📝 Model answerBand 8283 words

Band 8 model answer

A model answer written to illustrate a Band 8 response to this question, with the rubric breakdown and what carries it. Written by us as a teaching example, not a verified exam script.

Recent years have seen the rise of commercial space tourism. Is this a positive or negative development for society?

8

Overall

8

Task response

8

Coherence & cohesion

8

Lexical resource

8

Grammar

Commercial space tourism has captured public imagination and attracted significant private investment in recent years. On balance, however, I consider it a predominantly negative development at this stage of human history, given its environmental costs, its extreme exclusivity, and the opportunity cost it represents.

The environmental case against space tourism is substantial. Each sub-orbital or orbital flight consumes enormous quantities of propellant and releases a cocktail of soot, water vapour, and other compounds directly into the upper atmosphere, where they can persist for years and contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. At a moment when governments are under intense pressure to reduce aviation and industrial emissions, the prospect of an affluent minority generating disproportionate atmospheric impact purely for leisure is difficult to justify.

The equity dimension reinforces this concern. Current ticket prices for sub-orbital flights run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, placing the experience entirely beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Unlike many transformative technologies that begin at premium prices before becoming widely accessible, the physics and economics of space access make mass participation implausible for the foreseeable future. Space tourism therefore entrenches rather than transcends existing wealth disparities.

Proponents argue that commercial space activity will drive technological innovation and eventually reduce the cost of space access. This is not without merit: competition between private launch operators has already lowered satellite deployment costs considerably. One should also acknowledge that space exploration, even commercial, fuels public interest in science and engineering.

These benefits are real but insufficient to outweigh the current costs. Investment on this scale, directed instead towards climate mitigation, disease research, or clean energy, would generate far greater returns for humanity as a whole at this juncture.

✅ What carries it
  • Environmental argument is scientifically specific (upper atmosphere, ozone) rather than vague
  • Equity analysis goes beyond 'it is expensive' to consider structural inaccessibility
  • Concession on cost-reduction for satellite deployment is accurate and fairly acknowledged
  • Opportunity-cost framing in the conclusion is analytically strong and original
⚠️ What keeps it from higher
  • The claim about ozone depletion from rocket exhaust, while based on real research, is stated with slightly more certainty than current scientific consensus warrants
⚡ Your turn

Write your own. Get a real band read.

Reading a model answer only takes you so far. Write your own response to this question and we’ll grade it against the four official rubrics, the same way we scored this one.

Attempt this question