Band 9 model answer
Who should be held accountable when a population becomes unwell is a question that divides opinion sharply. Some place the burden on individuals, others on the state. This essay will examine both perspectives before arguing that responsibility must be shared.
Proponents of personal responsibility point out that daily choices largely determine health outcomes. What people eat, whether they smoke, and how much they exercise are decisions within individual control, and no government can force a citizen to live wisely. From this standpoint, expecting taxpayers to fund the consequences of self-inflicted harm seems unfair, since it rewards recklessness and penalises the prudent.
Those who emphasise governmental duty, however, argue that personal choices are heavily constrained by circumstance. A family living in poverty may be unable to afford fresh food or safe places to exercise, and aggressive advertising deliberately encourages harmful habits. Without regulation of tobacco, sugar and pollution, even well-intentioned individuals struggle to stay healthy, so the state plainly shapes the conditions in which choices are made.
In my opinion, neither party can be absolved. Individuals should certainly take ownership of their habits, yet they can only do so within an environment the government creates. The most effective approach therefore combines personal accountability with enabling policies, such as subsidised nutritious food and clear health education. Health is a partnership; blaming one side alone is both inaccurate and counterproductive.
Examiner’s notes
- Task Response: the discuss-both-views structure is honoured and the writer's 'shared responsibility' stance is unambiguous and well supported.
- Coherence: the concession 'however' and the synthesis 'neither party can be absolved' guide the reader through a balanced argument.
- Grammatical Range: complex conditionals ('even well-intentioned individuals struggle') and relative clauses are deployed accurately throughout.