Model Essay 6: Spending on Space Exploration
Question type: opinion. This one rewards a candidate who is willing to attack the assumption buried in the question.
Unofficial original RCF practice material
Original question and essay written by RCF English. Not endorsed by the British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia or Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
The question
Governments should stop spending money on space exploration and use it to solve problems on Earth instead.
Do you agree or disagree?
Write at least 250 words.
You are allowed to challenge the question
This statement contains an unstated assumption: that the money saved would in fact be spent on the problems mentioned, and that the two compete for the same funds.
Examining an assumption like this is not evasion, provided you still answer the question. It is one of the clearest signals of a Band 8 or 9 Task Response - but only if you then commit to a position. Identifying the flaw and refusing to answer scores badly.
The plan
| Paragraph | Content |
|---|---|
| Introduction | State the position: disagree, and flag that the statement rests on a false comparison. |
| Body 1 | The strongest form of the opposing case, conceded properly: urgent needs, real opportunity cost. |
| Body 2 | The scale objection: space budgets are small relative to the problems they are compared with, so the trade-off is largely illusory. |
| Body 3 | The direct-benefit argument: much of what space programmes produce is used on Earth - weather, navigation, climate observation. |
| Conclusion | Reframe: the real question is not space versus Earth, but whether public money is spent well. |
The model essay
Question: Governments should stop spending money on space exploration and use it to solve problems on Earth instead. Do you agree or disagree?
The argument for stopping space exploration is a powerful one. It seems wrong to send equipment to other planets while people on this one lack clean water. I disagree with it all the same, mainly because the comparison it depends on is not a real one.
The case deserves to be stated fairly first. Public money is limited, every choice means giving something else up, and the needs it is compared with are urgent and concrete. Housing, medicine and clean water help people now, in a way that a distant scientific result does not. Anyone who dismisses that is not taking the question seriously.
The difficulty is that the two things are not really competing for the same money. National space budgets are a very small part of government spending, much smaller than most people imagine when they picture the choice. Closing them completely would make very little difference to the problems in question. Meanwhile, far larger sums are lost through poor purchasing or spent on paying interest on debt. If the real concern is that public money should go where it does most good, space is a strange place to begin.
There is also a more direct objection. Much of what space programmes produce is not about other planets at all. Weather forecasting, satellite navigation, global communications and, most importantly, the measurement of our own climate all depend on systems built and maintained by space agencies. A great deal of the money described as spent on space is in fact spent on understanding this planet, and it would have to be spent again under another name.
In my view the question is put the wrong way round. What matters is not whether money is spent above the atmosphere or below it, but whether it is spent well.
Why this answer works
- The position is in the first paragraph, with the reason previewed: the comparison it depends on is not a real one. The reader knows the shape of the essay immediately.
- The concession is generous and raises the stakes. Anyone who dismisses that is not taking the question seriously obliges the essay to argue properly rather than sneer at the other side.
- The scale argument avoids inventing a number. A very small part of government spending, much smaller than most people imagine - defensible, and no fabricated figure. A candidate writing 0.48% of GDP gains nothing and might be wrong.
- The strongest point is placed third, not first. Building towards the best argument is more persuasive than leading with it.
- The conclusion reframes rather than repeats. It turns a yes-or-no question into a better question, which reads as judgement.
- One sentence does a paragraph's work: If the real concern is that public money should go where it does most good, space is a strange place to begin.
- 292 words, sentences of about sixteen words. Band 7 to 7.5 - the argument is what scores here, not the vocabulary.
Language worth borrowing
- The case deserves to be stated fairly first.
- Announces a concession and commits you to making it properly.
- the comparison it depends on is not a real one
- Challenges a premise in nine words.
- is a strange place to begin
- Dismissive without being rude - a register that scores well.
- it would have to be spent again under another name
- Shows that an apparent saving is not one.
- the question is put the wrong way round
- Save this for a conclusion where you have earned it by arguing the point first.
Check your own attempt
- Did you commit to a position, or only criticise the question?
- Did you state the opposing case in its strongest form?
- Did you avoid inventing budget figures?
- Does your conclusion add something, rather than repeat the introduction?
- Are you between 260 and 300 words?
Now try this variation
Money spent on the arts would be better spent on public services. Do you agree or disagree?
The same false-comparison move is available. But be careful: the scale argument is weaker here, because arts budgets and public service budgets are drawn from the same local pots far more often. Test whether the move actually works before you use it.
Share this
Next
Essay 7: Museums and tourism
Discussion: both views and your opinion.
All ten essays
The full list by question type.