20. IELTS Writing Task 2 Agree/Disagree Tutorial with Band 6–8 Sample Answers, Vocabulary, and Interactive Quiz

Step 1 — Analyse the task & choose a position (Agree/Disagree)

Read the prompt twice to confirm the question type: it is an opinion essay asking “To what extent do you agree or disagree?”. Identify the topic scope: whether animal testing is necessary for medical research, not for cosmetics or general science. Underline key terms such as “necessary”, “medical research”, and “agree or disagree”, because your stance depends on how you interpret necessity (essential vs. helpful). Clarify the task focus: you must present a clear position and justify it with well-developed reasons and concise, realistic examples. Brainstorm two or three main reasons you can explain in depth (e.g., safety and efficacy data before human trials; availability of alternatives like computer models and cell cultures; ethical concerns and regulations). Decide whether you fully agree, largely agree, partly agree (conditional), or disagree, and keep that stance consistent from introduction to conclusion. Consider the audience (general readers) and avoid technical jargon unless you can explain it briefly and clearly. Anticipate the counter-argument (e.g., animal suffering, limited translation to humans, or the rise of non-animal methods) and plan a short concession to show balance. Keep examples plausible and compact (e.g., vaccine development pipelines, pre-clinical safety checks). Aim for an academic but accessible tone and avoid extreme claims you cannot support. Finally, note any definitions you will rely on (e.g., “necessary” = currently indispensable in some areas despite progress in alternatives) to keep your reasoning coherent and fair.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a four-paragraph essay for control and clarity. The introduction should paraphrase the statement in one sentence and present a decisive thesis in the next, indicating your degree of agreement. In Body 1, give your strongest reason that directly supports your stance (e.g., current pre-clinical standards often require animal data to reduce risk to human volunteers) and explain the mechanism (how such tests model whole-body effects). Add a micro-example (e.g., toxicity screening before clinical trials) to make the point concrete. In Body 2, add a second, distinct reason or a concession-then-refocus (e.g., acknowledge ethical concerns and limitations, then argue for strict regulation and investment in alternatives so that use is minimised). Ensure each paragraph starts with a topic sentence that answers the question, followed by explanation and a brief example; avoid lists of undeveloped points. Maintain cohesion with reference chains (“this step”, “such studies”) and logical linkers (cause/effect, contrast, concession). Keep the conclusion short: restate your answer in new words and synthesise your two main reasons without adding new ideas. Plan quickly (8–10 minutes), write steadily (~28 minutes), and reserve time to check grammar, cohesion, and word choice (~2–3 minutes). Balance content depth with clarity rather than chasing statistics you cannot verify.

Step 3 — Write high-impact paragraphs

Keep the introduction tight: one sentence to rephrase the claim and one sentence to state your degree of agreement. For Body 1, open with a topic sentence that answers the task and names the paragraph’s focus (e.g., “Pre-clinical animal studies still provide safety evidence that protects early human volunteers”). Explain how this works (system-wide effects, dosage, side-effects) and add a compact, credible example. For Body 2, use a concession-turn pattern: acknowledge ethics and limits (animal suffering; not all results generalise to humans), then pivot to your position (regulated use + investment in alternatives) and show practical guardrails (independent review, minimising numbers, validated non-animal methods where possible). Use precise vocabulary (pre-clinical, protocol, oversight, refinement, validated alternative methods) and vary sentence structures with controlled punctuation. Maintain a formal tone and avoid emotive language that weakens analysis. End with a conclusion that synthesises the reasons and clearly answers the extent question. Keep examples brief and plausible; depth of explanation is more valuable than quantity.

Step 4 — Language, coherence, and accuracy

Choose topic-appropriate lexis such as pre-clinical evidence, clinical trials, ethical oversight, validated alternatives, and the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine). Build cohesion with reference words (“this evidence”, “such protocols”) and logical linkers (“however”, “therefore”, “consequently”). Keep each paragraph unified around a single controlling idea and remove sentences that drift into unrelated debates (e.g., cosmetics regulation) unless they support your point. Hedge appropriately (“often”, “in many cases”) to avoid over-generalisations. Maintain a consistent stance throughout and avoid switching sides in the conclusion. Check articles, subject–verb agreement, and modifier placement. Vary sentence length to create rhythm while keeping punctuation accurate. Before finishing, confirm that your topic sentences directly answer the prompt, that your reasons are fully explained and exemplified, and that your conclusion restates the extent of agreement without introducing new claims. Aim for ~270–310 words to show full development with clear, formal style.

Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template — Opinion (Agree/Disagree)

Adapt carefully to the animal-testing prompt. Replace […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise and formal.

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples (Animal Testing)

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Opinion

Question

Governments should make public transport free for all residents to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Instructions

Write at least 250 words. Spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Timer

Write your essay here

Word count: 0

Submit for Feedback

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Opinion

Question

Animal testing is necessary for medical research. Do you agree or disagree?
The following model answers use the scaffold from Part 1.

Band 6 Sample Answer (~290 words)

Many people debate whether using animals in medical research is still essential today. I largely agree that animal testing remains necessary in some areas of medicine, mainly because it can protect human volunteers and help researchers understand whole-body effects, although its use should be limited and reviewed.

First, animal studies can provide safety evidence before a drug or vaccine is given to humans. Cell cultures and computer models are helpful, but they cannot always show how a substance behaves inside an entire organism. For example, toxicity testing in animals may reveal harmful interactions between organs or unexpected side-effects at different doses. This information can reduce the risk for people who join early clinical trials and can prevent serious mistakes. Therefore, at present, many research teams still rely on animal data at certain stages.

A further point is that ethical worries about animal suffering must be taken seriously. Some results do not translate perfectly to humans, and some experiments are not truly necessary. For this reason, there should be strict rules that apply the “3Rs”: replace animals when possible, reduce the number used, and refine procedures to minimise pain. At the same time, funding should support alternatives such as advanced computer simulations and organ-on-a-chip systems. These methods already replace some tests and can decrease the need for animals in the future.

In summary, I agree that animal testing is still necessary in parts of medical research because it offers safety and whole-body evidence that current alternatives cannot always provide. However, it must be tightly controlled, and its scope should decline as better non-animal methods become widely available.

Why this works — Band 6 (Step by Step)

1) The introduction paraphrases the claim and clearly states a mostly agree position.

2) The thesis names two reasons (safety; whole-body effects) and signals ethical limits.

3) Topic sentence in Body 1 directly answers the question with a clear controlling idea.

4) Explanation contrasts alternatives (cells/models) with whole-organism evidence.

5) A concrete micro-example (toxicity testing) makes the point specific and plausible.

6) The paragraph links back to human risk reduction, maintaining task relevance.

7) Body 2 opens with ethics, showing awareness of counter-arguments.

8) The 3Rs framework demonstrates practical regulation and balance.

9) The text proposes investment in alternatives, not just criticism.

10) Another micro-example (organ-on-a-chip) shows partial replacement.

11) Cohesive devices (“first”, “for this reason”, “at the same time”) build flow.

12) Lexis is topic-appropriate though mostly straightforward (e.g., “toxicity”, “clinical trials”).

13) Sentences are generally correct; some structures are simple but accurate.

14) The conclusion restates the stance and synthesises the main reasons.

15) Tone is formal and avoids emotive language.

16) Overall development is adequate and stays focused on medical research.

Band 7 Sample Answer (~305 words)

Whether animal experimentation remains indispensable for medical progress is highly contested. I largely agree that it is still necessary in certain domains, chiefly because it provides system-level safety evidence before human trials and because current alternatives, although promising, are not yet universally validated. Nevertheless, its scope should be tightly limited and continually reviewed.

The principal justification for continued animal testing is that it supplies whole-organism evidence that bench-top models cannot reliably capture. Pre-clinical protocols typically require toxicity and pharmacokinetic data to estimate safe starting doses for Phase I volunteers. While cell cultures can reveal mechanisms and computer simulations can predict interactions, neither reproduces the complex interplay between organs, immune responses, and metabolism with consistent accuracy. A concise example is dose-ranging in animals, which can flag cumulative side-effects that would be unacceptable to discover first in people. Thus, carefully designed animal studies still function as a risk-control measure.

That said, ethical objections and issues of transferability are legitimate and must shape policy. Some findings extrapolate poorly to humans, and any avoidable suffering is unacceptable. This is why robust oversight should enforce the 3Rs: replace animal models where validated options exist, reduce numbers through better study design and statistics, and refine procedures to minimise distress. Meanwhile, targeted funding should accelerate validation of organoids, microphysiological systems, and in silico pipelines so that animal use declines as confidence in alternatives rises. In other words, necessity should be understood as conditional and shrinking over time.

In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that animal testing remains necessary for specific stages of medical research because it protects human participants and provides system-level insights. Yet its use must be strictly bounded and progressively reduced as robust non-animal methods mature.

Why this works — Band 7 (Step by Step)

1) The thesis expresses a clear, qualified stance and previews reasons.

2) Topic sentences directly address “necessity” rather than side issues.

3) The essay balances assertion with explanation and mechanism (“how it protects humans”).

4) Technical lexis is precise but explained (pre-clinical, pharmacokinetics, Phase I).

5) The micro-example (dose-ranging) is realistic and tightly linked to the claim.

6) Cohesion is achieved through reference chains (“neither…”, “thus…”, “that said…”).

7) Acknowledgement of limitations (transferability) adds sophistication.

8) Policy language (oversight, 3Rs) shows practical solutions, not just opinions.

9) The concession-turn structure strengthens argument credibility.

10) Paragraph unity is maintained: each body paragraph has one controlling idea.

11) Logical linkers are varied but not overused.

12) Sentence variety (complex/compound) supports readability and emphasis.

13) The conclusion synthesises, avoiding new ideas and repeating wording.

14) Hedging (“not yet universally validated”, “to a large extent”) prevents overgeneralisation.

15) Tone is academic and measured, suitable for IELTS Task 2.

16) Overall, content is fully developed with clear relevance to the prompt.

Band 8+ Sample Answer (~320 words)

The claim that animal testing remains necessary for medical research divides opinion, largely because “necessity” depends on the question being asked and the maturity of available alternatives. I agree that it is still required in targeted contexts, primarily to generate system-level safety and efficacy data prior to human exposure; however, its use should be narrowly circumscribed, aggressively audited, and steadily displaced as validated non-animal methods scale.

The strongest rationale for continued use is risk governance. Before first-in-human studies, researchers must anticipate whole-body effects that isolated cells or in silico models cannot yet reproduce with reliable fidelity. Animal protocols—when rigorously designed and statistically powered—can reveal dose–response patterns, organ-specific toxicities, and immune interactions that would be ethically intolerable to discover in volunteers. Such evidence informs starting doses, monitoring plans, and stopping rules, thereby reducing the probability and severity of harm. In short, at certain decision points, organism-level data remain a prudent safeguard.

Nonetheless, ethical and scientific objections necessitate strict limits and a roadmap for replacement. Some animal findings translate imperfectly to humans, and any avoidable suffering violates contemporary research ethics. Accordingly, regulators and institutions should enforce the 3Rs with real consequences, require pre-registration and open methods to curb waste, and fund validation studies for organoids, microphysiological “body-on-a-chip” systems, and integrated computational pipelines. As these platforms demonstrate predictive value in defined contexts of use, animal involvement should contract accordingly, with sunset clauses embedded in guidance so that “temporary necessity” does not become inertia.

To conclude, animal testing remains conditionally necessary where organism-level evidence materially lowers risk to human participants and where no validated alternative can answer the research question. Yet this necessity should be continuously re-audited, tightly regulated, and progressively superseded as robust non-animal methodologies prove their reliability and scope.

Why this works — Band 8+ (Step by Step)

1) The thesis is precise, nuanced, and sets conditional boundaries for “necessity”.

2) Body 1 frames the argument around risk governance, a clear organising principle.

3) Mechanistic explanation links organism-level data to concrete trial decisions.

4) Advanced lexis is used accurately (“statistically powered”, “dose–response”, “stopping rules”).

5) Claims are hedged responsibly, avoiding absolute generalisations.

6) The example is embedded in reasoning, not bolted on.

7) Body 2 integrates ethics and methodology, showing multidimensional awareness.

8) Policy levers (pre-registration, open methods, validation studies) add practicality.

9) The 3Rs are operationalised with enforcement rather than merely name-checked.

10) “Contexts of use” and “sunset clauses” show forward planning and precision.

11) Cohesion is achieved through consistent reference to risk, evidence, and oversight.

12) Sentence variety and controlled nominalisation suit an academic register.

13) Paragraphs exhibit unity and progression from claim → mechanism → implication.

14) The conclusion synthesises stance and conditions without introducing new arguments.

15) Overall development is thorough, with clear relevance to the task and balanced evaluation.

16) Errors are unlikely; grammar and punctuation support clarity and emphasis.

Key Vocabulary from the Task Theme

Below are ten high-value words you can use when answering the prompt on animal testing and medical research. Each item gives IPA (BrE/AmE), part(s) of speech, common patterns, a clear definition, a model sentence with a brief gloss, useful synonyms, and typical learner mistakes to avoid.

necessity — BrE /nəˈsɛsɪti/ · AmE /nəˈsɛsəti/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (C/U) · a necessity for + noun/-ing · the necessity of + noun/-ing · out of necessity.

Definition: The state of being essential or required to achieve a particular aim.

Example + gloss: “Many argue that animal studies are a necessity for safeguarding first-in-human trials.” → (They are essential to protect volunteers.)

Synonyms: requirement, need, essential (n.).

Common mistakes: ✖ “necessarity” (wrong form) → ✓ necessity; ✖ “a necessity to” (awkward) → ✓ a necessity for safe dosing; avoid overusing with vague nouns (“a necessity for things”).

pre-clinical — BrE /ˌpriːˈklɪnɪkəl/ · AmE /ˌpriːˈklɪnɪkəl/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: adjective · pre-clinical studies/data/testing · pre-clinical stage.

Definition: Relating to research conducted before trials in humans, often using animals or non-human systems.

Example + gloss: “Pre-clinical data informed the initial dose for the Phase I study.” → (Animal/bench evidence guided the first human dose.)

Synonyms: preliminary (in context), pre-human (contextual).

Common mistakes: Hyphenation: use pre-clinical (not “pre clinical”); don’t use as a noun (“the pre-clinical”).

efficacy — BrE /ˈɛfɪkəsi/ · AmE /ˈɛfɪkəsi/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (U) · efficacy of + treatment/vaccine · demonstrate/assess/compare efficacy.

Definition: The ability of a drug or intervention to produce the desired effect under ideal or controlled conditions.

Example + gloss: “Animal models helped establish the vaccine’s efficacy against severe disease.” → (They showed it works.)

Synonyms: effectiveness (near-synonym; note: efficacy often implies controlled settings).

Common mistakes: Confusing with efficiency (doing something with minimal waste). Use efficacy for “how well it works”.

toxicity — BrE /tɒkˈsɪsɪti/ · AmE /tɑːkˈsɪsɪti/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (U/C) · toxicity of + drug/compound · acute/chronic toxicity · dose-dependent toxicity.

Definition: The degree to which a substance can damage an organism.

Example + gloss: “Pre-clinical tests identified liver toxicity at higher doses.” → (Harmful liver effects appeared with large doses.)

Synonyms: harmfulness, poison potential (contextual).

Common mistakes: Over-pluralising: general concept is uncountable (toxicity), but specific types can be countable (toxicities) in technical writing.

oversight — BrE /ˈəʊvəsaɪt/ · AmE /ˈoʊvərsaɪt/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (U) · regulatory/ethical oversight · oversight of + process/institution.

Definition: Supervision or monitoring to ensure standards and rules are followed.

Example + gloss: “Robust ethical oversight limits unnecessary animal procedures.” → (Strong supervision reduces needless testing.)

Synonyms: supervision, governance, monitoring.

Common mistakes: Don’t confuse with the other meaning “an oversight” = a mistake or omission; use context to avoid ambiguity.

refinement — BrE /rɪˈfaɪnmənt/ · AmE /rɪˈfaɪnmənt/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (C/U) · refinement of + method/protocol · make refinements to + process.

Definition: The process of improving methods to reduce harm, increase precision, or enhance quality (one of the “3Rs”).

Example + gloss: “Procedure refinement reduced pain without compromising data quality.” → (Improving the method cut suffering but kept good results.)

Synonyms: improvement, fine-tuning, optimisation.

Common mistakes: Avoid using only in the sense of “elegance/luxury”; in research contexts it means methodological improvement.

alternative — BrE /ɒlˈtɜːnətɪv/ · AmE /ɔːlˈtɝːnətɪv/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun & adjective · an alternative to + X · offer/provide/validate an alternative.

Definition: A different method or option that can replace the usual approach.

Example + gloss: “Organoid models offer an alternative to certain animal tests.” → (They can replace some animal experiments.)

Synonyms: substitute, option, replacement.

Common mistakes: Preposition: ✓ alternative to (not “alternative of”); avoid vague use without stating what it replaces.

validation — BrE /ˌvælɪˈdeɪʃən/ · AmE /ˌvæləˈdeɪʃən/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (U) · validation of + method/model · independent/ regulatory validation.

Definition: The process of proving that a method reliably measures or predicts what it is intended to.

Example + gloss: “Wider validation is needed before simulations replace animal assays.” → (They must prove reliability first.)

Synonyms: verification, confirmation, substantiation.

Common mistakes: Don’t mix up validation (method reliability) with approval (official permission); verb: validate (not “validify”).

extrapolate — BrE /ɪkˈstræpəleɪt/ · AmE /ɪkˈstræpəˌleɪt/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: verb · extrapolate (from) A (to) B · extrapolate results/findings.

Definition: To infer or extend results to a new situation beyond the original data set.

Example + gloss: “Findings in rodents cannot always be extrapolated to humans.” → (Results may not transfer across species.)

Synonyms: infer, generalise (BrE generalize AmE), project.

Common mistakes: Prepositions: ✓ extrapolate from X to Y; avoid absolute claims (“always extrapolates”)—use hedging.

pharmacokinetics — BrE /ˌfɑːməkəʊkɪˈnɛtɪks/ · AmE /ˌfɑːrməkoʊkɪˈnɛtɪks/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (U, scientific field) · pharmacokinetic profile/parameters · study the pharmacokinetics of + drug.

Definition: The study of how a drug moves through the body (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion).

Example + gloss: “Animal studies described the drug’s pharmacokinetics before dosing volunteers.” → (They mapped how the drug behaves in the body.)

Synonyms: PK (abbrev., technical), drug-disposition profile (contextual).

Common mistakes: Agreement: treat as a field—usually singular verb (pharmacokinetics is); don’t confuse with pharmacodynamics (what the drug does to the body).

High-Value Phrases for This Task

Use the following ten expressions to add precision and balance to an opinion essay on animal testing and medical research. Each entry includes IPA (BrE/AmE), part(s) of speech, common patterns, a concise definition, a model sentence with a gloss, useful synonyms, and common learner mistakes.

to what extent — BrE /tə wɒt ɪkˈstent/ · AmE /tə wʌt ɪkˈstɛnt/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: fixed interrogative phrase · to what extent + clause · to the extent that + clause.

Definition: Asking or stating the degree/level of something.

Example + gloss: “This essay evaluates to what extent animal testing is still essential in medicine.” → (It measures the degree of necessity.)

Synonyms: how far, how much, the degree to which.

Common mistakes: Don’t write “in what extent”; use ✓ to what extent. Avoid using it as a noun: say “the extent to which…”.

whole-organism — BrE /ˌhəʊl ˈɔːɡənɪzəm/ · AmE /ˌhoʊl ˈɔːrɡənɪzəm/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: adjective · whole-organism effects/evidence/response.

Definition: Involving the entire living system rather than isolated parts.

Example + gloss: “Animal models can show whole-organism side-effects before human dosing.” → (They reveal system-wide reactions.)

Synonyms: system-level, organism-level (contextual).

Common mistakes: Keep the hyphen (whole-organism). Don’t use “whole organismal” in general essays.

first-in-human (trial/study) — BrE /ˌfɜːst ɪn ˈhjuːmən/ · AmE /ˌfɝːst ɪn ˈhjuːmən/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: adjective/noun phrase · first-in-human trial/dose/study.

Definition: The initial stage when a treatment is tested in human participants.

Example + gloss: “Pre-clinical data guide dosing for the first-in-human trial.” → (Earlier evidence informs the first human study.)

Synonyms: Phase I (contextual), initial human study.

Common mistakes: Maintain hyphens; don’t pluralise oddly (“firsts-in-human”).

risk–benefit balance — BrE /ˌrɪsk ˈbɛnɪfɪt ˈbæl(ə)ns/ · AmE /ˌrɪsk ˈbɛnəfɪt ˈbæləns/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun phrase · assess/weigh the risk–benefit balance of X.

Definition: The comparison of potential harms and expected gains.

Example + gloss: “Strict oversight helps ensure a favourable risk–benefit balance for any animal procedure.” → (Benefits must outweigh risks.)

Synonyms: risk–benefit ratio, trade-off analysis.

Common mistakes: Use an en dash (–) or hyphen consistently; avoid “risk and benefit balance”.

ethical oversight — BrE /ˈeθɪkl ˈəʊvəsaɪt/ · AmE /ˈɛθɪkəl ˈoʊvərsaɪt/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun phrase (U) · strengthen/ensure ethical oversight of + process.

Definition: Supervision that checks research follows moral and legal standards.

Example + gloss: “Robust ethical oversight minimises unnecessary animal suffering.” → (Strong supervision reduces harm.)

Synonyms: governance, supervision, monitoring.

Common mistakes: Don’t confuse with “an oversight” (a mistake). Context makes meaning clear.

validated alternative (method) — BrE /ˈvælɪdeɪtɪd ɔːlˈtɜːnətɪv/ · AmE /ˈvælədeɪtɪd ɔːlˈtɝːnətɪv/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: adjective + noun · a validated alternative to + X.

Definition: A replacement approach proven to work reliably for a defined purpose.

Example + gloss: “When a validated alternative exists, animal use should be discontinued.” → (Proven replacements must be used.)

Synonyms: verified substitute, proven replacement.

Common mistakes: Avoid “valided” or “alternative of”; use ✓ alternative to.

conditional necessity — BrE /kənˈdɪʃən(ə)l nəˈsɛsɪti/ · AmE /kənˈdɪʃənəl nəˈsɛsəti/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun phrase · X is a conditional necessity when/where…

Definition: Something that is needed only under certain circumstances.

Example + gloss: “Animal testing is a conditional necessity until non-animal tools answer the same questions.” → (Needed only for specific cases.)

Synonyms: limited requirement, contingent need.

Common mistakes: Don’t write “conditionally necessary” repeatedly; vary phrasing to avoid redundancy.

the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) — BrE /ðə θriː ɑːz/ · AmE /ðə θriː ɑːrz/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: policy framework (noun phrase) · apply/implement/commit to the 3Rs.

Definition: Guiding principles to minimise animal use and suffering in research.

Example + gloss: “Institutions should report yearly progress on the 3Rs.” → (Show how they replace, reduce, and refine.)

Synonyms: replacement-reduction-refinement framework.

Common mistakes: Don’t write “3R’s” with an apostrophe; use ✓ 3Rs. List the Rs in the correct order.

proof-of-concept — BrE /ˌpruːf əv ˈkɒnsept/ · AmE /ˌpruːf əv ˈkɑːnsept/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun (C/U) & adjectival modifier · establish/provide proof-of-concept for X · proof-of-concept study.

Definition: Evidence showing that an idea or method is feasible and likely to work.

Example + gloss: “Organoids delivered proof-of-concept for replacing one toxicity screen.” → (They showed feasible replacement.)

Synonyms: feasibility evidence, initial validation.

Common mistakes: Keep hyphens; avoid using it as a verb (“to proof-of-concept”).

dose–response (relationship) — BrE /ˌdəʊs rɪˈspɒns/ · AmE /ˌdoʊs rɪˈspɑːns/

Part(s) of speech & patterns: noun phrase · dose–response curve/relationship · observe a dose–response pattern.

Definition: How the effect of a substance changes as the dose increases.

Example + gloss: “Researchers observed a clear dose–response in animals, informing safe human starting doses.” → (Higher dose gave stronger effect, guiding dosing.)

Synonyms: dose–effect relationship, exposure–response.

Common mistakes: Don’t write “does response”; keep the en dash/hyphen consistent.