Cambridge IELTS 20 Test 1 Writing Task 2: Sample Answer

Few resources are as essential as clean water, and I largely agree that governments should supply every household with it free of charge, at least for the quantity needed to drink, cook and keep clean. However, unlimited free water for all purposes would be neither affordable nor wise.

The case for free provision rests on health and dignity. Contaminated water spreads cholera and typhoid, which kill young children in particular, and families who must pay for safe water often cannot afford it. In practice, they drink from polluted rivers or spend hours fetching water, which keeps many girls out of school. South Africa's policy of granting each household a free monthly allowance shows that a basic quantity can be treated as an entitlement rather than a commodity.

Nevertheless, a completely free supply for every use would create new problems. Treating and piping water is expensive, and if consumers pay nothing, they have little incentive to avoid waste, so lawns are sprinkled and swimming pools filled while reservoirs run low. Moreover, the money would have to come from general taxation, which might divert funds from hospitals or schools.

The most sensible compromise is a tiered system. The first portion of water, enough for essential needs, would cost nothing, while heavier consumption would be charged at progressively higher rates, so that wealthy households with large gardens effectively subsidise the others. This approach protects the poorest, funds the maintenance of the network and encourages conservation.

In conclusion, clean water is indeed a basic right, and no family should be denied it through poverty. Yet the free element should cover essential needs only, with payment required for the surplus.