A Person Should Never Make an Important Decision Alone - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Model Essay

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

Major decisions shape the course of a person’s life, and therefore, such choices should never be made in isolation. I completely agree with this view. Human judgement, no matter how intelligent, is vulnerable to bias and emotional distortion. Consulting others provides objectivity, a wider perspective, and emotional balance. This essay will discuss how collaboration prevents cognitive blind spots and ensures better long-term outcomes through shared wisdom.

Relying solely on one’s own judgment can easily lead to overconfidence and miscalculation. Humans are naturally prone to confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that supports pre-existing beliefs. When deciding alone, individuals often exaggerate benefits and underestimate risks. For instance, entrepreneurs who start ventures without expert or financial consultation frequently misjudge market realities, leading to costly failure. Input from mentors or peers introduces critical scrutiny, forcing decision-makers to test their assumptions under diverse viewpoints. This intellectual friction refines choices and uncovers flaws invisible to a single mind. Moreover, emotional turbulence—fear, excitement, or ego—can cloud independent judgment, whereas rational discussion with others restores balance. Thus, collaboration functions as a psychological stabilizer, transforming impulsive actions into measured, evidence-based decisions.

Furthermore, major decisions have social and ethical consequences that extend beyond the decision-maker, demanding collective responsibility. Whether selecting a life partner, choosing a career path, or allocating corporate resources, these choices affect families, employees, or communities. Engaging others not only distributes moral responsibility but also integrates diverse experiences into the process. For example, corporate boards that deliberate before approving mergers usually achieve more sustainable outcomes than autocratic leaders acting alone, because they assess financial, cultural, and social implications collectively. Similarly, on a personal level, guidance from parents, colleagues, or trusted friends acts as a moral compass, safeguarding individuals from short-sighted or ethically questionable decisions. Involving others ensures that decisions are both pragmatic and socially responsible.

In conclusion, seeking collective input before making crucial decisions minimizes personal bias and enhances ethical soundness. By blending multiple perspectives and distributing accountability, individuals arrive at choices that are wiser, more balanced, and more sustainable. Therefore, important decisions should always be made through shared deliberation rather than solitary judgement.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

Important choices certainly benefit from counsel, yet the blanket claim that one should never decide alone is misguided. I disagree. Absolute reliance on groups can dilute accountability and invite errors of conformity. I argue that individuals should actively seek input, but reserve the right—and sometimes the obligation—to decide solo when stakes, timing, or value conflicts demand it. I develop this view by examining group-level pitfalls and outlining conditions where disciplined solitary judgement is superior.

First, prohibiting solo decisions can produce worse outcomes by fostering diffusion of responsibility and groupthink. Committees often smooth disagreement rather than interrogate assumptions, privileging the median view over the correct one. In high-uncertainty contexts—entering a risky market, sunseting a beloved product—bold, contrarian moves are rarely blessed unanimously. History is replete with missed opportunities born of consensus seeking: firms that waited for “alignment” while nimbler rivals seized the moment. Moreover, sharing every pivotal choice can compromise confidentiality (e.g., M&A, product security) and create political incentives to protect reputations rather than pursue truth. Even in expert teams, the crispest decisions emerge when one accountable person integrates advice, runs a pre-mortem (“How could this fail?”), and then commits. Consultation is a tool, not a veto; elevating it to a rule replaces judgement with procedure.

Second, some decisions are intrinsically personal or time-critical, making solitary choice not only permissible but prudent. Consider a patient weighing a high-risk operation: doctors, family, and data illuminate probabilities, but only the patient can trade life expectancy against quality of life. Likewise, an incident commander in a fast-moving emergency must act before perfect information or consensus exists; delay is itself a decision with costs. In such cases, the highest standard is not collective approval but disciplined independence—triangulating evidence, stress-testing assumptions (devil’s-advocate notes, decision journals), and anchoring the choice to clear principles (mission, ethics, risk limits). This process harnesses diverse input without surrendering ownership, producing decisions that are faster, cleaner, and easier to evaluate ex post.

In sum, forbidding solitary decisions confuses helpful consultation with compulsory consensus. Because groups can obscure responsibility and slow action, while some choices hinge on urgency or personal values, a thoughtful individual should listen widely yet decide alone when needed. The aim is not unanimity, but accountable, well-reasoned judgement.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!