The Question
Some people think governments should spend money exploring space, while others believe that this money should be used to solve problems on Earth. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
How to approach this question
Dedicate one body paragraph to each view, presenting the strongest version of each argument fairly. Then give your own opinion — either as a brief conclusion or by integrating it into your final paragraph.
The allocation of public resources to space exploration while pressing problems such as poverty, disease, and climate change remain unresolved on Earth is a source of genuine ethical tension. Both perspectives reflect legitimate priorities, and the debate ultimately concerns the relationship between long-term investment and immediate human needs.
Proponents of space investment argue that the technologies developed for space exploration have generated transformative benefits for life on Earth. GPS navigation, weather forecasting, satellite communications, water purification technologies, memory foam, and advances in medical imaging all emerged from space programmes. The International Space Station alone has produced thousands of patents with terrestrial applications. More fundamentally, understanding and eventually having the capacity to inhabit other worlds may prove essential to humanity's long-term survival as a species — a perspective that assigns space investment a moral weight beyond its immediate practical returns.
Critics of space funding respond that the scale of current human suffering renders investment in distant exploration indefensible. Preventable diseases kill millions annually due to inadequate healthcare infrastructure that a fraction of space budgets could transform. Climate change, arguably the most urgent technological challenge in human history, absorbs far less public investment than critics of space spending believe it warrants.
In my view, this is a false dichotomy. Space agencies typically consume less than 0.5% of national budgets, and redirecting that specific allocation to poverty or climate programmes would make a negligible difference to their funding at current political will levels. The more productive question is how to expand total investment in both human welfare and scientific exploration, rather than forcing a zero-sum choice between them.
271+ words · Targets Band 7.5
Now write your own answer
Reading a sample answer improves your awareness. Writing one yourself — then getting AI feedback on all four marking criteria — is what actually moves your band score.
Practice Writing Task 2 →Some people think that individuals can do very little to reduce climate change and that it is governments and large corporations that must act. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
EnvironmentSome people argue that governments should prioritise investment in renewable energy over other forms of energy production. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
SocietyThe gap between the rich and the poor is growing in many countries. What problems does this cause and what can be done to reduce inequality?