Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore every home should have a water supply that is provided free of charge.
Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
I would agree that clean water is a fundamental right, but I cannot accept the conclusion that every home should therefore have it free of charge. In my view, universal free supply would be unsustainable and would ultimately hurt the very people it is meant to protect, so a better approach is guaranteed affordable access backed by targeted support for those who cannot pay.
The right to clean water is real and important. Water is essential for life, and no one should be denied it because they are poor. In many developing regions, people still spend hours a day collecting water or pay a significant share of their income for a basic supply, which is a genuine injustice. Governments should certainly guarantee that every household has access to safe, clean water.
However, making it completely free for everyone is not the best way to achieve this. Water infrastructure — treatment plants, pipes, and maintenance — is expensive to build and run, and someone has to pay for it. If it is entirely free, either the service quality collapses or the cost is shifted to the state, which usually means higher taxes. Worse, free supplies tend to be wasted, because there is no incentive to use water carefully, and overuse is precisely what a strained supply cannot afford.
A more effective policy would be to keep water affordable and largely metered, while subsidising the basic amount needed by low-income households. This is how many countries already work: everyone pays a modest amount for the water they use, but the poorest receive a discount or a guaranteed free minimum. Such a system protects the right to water, funds the infrastructure, and discourages waste.
In conclusion, although clean water should be recognised as a right, providing it free of charge to every home is neither workable nor fair. Guaranteeing affordable access, with subsidies for those who need them, achieves the same goal far more sustainably.
The answer is deliberately nuanced: it concedes the right (clean water is essential) before rejecting the sweeping conclusion (free for every home). This lets the writer agree with the principle while disagreeing with the policy, which is exactly what a Band 8 response to a polarising statement should do.
Takeaway: for "do you agree or disagree," separate the principle from the policy — agree with the principle, reject the over-broad application, and you get the best of both.
The essay flows concession → why "free" fails (cost + waste) → a better synthesis → conclusion. Transitions ("However", "Worse", "A more effective policy", "In conclusion") signal each turn without over-signposting.
Takeaway: build a concession-refutation-synthesis arc and use one transition per paragraph; the "worse" pivot inside the drawback paragraph adds evaluative force to the argument.
The argument stays precise on economics and policy: "unsustainable", "infrastructure", "metered", "subsidising the basic amount", "guaranteed affordable access." Abstract nouns carry the reasoning rather than vague evaluatives.
Takeaway: for policy/debate prompts, use cost-and-supply vocabulary (fund, subsidise, meter, infrastructure, sustainable) — it makes a disagreement sound evidence-based rather than opinionated.
Complex structures hold the logic: "either the service quality collapses or the cost is shifted" (correlative either/or), "because there is no incentive to use water carefully" (causal), and "which is precisely what a strained supply cannot afford" (nominal clause). Conditionals ("if it is entirely free") frame the counterargument cleanly.
Takeaway: use correlative pairs (either... or, not... but), causal clauses (because, since), and non-defining relatives ("which is what...") to carry multi-part reasoning inside single sentences.