Band 9 model answer
How far the state should reach into private life is a question that divides electorates everywhere. Some demand active regulation of habits such as eating and smoking, whereas others insist these are matters of personal conscience. In my view, intervention is justified only where individual choices impose clear costs on others.
Those who favour an interventionist state point to public health. Taxes on sugary drinks, smoking bans and mandatory seatbelts have measurably reduced illness and death, sparing health services enormous expense. Because the taxpayer ultimately funds the treatment of preventable conditions, supporters argue that the government has both a moral and a financial mandate to nudge people towards healthier behaviour. From this perspective, regulation is not oppression but collective self-protection.
The opposing camp prizes autonomy. They contend that adults capable of weighing risks should be free to make their own mistakes, and that a paternalistic state infantilises its citizens. Once officials begin dictating diet, where, they ask, does it end? This view also warns of practical futility, noting that prohibition frequently drives behaviour underground rather than eliminating it. Liberty, in their account, is worth defending even at some cost to public health.
My own position seeks a middle path anchored in the harm principle. Where a choice endangers only the individual, the proper role of government is to inform and persuade rather than to compel. Where it threatens others, such as second-hand smoke or drunk driving, firm regulation becomes legitimate. This distinction preserves personal freedom while still allowing the state to protect the vulnerable, and it strikes the most defensible balance between liberty and the common good.
Examiner’s notes
- Task Response: both views are developed evenly and a clear personal stance grounded in the 'harm principle' is presented and maintained, satisfying the discuss-both-views-and-opinion format.
- Coherence and Cohesion: contrast is handled with varied devices ('whereas', 'The opposing camp', 'My own position'), avoiding mechanical linkers while keeping the argument transparent.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: confident use of complex structures, including the conditional 'where a choice endangers only the individual', demonstrates control of subordinate clauses.