Task
The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Examiner’s Answer
Scientific developments are occurring at a great rate but some of them do not seem to be of help to people. In fact, sometimes scientific innovations are regretted by those who invented them. This essay will argue that science should never harm people but scientists should aim to further their understanding as much as to improve people’s lives.
On one hand, there is a strong argument that the public good should be the top priority for scientists. They are the ones who have the potential to make discoveries and invent things that can change the world. Electricity, modern medicine, telecommunications and the internet are just some of scientific innovations that have changed lives for the better.
On the other hand, sometimes scientists do research just in the hope of adding to their knowledge. While they should make absolutely sure that their experiments do no harm, they may not know until they have finished how their findings will be used and whether they will improve people’s lives. The scientist Nobel invented dynamite to help with mining, not knowing that it would one day be used in weapons, and the scientist who discovered the life-saving drug penicillin did so quite by chance.
Overall, it seems that science should improve the lives of people and that ought to be one of its aims. However, knowledge and discovery are aims in themselves and are just as important for scientists. Sometimes scientists do not know how their scientific breakthroughs will be used until their work is done.
Examiner’s Comment
This response presents a well-developed response to the question and concludes that the aim of scientific discoveries should be to improve people’s lives, but that the process often results in unexpected outcomes.
The candidate agrees with but adds to the statement. This is acceptable in a ‘to what extent’ question, as the candidate is explaining that the extent cannot always be predicted.
The candidate presents the argument that the true aim of science is gaining new knowledge and discoveries. They agree that this should be to improve people’s lives but that the results can’t be predicted.
The second paragraph gives examples of discoveries that have changed people’s lives for the better [Electricity, modern medicine, telecommunications and the internet].
To improve the response, this paragraph could be expanded so that the list of discoveries is fully aligned with the question.
The third paragraph presents the other side, that scientists do not often know what they will find. Examples of two innovations are given [dynamite | penicillin] to support this point.
Ideas are logically organised and paragraphs have clear central topics. Cohesive devices are used appropriately with some appropriate referencing [them | their | it], although linkers often appear at the start of the sentence, which can seem a little mechanical [On one hand | On the other hand | While | Overall | However | Sometimes].
In order to improve the overall rating, the second paragraph could be further extended and the use of cohesive devices could be less mechanical and not always at the start of each sentence.
However, this is a strong, higher-level response to the task.
