WRITING TASK 2

In the second part of the IELTS Academic Writing Test, you have to write 250 words. You
should spend 40 minutes on this task. Writing Task 2 is worth more than Task 1, so you need
to do it well.

For IELTS Writing Task 2, you have to write an essay discussing a topic. You will be given
an opinion/ argument, different points of view or a problem to discuss.

Most students prepare phrases for introducing and linking ideas. However, not many students
prepare good ideas and opinions for IELTS topics.

We'll work on these areas:

 How to structure a good Task 2 essay.

 Preparation of ideas, opinions and good vocabulary for each IELTS topic.
 How to build and link sentences to create coherent paragraphs.
 Common mistakes in grammar and word usage.

Some hard work on these areas can make a big difference to your writing score.

How to use your 40 minutes

You have 40 minutes for task 2, so try organising your time in the following way:

First 10 minutes
Read the question and make sure you understand what it is asking you to do. Write a plan for
a 4-paragraph essay (introduction, 2 main paragraphs, conclusion) and spend most of the 10
minutes thinking of ideas for the 2 main paragraphs.

5 minutes
Write your introduction: 2 sentences are enough

20 minutes
Spend 10 minutes on each of your main body paragraphs. These are the most important part
of your essay, and the key to a high score.

Last 5 minutes
Write a quick conclusion then check your work.
How to write task 2 question.

Here are the steps:

1. I read the question very carefully, maybe three times. I ask myself "What's the topic?
What is the question asking me to write about?"
2. I underline the key things that must be included in the essay. I always answer every
part of the question.
3. Now I think about my 4 paragraph structure. I can write any type of essay in 4
paragraphs; I just need to decide what to put in each paragraph.
4. If I need to give my opinion, I think "What is the easiest opinion to explain? What
good vocabulary could I use?"
5. Then I write down some vocabulary ideas that are related to the topic.
6. I try to write 2 sentences for the introduction: I introduce the topic, then give a simple
answer (including my opinion if the question asks for it).
7. I write short 'topic sentences' to start each paragraph, then develop my ideas by
explaining and supporting with examples.
8. I look at the question from time to time in order to check that I'm answering every
part of it.
9. I know that I write about 10 words per line; I can quickly check the approximate
number of words that I've written.
10. If I need more words (to reach 250), I expand one of my examples in the main body
paragraphs. If necessary, I draw an arrow to show where I want to add the extra
words.
How to write an introduction

For IELTS Writing Task 2, keep your introduction short and simple. Don't waste time writing
a long introduction; the main body paragraphs are more important.

A good IELTS Writing introduction needs only 2 things:

1. A sentence that introduces the topic

2. A sentence that gives a short, general answer to the question

Here is an example of an IELTS Task 2 question:

As computers are being used more and more in education, there will soon be no role for the
teacher in the classroom. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Here is my introduction:

It is true that computers have become an essential tool for teachers and students in all areas of
education. However, while computers are extremely useful, I do not agree with the idea that
they could soon replace teachers completely.

1. In the first sentence I introduce the topic of computers in education.

2. In the second sentence I answer the question and make my opinion clear. Don't wait
until the conclusion to give your opinion.

Remember, do a simple introduction, then you can focus on the main paragraphs.

Introductions
Here are some example introductions for 3 different types of essay. My technique is to write
2 sentences:

1. A sentence to introduce the topic

2. A sentence giving a general response to the question or instruction

Problem & Solution Essay:

It is true that children's behaviour seems to be getting worse. There are various reasons for
this, and both schools and parents need to work together to improve the situation.

Discussion (& Opinion) Essay:

People have different views about how children should be taught. While there are some good
arguments in favour of teaching children to be competitive, I believe that it is better to
encourage co-operation.
Opinion (Agree / Disagree) Essay:

In recent years it has become more common for women to return to work after having a child.
However, I do not agree that this has been the cause of problems for young people.

My advice:
Keep your introduction short. Main body paragraphs are more important.

Different introductions

Some people think the main purpose of schools is to turn children into good citizens and
workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Here are 3 different introductions. Notice that the opinion is clear in each one.

Agree:
People have different views about what the main purpose of schools should be. Personally, I
agree that a school's role is to prepare children to be productive members of society.

Disagree:
Many people argue that the main role of schools is to prepare children for their future jobs.
However, I believe that the purpose of education should be to help children to grow as
individuals.

Balanced view:
To a certain extent I agree that the role of schools is to prepare children to be productive
members of society. However, I also believe that the education process has a positive impact
on us as individuals.
Paragraph writing

When writing main body paragraphs for IELTS writing task 2, try to aim for five sentences.
For example:

1. Topic sentence (e.g. There are several reasons why I believe...)

2. First reason
3. Example
4. Second reason
5. Third reason

Another example:

1. Topic sentence (e.g. Many people believe that...)

2. Explain why
3. Explain in more detail
4. Example
5. Explain why they disagree with the opposite view

Before you start writing it's a good idea to make some notes. Try to organise your notes
according to this 5-sentence paragraph structure.

OPINION ESSAYS

For 'opinion' essays, should you give both sides of the argument or just one side? The answer
is that you can do either.

A) Essay structure for one side of the argument:

1. Introduction: topic + your opinion (either agree or disagree)

2. First idea to support your opinion
3. Second idea to support your opinion
4. Conclusion: repeat your opinion

B) Essay structure for giving both sides:

1. Introduction: topic + mention the opposite opinion + your opinion

2. Opposite opinion (you can accept some of the opposite arguments)
3. Your opinion
4. Conclusion: explain that you understand the opposite opinion, but overall you believe
that...

It's very important to get the introduction right. This shows the examiner whether you are
going to give one side of the argument or both sides.
To what extend do you agree

A good way to answer this question is:

To a certain extent I agree that... However, I also think that...

By saying that you agree to a certain extent (not completely), you can now talk about both
sides of the argument.

Example question:
People visiting other countries should adapt to the customs and behaviours expected there.
They should not expect the host country to welcome different customs and behaviours. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

My introduction:
To a certain extent I agree that visitors to other countries should respect the culture of the
host country. However, I also think that host countries should accept visitors' cultural
differences.

After this introduction, you can write one paragraph about each view.

Conclusions

Several people have asked me about conclusions for IELTS Writing Task 2. The main body
paragraphs are much more important, so don't worry too much about the conclusion; make it
short, simple and fast.

Here are some example conclusion phrases for different types of question:

1. Opinion

For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that... (+ repeat your opinion).

2. Discussion (+ Opinion)

In conclusion, there are convincing arguments both for and against... (topic), but I believe
that... (if the question asks for your opinion).

3. Advantages and Disadvantages

In conclusion, I would argue that the benefits of... (topic) outweigh the drawbacks.

4. Problem and Solution

In conclusion, it is clear that there are various reasons for... (topic), and steps need to be taken
to tackle this problem.
Many people decide on a career path early in their lives and keep to it. This, they argue, leads to a
more satisfying working life.
To what extent do you agree with this view?
What other things can people do in order to have a satisfying working life?

It is true that some people know from an early age what career they want to pursue, and they are
happy to spend the rest of their lives in the same profession. While I accept that this may suit many
people, I believe that others enjoy changing careers or seeking job satisfaction in different ways.

On the one hand, having a defined career path can certainly lead to a satisfying working life.
Many people decide as young children what they want to do as adults, and it gives them a
great sense of satisfaction to work towards their goals and gradually achieve them. For
example, many children dream of becoming doctors, but to realise this ambition they need to
gain the relevant qualifications and undertake years of training. In my experience, very few
people who have qualified as doctors choose to change career because they find their work so
rewarding, and because they have invested so much time and effort to reach their goal.

On the other hand, people find happiness in their working lives in different ways. Firstly, not
everyone dreams of doing a particular job, and it can be equally rewarding to try a variety of
professions; starting out on a completely new career path can be a reinvigorating experience.
Secondly, some people see their jobs as simply a means of earning money, and they are
happy if their salary is high enough to allow them to enjoy life outside work. Finally, job
satisfaction is often the result of working conditions, rather than the career itself. For
example, a positive working atmosphere, enthusiastic colleagues, and an inspirational boss
can make working life much more satisfying, regardless of the profession.
We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be concerned with
our own communities and countries.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are
problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to
help as many people as possible.

On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In
most communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is
possible to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those
who are concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or
give money to support these people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from
donating clothing to serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep,
and there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should
prioritise local charity.

At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our
national borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than
those in our own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children
are dying from curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer
countries can save lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to
an international charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.

In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries
should not stop us from helping those who are in need.
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between equality and
personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can achieve more in
egalitarian societies. Others believe that high levels of personal achievement are possible
only if individuals are free to succeed or fail according to their individual merits.
What is your view of the relationship between equality and personal success?

In my opinion, an egalitarian society is one in which everyone has the same rights and the
same opportunities. I completely agree that people can achieve more in this kind of society.

Education is an important factor with regard to personal success in life. I believe that all
children should have access to free schooling, and higher education should be either free or
affordable for all those who chose to pursue a university degree. In a society without free
schooling or affordable higher education, only children and young adults from wealthier
families would have access to the best learning opportunities, and they would therefore be
better prepared for the job market. This kind of inequality would ensure the success of some
but harm the prospects of others.

I would argue that equal rights and opportunities are not in conflict with people’s freedom to
succeed or fail. In other words, equality does not mean that people lose their motivation to
succeed, or that they are not allowed to fail. On the contrary, I believe that most people would
feel more motivated to work hard and reach their potential if they thought that they lived in a
fair society. Those who did not make the same effort would know that they had wasted their
opportunity. Inequality, on the other hand, would be more likely to demotivate people
because they would know that the odds of success were stacked in favour of those from
privileged backgrounds.

In conclusion, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between equality and

personal success.
Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

In my opinion, men and women should have the same educational opportunities. However, I
do not agree with the idea of accepting equal proportions of each gender in every university
subject.

Having the same number of men and women on all degree courses is simply unrealistic.
Student numbers on any course depend on the applications that the institution receives. If a
university decided to fill courses with equal numbers of males and females, it would need
enough applicants of each gender. In reality, many courses are more popular with one gender
than the other, and it would not be practical to aim for equal proportions. For example,
nursing courses tend to attract more female applicants, and it would be difficult to fill these
courses if fifty per cent of the places needed to go to males.

Apart from the practical concerns expressed above, I also believe that it would be unfair to
base admission to university courses on gender. Universities should continue to select the
best candidates for each course according to their qualifications. In this way, both men and
women have the same opportunities, and applicants know that they will be successful if they
work hard to achieve good grades at school. If a female student is the best candidate for a
place on a course, it would be wrong to reject her in favour of a male student with lower
grades or fewer qualifications.

In conclusion, the selection of university students should be based on merit, and it would be
both impractical and unfair to change to a selection procedure based on gender.
Some people think that museums should be enjoyable places to entertain people, while
others believe that the purpose of museums is to educate.
Discuss both views and give you own opinion.

People have different views about the role and function of museums. In my opinion,
museums can and should be both entertaining and educational.

On the one hand, it can be argued that the main role of a museum is to entertain. Museums
are tourist attractions, and their aim is to exhibit a collection of interesting objects that many
people will want to see. The average visitor may become bored if he or she has to read or
listen to too much educational content, so museums often put more of an emphasis on
enjoyment rather than learning. This type of museum is designed to be visually spectacular,
and may have interactive activities or even games as part of its exhibitions.

On the other hand, some people argue that museums should focus on education. The aim of
any exhibition should be to teach visitors something that they did not previously know.
Usually this means that the history behind the museum’s exhibits needs to be explained, and
this can be done in various ways. Some museums employ professional guides to talk to their
visitors, while other museums offer headsets so that visitors can listen to detailed
commentary about the exhibition. In this way, museums can play an important role in
teaching people about history, culture, science and many other aspects of life.

In conclusion, it seems to me that a good museum should be able to offer an interesting,

enjoyable and educational experience so that people can have fun and learn something at the
same time.
Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful
career, while others believe that it is better to get a job straight after school.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

When they finish school, teenagers face the dilemma of whether to get a job or continue their
education. While there are some benefits to getting a job straight after school, I would argue
that it is better to go to college or university.

The option to start work straight after school is attractive for several reasons. Many young
people want to start earning money as soon as possible. In this way, they can become
independent, and they will be able to afford their own house or start a family. In terms of
their career, young people who decide to find work, rather than continue their studies, may
progress more quickly. They will have the chance to gain real experience and learn practical
skills related to their chosen profession. This may lead to promotions and a successful career.

On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial for students to continue their studies.
Firstly, academic qualifications are required in many professions. For example, it is
impossible to become a doctor, teacher or lawyer without having the relevant degree. As a
result, university graduates have access to more and better job opportunities, and they tend to
earn higher salaries than those with fewer qualifications. Secondly, the job market is
becoming increasingly competitive, and sometimes there are hundreds of applicants for one
position in a company. Young people who do not have qualifications from a university or
college will not be able to compete.

For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that students are more likely to be
successful in their careers if they continue their studies beyond school level.
Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small
numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on
saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money.
Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

It is true that some minority languages may disappear in the near future. Although it can be
argued that governments could save money by allowing this to happen, I believe that these
languages should be protected and preserved.

There are several reasons why saving minority languages could be seen as a waste of money.
Firstly, if a language is only spoken by a small number of people, expensive education
programmes will be needed to make sure that more people learn it, and the state will have to
pay for facilities, teachers and marketing. This money might be better spent on other public
services. Secondly, it would be much cheaper and more efficient for countries to have just
one language. Governments could cut all kinds of costs related to communicating with each
minority group.

Despite the above arguments, I believe that governments should try to preserve languages
that are less widely spoken. A language is much more than simply a means of
communication; it has a vital connection with the cultural identity of the people who speak it.
If a language disappears, a whole way of life will disappear with it, and we will lose the rich
cultural diversity that makes societies more interesting. By spending money to protect
minority languages, governments can also preserve traditions, customs and behaviours that
are part of a country’s history.

In conclusion, it may save money in the short term if we allow minority languages to
disappear, but in the long term this would have an extremely negative impact on our cultural
heritage.
Some people think that school children need to learn practical skills such as car
maintenance or bank account management along with the academic subjects at school. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

Here are some suggestions (this is NOT an essay):

1. Introduce the topic then give your opinion

I would write that it is true that children learn academic subjects at school, but not many
practical skills. However, I would then disagree that schools should teach skills like bank
account management and car maintenance.

2. First supporting paragraph

I would write a paragraph about the importance of academic subjects like maths, science,
languages etc. We live in a knowledge-based economy where independent thinking and
problem solving are the most important skills. With timetables already full, schools do not
have time to teach children anything else.

3. Second supporting paragraph

I would argue that bank account management is a 'life skill' that anyone can learn by simply
opening a bank account. Most adults have no problem managing their finances without being
taught accounting lessons at school. Other skills like car maintenance are not really
necessary. Most people take their cars to a qualified mechanic.

4. Conclusion
Repeat the idea that schools are already doing a good job teaching the traditional academic
subjects. If they start to teach practical skills, the study of important academic subjects will
suffer.
Explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the environment. What can
governments do to address these problems? What can individual people do?

Humans are responsible for a variety of environmental problems, but we can also take steps
to reduce the damage that we are causing to the planet. This essay will discuss environmental
problems and the measures that governments and individuals can take to address these
problems.

Two of the biggest threats to the environment are air pollution and waste. Gas emissions from
factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles lead to global warming, which may have a
devastating effect on the planet in the future. As the human population increases, we are also
producing ever greater quantities of waste, which contaminates the earth and pollutes rivers
and oceans.

Governments could certainly make more effort to reduce air pollution. They could introduce
laws to limit emissions from factories or to force companies to use renewable energy from
solar, wind or water power. They could also impose ‘green taxes’ on drivers and airline
companies. In this way, people would be encouraged to use public transport and to take fewer
flights abroad, therefore reducing emissions.

Individuals should also take responsibility for the impact they have on the environment. They
can take public transport rather than driving, choose products with less packaging, and
recycle as much as possible. Most supermarkets now provide reusable bags for shoppers as
well as ‘banks’ for recycling glass, plastic and paper in their car parks. By reusing and
recycling, we can help to reduce waste.

In conclusion, both national governments and individuals must play their part in looking after
the environment.
Many people decide on a career path early in their lives and keep to it. This, they
argue, leads to a more satisfying working life.
To what extent do you agree with this view?
What other things can people do in order to have a satisfying working life?

It is true that some people know from an early age what career they want to pursue, and
they are happy to spend the rest of their lives in the same profession. While I accept that
this may suit many people, I believe that others enjoy changing careers or seeking job
satisfaction in different ways.

On the one hand, having a defined career path can certainly lead to a satisfying working
life. Many people decide as young children what they want to do as adults, and it gives
them a great sense of satisfaction to work towards their goals and gradually achieve them.
For example, many children dream of becoming doctors, but to realise this ambition they
need to gain the relevant qualifications and undertake years of training. In my experience,
very few people who have qualified as doctors choose to change career because they find
their work so rewarding, and because they have invested so much time and effort to reach
their goal.

On the other hand, people find happiness in their working lives in different ways. Firstly,
not everyone dreams of doing a particular job, and it can be equally rewarding to try a
variety of professions; starting out on a completely new career path can be a reinvigorating
experience. Secondly, some people see their jobs as simply a means of earning money,
and they are happy if their salary is high enough to allow them to enjoy life outside work.
Finally, job satisfaction is often the result of working conditions, rather than the career
itself. For example, a positive working atmosphere, enthusiastic colleagues, and an
inspirational boss can make working life much more satisfying, regardless of the
profession.

In conclusion, it can certainly be satisfying to pursue a particular career for the whole of
one’s life, but this is by no means the only route to fulfilment.

(310 words)
Space exploration requires vast sums of money. Is the amount of money spent on space
research justifiable? Could the money be better spent?
There has always been considerable discussion about whether governments should spend tax
payers’ money on space research. In my view it is impossible to justify the amount of money
spent on such projects. Generally speaking, the main reason for this position is that there are
several areas in which the money could be invested better.

The first point to make is that politicians have a responsibility to spend public money on projects
that bring a benefit to the general public. This has not been the case with space research as
most developments have been limited to helping astronauts in space or have been very
specialised. For example, it is not of great value to the general public that we now have pens and
biros that can write upside down. This does not merit the huge amount of money spent.

The second point to make is that there are many much more urgent projects on Earth that
require investment. If governments spent less money on space research, then they would be
able to help solve some of these problems such as population control, elimination of diseases
like cholera, global warming and food shortages. It seems to me that all of these issues are more
important because they affect the lives of millions of ordinary people. An illustration of this is that
the US government could provide food for all the starving people in the world if they did not
spend so much on NASA.

My conclusion is that politicians should not fund space research. The grounds for saying this are
that it is very costly and provides few real benefits. Furthermore, there are several more urgent
issues that need to be funded.
Television has had a significant influence on the culture of many societies. To what extent
would you say that television has positively or negatively affected the cultural
development of your society?
It is unarguable that television has had a considerable impact and changed the world in which we
live. However, there is debate whether that change has been for the better or the worse, when
we consider cultural development. While there are certainly strong feelings on both sides of the
argument in western Europe, my own view is that television has had a largely positive influence
on our society.
There are, however, several reasons why it can be argued that television has a negative effect
on cultural development. Perhaps the principle argument is the lowbrow nature of many
programmes, particularly sitcoms and soap operas. People who watch these programmes do not
learn anything, they are simply entertained. The other major argument is that because people
watch so much television, they no longer take part in more traditional forms of cultural
entertainment. An example here is how traditional dancing and music is becoming much less
popular because people are staying at home to watch the television.
On the other hand, there are a variety of ways in which cultural development has been assisted
by television. Here the major argument is that television has allowed the whole of society access
to cultural entertainment. For example, in the nineteenth century only a small proportion of
people could go to the ballet or the theatre. However, it is now possible for everyone to enjoy
these on television. A second positive effect is that on television we can learn more about other
cultures and societies because there are so many interesting documentaries about other
countries.
My personal conclusion is that television is a largely positive influence. However, it is important
that we do not watch it too much and that we watch the right sort of programme. If we watch the
wrong sort of programme and watch too much television, we may become couch potatoes.
Subjects such as Art, Sport and Music are being dropped from the school
curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology. Many people children
suffer as a result of these changes. To what extent would you support or reject the
idea of moving these subjects from school curriculum?

In recent times there has much debate about which subjects should be included on the
school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the introduction of more modern
subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages
the pupils. I believe that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be
found for primary and secondary schools.

There is one major argument in favour of replacing art, music and sport on the
curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children
for their working life after school, so the subjects on the curriculum should be relevant to
their potential careers. From this point of view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as
they need to be computer literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example, it
is easy to see that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more
than the ability to run fast or draw well.

There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as
part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purpose of education
is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their all round
“culture”. It is important that children leave school with some knowledge of art, music
and sport as all these are all help develop aspects of young people’s personalities.

My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that
all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At
secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these subjects
so that they can continue to study them if they wish
In recent years, people watch more movies from overseas? What are the reasons for this?
Should the government give financial support to local cinema to produce local films?
It is unquestionably the case that there is a growing trend for people to watch foreign films in
preference to films made in their home country. In this essay, I will discuss why this is the case
and why I believe national governments ought to support home grown cinema financially.
Perhaps the principal reason for the popularity of foreign made films is the globalisation of culture
in the internet age. In the past, children growing up only had access to the culture and traditions
of their own country and so preferred to watch films about their own land. Now in the era of
Youtube, young people grow up with easy access to an international culture and so when they go
to the cinema, they expect to see films that reflect that international culture and for them a
Hollywood blockbuster is much “cooler” than a serious film in their own language.
A second reason why internationally produced films tend to dominate the domestic market is
financial. The two great centres of world cinema, Bollywood and Hollywood, have studios with
budgets of billions of dollars which can make films with exciting special effects and high
production values. In contrast, locally produced films often have much smaller budgets are
sometimes therefore less attractive to the mass market.
Personally, I believe that this globalisation of culture is not entirely positive and governments
should take action to promote local films. If countries had their own film industries which could
compete with the international studios, this would not only help preserve national culture, but
would also create more choice for the public as global films offer little variety.
In conclusion, the main reasons for the expansion of international films are a new globalised
world culture caused by the internet and the financial power of a few film studios in Hollywood
and Bollywood. We would have more choice if the governments subsidised local films.
Consumers are faced with increasing numbers of advertisements from
competing companies. To what extent do you think are consumers influenced by
advertisements? What measures can be taken to protect them?

In today’s material world, we are inundated with various forms of advertising. In my

view, this can be dangerous as it encourages us to spend without thinking and young
people, in particular, need some protection from it.

The first point to make is that advertising does make us spend money we do not need
to. There are nowadays so many different ways companies promote their products
and services, ranging from television commercials to simple flyers that we cannot
escape it. If, for example, you watch a football match on television, you will see the
logos of the tournament sponsors. Likewise, if you watch the latest blockbuster
movie, very probably you will see a product placed in the film by some advertising
agency. The volume of this advertising means that we, as consumers, tend to be
profoundly influenced by it and buy without thinking.

It is not easy to decide how to regulate advertising. Clearly, governments ought to

restrict advertisements for harmful products such as alcohol and tobacco. They do not
have the power, however, to control other forms of advertising. This means we need
to use our commonsense when we go to the shops, and ask ourselves whether we
really need to make that purchase. Parents should, however, ensure that young people
are protected from too much exposure to advertising. This can mean simply
explaining that it is not in fact necessary to buy the newest Xbox, or simply turning
the television off.

My conclusion is that while we cannot escape advertising or its effects in the modern
world, children should be encouraged not to pay too much attention to it.

(266 words)
Newspapers and books are outdated. Why do some people believe this? What is
your opinion?

As we move into the twenty- first century an increasing number of people are relying on
new forms of technology. A possible consequence of this is that traditional media such as
books and newspapers are not just less popular are considered by some to be outdated.

The principal reason why some people take this view is fairly clear in the case of
newspapers. It is generally much easier and quicker to discover what is happening in the
world from the internet or the television than from a newspaper. If you use Google or
another search engine or simply switch on the television, you can instantly get the latest
news bulletin. A newspaper, by contrast, is out of date the moment it is published because
it contains yesterday’s news.

It is perhaps less obvious why books are said to be out of fashion. One possibility is that
fewer people choose to read for pleasure nowadays because they prefer the instant
gratification and thrills of modern technology. There is less effort involved in enjoying a 3D
movie or playing a computer game than in turning the pages of a book.

My own view and conclusion is that books and newspapers will never go completely out of
fashion or become redundant. The reason for this is that they serve basic human needs. I
believe that people will always want to read about the news and escape into the imaginary
worlds of great novels. However, books and newspapers may need to change to meet the
new demands of twenty-first century consumers. We can already see this happening with
the arrival of the audio-book and the various free newspaper internet sites. (292 words)
We are becoming increasingly dependent on computer technology. It
is used in business, crime detection and even to fly planes. What will it
be used for in future? Is this dependence on technology a good thing or
should we be suspicious of its benefits?

As we move into the twenty-first century, it is clear to see that we have become
more and more dependent on computers and information technology. This
technology now reaches into almost every area of our lives and it is easy to predict
that this phenomenon is only going to grow. My personal belief is that this presents
a variety of dangers.

It is highly likely that in the future there will be comparatively few aspects of our
lives that will not be influenced by computer technology. The probability is that it
will control more and more forms of communication, transforming fields such as
education and business when video-conferencing platforms become more stable. It
might even affect romance with more people forming relationships online.

While there may be benefits to this technological revolution, there are also a
number of potential dangers. Perhaps the most serious of these would be that if
people rely on computers too much for communication, they could in fact begin to
communicate less well. For example, if every member of a family had their own
computer screen and smart phone, they might speak less and less often to one
another and simply look at a screen. This would be serious because our ability to
communicate is an essential part of our humanity.

My conclusion is that the growth of computer technology is inevitable, but that this
may not be entirely positive. Just one area in which it is possible to foresee dangers
is communication, and if we are going to ensure that computers do not become a
negative influence, we need to think carefully how we use them.

(273 words)
Some people believe that exams are an inappropriate way of measuring students’
performance and should be replaced by continuous assessment. Do you agree or
disagree with this view?

There is some dispute whether the best method of assessing students is to use
examinations or some form of continuous assessment. This is a complex issue and my
belief is that there is no one method that applies to all educational systems.

There are three major arguments in favour of retaining exams. One is that they provide a
clear and objective measure of what students have learned, whereas any form of
continuous assessment is probably going to be far more subjective. An additional point is
that testing is an excellent way of motivating learners to study harder and to reward the
students who do best. Likewise, examinations test the ability of students to work under
pressure, and this is a vital life skill for their later careers.

On the other hand, there are still occasions when it can be better to relieve the students of
exam pressure and to measure their abilities through continuous assessment. This is
particularly the case in lower age groups where young children can be affected negatively
by stress and underperform in exams. It can also be argued that continuous assessment is
a more effective way of testing some subjects such as design and technology, which are
more creative and less academic. A further point is that often continuous assessment can
allow teachers to reward students who work hard, but who may be less able and not do
well in more formal testing.

In conclusion, while continuous assessment may be fairer in some contexts, there are still
times when traditional exams may be more appropriate. A sensible compromise would be
to use both forms of testing together, allowing teachers to reward both ability and hard
work.

(280 words)
Differences between countries become less evident each year. Nowadays, all over
the world people share the same fashions, advertising, brands, eating habits and TV
channels. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of this?

It is undoubtedly the case that the world today has become a global village. One of the
effects of this is that increasingly people in all corners of the world are exposed to similar
services and products and adopt similar habits. My view is that this is largely a beneficial
process and in this essay I will explain why.

The first point to make is that there are some downsides to this process of cultural
globalisation, but these are relatively minor. The most significant of these disadvantages is
that it can weaken national culture and traditions. For example, if people watch films and
television programmes produced in the United States, sometimes they adopt aspects of
the lifestyle of the American characters they see on television. Typically, however, this only
affects minor details such as clothing and does not seriously threaten national identity.

When we turn to the other side of the argument, there are two major points to make in
favour of this process. The first of these is that the more we share habits, products and
services, the better we understand each other and this reduces prejudice against other
nations. The other point relates to modernity. It is a sign of progress in a society that
people no longer are restricted to brands and advertisements from their own society but
are able to access more international goods. If, for example, there were unable to drink
Coca Cola or wear Nike, then that would mean their society was not part of the
international community.

In conclusion, I understand the point of view of people who worry about cultural
globalisation because it is a threat to national traditions. However, this is outweighed by its
positive impact on international understanding and the fact that it represents progress
within a society.
Recent research shows that the consumption of junk food is a major
factor in poor diet and this is detrimental to health. Some people
believe that better health education is the answer to this problem but
others disagree. What is your opinion?

A serious concern nowadays is how our eating habits can affect our health. In
particular, it has been demonstrated that eating too much junk food can lead
to health issues later in life. One sensible suggestion for dealing with this is to
improve the level of health education so that we eat better and live longer.

One reason why focussing on health education is an appropriate measure is

that it addresses one underlying cause of the problem. It is clear that there is
a connection between what people know about nutrition and their eating
habits. For example, children who have learned in school about the need to
have a varied diet with plenty of vitamins tend to eat more healthily. In
contrast, people who have not had this education still eat too much junk food
and as a result suffer from diabetes and other diseases.

Better health education, however, is not a complete answer as it ignores the

wider social factors that cause people to eat unhealthily. For instance, many
people eat fast food because they have a lifestyle that means they do not have
time to sit down to a proper meal. Again, other people might eat burgers and
pizzas because they are seen to be cool and they want to impress their peers.

There would not appear to be any simple way to deal with these social factors.
A difficulty is that it is very hard for governments to make a difference to the
individual choices people make. It might help, however, to ban advertisements
for unhealthy foods on television and to require companies to provide proper
meal facilities for their employees.

My conclusion is that the government certainly ought to introduce measures to

improve the level of health education. However, this probably would not be a
perfect solution as it would also be necessary to deal with the other social
factors that cause unhealthy eating.

(318 words)
In the past lectures were the traditional method of teaching large numbers of
students. Nowadays new technology is increasingly being used to teach students.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this new approach.

As we move into the twenty-first century, technology is affecting many different areas of life
and education is no exception. Indeed, in some institutions traditional forms of education
have been revolutionised by new technology to the extent that the lecture is no longer the
main method of delivery. While there are a variety of benefits to this new approach, there
are also significant drawbacks.

Perhaps the greatest bonus of the introduction of technology is the flexibility it offers. This
is evident in two different ways. Firstly, it is now no longer essential for students to be
present in the lecture theatre for their courses. This means that part-time courses for
adults who are in employment and distance learning courses for people in other countries
are now much more practical. Another area of flexibility is of course that the lecturer and
tutor are able to use Moodles, interactive whiteboards and other tools to deliver their
courses in a more stimulating way to large numbers of students.

Not everything, however, about the introduction of this new technology into education is
positive. One major problem is that not all students are comfortable with using technology,
even if they are part of the digital native generation. This is a serious issue as they may
suffer from their lack of technological skills. Another related issue is that education is a
human activity and it works best with as much human interaction as possible. Impersonal
technology cannot replace the human contact found in traditional face-to-face tutorials and
seminars.

As we have seen, there are major benefits to the introduction of technology into education,
not least because it enables modern forms of education such as distance learning
courses. This is balanced, however, by the fact that it can be too impersonal for some and
disadvantages others for their lack of technological skills.

(304 words)
Some people think that only staff who worked in a company for a long
time should be promoted to a higher position. What's your opinion?

One of the reasons why companies choose to promote some staff is seniority. While
length of service is undoubtedly an important factor, my belief is it should certainly
not be the only criterion for deciding who should be promoted. Rather it would be
better for companies to have a more varied policy in this area.

There are without question sound arguments for promoting employees who have been
working for a company for a number of years. The first of these is that these more
experienced employees would be able to adapt themselves to being in a higher
position, as they they would understand the culture and policies of the company
better. Again, on a practical level, if they were not promoted, they might well leave
the company to find a higher position and earn a larger salary. This could have
serious consequences for the company, which might lose a signifiicant amount of
business to its competitors.

Despite these reasons, there is a strong argument in favour of also promoting staff
because of their performance. This can be seen by how some muti-nationals use
annual performance and development reviews when deciding on promotion. Under
this system a supervisor can set targets for an employee and if those targets are met,
then the employee can be promoted, even if they are relatively junior. The benefit of
this approach is that it encourages staff to work harder and rewards merit and not just
long service.

In conclusion, there is no doubt a case for implementing a policy of promoting long-

serving members of staff, but I believe that it is also wise to take account of the
performance of more junior members of staff.

(281 words)
In recent years, farming practice has changed to include methods such
as factory farming and the use of technology to improve crops. Some
people believe these developments are necessary, while others regard
them as dangerous and advocate a return to more traditional farming
methods. Discuss both points of view and give your own opinion.

There is some controversy about how farming has been revolutionised in the past
decades. While it is possible to claim that the net effect of these changes has been
for the benefit of mankind, my view is that the disadvantages outweigh the
advantages. In this essay, I shall explain my point of view by analysing both sides of
the argument.

There are several reasons why these innovations in agriculture can be said to
positive. One is that the world’s population has exploded within the past century
and that traditional methods of agriculture could not provide sufficient food for
everyone. It can also be argued that we need more efficient methods of farming
because many countries in Asia and Africa suffer regular famine and droughts and
the people would starve if it was not for genetically modified crops that are drought
resistant. It should also not be forgotten that the quality of life of farmers has been
improved by these advances which are less labour intensive.

Those who argue for a return to smaller scale and more organic farming base their
arguments on the impact of agriculture on health and the environment. Firstly, it is
claimed that a variety of diseases such as BSE, swine flu and bird flu were caused by
conditions in factory farms and that organic food is much healthier. Then, there are
concerns about the lack of research into how genetically modified crops might affect
the ecosystem for the worse.

While there are strong arguments on both sides of the case, my personal belief is
that the long-term dangers of these developments mean that we should be
extremely cautious. I suggest that there should be more investment in traditional
farming methods to make them more efficient and that there should be stronger
legislation to ensure that both factory farms and GM crops are safe.
Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many
children do not get as much attention from their parents as children did in the past.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

One common concern nowadays is how modern lifestyles can have a negative effect on
family life. A particular worry is that parents no longer are able to provide sufficient care
and support for their children. My own view is that this is generally true, but not always so.

If we look at the past, the traditional family structure was the husband was the head of the
family and his duty was to provide for his immediate family by going out to work. His wife’s
role was to stay at home and bring up the children. In this situation we should note that the
children frequently did not see much of their father during the working week.

In the present day, that traditional structure has changed in many cultures. One reason for
this is that it is more and more common for the wife to go out to work because it is now
accepted that woman have as much right to work as men. A consequence of this is that
many children do not see their mother as often as they would have done in the past. A
second reason is that divorce has increased and in single-parent families children only
ever see one parent.

We should also consider, however, that these changes are not the same for all families. In
low income families, for instance, it has always been normal for both parents to work.
Likewise, if the family is close-knit, the parents will still spend time with their children even
though they both work.

My conclusion is that generally most children see less of their parents and this is due to
changing lifestyles. However, this is not always the case.

(283 words)
Today’s food travels thousands of miles before it reaches customers. Is this a
positive or negative trend?

In the modern world, we frequently no longer rely on food that has been grown locally, but
we have become accustomed to buying produce from all over the world. While this trend
has some clear benefits to consumers, I would argue that overall transporting food over
long distances is a negative.

The strongest argument against importing food is environmental. Studies have shown that
transport and the use of fossil fuels is one of the leading causes of global warming and
climate change. This means that if we want to lead a greener lifestyle, we should be trying
to minimise transport and this includes the unnecessary transport of foodstuffs.

Another point that needs to be considered is the impact of transporting food on local
farmers and traditional ways of life. Again, there is good research to show that farmers and
smallholders are unable to compete in price with the supermarkets that import cheap, and
often low-quality, produce from abroad. This is not just a problem for local farmers who are
likely to go out of business, it also has an impact on weakening traditional communities
that rely on those farms for employment and trade.

A further consideration is that food that has travelled across the world is considerably less
healthy than locally grown, fresh produce. The simple point is that the further food travels
before it reaches the consumer, the less fresh it will be and any nutritionist will confirm that
fresh food is fuller of vitamins. Therefore, it would be preferable if supermarkets and other
stores did not transport food from other countries.

In conclusion, I believe that the trend for transporting food over long distances is
undesirable because it is environmentally unfriendly, threatens local communities and
results in less healthy options for the consumer.

(294 words)
Index of sample IELTS essays

Houses and apartments

Some people prefer to live in a house, while others think that there are more advantages
living in an apartment. Are there more advantages than disadvantages to living in a house
rather than in an apartment?

Unemployment

Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed nations today. What
are the advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the working week to thirty five
hours?

Education

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Nuclear Technology

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and
clean energy. The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages. Do you
agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.

The environment

The best way to solve the worldʼs environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Culture

Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general public, or should a
charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for admittance? Discuss this issue, and give
your opinion.
Some people prefer to live in a house, while others think that there are more
advantages living in an apartment.

Are there more advantages than disadvantages to living in a house rather than in an
apartment?

Many people nowadays face a difficult decision when they buy their own home. The
question is whether they should buy a house or an apartment. There would seem to be
clear benefits and drawbacks to both options.

Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is
more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it
is a detached house. Other significant advantages are that houses are generally more
spacious and on the whole have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so
that the children can have a safe environment to play in. If, however, you live in a tower
block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.

There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of these is that
they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain. Indeed, a large majority of
people choose to live in apartments because they cannot afford the mortgage to buy a
house. Another possible problem is that there are fewer houses in cities than the
countryside. So if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second
reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of community to life in an
apartment.

My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably an equal
number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately, whether you decide to live in
a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family
and financial circumstances.

(285 words)
Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed nations today.
What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the working week to
thirty five hours?

It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing issues in the
industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut the working week to a
maximum of 35 hours. However, this solution is somewhat controversial as it has both
positive and negative effects.

It is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made. The
reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours weekly, then
employers will be forced to engage more staff. There would be at least two advantages to
this. Not only would unemployment be reduced, but the working conditions of employees
on very long shifts would also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing
300 manual workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.

There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal. This argument
is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was forced to employ more workers
to produce the same amount of goods, then its wage bill would rise and its products might
become more expensive and less competitive compared to companies with longer working
weeks. In this case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it
would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended benefit to the
personnel would not happen.

In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant
advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal view is that it would be
better not to introduce the shortened working week because it works only in theory and not
in practice.

(278 words)
Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

It is often said that if you want to succeed in life, you need a proper education. I would
agree with this, but it is debatable whether a proper education means having to stay in
school until you are 18.

Perhaps the strongest reason not leaving school early is that it prepares you for your
working career. If you leave school early with only a basic education, you are unlikely to be
able to find any skilled work. Indeed, the education you receive between the ages of 16
and 18 is crucial for anyone who does not want a lifetime of unskilled work in a factory.

Another compelling reason for remaining in school until 18 is that school provides moral
and social education too. This is particularly important for people between 16 and 18 who
have many temptations and benefit from the organised framework that school provides.
Young people who stay in school until the age of 18 tend to be more responsible and help
build a stronger society.

There are, however, equally strong arguments against making school compulsory until the
age of 18. One such argument is that not everyone is academic and that some people
benefit more from vocational training. For instance, someone who wants to become a car
mechanic may find better training and more satisfaction in an apprentice scheme. Another
related argument is that, in todayʼs world, young people are maturing ever more quickly
and are able to make their own life decisions by the age of 16.

To my mind, everyone should be encouraged to stay in school until 18. However, I believe
it would be a mistake to make this compulsory.

(277 words)
The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides
cheap and clean energy. The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the
disadvantages. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.

One question that has caused a great deal of controversy over the years is nuclear
technology. Although it offers a number of advantages in world peace and green power, it
is also a dangerous technology. In this essay I intend to show how these benefits outweigh
that disadvantage.

The opponents of nuclear power generally base their arguments on the danger it
represents to the world. There are two main dangers: the risk of nuclear warfare and the
nuclear disasters. If one thinks about Chernobyl, it is easy to understand why people are
worried about nuclear power, as it can cause major suffering.

There are, however, two good reasons for believing that nuclear technology is generally
advantageous. The first of these is that there has not been a major world conflict since the
invention of nuclear weapons. While there have been wars, they have not been on the
same scale as the Second World War. It is possible to say that the world is a safer place
because of nuclear weapons.

The other most significant benefit relates to the environment. Perhaps the greatest danger
facing our world today is a combination of global warming and the greenhouse effect. This
danger is caused partly by burning fossil fuels which leads to our polluted atmosphere.
Nuclear power, however, is a much greener alternative which does not have such negative
effects. Furthermore, in the last 50 years there have not been too many nuclear disasters
and many experts claim that it is in fact a safe technology.

In conclusion I would say that nuclear technology is better than the current alternatives.
However, I also believe we should keep looking for ways to make it safer.

(281 words)
The best way to solve the worldʼs environmental problems is to increase the cost of
fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the
various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to
achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this
is necessarily the case.

One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental
problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well
help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global
warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as
intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these
problems we need to find other solutions.

A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the
emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most
environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we
wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that
it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this
happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the
environmental consequences to their actions.

In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term
solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our childrenʼs
children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.

(283 words)
Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general public, or
should a charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for admittance? Discuss this
issue, and give your opinion.

One very complex issue in todayʼs world is the funding of museums and art galleries.
There is an argument that they should be free to the general public and funded by
governments, but there is also a case for saying that they should charge an entrance fee
like other attractions. In this essay, I am going to examine both sides of this issue.

Those who argue that museums should be free typically make one of two arguments. The
first argument is that institutions like museums are a public service and therefore there
should be free access to the man in the street. If for example there was a charge only the
wealthy could afford to enjoy works of art. The second, and related, argument is that if they
did levy a charge fewer people would go to museums. This would be serious as they are
educational institutions and standards would fall.

In contrast, there is only one major argument on the other side of the debate. This is that
both museums and art galleries need to charge an entrance fee if they are to survive in the
modern world. Governments do not have sufficient funds to subsidise all such institutions
and there are other priorities for public money. Therefore these galleries and museums
need to charge their customers not only to survive but to update their exhibitions and make
new purchases. By way of illustration, the Tate Modern in London could not have been
founded without revenue from admissions.

My personal position is that there is no clear answer to this question as there are such
strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is possible for some museums and galleries to
charge fees and for others not to.

(288 words)
In many countries there has been an increase in social problems involving
teenagers in recent years. Many people believe that this is due to modern
lifestyles because parents spend more and more time at work and have less
time to supervise their children. To what extent do you believe this is true?

There is no question that standards of behaviour have fallen among teenagers. The popular
belief is that the principle cause is that parents are unable to supervise their children
because they are away at work. There are, however, a number of other potential factors and
in this essay I will examine what some of the reasons are.

It is undeniable that parents should bear some responsibility for the actions of their
teenaged children. This is particularly true when they are absent from the home and not in
a position to control their children. The argument is that if they were at home, then they
would be able to make certain that their children did not join gangs and spent their time
on socially acceptable activities.

However, it can also be said that working parents are in fact setting a good example to
their children. Indeed, it is very often the case that teenagers who come from hardworking
families spend their time on schoolwork and conduct themselves well. In fact, the
teenagers who do create social problems by, for example, getting drunk or painting graffitti
come from homes where parents are unemployed.

Other factors that lead to teenagers getting into trouble relate to the educational system.
This is due to the fact that many teenagers leave school aged 16 and do not find work
because of lack of qualifications. As a result, they spend time on the street with nothing
productive to do. Likewise, social problems with teenagers can be the consequence of poor
discipline at school with teachers failing to control their classes.

In conclusion, it is possible to say that this sort of problem is only sometimes the result of
parents not supervising their children. It is equally possible to say that discipline in schools
is at fault.

(299 words)
Some people believe that the government should ban dangerous sporting
activities while others think that people have the freedom do whatever sports
they choose. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

We live in a world where health and safety is an ever greater priority. One of the
signs of this is the demand that dangerous sports should be banned. While I
understand that argument, my view is that, within certain limits, people should
retain the freedom to participate in whatever sports they choose.

The principal reason for objecting to extreme sports is of course that they can be
highly dangerous and sometimes life-threatening. More than that, it is not just the
participants who are at risk, but spectators too can be seriously injured. If, for
example, a Formula 1 car crashes, the driver may not escape unharmed and there
is also a chance that a bouncing tyre or debris will fly into the crowd. Given this
level of danger, it is understandable why people call for the authorities to take
action.

The counter argument is that people should be allowed to assume whatever risk
they choose. So, if someone wishes to freefall from a plane at 30,000 feet, then
they should be free to do so and it should be accepted that it is not the place of the
government to dictate how they lead their lives. A further point is that in statistical
terms there is a low probability of injury in many so-called dangerous sports and
people are at greater risk carrying out everyday activities such as crossing the road
or cooking a meal as bungee jumping.

My personal view is that while the government and other authorities do need to
regulate dangerous sports, it would be preferable not to ban them entirely. I would
suggest that safeguards need to be established so that any risk is minimised. What
these safeguards are will vary from sport to sport, but safety has to be paramount,
especially where minors are involved.

(302 words)
One of the major problems facing the world today is the growing
number of refugees. The developed nations in the world should tackle
this problem by taking in more refugees. To what extent do you agree
with this opinion?

There is little doubt that the issue of refugees is a global problem. While it
most immediately affects developing nations, there is a strong argument that
industrialised countries should help by allowing higher levels of immigration.
This is certainly not an easy issue though, because historically immigration
has caused as many problems as it solves.

The principal reason why developed nations should help is that we now live in
a global village and it is no longer possible to ignore what happens on the
other side of the world. This is partly a moral issue and partly because it is in
the economic self-interest of industrialised nations to ensure that developing
nations continue to progress. A practical way of achieving this would be to
accept more immigration, particularly when it is caused by natural disasters
or civil war.

I would argue, however, that this is not an open and shut case, as there is a
negative side to mass immigration. The multi-cultural experiments in Europe
have not always succeeded and immigrants have often suffered badly from
racism and other prejudices. On a practical level, refugees are sometimes
better off receiving aid in their native land than begging on the streets in a
country where they cannot speak the language. Many so-called economic
migrants end up returning to the country of their birth.

My personal conclusion is that developed nations should agree to take in

more refugees, but only in restricted numbers and in extreme cases. I also
believe that there needs to be a global effort to provide aid to solve the
problems that cause emigration. Prevention is, as they say, better than cure.
Advances in science and technology have made great changes to lives of ordinary
people, but artists such as musicians, painters and writers are still highly valued.
What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

There is no doubt that the quality of our lives in the 21st century has been greatly
improved by various scientific and technological advances. Despite this, the arts
and humanities too still have much to teach us about ourselves and life in
general.
One area in which we can learn from the arts is that concepts such as beauty
matter in and of themselves. In the world of science and technology, the only true
measure is whether something works or not. This is a limited view of the world
and the arts differ in that they offer us an alternative and more spiritual outlook.
For example, if we listen to Mozart we can learn about harmony and joy through
the medium of music or if even we read an author like PG Wodehouse we learn
about the value of humour. These essential aspects of life are absent from the
clinical world of science and technology.
The other way in which artists can teach us about more about life is that enjoying
art encourages the habit of self-reflection. If you walk into an art gallery, attend a
concert or even just stay in to read a book, you will almost certainly begin to think
about your inner values. For me, this is a invaluable lesson in life as if we begin to
reflect about ourselves, we begin not just to become more human, but also
consider the lives of others too.
So while science and technology may have made our physical lives more
comfortable in the 21st century. It remains true that the arts and humanities are
still absolutely necessary for ordinary people as they promote a more spiritual and
reflective view of life that is essential to our humanity.
(290 words)
The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of
fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the
various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to
achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this
is necessarily the case.

One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental
problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well
help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global
warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as
intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these
problems we need to find other solutions.

A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the
emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most
environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we
wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that
it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this
happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the
environmental consequences to their actions.

In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term
solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s
children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen. (283 words)
One of the most pressing problems facing the world today is overpopulation. What
policies do you believe governments should adopt to address the causes and
effects of this problem?

There is no doubt that the massive increase in the worldʼs population in the last 100 years
has created a crisis. In order to find a solution to this crisis, politicians need to deal with not
only the immediate problems, but also the long-term causes if they want to rescue
humanity. Finding the right policies is not an easy task as it is a complex problem.

The first step is to recognise what the consequences of overpopulation are. Only by doing
this can we find an appropriate solution. Perhaps its most important effect is the increased
rate at which we are consuming the Earthʼs resources such as oil. To combat this,
governments need to do more research on alternative and renewable energy supplies so
that we do not use up all the oil reserves. Another negative effect of overpopulation is how
some countries suffer from a lack of basic necessities such as food. Here, an answer
could be greater international co-operation so that countries with a food surplus donate
what they do not need to the less fortunate countries.

It is not quite so easy to decide how governments should deal with the causes of
overpopulation. The Chinese have adopted legislation that requires parents to pay a
special tax if they have more than one child. I doubt, however, whether this solution is
realistic in other countries. Another option would be to improve levels of sex education by
explaining the difficulties caused by having too many children.Promoting contraception
though may be problematic in many regions on cultural and religious grounds.

In conclusion, while it may be possible to find ways to address some of the consequences
of overpopulation by international co-operation, it is harder to find policies to deal with its
causes. It might be that the only way forward is for different countries to adopt policies that
work within their particular culture.

(319 words)
Many people want their country to host an international sporting event.
Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than
benefits. Discuss both views and state your opinion.

There is frequently great competition to host international sporting events. Not

everyone, however, believes that the price involved in hosting such events is
worthwhile. For me, this is an understandable point of view and perhaps not every
country should try and stage international sporting events.

The major argument against hosting international sporting events is financial.

Typically, it can cost several million pounds to build the arenas and modernise the
infrastructure so that it can cater for the athletes and the spectators. This money, it
is argued, would be better spent on welfare and education programmes that
provide direct support for the population. Indeed, some governments have incurred
so much debt through hosting the Olympic Games that they have had to reduce
spending on other social programmes.

While there is some merit in that argument, hosting sporting events does also bring
significant benefits. First among these is the honour and prestige it brings to the
host country because that country will be the centre of the sporting world for the
duration of the event. For many people this is beyond any price. More than that, if
the authorities plan carefully, they can use the occasion of the sporting event to
help finance public works that benefit the whole population in the long term. For
example, the village for the athletes can be transformed into public housing and the
various arenas can be used to build a sporting legacy for future generations.

My own view is that it is an honour for a country to host a major sporting event.
However, if a government wishes to bid for an international event to be staged in its
country, it should ensure it has sufficient funds to maintain spending on other
projects.

(288 words)
Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of
technology.
In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people make? Has this
been a positive or negative development?

It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between people.
Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there are both
positive and negative effects.

Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social life. Firstly,
telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to interact without
ever meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new possibilities for
relationships between students and teachers. For example, a student can now take video
lessons with a teacher in a different city or country. Finally, many people use social networks,
like Facebook, to make new friends and find people who share common interests, and they
interact through their computers rather than face to face.

On the one hand, these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between people
in different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited to written
letters or telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are almost as good as
face-to-face meetings, and many of us benefit from these interactions, either in work or social
contexts. On the other hand, the availability of new communication technologies can also
have the result of isolating people and discouraging real interaction. For example, many
young people choose to make friends online rather than mixing with their peers in the real
world, and these ‘virtual’ relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships.

In conclusion, technology has certainly revolutionised communication between people, but

not all of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive.

(257 words, band 9)