🔶 Part 1 — Tutorial

Step 1 — Analyse the task & define both views (Discuss Both Views + Opinion)

Read the prompt twice and underline the directive (“Discuss both views and give your opinion”) and the focus (“the most important school subject”). Clarify that the debate is not about which subjects are “useful” in general, but which is most important for schooling as a whole. Define the two views precisely: View A — history is the most important subject; View B — science and technology are the most important. Decide what “most important” will mean in your essay (e.g., best for civic understanding, best for future employability, best for national progress) and keep that criterion consistent. Brainstorm two strong reasons for each side. For history, typical angles include civic literacy, cultural identity, ethical perspective, and learning from past mistakes. For science/technology, common angles include innovation, problem-solving skills, economic competitiveness, and practical applications in daily life. Select reasons that you can explain through a mechanism (“how it works/why it matters”) and a short, plausible micro-example. Note potential pitfalls: false dichotomy (schools can prioritise both), vague claims (“history is important because it teaches history”), and unprovable statistics. Choose where to place your opinion (introduction vs conclusion) and keep it visible throughout. Allocate time: about 8–9 minutes to plan, 25–28 minutes to write, and 3–4 minutes to check coherence and accuracy. Finally, aim for 270–310 words so each body paragraph can fully develop an idea rather than list points.

Example Box — Decoding the Prompt (History vs Science & Technology)

Prompt: “Some think history is the most important school subject; others choose science and technology. Discuss both views and give your opinion.”
Scope: Importance within school education, not in life generally.
Two views: A) History first; B) Science/Tech first.
Decision points: Choose your criterion for “most important”; keep examples classroom-related (curriculum, skills, outcomes).
Pitfall: Arguing only benefits without explicit evaluation of which should come first.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a four- or five-paragraph structure. In the introduction, paraphrase the question and announce a balanced approach plus your stance (either early or at the end). In Body 1, present the rationale for those who prioritise history: start with a topic sentence that labels the view, then give two connected reasons (e.g., history builds civic literacy and ethical judgment) with a mechanism (“knowledge of institutions and past decisions helps citizens evaluate policy”) and a micro-example (e.g., studying post-war reforms clarifies debates about rights and responsibilities). In Body 2, mirror the structure for science/technology, linking reasons (innovation skills and problem-solving) to mechanisms (experimenting → hypothesis testing → real-world applications) plus a micro-example (e.g., school robotics or lab work shaping analytical habits). Add a brief evaluation line to compare which set of outcomes better matches your chosen criterion. Keep each paragraph unified around one controlling idea; avoid mixing three or four unrelated points. Use cohesive devices to signal contrast (whereas, on the other hand), cause (therefore, as a result), and evaluation (on balance, to a large extent). Conclude by directly answering which side you find more compelling and under what conditions (e.g., age/stage, national needs). Planning in bullets (reason → mechanism → example → link-back) will prevent drift and repetition.

Example Box — Skeleton Plan (History vs Science & Technology)

Intro: Paraphrase debate + stance/outline.
Body 1 (History view): Civic literacy + ethical lens → example: evaluating present policies via past outcomes.
Body 2 (Science/Tech view): Innovation + problem-solving → example: experiments/robotics coding shaping analytical habits.
Evaluation & Conclusion: Which better serves schooling’s core goal (e.g., informed citizenship vs economic readiness) and why.

Step 3 — Write balanced, high-impact paragraphs

Begin each body paragraph with a view-labelled topic sentence so the examiner sees control. Develop each reason with a clear mechanism (“studying primary sources trains students to evaluate evidence, which transfers to civic decision-making”) or (“designing experiments teaches variable control, which transfers to troubleshooting in daily life”). Use micro-examples that are specific but brief (curriculum units, projects, competitions). Keep the tone neutral while presenting each side; reserve persuasive wording for your evaluative lines. Balance your paragraphs in length and depth to avoid bias before your opinion appears. Use varied sentence forms (one concise, one complex) and precise lexis (e.g., civic literacy, historical precedent, inquiry skills, hypothesis testing, transferable competencies). Avoid absolute claims such as “science is the only subject that matters” or “history guarantees moral citizens”; instead, show conditions under which each side excels. If you add a concession inside a paragraph (“yet these benefits depend on teaching quality”), immediately link back to the main claim. Finish with a conclusion that restates your judgement in fresh words and synthesises criteria rather than adding a third argument. This approach meets Task Response, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range & Accuracy requirements in one disciplined flow.

Example Box — High-impact Sentences

Thesis (balanced): “While science and technology drive today’s economies, history remains indispensable for informed citizenship; on balance, I prioritise […].”
Topic (Body 1 — History): “Many educators argue history should come first because it builds civic literacy and an ethical compass.”
Topic (Body 2 — Sci/Tech): “Others place science and technology above all since they cultivate inquiry skills and fuel innovation.”
Evaluation line: “Ultimately, the more urgent aim of schooling is […], so [… ] offers a closer fit.”
Conclusion line: “To a large extent, priorities should reflect national needs and student age; nevertheless, [… ] deserves primacy.”

Step 4 — Language, cohesion, and accuracy

Use subject-specific lexis accurately: curriculum, core subject, civic literacy, historical precedent, primary sources, inquiry cycle, hypothesis, experimental control, transferable skills, innovation pipeline. Vary contrast and concession devices: whereas, while, however, nevertheless, albeit; and evaluation phrases: on balance, to a large extent, ultimately. Keep paragraph unity: one controlling idea per body paragraph with a reason → mechanism → micro-example → link-back chain. Control articles and prepositions (the curriculum, emphasis on, proficiency in). Avoid clichés and inflated claims; prefer precise, supportable statements tied to schooling outcomes. Ensure referencing chains are clear (this approach/these skills/such knowledge). Calibrate modality (may, can, tends to) to avoid over-generalisation. Watch common grammar slips (subject–verb agreement with complex subjects, comma use in complex sentences, consistent tense). Aim for ~280–310 words so both views are fully developed. Before you finish, check that your opinion is explicit and consistent with your evaluation lines; do not introduce new reasons in the conclusion. Finally, proofread for spelling of key terms (e.g., hypothesis, citizenship, technological) and maintain formal tone throughout.

Example Box — Quick Quality Checks

Balance: Are both sides presented fairly before judgement?
Mechanism: Do you show how each subject achieves its claimed benefit?
Examples: Are micro-examples classroom-plausible and concise?
Evaluation: Is your criterion for “most important” explicit and applied consistently?
Accuracy: Articles, prepositions, and referencing chains correct?

Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template — Discussion (Both Views + Opinion)

Adapt to the history vs science & technology prompt. Replace […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise.

Sentence-by-Sentence Scaffold (History vs Science & Technology)

Intro S1 (Paraphrase): People disagree about whether history or science and technology should be the most important school subject.

Intro S2 (Outline/Thesis): This essay will discuss both views, and I [prioritise/lean towards] […], mainly because […].

Body 1 S3 (History — topic): Many argue that history comes first because […].

Body 1 S4 (Explain): By studying [… mechanism …], students learn to [… outcome …].

Body 1 S5 (Micro-example): For example, [… short, curriculum-based illustration …].

Body 1 S6 (Link back): Therefore, history is vital for learners who prioritise […].

Body 2 S7 (Sci/Tech — topic): By contrast, others believe science and technology deserve top priority because […].

Body 2 S8 (Explain): Practical inquiry and experimentation [… mechanism …], which leads to [… outcome …].

Body 2 S9 (Micro-example): For instance, [… compact classroom/project example …].

Body 2 S10 (Link back): Thus, science and technology appeal to those who value […].

Evaluation S11 (Weighing): On balance, although […], [… is/are] more compelling because […].

Conclusion S12 (Restate opinion): In summary, both subjects are crucial, but I believe […].

Conclusion S13 (Synthesis): Priorities should reflect [… factor(s) …], yet for [… group/education stage …], [… subject …] is usually preferable.

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples (History vs Science & Technology)

Paraphrase Options

P1: There is ongoing debate over whether schools should place history above all other subjects or give absolute priority to science and technology.
P2: People differ on which subject deserves the top position in the curriculum: history or science-and-technology.

Thesis/Opinion Options

Neutral outline: This essay examines both perspectives before presenting my view.
History-leaning: While STEM subjects power modern economies, I prioritise history because informed citizenship depends on understanding institutions and precedent.
Science/Tech-leaning: Although history develops perspective, I favour science and technology since experimental inquiry and digital literacy drive problem-solving and progress.

🔶 Part 2 — Task

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — University Education Priorities (Discuss Both Views + Opinion)

Task

Some people believe universities should focus mainly on practical skills that prepare students for the job market, while others argue that higher education should prioritise theoretical knowledge and academic inquiry. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Instructions

Write at least 250 words. Plan your ideas, then write a clear introduction, two body paragraphs presenting both views, and a conclusion with your opinion.

Countdown Timer
40:00
Ready
Write Your Essay
Words: 0 Target: 250–310 words
Submit for Feedback

Auto message includes: 1) Exercise title, 2) Full question, 3) Your details (Full Name, Country, Email, WhatsApp).

WhatsApp: +15594620638 • Email: Lingexam.com@gmail.com

🔶 Part 3 — Sample Answers

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Sample Answers & Explanations

Below are three model essays for the prompt: “Some think history is the most important school subject; others choose science and technology. Discuss both views and give your opinion.” Each sample follows the sentence-by-sentence scaffold from Part 1 and exceeds 260 words. After each essay, you will find a step-by-step explanation in a dark-blue box.

Sample Answer — Band 6 (≈280–300 words)

People often disagree about whether schools should give first place to history or to science and technology. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument, and I will explain why I slightly favour science and technology for most students.

Many teachers and parents think history should come first because it builds civic understanding and a sense of identity. By learning about major events, institutions, and past decisions, students see how societies are formed and how rules are made. This process helps young people evaluate current debates, such as how governments should spend money or protect rights. For example, studying the consequences of past economic crises can make learners more careful about policies that look popular but are risky. Therefore, for citizens who need to vote and participate in the community, history plays a central role.

On the other hand, many people argue that science and technology deserve the highest priority because they directly shape the modern world. Practical inquiry teaches students to ask questions, test ideas, and solve problems step by step. These habits are valuable not only for engineers or doctors but also for ordinary life, where people often compare options and make decisions using evidence. For instance, a simple school experiment about clean water or a coding task in a robotics club can show how ideas become useful products. Thus, science and technology can prepare learners for jobs and daily challenges.

On balance, although history develops judgement and social awareness, science and technology match the urgent needs of many countries today. In summary, both subjects are essential, but I believe science and technology should usually be given slightly more time, while history remains a strong part of the curriculum.

Why this works (Step-by-step — ~18 sentences)
  1. The introduction paraphrases the task and signals a discuss-both-views structure.
  2. It also states a mild opinion early (“slightly favour”), which is acceptable for this question type.
  3. Body 1 clearly labels the history view in its first sentence.
  4. The paragraph explains a mechanism: history → civic understanding → better evaluation of policies.
  5. A micro-example (economic crises) keeps the argument classroom-relevant and plausible.
  6. The link-back sentence (“Therefore… central role”) ties the example to the claim.
  7. Body 2 mirrors the structure to keep balance and coherence.
  8. It defines inquiry skills (ask–test–solve), which are transferable beyond STEM jobs.
  9. The robotics/clean-water examples are concrete but concise.
  10. Topic sentences and link-backs help the examiner follow the logic.
  11. Lexis is clear and mostly accurate for Band 6 (e.g., “civic understanding,” “evidence”).
  12. Sentences vary in length but remain simple enough to avoid major errors.
  13. Cohesive devices are used but not overused (“on the other hand,” “therefore,” “thus”).
  14. The evaluation line in the conclusion answers “which should be prioritised.”
  15. No statistics or sweeping claims appear, reducing the risk of inaccuracy.
  16. Word count is safely above 260, meeting Task Response requirements.
  17. Register is formal and appropriate for an academic essay.
  18. Minor complexity is present, but grammar remains mostly straightforward, typical of Band 6.
Sample Answer — Band 7 (≈290–310 words)

There is a persistent debate over whether history or science and technology should be treated as the most important school subject. This essay will examine both positions before arguing that, while history is indispensable for civic literacy, science and technology deserve marginal precedence in contemporary curricula.

Advocates of history contend that it equips learners with perspective and judgement. When students analyse institutions, conflicts and reforms, they see how values and trade-offs shape public life. This habit of tracing causes and consequences enables young people to scrutinise current proposals instead of trusting slogans. A brief curricular example is the study of post-war social settlements: by comparing policy choices and outcomes, pupils learn to question whether today’s promises are realistic or merely attractive. In this sense, history is not nostalgia; it is training in critical evaluation.

By contrast, supporters of science and technology prioritise subjects that cultivate inquiry skills and practical problem-solving. Through experiments, modelling and coding, students form hypotheses, isolate variables and iterate towards solutions. These routines map directly onto economic needs, from clean-energy design to medical diagnostics and data-driven decision-making in everyday workplaces. A school robotics challenge, for instance, compresses the innovation pipeline: define a problem, test prototypes, reflect on feedback and deploy an improved design. Such experiences arguably prepare graduates for both employment and responsible use of technology.

On balance, although history underpins informed citizenship, the urgent demand for analytical, technical competence means that science and technology should typically receive slightly greater emphasis, particularly in the later years of schooling. Nevertheless, a healthy curriculum is not a zero-sum game: history must remain strong to anchor ethical judgement and public discourse.

Why this works (Step-by-step — ~20 sentences)
  1. The introduction paraphrases the question and previews a balanced judgement.
  2. Stance is specific: “marginal precedence” avoids absolutism.
  3. Body 1 opens with a clear topic sentence labelling the pro-history view.
  4. Abstract benefits (perspective, judgement) are linked to a mechanism (cause-and-effect analysis).
  5. The post-war settlements mini-example is concise and curriculum-plausible.
  6. Evaluation inside Body 1 (“not nostalgia… training”) shows mature control of tone.
  7. Body 2 mirrors the structure, aiding coherence and paragraph balance.
  8. Inquiry skills are enumerated (hypothesis, variables, iteration) for lexical precision.
  9. The robotics challenge compresses an “innovation pipeline,” a neat metaphor anchored in schooling.
  10. Economic relevance is stated without unverifiable statistics.
  11. Sentence variety (simple + complex) supports Band 7 grammar range.
  12. Cohesive devices are varied but not mechanical.
  13. Lexical resource shows precision (e.g., “iterate,” “diagnostics,” “discourse”).
  14. Each paragraph sticks to one controlling idea and ends with a link-back.
  15. The conclusion weighs both aims (citizenship vs technical demand) explicitly.
  16. It also introduces scope conditions (later years of schooling).
  17. Register is academic and objective; no emotional language.
  18. Word count sits within an ideal 280–310 window.
  19. Overall, the essay meets Task Response and Coherence/Cohesion well.
  20. Minor sophistication is present without sacrificing clarity.
Sample Answer — Band 8+ (≈310–330 words)

Whether history or science and technology deserves primacy in school timetables is less a question of sentiment than of what we expect education to achieve. This essay considers both perspectives and argues that science and technology should typically receive priority, provided that history remains robust enough to sustain democratic judgement.

Those who champion history claim it furnishes students with the intellectual tools required for citizenship. Investigating primary sources, contrasting interpretations and tracing precedents train learners to distrust easy narratives and to recognise trade-offs that underpin policy. When a class compares reforms after crises with contemporary proposals, for example, pupils practise evaluating claims against evidence rather than against mood. History thereby cultivates a civic imagination: the ability to picture alternative institutional arrangements and to foresee unintended consequences. In a media environment that rewards speed over scrutiny, such habits are essential.

Conversely, advocates of science and technology emphasise education’s obligation to develop transferable problem-solving. Experimental design teaches variable control and causal inference; coding nurtures abstraction and systems thinking; engineering tasks demand iteration under constraints. These routines map onto urgent collective projects—from decarbonisation to resilient healthcare—and onto everyday literacies such as interpreting data and assessing risk. A capstone project that prototypes a low-cost air-quality sensor, for instance, compresses the journey from hypothesis to deployable tool while revealing ethical questions about surveillance and equity. In short, STEM-rich curricula do not merely produce employees; they produce citizens capable of acting on evidence.

On balance, the near-term demands facing societies justify giving science and technology a modest edge, especially in upper-secondary years where specialisation intensifies. Nevertheless, a curriculum that sidelines history would undermine the very judgement that should guide technological power. The sensible settlement is a hierarchy with safeguards: STEM first in time allocation, history compulsory and examinable to secure the civic floor.

Why this works (Step-by-step — ~22 sentences)
  1. The opening frames the debate in terms of educational aims, a sophisticated move for Band 8.
  2. It commits to a conditional stance (“priority… provided that”), signalling nuance.
  3. Body 1 defines history’s mechanism: sources → interpretations → precedent → critical citizenship.
  4. The micro-example (reforms after crises) is realistic and policy-literate.
  5. “Civic imagination” is a precise, high-level lexical item deployed accurately.
  6. The paragraph also comments on the information ecosystem, widening relevance without drifting off-topic.
  7. Body 2 enumerates STEM sub-skills (causal inference, abstraction, systems thinking, iteration).
  8. It aligns them with macro challenges (decarbonisation, healthcare) and micro literacies (data, risk).
  9. The capstone project example compresses the full inquiry cycle and adds ethical reflection.
  10. Transitions are varied and logical; reference chains (“these routines,” “such habits”) are clear.
  11. Lexical resource is rich but controlled; collocations are natural.
  12. Complex sentences are balanced with shorter ones to maintain readability.
  13. Evaluation lines explicitly weigh aims (economic capacity vs democratic judgement).
  14. The conclusion proposes a concrete policy (“hierarchy with safeguards”), not a vague summary.
  15. Register is consistently academic and objective.
  16. No unverified data or clichés appear; claims are reasoned.
  17. Task Response is fully met: both views are discussed and a clear opinion is given.
  18. Coherence/Cohesion: mirrored structure and link-backs guide the reader.
  19. Lexical Resource: topic-specific vocabulary used flexibly and precisely.
  20. Grammar: wide range with high accuracy; punctuation supports clarity.
  21. Word count safely exceeds 260 and fits examiner expectations (≈310–330).
  22. Overall, this aligns with descriptors typical of Band 8 or higher.
🔶 Part 4 — Vocabulary

Key Vocabulary from the Task

Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, part(s) of speech, patterns, a clear definition, an example with a brief gloss, useful synonyms, and common learner mistakes.

1) curriculum — BrE /kəˈrɪkjʊləm/ · AmE /kəˈrɪkjələm/

Part(s): noun (countable/uncountable). Plural: curricula /kəˈrɪkjʊlə/ or curriculums.

Patterns: the curriculum; curriculum in/for [subject]; reform/shape/design the curriculum.

Definition: The full set of subjects, content, and learning goals taught in a school or programme.

Example: “Many parents want coding added to the national curriculum.” — (= added to the official list of what schools must teach)

Synonyms: course of study; programme of study.

Common mistakes: ❌ “a curriculum of maths” → say “the curriculum includes maths”; ❌ using only “curriculums” in formal writing (✔ “curricula” is widely used).

2) citizenship — BrE/AmE /ˈsɪtɪzənʃɪp/

Part(s): noun (uncountable).

Patterns: active/responsible citizenship; citizenship education; prepare learners for citizenship.

Definition: The knowledge, skills, and values needed to participate responsibly in public life.

Example: “Studying history can strengthen citizenship by showing how institutions evolved.” — (= helps students act wisely in society)

Synonyms: civic participation; public responsibility.

Common mistakes: ❌ “be good citizen” → “be a good citizen”; ❌ confusing citizen (person) with citizenship (status/skillset).

3) precedent — BrE/AmE /ˈpresɪdənt/

Part(s): noun (countable).

Patterns: set/create a precedent; a precedent for sth; historical/legal precedent.

Definition: A past action or decision that serves as a guide or example for similar situations later.

Example: “War-time rationing provides a historical precedent for today’s policy debates.” — (= an earlier case to compare with now)

Synonyms: prior example; earlier model; benchmark (contextual).

Common mistakes: ❌ “do a precedent” → “set a precedent”; ❌ confusing with “president”.

4) inquiry (enquiry) — BrE /ɪnˈkwaɪəri/ (also /ˈɪŋkwəri/) · AmE /ɪnˈkwaɪri/

Part(s): noun (countable/uncountable).

Patterns: scientific inquiry; an inquiry into sth; the inquiry-based approach.

Definition: Careful investigation to discover facts or develop understanding, often through questioning and testing.

Example: “Lab work trains students in scientific inquiry.” — (= a structured way of asking and testing questions)

Synonyms: investigation; research; probe.

Common mistakes: ❌ mixing spellings randomly in one essay; ❌ wrong preposition “inquiry about climate” → better “inquiry into climate”.

5) hypothesis — BrE /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/ · AmE /haɪˈpɑːθɪsɪs/ (pl. hypotheses /-siːz/)

Part(s): noun (countable).

Patterns: form/test a hypothesis; the hypothesis that …

Definition: A testable idea that explains a observation and can be confirmed or rejected by evidence.

Example: “The class tested the hypothesis that plants grow faster in natural light.” — (= an idea checked by experiment)

Synonyms: supposition; tentative explanation (not always = theory).

Common mistakes: ❌ plural *hypothesises* → ✔ hypotheses; ❌ using as a verb → ✔ “form a hypothesis”.

6) innovation — BrE/AmE /ˌɪnəˈveɪʃ(ə)n/

Part(s): noun (countable/uncountable).

Patterns: drive/foster innovation; innovation in [field]; technological innovation.

Definition: Creating and applying new ideas, methods, or products that improve results.

Example: “Project-based STEM can stimulate innovation among teenagers.” — (= encourage new, useful ideas)

Synonyms: novelty; advancement; breakthrough (contextual).

Common mistakes: ❌ “do innovation” → “promote/drive innovation”; ❌ confusing with mere ‘invention’ (innovation includes implementation).

7) evaluate — BrE/AmE /ɪˈvæljueɪt/

Part(s): verb (T).

Patterns: evaluate sth; evaluate sth against criteria; evaluate whether …

Definition: To judge the value, quality, or effectiveness of something using clear reasons or evidence.

Example: “History helps students evaluate current policies by comparing them with past outcomes.” — (= judge by evidence, not slogans)

Synonyms: assess; appraise; gauge.

Common mistakes: ❌ “evaluate about” → drop “about”; ❌ missing object: say “evaluate the policy”.

8) trade-off — BrE /ˈtreɪd ɒf/ · AmE /ˈtreɪd ɔːf/

Part(s): noun (countable).

Patterns: a trade-off between A and B; make/accept a trade-off; cost–benefit trade-offs.

Definition: A situation where gaining more of one thing means getting less of another.

Example: “Giving more time to STEM may require a trade-off with arts hours.” — (= a balance where one increases and the other decreases)

Synonyms: compromise; balancing act.

Common mistakes: ❌ missing hyphen “trade off” (verb) vs “trade-off” (noun); ❌ wrong preposition: use “between A and B”.

9) iteration — BrE/AmE /ˌɪtəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/

Part(s): noun (countable/uncountable). Related: iterative (adj.), iterate (v.).

Patterns: through iteration; an iterative process; the next iteration of a design.

Definition: Repeating a process to improve a solution step by step.

Example: “Robotics projects rely on iteration: test, get feedback, and refine the design.” — (= repeat cycles to improve)

Synonyms: refinement cycle; repetition; revision loop (contextual).

Common mistakes: ❌ using it as a verb (“to iteration”) → ✔ “to iterate”; ❌ spelling *itteration*.

10) empirical — BrE /ɪmˈpɪrɪkəl/ · AmE /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/

Part(s): adjective.

Patterns: empirical evidence/data/research; an empirical study; empirically test.

Definition: Based on observation or experiment rather than theory or opinion.

Example: “Science classes teach students to collect empirical data before drawing conclusions.” — (= facts measured in the real world)

Synonyms: evidence-based; data-driven; fact-based.

Common mistakes: ❌ confusing with “imperial”; ❌ using with people (“an empirical person”) → use with evidence/research.

🔶 Part 5 — Phrases / Expressions

Key Phrases & Expressions from the Task

Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, part(s) of speech, patterns, a precise definition, a model sentence with a short gloss, useful synonyms, and common learner mistakes.

1) to a large extent — BrE /tə ə lɑːdʒ ɪkˈstent/ · AmE /tə ə lɑrdʒ ɪkˈstɛnt/

Part(s): adverbial phrase (sentence/VP modifier).

Patterns: to a/an [large/great/some] extent; to a limited extent.

Definition: In many or most ways; more true than not.

Example: “To a large extent, students’ future needs justify extra time for science.” — (= mostly/for the most part)

Synonyms: largely; for the most part; in great measure.

Common mistakes: ❌ “in a large extent” → ✔ “to a large extent”; ❌ doubling: “to a very large great extent”.

2) on balance — BrE /ɒn ˈbæləns/ · AmE /ɑn ˈbæləns/

Part(s): sentence adverb(ial).

Patterns: On balance, + clause; mid-position: “The policy is, on balance, effective.”

Definition: After considering advantages and disadvantages.

Example: “On balance, history remains vital, but STEM merits slightly more time.” — (= overall judgement)

Synonyms: all things considered; overall; in the end.

Common mistakes: ❌ “on the balance”; ❌ using it to start new ideas without weighing anything.

3) it is often argued that … — BrE /ɪt ɪz ˈɒfn ˈɑːɡjuːd ðæt/ · AmE /ɪt ɪz ˈɔfən ˈɑrɡjud ðæt/

Part(s): reporting phrase (impersonal passive).

Patterns: It is [often/widely/commonly] argued that + clause.

Definition: Introduces a view without naming a specific person.

Example: “It is often argued that science drives innovation and employment.” — (= many people claim)

Synonyms: it is frequently claimed that; many contend that.

Common mistakes: ❌ “it argues that” (missing subject); ❌ mixing tenses: “it is argued science drives/ drove” → keep consistent.

4) advocates of X contend that … — BrE /ˈædvəkəts əv ɛks kənˈtend ðæt/ · AmE /ˈædvəkɪts əv ɛks kənˈtɛnd ðæt/

Part(s): reporting frame (NP + verb phrase).

Patterns: Advocates/proponents of [history/STEM] contend/maintain that + clause.

Definition: States a group’s position in formal style.

Example: “Advocates of history contend that civic literacy depends on understanding precedent.” — (= supporters claim)

Synonyms: supporters maintain that; proponents argue that.

Common mistakes: ❌ “advocate of… are” → agreement: “advocates … are”.

5) by contrast — BrE /baɪ ˈkɒntrɑːst/ · AmE /baɪ ˈkɑntræst/

Part(s): discourse marker.

Patterns: Sentence-initial: By contrast, + clause; mid-position with commas.

Definition: Introduces an opposing or different idea.

Example: “By contrast, STEM emphasises empirical testing and design cycles.” — (= in comparison, differently)

Synonyms: in contrast; conversely; on the other hand.

Common mistakes: ❌ confusing “in contrast with” (preposition) and “by contrast” (marker); ❌ missing comma after the phrase.

6) this approach fosters … — BrE /ðɪs əˈprəʊtʃ ˈfɒstəz/ · AmE /ðɪs əˈproʊtʃ ˈfɔstərz/

Part(s): reporting/cause phrase (verb + object).

Patterns: This approach fosters + abstract noun (skills/attitudes/results); to foster + NP.

Definition: States that a method encourages or develops a result.

Example: “Project work in science classes fosters problem-solving and resilience.” — (= helps these grow)

Synonyms: promotes; nurtures; cultivates.

Common mistakes: ❌ “foster to” + verb; use noun object: “fosters creativity”.

7) a compelling case for … — BrE /ə kəmˈpelɪŋ keɪs fɔː/ · AmE /ə kəmˈpɛlɪŋ keɪs fɔr/

Part(s): noun phrase.

Patterns: a compelling/strong case for + noun/-ing; make a compelling case for …

Definition: Very persuasive reason or set of reasons supporting something.

Example: “Employment data makes a compelling case for prioritising technology.” — (= strong justification)

Synonyms: powerful argument for; strong rationale for.

Common mistakes: ❌ “case of doing something” → ✔ “case for doing”.

8) is not a zero-sum game — BrE /ɪz nɒt ə ˌzɪərəʊ ˈsʌm ɡeɪm/ · AmE /ɪz nɑt ə ˌzɪroʊ ˈsʌm ɡeɪm/

Part(s): predicate expression (clausal complement).

Patterns: X is (not) a zero-sum game; treat A and B as a zero-sum game.

Definition: A situation where one side’s gain does not have to be another’s loss.

Example: “Curriculum design is not a zero-sum game; both history and STEM can be strong.” — (= wins can coexist)

Synonyms: mutually beneficial; positive-sum; win–win.

Common mistakes: ❌ hyphen errors (“zerosum”); ❌ using it for single choices where trade-offs are unavoidable.

9) weigh the merits of … — BrE /weɪ ðə ˈmerɪts əv/ · AmE /weɪ ðə ˈmɛrɪts əv/

Part(s): verb phrase (transitive).

Patterns: weigh the merits/demerits of + noun/-ing; weigh A against B.

Definition: Compare advantages and disadvantages carefully.

Example: “Schools should weigh the merits of extra lab hours against reduced humanities time.” — (= compare pros and cons)

Synonyms: evaluate; assess; consider the pros and cons.

Common mistakes: ❌ “weight the merits” (spelling); ❌ missing object after “weigh”.

10) allocate more time to … — BrE /ˈæləkeɪt mɔː taɪm tuː/ · AmE /ˈæləˌkeɪt mɔr taɪm tu/

Part(s): verb phrase (transitive).

Patterns: allocate (more/less) time/resources to + noun/-ing; allocate sth across areas.

Definition: Decide officially to give time or resources to a purpose.

Example: “Policymakers may allocate more time to coding in the final year.” — (= officially give/assign)

Synonyms: devote; assign; apportion.

Common mistakes: ❌ “allocate time for do” → ✔ “allocate time to doing”; ❌ using “for” when pattern requires “to”.