How to read the question

• This is an opinion essay: To what extent do you agree or disagree means you must give a clear position in the introduction and keep it consistent to the conclusion.
• The key words are most important aim. The statement does not say improving lives is the only aim, so the real debate is whether it should rank above other aims such as expanding knowledge for its own sake.
• Improve people's lives is broad: it covers health, food, energy, communication, safety and the environment, so choose concrete examples rather than staying abstract.
• A strong partial position works well, for example agreeing that improving lives is the ultimate goal while arguing that curiosity-driven research must still be protected because it often leads to practical benefits later.
• Avoid drifting into a different question, such as whether science is good or bad, whether scientists should be paid more, or the dangers of technology in general.
• Should is normative: you are arguing what the priority ought to be, so discuss funding choices and research priorities, not just what science has achieved in the past.

Suggested position

While the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake has genuine value, I largely agree that improving people's lives should be the main aim of science, because this is what ultimately justifies the enormous resources society invests in research.

Paragraph plan

1. 1

   Introduction

   Paraphrase the statement that science should mainly aim to make human life better, then give your position: largely agree, while accepting that knowledge for its own sake also has value.

2. 2

   Body paragraph 1: why improving lives should come first

   Argue that research is largely funded by the public, so it should deliver tangible benefits such as medicines, safer food and clean energy. Use the rapid development of Covid-19 vaccines as an example, and add that limited resources should go to urgent problems like disease and climate change.

3. 3

   Body paragraph 2: the value of curiosity-driven research

   Concede that demanding an immediate practical payoff from every project is short-sighted. Give examples of pure research that later transformed lives, such as quantum physics leading to computers, and studies of bacterial immune systems leading to gene editing. Mention that knowledge about the universe also enriches culture.

4. 4

   Conclusion

   Restate that improving lives should be the principal aim, and explain that the best way to achieve it is to fund applied research while also protecting fundamental inquiry.

Ideas and arguments

• Public money pays for most research through taxes and university funding, so taxpayers can reasonably expect practical returns.
• Medical science shows the direct value of applied research, for example vaccines, antibiotics and cancer treatments that extend life expectancy.
• With limited budgets, urgent global problems such as climate change, food security and pandemics should take priority over projects with no foreseeable benefit.
• Many life-changing technologies came from pure research with no practical aim, such as quantum mechanics enabling semiconductors and computers.
• Basic research into how bacteria fight viruses led, years later, to CRISPR gene editing, which is now used to treat some inherited blood disorders.
• Knowledge itself has cultural and intellectual value: understanding the origins of the universe or the evolution of life satisfies human curiosity even without practical use.
• Science aimed purely at usefulness can be distorted by commercial interests, focusing on profitable products rather than the needs of the poorest people.
• Some scientific aims, such as protecting other species and ecosystems, are not only about improving human lives.

Band 8+ model answer

305 words · An original model answer written for ieltswrites, not an official answer. It stays in English, as in the exam.

Why this answer scores highly

Task Response

The answer states a clear partial-agreement position in the introduction, develops both the main argument and the concession with specific examples, and keeps the same position through to the conclusion.

Coherence and Cohesion

Each body paragraph has one clear central idea introduced by a topic sentence, and ideas are linked smoothly with devices such as therefore, on the other hand and moreover, as well as referencing like this investment and this goal.

Lexical Resource

Precise, less common vocabulary such as tangible returns, curiosity-driven research, foreseeable benefit and fundamental inquiry is used naturally, and key terms from the question are paraphrased rather than repeated.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

The essay uses a wide range of structures, including concessive clauses, passive forms, relative clauses and modal verbs such as should and would, with no noticeable errors.

Useful vocabulary

scientific research

systematic study carried out to discover new facts or develop new ideas

applied research

research designed to solve a specific practical problem

fundamental research

research done to increase basic knowledge, without an immediate practical goal

curiosity-driven

motivated by the wish to understand something rather than by a practical aim

the pursuit of knowledge

the activity of trying to learn and understand more about the world

tangible benefits

real, measurable advantages that people can see or feel

practical payoff

a useful result that can be applied in everyday life

breakthrough

an important new discovery or development

transformative discoveries

findings that completely change how people live or think

allocate resources

decide how money, people and time are divided between different uses

short-sighted

not considering what will happen in the future

inherited diseases

illnesses passed from parents to children through genes

life expectancy

the average number of years a person is expected to live

justify the investment

show that the money spent was worthwhile

Common mistakes

• Ignoring the words most important and arguing only that science improves lives, which nobody disputes, instead of discussing whether this should be its main aim.
• Sitting on the fence by describing both sides without ever stating how far you agree, which limits the Task Response score.
• Writing a general essay about the advantages and disadvantages of technology or science instead of answering the question about the aim of science.
• Using vague, unsupported claims such as science helps people in many ways without any specific examples like vaccines or renewable energy.
• Changing position between the introduction and the conclusion, for example strongly agreeing at the start and partly disagreeing at the end.
• Overusing the word science and the phrase improve people's lives instead of paraphrasing with terms like research, scientific progress, human well-being and quality of life.

Frequently asked questions

Which Cambridge book is this question from?

This question about whether improving people's lives should be the most important aim of science is Writing Task 2 of Test 1 in Cambridge IELTS 18 Academic, published in 2023.

Can I partly agree with the statement?

Yes. A partly agree position is fine as long as you state it clearly in the introduction, explain exactly which part you accept and which you question, and keep it consistent throughout.

What examples can I use for this science essay?

Concrete, widely known examples work best, such as vaccines, antibiotics, renewable energy, the internet, or pure research like quantum physics that later led to computers. Precise examples are more convincing than invented statistics.

How many words should I write for this Task 2?

Write at least 250 words; about 270-310 words is usually enough to develop two body paragraphs fully in 40 minutes.