🔶 Part 1 — Tutorial

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

Read the prompt carefully and underline the instruction (“Discuss both views and give your opinion”) and the focus (“sports stars’ salaries”). Identify the two perspectives precisely: View A claims high pay is deserved; View B claims athletes are overpaid. Clarify what “deserve” could mean in context: market value, revenue generated, scarce elite skill, short career spans, injury risk, and intense training/discipline. Clarify what “overpaid” could mean: disproportion compared with essential professions, distorted social priorities, inflated endorsement culture, and widening income inequality. Make sure you will explain each side fairly before you judge; this is a discussion essay with an opinion, not a one-sided argument. Generate two strong, distinct reasons per side and attach a mechanism to each (reason → how it works → outcome), plus a compact micro-example. Decide where to place your opinion: show it in the introduction (clear thesis immediately) or reserve it for the conclusion (neutral opening then decisive end). Set a time plan: ~8–9 minutes planning, 25–28 writing, 3–4 checking cohesion and language accuracy. Note target length 270–310 words so you can fully develop ideas without padding. Finally, avoid moralising or statistics you cannot support; keep claims reasonable and anchored in logic.

Example Box — Decoding the Prompt (Sports Salaries)

Prompt: “Some believe sports stars deserve high salaries; others think they are overpaid. Discuss both views and give your opinion.”
Focus: Explain why high salaries may be justified and why they may be excessive; then state your view.
Angles (justify): Market demand, broadcast revenue, global audiences, short peak years, injury risk.
Angles (overpaid): Gap vs teachers/nurses, role-model responsibility, ticket affordability, elitism.
Pitfall: Listing many points without explaining mechanisms; aim for depth and balance.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a four- or five-paragraph layout for clarity and control. In the introduction, paraphrase the statement without copying; then either preview both sides neutrally or signal a measured stance (e.g., “largely justified, with caveats”). In Body 1, present the “deserve high salaries” view with a labelled topic sentence, two developed reasons, and a micro-example: for instance, elite athletes help generate enormous broadcast and sponsorship revenue, so clubs pay high wages to attract rare talent, which in turn drives ticket sales and global branding. In Body 2, present the “overpaid” view in parallel structure: show how salaries dwarf essential-service pay, risk pricing fans out of stadiums, or skew youth priorities; then give a concise example such as a club raising ticket prices after marquee signings. Add a short evaluation sentence that weighs the trade-offs or proposes conditions (salary caps, revenue-sharing, grassroots funding). In the conclusion, answer the question directly and synthesise why your chosen position makes best sense under specified conditions (market logic vs social impact). Keep paragraphs unified around one controlling idea, use consistent reference (“these contracts,” “such revenues”), and avoid repeating the same evidence in both sides.

Example Box — Skeleton Plan (Sports Salaries)

Intro: Paraphrase + neutral outline or qualified opinion.
Body 1 (Deserve): Market demand + scarce talent/short careers → micro-example (broadcast deals/star signings).
Body 2 (Overpaid): Social priorities + fan affordability → micro-example (price rises/inequality concerns).
Evaluation/Conclusion: Weigh value creation against social impact; state opinion and conditions.

Step 3 — Write balanced, high-impact paragraphs

Start each body paragraph with a view-labelled topic sentence so the examiner instantly sees control (e.g., “Supporters argue high salaries reflect value created by elite performance”). Develop each reason with a clear mechanism (“global broadcast rights channel billions into leagues, so clubs compete for scarce top performers, which inflates wages”). Use compact, plausible micro-examples that do not require statistics (“after a star transfer, shirt sales and sponsorships surge internationally”). Include an evaluation line that acknowledges limits (“however, market value does not automatically align with social value, especially when public access declines”). Keep tone even when presenting both sides; save persuasive language for your judgement. Vary sentence length and pattern (one concise claim followed by one complex explanation) to improve coherence and rhythm. Use precise nouns and collocations (e.g., wage bill, revenue stream, salary cap, grassroots investment) rather than vague phrases. Avoid straw-man arguments; represent the opposing side fairly before you disagree. End each paragraph by linking the analysis back to who benefits or loses (fans, youth athletes, local communities). Maintain logical connectors that show contrast and outcome without overusing formulaic signposting.

Example Box — High-impact Sentences

Balanced thesis: “While elite athletes command high wages because they help create enormous revenue, unchecked pay can undermine access and priorities; therefore, remuneration is justified within sensible limits.”
Body 1 topic: “Supporters contend that exceptional skill and short career windows justify premium salaries in a fiercely competitive market.”
Mechanism line: “When global audiences grow, broadcast fees rise, and clubs bid up wages to secure rare talent that sustains demand.”
Body 2 topic: “Critics counter that athlete pay has outpaced social value, widening income gaps and pricing ordinary fans out.”
Evaluation line: “Ultimately, value creation does not exempt the industry from responsibilities to supporters and communities.”
Conclusion line: “On balance, high salaries can be warranted if leagues protect affordability and invest in the grassroots.”

Step 4 — Language, cohesion, and accuracy

Use precise topic lexis (wage bill, endorsements, broadcasting rights, market equilibrium, externalities, youth development) and vary evaluation devices (on the one hand… on the other hand, nevertheless, to a large extent, ultimately). Keep cohesion with reference chains (“these contracts,” “such fees,” “this imbalance”) and avoid over-signposting. Maintain paragraph unity: one controlling idea per body paragraph with a reason → mechanism → example → mini-evaluation chain. Ensure accuracy with articles, prepositions (invest in development; cap salaries at a level), and subject–verb agreement. Prefer measured claims over absolute ones (“may,” “tend to,” “can”). Target ~280–310 words to allow fully developed analysis without repetition. Proofread for punctuation in complex sentences (especially commas with non-finite clauses) and avoid informal idioms. Finally, check that your opinion is consistent wherever it appears, and that your conclusion synthesises rather than merely repeats earlier sentences.

Example Box — Quick Quality Checks

Balance: Are both sides explained fairly before you judge?
Development: Does each reason include a mechanism and a micro-example?
Lexis: Are collocations precise (e.g., “salary cap,” “revenue sharing,” “ticket affordability”)?
Cohesion: Do contrast and evaluation linkers feel natural, not repetitive?
Task: Is your opinion explicit and consistent from intro to conclusion?

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

Adapt to the sports salaries prompt. Replace […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise and specific.

Sentence-by-Sentence Scaffold (Sports Salaries)

Intro S1 (Paraphrase): People disagree about whether professional athletes deserve very high salaries or are overpaid.

Intro S2 (Outline/Thesis): This essay discusses both views, and I [largely/partly] support […], provided that […].

Body 1 S3 (Deserve — topic): Many argue these wages reflect value created by […].

Body 1 S4 (Explain): Because [… mechanism …], clubs and sponsors are willing to pay more to secure […].

Body 1 S5 (Micro-example): For example, after [… star/event …], [… revenue/attendance/merchandise …] rises.

Body 1 S6 (Link back): Therefore, high salaries seem reasonable to those who prioritise […].

Body 2 S7 (Overpaid — topic): By contrast, critics claim the current pay levels are excessive because […].

Body 2 S8 (Explain): When [… mechanism …], the gap with essential professions widens and [… outcome …].

Body 2 S9 (Micro-example): For instance, [… ticket prices/policy debate …] illustrates this concern.

Body 2 S10 (Link back): Thus, some believe salaries should be limited or tied to […].

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

Conclusion S12 (Restate opinion): In summary, athlete pay can be justified when […], but becomes problematic if […].

Conclusion S13 (Synthesis): Sensible policies such as [… revenue-sharing/salary caps/grassroots funding …] help align market value with social value.

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples (Sports Salaries)

Paraphrase Options

P1: There is ongoing debate about whether the immense wages of professional athletes are warranted or excessive.
P2: Opinions differ on if sports stars truly merit their pay packets or if their earnings are unjustifiably high.

Thesis/Opinion Options

Neutral outline: This essay examines both positions before presenting my view.
Pro-market (qualified): While disparities are striking, high salaries are broadly justified by value creation, provided leagues protect affordability and invest in youth sport.
Reform-leaning: Although market demand explains high pay, current levels are hard to defend without caps and revenue-sharing to support communities.

🔶 Part 2 — Task
40:00

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Public Funding: Arts vs Essential Services

Question: Some people argue that public money should be spent on healthcare and education rather than on the arts (music, theatre, and visual arts). Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Instructions: Write at least 250 words. Time recommended: ~40 minutes.

Countdown Timer
40:00
Write Your Essay Here
Submit for Feedback
Automatic Message (will be sent)

By submitting, you agree to share your details for feedback purposes. Choose WhatsApp (+1 559 462 0638) or Email (Lingexam.com@gmail.com).

Another New [Writing Task 2] Question

Question: Many people believe universities should prioritise practical, job-oriented courses, while others argue that theoretical subjects are equally important. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

🔶 Part 3 — Sample Answers

Sample Answer — Band 6

There is an ongoing debate about whether governments should spend most public money on essential services like health and education, or whether the arts also deserve significant funding. While some people say hospitals and schools should come first, others believe music, theatre and visual art are vital for a healthy society. This essay will discuss both sides before giving my view.

On the one hand, it is understandable that taxpayers want the largest share of the budget to go to core services. If hospitals are underfunded, waiting lists grow and people’s lives can be put at risk. Similarly, when education lacks money, class sizes increase and students receive less attention, which can reduce opportunities for the next generation. In addition, spending on these services often brings clear, measurable results, such as lower mortality or higher literacy. For these reasons, many citizens feel that every extra dollar should go to doctors, nurses and teachers, especially in times of crisis.

On the other hand, supporters of the arts argue that culture is not a luxury but a public good. Concerts, museums and community theatre can bring people together, improve mental health and attract tourism. They also help children develop creativity and empathy, which are useful in all subjects. For example, local festivals can revive a town centre and support small businesses. If art is only left to private sponsors, many communities will have no access, and national heritage may be lost over time. Therefore, some public funding is necessary to keep culture alive and open to everyone.

In my opinion, essential services should receive the majority of resources, yet a protected portion of the budget should be reserved for the arts. A balanced policy—such as guaranteeing core funding for health and education while maintaining modest cultural grants—can protect lives and also enrich them.

Why this could score Band 6 (Step-by-step)

1) The introduction paraphrases the question and promises to discuss both views, which satisfies the task type.

2) A clear but simple thesis appears in the final sentence, indicating a balanced opinion.

3) Paragraphing follows a logical two-sides structure (Body 1 = essential services; Body 2 = arts).

4) Topic sentences are present but basic, which supports coherence at a functional level.

5) Ideas are relevant: waiting lists, class size, measurable outcomes, community benefits and tourism.

6) Development is adequate but not deep; mechanisms are stated briefly without detailed evidence.

7) Examples are generic (festivals, town centres) rather than specific, limiting persuasive force.

8) Cohesive devices are used (on the one hand, on the other hand, similarly, for example) with occasional repetition.

9) Reference chains (“these services”, “the arts”) are present but sometimes vague.

10) The conclusion restates a balanced stance with a simple policy suggestion, creating unity.

11) Lexical range is serviceable (mortality, literacy, empathy) but not consistently precise or sophisticated.

12) Some collocations are appropriate (public good, class sizes, cultural grants), yet others remain general.

13) Grammar shows a mix of simple and compound sentences; complex structures are limited.

14) Errors are minimal but the style is cautious and occasionally repetitive.

15) The essay exceeds 260 words, giving room for both views and an opinion.

16) Overall, it addresses all parts of the question with adequate coherence and vocabulary, typical of Band 6.

Sample Answer — Band 7

Whether public money should be channelled primarily into healthcare and education rather than the arts divides opinion. Advocates of core services prioritisation argue that limited budgets must secure basic welfare, whereas others contend that cultural life also merits investment because it strengthens communities and the economy. This essay will examine both positions before arguing for a weighted but guaranteed settlement for culture.

Those favouring essential services point out that government has a duty to protect life chances first. Health systems that lack staff and equipment quickly face longer waiting times and poorer outcomes. Schools with overstretched budgets typically reduce support staff and enrichment activities, which disproportionately harms disadvantaged learners. Moreover, spending in these areas yields clearly measurable returns: lower mortality, higher graduation rates and a more productive workforce. Given finite resources—especially during demographic pressures—prioritising hospitals and classrooms appears both ethical and efficient.

However, the case for the arts is not merely sentimental. Cultural institutions generate jobs, attract visitors and animate public spaces. At the individual level, access to concerts, galleries and community projects can alleviate loneliness and improve mental health, reducing pressure on clinics. Importantly, cultural participation fosters skills—creativity, collaboration, empathy—that employers increasingly value. If art is left entirely to the market, provision clusters in wealthier areas and national heritage withers elsewhere. Sensible grants can therefore ensure geographical access and nurture emerging talent.

In my view, the state should fund health and education as a clear priority but ring-fence a modest percentage for culture nationwide. This balanced approach recognises that while saving lives and expanding opportunity come first, a society without publicly accessible art is poorer in ways that ultimately spill back into wellbeing and growth.

Why this could score Band 7 (Step-by-step)

1) The introduction concisely frames both sides and states a clear, qualified thesis.

2) Body 1 develops the “prioritise essentials” view with mechanism chains (underfunding → waiting times → outcomes).

3) It also links education budgets to equity, showing awareness of distributional effects.

4) Measurable returns are named (mortality, graduation, productivity), strengthening task response.

5) Body 2 rebuts “arts as luxury” by presenting economic, social and personal benefits.

6) The argument includes mental-health spillovers, which logically connect culture to healthcare burdens.

7) The paragraph uses cause–effect cohesion (“If… then… therefore”), improving coherence.

8) Evaluation is balanced: arts funding is justified to correct market/geographic failure.

9) The conclusion synthesises rather than repeats, proposing a ring-fenced percentage.

10) Lexical resource is varied and topic-appropriate (ring-fence, cluster, heritage, demographic pressures).

11) Collocations are precise (life chances, overstretched budgets, emerging talent).

12) Grammatical range includes complex sentences with accurate subordination.

13) Errors, if any, are minor and do not impede communication.

14) Logical progression is clear within and across paragraphs via signposting adverbs and reference chains.

15) Tone is formal and objective, suitable for an academic discussion essay.

16) The essay length (~290–320 words) allows sufficient development without padding.

17) Overall, meets Band 7 descriptors: clear position, well-developed ideas, good cohesion, flexible vocabulary and generally accurate grammar.

Sample Answer — Band 8+

Public budgets are inevitably contests over priorities. While few would dispute that healthcare and schooling deserve the lion’s share, some insist that culture should not be relegated to philanthropy alone. In my view, the state ought to fund the arts reliably but proportionately, because cultural access both civilises daily life and indirectly sustains the very services that voters rank first.

The case for directing funds to essential services is compelling. Health systems are capacity-constrained: when staffing and equipment fall behind demand, waiting lists lengthen, conditions worsen and costs rise later through preventable complications. Education exhibits similar dynamics. Under-resourced schools narrow their curriculum, cut enrichment and lose experienced teachers, entrenching disadvantage that is expensive to remedy in adulthood. Given finite revenue and ageing populations, spending on hospitals and classrooms produces the greatest near-term welfare and the clearest metrics by which governments can be held to account.

Yet the “arts as luxury” narrative overlooks both externalities and equity. Cultural institutions form the social infrastructure of a place in much the same way libraries and parks do. Participation in choirs, youth theatre or museum programmes measurably reduces isolation, builds confidence and sparks curiosity—benefits that spill over into mental health and learning. Economically, the arts anchor night-time economies and magnetise visitors; culturally, they preserve shared memory and give minority voices platforms that markets alone often ignore. If provision is left solely to private taste, it clusters in affluent districts and leaves peripheral communities culturally undernourished. Modest, stable grants tied to outreach and education therefore convert public money into wider access and future audiences.

A prudent settlement follows: fund health and education as first-order goods, but ring-fence a small, predictable share for culture, allocated transparently and evaluated on participation and outreach. This recognises that while doctors and teachers secure our prospects, artists help explain why those prospects matter.

Why this could score Band 8+ (Step-by-step)

1) The introduction offers a concise, nuanced thesis linking culture to the sustainability of essentials.

2) It avoids formulaic phrasing while signalling a clear position from the outset.

3) Body 1 builds the “essentials first” case with causal chains and sector-specific mechanisms.

4) The analysis names concrete consequences (preventable complications, curriculum narrowing, retention loss).

5) It foregrounds accountability and metrics, which strengthens the policy logic.

6) Body 2 reframes the arts as social infrastructure, elevating the debate beyond entertainment.

7) Externalities (isolation reduction, mental-health spillovers) are explicitly connected to public objectives.

8) The paragraph addresses market failure (geographic clustering) and equity (peripheral communities).

9) The argument integrates cultural, economic and civic rationales without digression.

10) Lexis is precise and varied (capacity-constrained, externalities, night-time economies, ring-fence).

11) Collocations show expert control (ageing populations, shared memory, predictable share).

12) Cohesion relies on logical relationships rather than overused linkers; reference chains are tight.

13) Sentence forms vary (non-finite clauses, apposition, parallelism) with accurate punctuation.

14) The conclusion synthesises principles into a policy that specifies allocation and evaluation.

15) Tone is authoritative yet balanced, acknowledging trade-offs while defending a stance.

16) Ideas are fully extended with mechanisms and implications, not just listed.

17) The essay length supports depth (~300+ words) without redundancy.

18) Overall, it meets Band 8/9 features: fully developed response, seamless cohesion, wide and natural vocabulary, and high grammatical control.

🔶 Part 4 — Vocabulary

10 Key Words from the Task

Each item below includes BrE/AmE IPA, parts of speech, common patterns, a clear definition, a model sentence with a quick gloss, helpful synonyms, and top learner pitfalls. Use these collocations in your essay for precise, academic tone.

allocate — BrE /ˈæləkeɪt/ · AmE /ˈæləˌkeɪt/

Part(s) of speech: verb (T)

Patterns: allocate funds/resources/time to X; allocate X for Y; be allocated to X

Definition: to officially give or set aside an amount of money, time, or resources for a particular purpose.

Example: The city council allocated additional funds to community clinics. (= set aside money for clinics)

Synonyms: assign, apportion, earmark

Common mistakes: • ❌ “allocate for to” → ✅ “allocate to”; • Confusing with “locate”; • Using without an object (“*allocate* yesterday”)—always state what is allocated.

prioritise (BrE) /praɪˈɒrɪtaɪz/ · prioritize (AmE) /praɪˈɔːrətaɪz/

Part(s) of speech: verb (T/I)

Patterns: prioritise X over Y; prioritise spending on X; decide what to prioritise

Definition: to decide that one thing is more important than another and deal with it first.

Example: Many argue governments should prioritise healthcare over the arts. (= treat health as the first priority)

Synonyms: give precedence to, rank first, foreground

Common mistakes: • Missing the preposition “over”; • Using the noun “priority” as a verb (“*to priority*”)—use “prioritise”; • Spelling mix-ups between BrE/AmE forms.

subsidy — BrE /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ · AmE /ˈsʌbsədi/

Part(s) of speech: noun (C)

Patterns: a subsidy for X; government/public subsidy; provide/grant/cut subsidies

Definition: money that a government gives to reduce the cost of producing or accessing something.

Example: Cultural venues may need a small subsidy to keep ticket prices affordable. (= public money lowers costs)

Synonyms: grant, support, financial aid

Common mistakes: • Confusing with “salary”; • Using plural without article (“*give subsidy*”)—say “give a subsidy” or “give subsidies”.

affordability — BrE /əˌfɔːdəˈbɪləti/ · AmE /əˌfɔːrdəˈbɪləti/

Part(s) of speech: noun (U)

Patterns: the affordability of X; improve/undermine affordability; ensure affordability for low-income groups

Definition: how easy it is for people to pay for something without financial strain.

Example: Funding museums protects the affordability of cultural access. (= keeps prices within reach)

Synonyms: price accessibility, cost-effectiveness (contextual)

Common mistakes: • Using as adjective (“*affordability tickets*”)—use “affordable tickets”; • Missing “of” after the noun.

equity — BrE /ˈekwɪti/ · AmE /ˈɛkwɪti/

Part(s) of speech: noun (U)

Patterns: equity in access/outcomes; promote/advance equity; equity between groups

Definition: fairness in the way people are treated, especially by ensuring everyone can access services.

Example: Cultural grants can improve equity in rural areas. (= fair access outside big cities)

Synonyms: fairness, justice, equal access

Common mistakes: • Confusing with “equality” (same treatment) vs “equity” (fair outcomes); • Using with a/an (“*an equity*”) when you mean the general idea—use uncountable.

outreach — BrE /ˈaʊtriːtʃ/ · AmE /ˈaʊtˌriːtʃ/

Part(s) of speech: noun (U/C)

Patterns: outreach to communities/schools; run/expand outreach programmes; cultural/educational outreach

Definition: activities designed to bring services or opportunities to people who might not otherwise access them.

Example: Galleries with strong outreach to schools widen participation. (= they actively include new audiences)

Synonyms: community engagement, public programmes

Common mistakes: • Using as a verb (“*to outreach people*”)—prefer “to reach out to people” or “to run outreach”;

heritage — BrE /ˈhɛrɪtɪdʒ/ · AmE /ˈhɛrɪtɪdʒ/

Part(s) of speech: noun (U/C)

Patterns: cultural/national heritage; protect/preserve heritage; heritage sites/collections

Definition: the traditions, art, and historical objects that are an important part of a nation’s culture.

Example: Public funding helps museums preserve heritage for future generations. (= keep national culture safe)

Synonyms: patrimony, legacy, tradition

Common mistakes: • Saying “*an heritages*” (countability issues)—use “heritage” (U) or “heritage site” (C); • Using for private property meaning “inheritance”—that’s a different sense.

ring-fence (verb) — BrE /ˈrɪŋ ˌfɛns/ · AmE /ˈrɪŋ ˌfɛns/

Part(s) of speech: verb (T)

Patterns: ring-fence a percentage/budget for X; be ring-fenced for Y

Definition: to protect a specific amount of money so it can only be used for a particular purpose.

Example: A small share of revenue should be ring-fenced for youth arts. (= protected and cannot be diverted)

Synonyms: earmark, set aside, protect

Common mistakes: • Hyphen omission (“*ring fence*” is acceptable but keep consistent); • Using without stating the purpose.

provision — BrE /prəˈvɪʒən/ · AmE /prəˈvɪʒən/

Part(s) of speech: noun (U/C)

Patterns: provision of services/funding; ensure/expand provision; public provision

Definition: the act of supplying or making something available.

Example: Public provision of basic healthcare remains a core duty. (= government supplies health services)

Synonyms: supply, delivery, offering

Common mistakes: • Confusing with “provisions” (food/supplies clause meaning); • Using a wrong preposition—prefer “provision of”.

externality — BrE /ˌɛkstəˈnælɪti/ · AmE /ˌɛkstərˈnæləti/

Part(s) of speech: noun (C)

Patterns: positive/negative externalities; externalities of X; account for externalities

Definition: a side effect of an activity that affects others but is not directly priced in the market.

Example: Arts funding has positive externalities for mental health and local business. (= wider benefits beyond ticket buyers)

Synonyms: spillover effect, side effect (economic context)

Common mistakes: • Treating as uncountable (“*much externality*”)—use plural for multiple effects; • Using outside economics without explaining the idea.

🔶 Part 5 — Phrases & Expressions

10 Useful Phrases/Expressions from the Task

Use the expressions below to build a precise, academic tone when discussing how governments should allocate public funds between essential services and the arts. Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, parts of speech, patterns, definition, a model sentence with a quick gloss, synonyms, and common learner mistakes.

on balance — BrE /ɒn ˈbæl.əns/ · AmE /ɑːn ˈbæl.əns/

Part(s) of speech: fixed adverbial phrase

Patterns: On balance, + clause; clause + , on balance,

Definition: after weighing the evidence overall; considering all the pros and cons together.

Example: On balance, essential services should receive the largest share of the budget. (= overall judgement after weighing both sides)

Synonyms: all things considered; overall; in the end

Common mistakes: • Writing “on the balance” ✖; • Placing it where it breaks the clause flow; keep it initial or parenthetical.

value for money — BrE /ˈvæljuː fə ˈmʌni/ · AmE /ˈvæljuː fər ˈmʌni/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (U)

Patterns: offer/deliver value for money; assess/ensure value for money

Definition: the degree to which something is worth what it costs.

Example: Healthcare spending often delivers strong value for money through measurable outcomes. (= good results relative to cost)

Synonyms: cost-effectiveness; efficiency; return for the cost

Common mistakes: • Adding an article (“*a value for money*”) ✖; treat it as a set phrase; • Confusing with “cheapness”.

the public purse — BrE /ðə ˌpʌblɪk ˈpɜːs/ · AmE /ðə ˌpʌblɪk ˈpɝːs/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (singular, with article)

Patterns: draw on/strain/protect the public purse; a burden on the public purse

Definition: government money that comes from taxpayers.

Example: Expensive projects should demonstrate clear benefits before drawing on the public purse. (= using taxpayer money)

Synonyms: public funds; taxpayers’ money; state budget

Common mistakes: • Omitting the article (“*public purse*”) when used as the fixed idiom; • Using plural (“*public purses*”) ✖.

ring-fence funding (for) — BrE /ˈrɪŋ ˌfens ˈfʌndɪŋ/ · AmE /ˈrɪŋ ˌfens ˈfʌndɪŋ/

Part(s) of speech: verb phrase

Patterns: ring-fence X for Y; X is ring-fenced for Y

Definition: to protect a set amount of money so it can only be used for a specified purpose.

Example: Governments could ring-fence funding for regional arts programmes to guarantee access. (= protect money exclusively for arts)

Synonyms: earmark; set aside; protect

Common mistakes: • Forgetting “for” after the object; • Inconsistent hyphen (“ring fence” vs “ring-fence”)—stay consistent.

crowd out — BrE/AmE /kraʊd aʊt/

Part(s) of speech: phrasal verb (T)

Patterns: crowd out X; be crowded out by Y

Definition: to reduce the availability or space for something by taking its place or resources.

Example: Excessive defence spending may crowd out investment in schools and hospitals. (= push other spending aside)

Synonyms: displace; squeeze out; push aside

Common mistakes: • Using it intransitively (“*spending crowds out*” without an object); • Using “from” instead of “by” in passive forms.

trade-off (between A and B) — BrE /ˈtreɪd ˌɒf/ · AmE /ˈtreɪd ˌɔːf/

Part(s) of speech: noun (C)

Patterns: a trade-off between A and B; make/accept a trade-off

Definition: a situation where gaining one benefit requires giving up another.

Example: Policymakers face a trade-off between short-term savings and long-term cultural access. (= choosing one limits the other)

Synonyms: compromise; balance; exchange

Common mistakes: • Missing the hyphen; • Using plural without article (“*trade-offs exist*” ✓ but “*have trade-off*” ✖).

access for all — BrE /ˈækses fə ˈɔːl/ · AmE /ˈækˌsɛs fər ˈɔːl/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (set expression)

Patterns: ensure/promote access for all to X; barriers to access for all

Definition: the principle that everyone, regardless of income or location, can use a service.

Example: Modest arts grants help ensure access for all to cultural events. (= everyone can attend)

Synonyms: universal access; open access; equitable access

Common mistakes: • Using “for” twice (“*access for all for museums*”)—use “to”; • Treating it as a verb (“*to access-for-all*”).

measurable outcomes — BrE /ˈmɛʒ(ə)rəb(ə)l ˈaʊtkʌmz/ · AmE /ˈmɛʒərəbəl ˈaʊtˌkʌmz/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (plural)

Patterns: deliver/track measurable outcomes; focus on measurable outcomes in X

Definition: results that can be quantified or clearly demonstrated with data.

Example: Health budgets often target measurable outcomes such as reduced waiting times. (= results shown in numbers)

Synonyms: quantifiable results; demonstrable impacts; metrics

Common mistakes: • Using singular without article (“*measurable outcome*” needs “a”); • Confusing “measurable” with “substantial”.

social return (on investment) — BrE /ˈsəʊʃəl rɪˈtɜːn (ɒn ɪnˈvɛstmənt)/ · AmE /ˈsoʊʃəl rɪˈtɝːn (ɑːn ɪnˈvɛstmənt)/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (U/C)

Patterns: generate/deliver social return; evaluate the social return on X

Definition: wider benefits to society from spending, beyond direct financial profit.

Example: Arts outreach can deliver a strong social return by reducing isolation. (= broad societal benefits)

Synonyms: societal benefit; public value; spillover gains

Common mistakes: • Treating it only as money profit; • Leaving out “on” in “return on investment”.

life chances — BrE /laɪf ˈtʃɑːnsɪz/ · AmE /laɪf ˈtʃænsɪz/

Part(s) of speech: plural noun phrase

Patterns: improve/widen/narrow life chances for X; invest in life-chances initiatives

Definition: the opportunities people have to succeed in life (education, health, work).

Example: Investing in early education significantly improves children’s life chances. (= long-term opportunities)

Synonyms: future prospects; opportunities; life prospects

Common mistakes: • Using singular (“*a life chance*”) in this sense—prefer plural; • Missing the preposition (“improve life chances for disadvantaged groups”).