrete policy examples. "Sugar taxes" and "advertising restrictions" are more persuasive than "rules about unhealthy food".
- 4. Make your conclusion synthesise, not repeat. Add one new thought — "the key test is whether harm extends beyond the individual" — rather than restating what you already said.
- 1. Apply a named principle as your framework. The harm principle, the precautionary principle, or a market-failure frame gives your argument a logical backbone that a trained examiner immediately recognises as sophisticated.
- 2. Turn policy claims into logical conclusions. Do not say governments should label food — argue that labelling restores the informational conditions under which autonomous choice is possible.
- 3. Use nominalisation. "The enforcement of restrictions" scores higher than "when restrictions are enforced". Practise converting verbs to noun phrases in complex sentences.
- 4. Remove every mechanical discourse marker. If your argument's logic requires "firstly" or "in addition" to be understood, the argument itself needs strengthening, not the signposting.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I structure an 'agree or disagree' essay on a health topic?+
State your position clearly in the introduction. Develop it across two body paragraphs with reasons and examples. Briefly concede the opposing view — then show why your position stands. Restate the position in the conclusion. Avoid changing your stance mid-essay.
Can I say governments should not intervene in health at all?+
Yes — an extreme position is acceptable if well-supported. Provide two or three developed reasons rather than a list of assertions. Avoid hollow qualifiers; a consistent, reasoned stance scores higher than an undecided one. The risk is leaving the argument unsupported.
What health statistics can I use in IELTS Task 2?+
Refer to widely acknowledged trends — 'rising rates of diet-related illness', 'an ageing population', 'increased healthcare costs' — rather than inventing specific figures. Hedging is key: 'evidence suggests' and 'it is widely accepted that' signal academic caution without fabricating data.
How do I distinguish between government responsibility and individual freedom in health essays?+
Apply the harm principle as your analytical frame: where behaviour poses measurable risk to others (passive smoking, infectious disease), government intervention is more defensible. Where harm is primarily self-regarding, the case for restriction is weaker. State this logic explicitly in your essay.
Is 'healthcare' one word or two in IELTS writing?+
One word as a noun or modifier: 'the healthcare system', 'healthcare funding', 'healthcare outcomes'. Two words is accepted in 'health care professionals' but 'healthcare' is the modern standard. Consistency matters more than the choice — do not mix both forms in a single essay.
Find Out Which Band Your Essay Sits At
Get a free instant check or a full human-marked correction with scores for all four criteria and a step-by-step upgrade plan.