Band 9 model answer
As private companies begin selling tickets to the edge of the atmosphere and to the deepest reaches of the ocean, society must ask whether this new frontier of extreme tourism deserves encouragement or condemnation. Having weighed both arguments carefully, I believe its costs currently outweigh its rewards by a considerable margin.
Supporters present a genuinely persuasive case. They contend that wealthy thrill-seekers effectively bankroll cutting-edge research, since the fortunes spent on suborbital flights help accelerate technologies that may one day benefit ordinary people everywhere. Such pioneering ventures, they add, also inspire a fresh generation of engineers and explorers, rekindling a sense of collective human ambition that conventional beach holidays could never hope to ignite.
Detractors, however, find these journeys close to indefensible. A single space flight burns staggering quantities of fuel merely to entertain a handful of millionaires, releasing emissions at precisely the moment when the planet can least afford them. More troubling still is the message such extravagance broadcasts: that immense private wealth is best spent on fleeting personal spectacle rather than on pressing humanitarian needs. The opportunity cost, they insist, is simply far too great to justify.
Weighing these competing positions, I ultimately side with the critics. While I readily acknowledge that some genuine innovation may eventually trickle down to wider society, the environmental and ethical price of catering to a privileged few seems wholly disproportionate. Until extreme tourism can be made demonstrably cleaner and its benefits genuinely shared, I believe governments should tax it heavily rather than actively promote it, for actively encouraging such conspicuous indulgence sends precisely the wrong signal in an age of mounting ecological strain.
Examiner’s notes
- Task Response: both views receive balanced development before a decisive opinion is reached, and the conclusion proposes a concrete policy stance rather than a vague summary.
- Coherence and Cohesion: the labelled camps 'Supporters' and 'Detractors' frame the debate clearly, and 'Weighing these competing positions' transitions naturally into the writer's verdict.
- Grammatical Range: rhetorical contrast and concession ('While I readily acknowledge that... the price seems wholly disproportionate') show sophisticated handling of complex sentences.