Prompt
Opinion – Space exploration
Some people believe governments should spend money on space exploration, while others think it should be spent on public services such as health and education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Band 9 sample answer
Band 9 sample answer
This is a model answer for learning purposes. It is not the only possible high-scoring response.
Whether governments should fund space exploration or prioritise public services is ultimately a question of timing and capacity. I largely agree that health and education deserve the bigger share of public budgets, but I also believe a limited, well-justified space programme is a sensible long-term investment.
In most countries, the immediate returns from spending on hospitals and schools are clearer and more evenly distributed. Strengthening primary healthcare, for example, reduces preventable illness and keeps more adults in work, while targeted investment in teacher training and vocational pathways raises productivity over decades. When these systems are underfunded, the consequences are not abstract: waiting lists grow, rural areas lose doctors, and inequality widens as only wealthy families can buy private education. In that context, directing large sums to prestige space missions can be hard to defend.
That said, abandoning space exploration altogether is a false economy. Satellite technology already underpins weather forecasting, disaster response and precision agriculture, and these applications directly support public welfare. Moreover, some research associated with space programmes—advanced materials, miniaturised sensors and water-recycling systems—has a track record of transferring into civilian use. The key is governance: budgets should favour practical projects with measurable spillovers, transparent procurement and international collaboration, rather than expensive symbolic “race” missions.
Overall, public services should take priority because they meet urgent needs and protect social stability. However, maintaining a modest space budget focused on high-impact technology is compatible with, and can even strengthen, those same services.
Verified word count: 262
Why this answer works
explanation
- **Clear position with nuance:** The introduction states a strong overall preference for public services while allowing a controlled role for space funding, and the conclusion restates the same judgement. - **Fully developed reasons:** Each body paragraph moves from a main claim to explanation and a concrete illustration (e.g., healthcare access, inequality; satellites for disasters). - **Balanced but not off-task:** The essay acknowledges benefits of space exploration, but keeps the argument centred on government priorities rather than listing pros/cons equally. - **Natural high-level language:** It uses precise, topic-specific collocations (e.g., *bigger share of public budgets*, *measurable spillovers*, *transparent procurement*) without sounding memorised.
what this question tests
This is an opinion essay that tests whether you can (1) take a clear, consistent position on a budget-priority debate, (2) develop two or more reasons with realistic examples, and (3) acknowledge the opposing view without losing focus or drifting into a “discuss both views” format.
Useful vocabulary and phrases
deserve the bigger share of public budgets
Shows clear comparison and natural policy language.
I believe preventative healthcare deserves the bigger share of public budgets.
the immediate returns are clearer
Helps justify prioritisation without exaggeration.
With education, the immediate returns are clearer at the early-years level.
the consequences are not abstract
Adds emphasis in a sophisticated but controlled way.
If housing is neglected, the consequences are not abstract for low-income families.
a false economy
Concise idiomatic phrase suitable for formal writing.
Cutting maintenance budgets can be a false economy.
underpins weather forecasting and disaster response
Gives a concrete link between space tech and public welfare.
Accurate data underpins weather forecasting and disaster response.
has a track record of transferring into civilian use
Avoids fake statistics while still sounding evidence-based.
This research has a track record of transferring into civilian use.
measurable spillovers
High-precision academic vocabulary for policy arguments.
Governments should fund innovation with measurable spillovers into healthcare.
international collaboration
Supports a nuanced, realistic solution.
International collaboration can reduce duplication and costs.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Writing a ‘discuss both views’ essay with no clear extent of agreement (the prompt asks for your opinion).
- Claiming space exploration is ‘useless’ or ‘only for rich countries’ without explaining or qualifying the point.
- Using invented statistics or fake research studies to sound academic; realistic examples are enough.
- Over-focusing on one side (only public services or only space) and failing to address the competing priority.
- Making extreme budget claims (e.g., ‘stop all space spending immediately’) that are hard to defend logically.
Want examiner-style feedback on your answer?
Submit your essay and unlock a band estimate, corrections, and improvement steps.
Get examiner-style feedback