雅思写作课程-第二十二课
题目：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?
答案：
This topic gives us a choice whether or not every home should have a water supply for free. From my perspective, the answer is no.
As we can see, there were tons of examples that illustrate that anything provided free of charge won’t have a satisfying result. For example, in Canada, there has been free medical services provided for every citizens, however people gradually found they should waited for a long time while they were sick. When they are able to see the doctor, their disease would either recovered or too serious to cure.
The second example is communist. In the past of China’s history, we have practiced co-work and share system, that means everyone work in the farmland in the same time, besides eating at dining room together free of charge. In the end,
some lazy people found they could stay their home without work hard but eating. This behavior gradually infectious to everyone. Then starving started, the food was not enough for everyone.
After a significant population lost their life, Chinese have to abanden this unsuccessful system and braced to revolution. Now in young generation of China, we know there no free lunch except we work hard and pay for it.
Even though water is precious and basic for human right, free water will lead to waste problem. Some people will keep tape opened and left water running away.
In conclusion, every home should have a water supply that is provided free of charge is a unwise suggestion. There will be a lot of side effect if we choose so.
好的，我来帮你把这篇作文完全改写成高分雅思作文版本。我会保留你“不赞同免费水供应”的观点，但让逻辑更清晰、论证更贴近题目，语言正式、词汇多样化、语法准确，适合雅思写作高分。
题目：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?
高分范文：
Access to clean water is undeniably a fundamental human right. However, I disagree with the idea that every household should receive water entirely free of charge. While providing water at no cost may seem beneficial in theory, it could lead to unintended consequences and unsustainable practices.
Firstly, resources that are given away for free are often undervalued and misused. For instance, in countries where basic utilities are heavily subsidized or free, there have been cases of excessive consumption and waste. If households were not required to pay for water, some individuals might leave taps running unnecessarily or use water inefficiently, leading to shortages and environmental strain. Charging a reasonable fee encourages conservation and ensures that water resources are used responsibly.
Secondly, history has shown that systems which aim to provide everything for free often encounter significant economic and social challenges. For example, during China’s collectivist policies in the mid-20th century, communal work and free meals were intended to benefit all. However, this system inadvertently encouraged some individuals to avoid work while still receiving sustenance, ultimately leading to inefficiency and shortages. Although this example relates to food rather than water, it illustrates the broader principle that free distribution can reduce personal accountability and sustainability.
Moreover, providing water for free to every household would impose a substantial financial burden on governments or local authorities. The costs of installing, maintaining, and purifying water infrastructure are significant. If these costs are not offset by fees, the quality and reliability of water supply may deteriorate, potentially undermining the very right it is meant to protect. A modest payment system, possibly with subsidies for low-income families, can balance fairness with sustainability.
In conclusion, although access to clean water is a basic human right, offering it completely free to every household is neither practical nor sustainable. Implementing a responsible payment system not only preserves water resources but also ensures equitable and reliable access for everyone.
改写特点和提升点说明：
- 逻辑更清晰：每段只讲一个核心理由（浪费、历史经验、经济负担），段落结构分明。
- 贴近题目：例子与水资源和公共管理相关，类比历史经验时更有说服力。
- 语言正式：词汇丰富，句型多样化（如：“undeniably a fundamental human right”，“unintended consequences”，“substantial financial burden”）。
- 结尾有力：总结观点并提供合理的替代方案（收费+补贴），比原文“unwise suggestion”更高分。
- 语法准确：避免口语化表达，时态、搭配、冠词等均正确。
如果你愿意，我可以再帮你写一个针对雅思8分标准的精简版，字数控制在250左右，让作文既高分又考场实用。
你希望我帮你写吗？