Question: Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore, every home should have a water su...

Marking Generated by Free AI Models

You are on the free tier, which uses free AI models. They can occasionally be slow, unstable, or temporarily unavailable. Balang Plus uses premium models for faster, more reliable, and higher-quality marking.

Click on red question marks (?) to see an explanation for each change. Some changes are only suggestions and don't mean the original is necessarily wrong.
There is an ongoing debate about whether citizens should have free access to a source of clean water. While this approach offers clear advantages, such as improving public health and reducing financial strain on low-income families, it also has potential drawbacks, including wasteful consumption and significant costs for governments. While I acknowledge the merits of this perspective, I must admit that I only partially support this view. On the positive side, providing free access to clean water would have a significant impact on public health, particularly in underprivileged communities. When individuals cannot afford safe drinking water, they often consume contaminated sources, which significantly increases the risk of waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid. Additionally, by removing financial barriers, governments could not only save countless lives but also reduce the immense pressure on healthcare systems. What is more, healthier populations tend to be more productive, which ultimately benefits the economy as a whole. On the negative side, offering water free of charge could lead to wasteful consumption and put a financial burden on governments. When water is considered as a free commodity, households may lack the motivation to conserve it, leading to excessive usage and unnecessary wastage. Furthermore, the costs of treating, distributing, and maintaining water infrastructure are substantial, and governments may struggle to bear these expenses, especially in developing economies. If such a policy were implemented without careful planning, it could divert funds from other critical sectors such as education or healthcare. In conclusion, while the availability of clean water at no cost can boost public health and mitigate household expenses, it may also exacerbate waste and impose heavy costs on StaesStates. Hence, adopting a balanced policy is essential to strike a balance between ensuring universal access to water and preventing overconsumption.
See more samples for this topic
Check your essay for this topic
Overall Band Score
8
Overview
Vocabulary Range
strong
Linking Words
strong
Spelling
strong
Grammar Accuracy
strong
Grammar Range
strong
Cohesion
strong
Paragraph Structure
strong
Task Response
strong
Word Count
sufficient
While we are confident in our score estimation, you are not guaranteed to receive the same score in an official test.

Task Response: You address both sides of the argument and present a clear, nuanced position ("partially support"), which is sustained throughout. The ideas are relevant and well-developed with specific examples (cholera, typhoid, infrastructure costs). To reach a higher band, the conclusion could propose a more concrete solution (e.g., a tiered pricing system or lifeline tariff) rather than just stating a "balanced policy" is needed.

Coherence & Cohesion: The essay is logically organized into four clear paragraphs with effective signposting (On the positive side, On the negative side, What is more, Furthermore). Cohesive devices are used naturally. Referencing (this approach, such a policy, it) works well to link sentences.

Lexical Resource: You demonstrate a strong range of vocabulary used precisely (mitigate, exacerbate, divert funds, waterborne diseases, underprivileged communities). There are only minor slips: "Staes" (typo for States) and "considered as a free commodity" (omit "as").

Grammatical Range & Accuracy: You show good control of complex structures (conditionals, relative clauses, passive forms). Error-free sentences are frequent. The typo "Staes" and the minor preposition error ("considered as") are the only notable blemishes; punctuation is solid.

Overall: A strong, well-argued response (293 words) that meets all criteria for a high band. Proofreading for typos and refining the conclusion's specificity would perfect it.