IELTS TASK 2: Investing in science education

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress.

To what extents to you agree or disagree?

"Knowledge is a power", Francis Bacon said long ago. Education, to some certain extent, is a driving factor forcing a nation's prime. People differ greatly as to the fact that the national budget should be allocated to science teaching for a country's property than arts. From my perspective, the government should place equal stress on both science and other subjects.

Granted, plenty of evidence and arguments could be easily found to prove that it is advisable for the government to place a premium and subsidize science. For a start, science is a stimulating factor to develop the economy, which could inject a new life into a nation's affluence. Statistically, scientists and mathematicians, on a yearly basis, dedicate a myriad of valuable breakthroughs, which do wonders for human life. To illustrate this, owing to the electric light bulbs' advent, people's lives are facilitated than dating back centuries. On top of that, science would prompt citizens' critical thinking, given that science is based on facts, and being equipped with scientific horizons will make people be less likely to believe superstition and old wives' tales.

On the flip side, it is rather superficial to simply say that a nation's financial investment should only be restricted to science compared to other certain sectors. The reason is that the might of a country involves a plethora of aspects and the cultivation of a citizen is to realize one's comprehensive development. Besides, learning of arts would become an indispensable element for most of the well-rounded citizens. Thanks to arts, especially civic education, people would be more merciful and diligent. In addition, the fandom of civic education would render people be compliant with the rules imposed on our nation, which leads to the fact that the crime rate would descend. On an educational level, gaining an insight into arts would be beneficial due to each subject's significant merit. For instance, literature strengthens one's cultural heritage, music molds one's temperament, physical education enhances one's health index, and so forth.

All in all, on a governmental level, money should be invested in science-based subjects and other subjects. Notwithstanding the fact that science plays an important role in a country's wealth, arts still deserve significantly high regard owing to their valuable upside for any citizen's maturity.

The second sentence does not make any sense and does not relate to the original prompt topic. It will also be best to avoid citing the words of other authors in your presentation because those tend to alter the presentation information from the original. The first paragraph should accurately create a second version of the original presentation, without additional information or reference to other sources such as Francis Bacon. What exactly do you mean by a country's property? Did yo mean development and progress? Property does not refer to the same things. This is also an extent essay, not just a simple opinion essay. So your response presentation is incorrect. There is no equal stress in the presentation. Either you agree to a certain extent or you disagree to a certain extent.

This is a single opinion essay. It is not a comparative essay because the instruction does not ask you to discuss both points of view and present your own opinion. You are asked to support only one of the two discussion options. When you say the stress is equal, then there is no clear opinion presented on your part. Why? The equality option does not exist in the discussion question option. Therefore, your response will be considered unrelated to the given discussion.

Thanks a bunch for your feedback! It really helps!