I'm preparing for my IELTS exam. Can you please review my essay? Thank you!


Some people think it is more important for a government to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many people argue that public expenditure on making lifestyle healthier is more necessary than spending on the cure for ill citizens. While I agree that it is essential to use the national money for improving lifestyle, I believe that the amount of money to provide unwell people with treatment should be the same. Spending money on improving lifestyle is very significant.
Promoting a healthy lifestyle allows citizens to save a great deal of money. Since the costs of treatments for some diseases are extremely high, and many of those illnesses can be avoided by having a healthy manner of living, such as eating fresh food and exercise regularly, people with healthy lifestyle do not need to spend much money for treatment of those sicknesses. Furthermore, it is easier and faster for governments to launch campaigns for healthy lifestyle promotion than to conduct a new therapy for a disease. For example, in order to develop a new method to combat cancer, many expensive experiments have to be conducted, and many doctors have to work constantly for many years.
Investments in medical care for people who suffer from illnesses are also of vital importance. Firstly, governments should spend public money to build more hospitals as well as to train more doctors. Consequently, patients, who suffer from serious diseases, are able to receive immediate and effective treatments, which can avoid many unexpected deaths. Secondly, a new successful therapy can save many people from death. For example, malaria, which killed millions of people hundreds of years ago, are no longer fatal diseases thanks to the development of medicine and healthcare.
In conclusion, I believe that governments should spend the same amount of money on both healthy lifestyle enhancement and cures for people who already suffer from illnesses.

Do you think which band I will get with this writing?

Some people think it is more important for a government to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?


Many people argue that public expenditure on making lifestyle healthier is more necessary than spending on the cure for ill citizens. While I agree that it is essential to use the national money (??) for improving lifestyle, I believe that the amount of money to provide unwell people with treatment should be the same. Spending money on improving lifestyle is very significant.

Your phrasing (highlighted) is inaccurate and unnatural. The government cannot directly spend money on improving lifestyles because only people can improve their own lifestyles.  The government can promote (advertise) the benefits of eating right and exercise, but they cannot force or make people to do this. The topic is "promoting a healthy lifestyle." )

Promoting a healthy lifestyle allows citizens to save a great deal of money. Since the costs of treatments for some diseases are extremely high, and many of those illnesses can be avoided by having a healthy manner of living, such as eating fresh food and exercise regularly, people with (missing word) healthy lifestyle do not need to spend much money for treatment of those sicknesses. Furthermore, it is easier and faster for governments to launch campaigns for healthy lifestyle promotion than to conduct a new therapy for a disease. For example, in order to develop a new method to combat cancer, many expensive experiments have to be conducted, and many doctors have to work constantly for many years.

Investments in medical care for people who suffer from illnesses are also of vital importance. Firstly, First, governments should spend public money to build more hospitals as well as to train more doctors. Consequently, patients, (no comma) who suffer from serious diseases, (no comma) are able to receive immediate and effective treatments, which can avoid many unexpected deaths. Secondly, Second, a new successful therapy can save many people from death. For example, malaria, which killed millions of people hundreds of years ago, are no longer fatal diseases thanks to the development of medicine and healthcare.

In conclusion, I believe that governments should spend the same amount of money on both healthy lifestyle enhancement and cures for people who already suffer from illnesses.

Thank you very much for your feedback.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

i think your eassy format is very good there are some mistakes but it is very impressive eassy i hope you will get above 7.0 bands