Opinion tasks are different from other tasks because they only offer one perspective or view, or do they? 

Let us look at this task. Does it really include one perspective? 

The phrase ‘the most important aim’ is curious. It suggests that science has other aims, but its most important purpose should be to improve our lives. What are the different aims of science? 

I can mention pure science, whose aim is to deepen our understanding of the natural world, and applied sciences, which need the findings of fundamental or pure science to solve our problems better. 

Therefore, the task includes two views. Only one of them is hidden. 

Note how the task works:

Which one should be a more important aim of science?

✅ Improving our lives?

✅ Improving our understanding of the natural world?

We can argue that both are equally important. Pure sciences give insight into the laws of the universe, and applied scientists use the insights to conceive solutions for our problems. This means we disagree with the claim in the task to some extent.

In response to this task, IELTS candidates sometimes write about how science can solve our problems, and they supply many examples. They write, for instance, about how vaccines can help humanity to survive pandemics. However, the task does not want us to write about the advantages of science. We already know the benefits. The task wants us to comment on the importance of its uses: application or theory?  

Applied scientists should help us improve our lives because they have the means and potential to help us and receive funds and donations from us. We, therefore, expect them to see the result of their scientific inquiries in our lives. Other scientists might be interested in working on theories only, but the results of their work lay the groundwork for applied sciences. 

Also, some of the essays I read on this task are about health, global warming, or transportation systems. I sensed a massive misunderstanding of the task because the papers did not address any part of the task. They generally wrote about the usefulness of science, not the task.