IELTS Writing

  • Some people think that the government is wasting money on arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhere. To what extent do you agree with this view?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    Everyone has their own opinion and concerns; I think that art is also an important aspect of life. We human beings are social animals. We need things that inspire us to help each other and live together. There could be many reasons why the government should spend money on arts and also why they should not. In my opinion, art is as important as any other sector and should receive government support.

    There are several reasons why the government should spend money on the arts. One of the main reasons is that art reflects the culture of a country and promotes people’s understanding of their culture and architecture. Most of us are oblivious to our ancient cultures and traditions, and we look up to art to learn about our culture and heritage.

    Secondly, the government should invest in art as it acts as a revenue factor too. For example, people from outside the country come to see the historical buildings and by maintaining its artistic legacy, a country can encourage tourists to visit again and again. This practice boosts the tourism sector and eventually the economic growth of a country.

    Thirdly, the art sector employs many people. For example, artists like singers and dancers have a huge fan following. Their shows are watched by thousands of people. Such events employ hundreds of people. Without government funding, many art forms will die down and that will be a huge loss for the country.

    However, spending on arts should not be at the expense of other sectors like education, healthcare, or defense. Those are certainly more important and hence should receive funding too, but I believe that the art sector should not be neglected too.

    To conclude, I believe that the government should distribute its funds evenly to all sectors including the arts because every sector has its contribution to the development of a country.


    Structure of the essay

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick a side. So,

    • Do you agree that the government should spend less on the arts?

                  or

    • Do you disagree that the government should spend more on the arts?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Introduction

    Question Paraphrased – Everyone has their own opinion and concerns; I think that art is also an important aspect of life. We human beings are social animals. We need things that inspire us to help each other and live together.

    A thesis statement – In my opinion, art is as important as any other sector and should receive government support.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Art reflects the culture of a country.

    Supporting points:

    • Most of us are oblivious to our ancient cultures and traditions, and we look up to art to learn about our culture and heritage.

     Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: The government should invest in art as it acts as a revenue factor too.

    Supporting points:

    • As all students are different and have different fields of interest, it should be left to the students to pursue their field of interest whether it is maths, science or arts, and drama.
    • Some students love maths and physics, pursue a career in engineering, some love science, and biology, pursue a career in the medical fields, likewise some love music, dance, or drama and tend to pursue a career as a singer, musician, dancer, or actor.

    Body Paragraph 3 :

    Central idea: The art sector employs many people.

    Supporting points:

    • This practice boosts the tourism sector and eventually the economic growth of a country.
    • Such events employ hundreds of people. Without government funding, many art forms will die down and that will be a huge loss for the country.

    Example:  People from outside the country come to see the historical buildings and by maintaining
    its artistic legacy, a country can encourage tourists to visit again and again.

    Body paragraph 4

    The other side of the argument:

    • Spending on arts should not be at the expense of other sectors like education, healthcare or defense.

    Yet you believe that your side is logical or right.

    • Those are certainly more important and hence should receive funding too, but I believe that the art sector should not be neglected too.

    Conclusion

    I believe that the government should distribute its funds evenly to all sectors including arts
    because every sector has its contribution to the development of a country.


  • Some people think that keeping pets is good for children while others think it is dangerous and unhealthy for them. Which viewpoint do you agree with?

    You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

    Write about the following topic:

    Some people think that keeping pets is good for children while others think it is dangerous and unhealthy for them.

    Which viewpoint do you agree with?

    Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

    Write at least 250 words.


    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

     

    Some individuals support keeping pets around young children as they think it is beneficial while others oppose the idea citing pet-related injuries and fatalities in recent times. In this essay, I shall argue that dangers that stem from young children having pets are overemphasized, sometimes even exaggerated, and children receive substantive psychological benefits from having pets.

    To commence with, most parents allow common and friendly pets like cats, dogs, and birds as their children’s companions, and the number of strange pets like snakes, spiders, apes, etc. are very rare. Such unfamiliar pets, which are a bit wild in nature, have been reported to hurt some children. However, such incidents are so rare that they are negligible. This is because the overwhelming majority of children have non-lethal pets like cats, dogs, fish, rodents, and rabbits. For instance, recent statistical data reveals that 93% of children own non-lethal and friendly pets that have almost zero percent chance of harming or hurting children. So, I believe that pets are not a physical danger to children.

    To shed some light on the positivity of letting children have pets, I can think of many. However, the most important of them is the favourable effects it has on children’s psychology and growth. Young pet owners frequently empathize with their pets and perform a diverse range of activities to maintain their well-being. The Cambridge Developmental Psychology Unit found that children who had grown up with pets were 30% less likely to bully others and show aggression. Pets are also conducive for young children’s mental growth, and they get involved in interesting activities with their pets that help them realize empathy more deeply. So it is undeniable that a child’s prosociality and mental health can be improved through exposure to pets.

    In conclusion, letting young children possess and interact with friendly pets has important benefits. It is not a threat to children and their health, rather beneficial to nurture some important good qualities in them. So, it is expected that parents who wish to have pets for their children would consider those benefits and finally select one of the common and friendly pets for their children.


     

  • Some people believe that if a police officer carries guns, it can encourage a higher level of violence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Some people believe that if a police officer carries guns, it can encourage a higher level of violence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. You should write at least 250 words.

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    Many people believe that a police force armed with guns encourages the level of violence in society. Other people maintain that an armed police force deters the level of violence. I think it really depends on how the guns are used by the police.

    The obvious argument for having armed police centers around the idea that the show of guns by police is in itself a deterrent to violence. Citizens who may be contemplating an act of violence will be reminded that their own safety and welfare may be jeopardized if they are caught committing a violent crime by police. Thus, having an armed police force can in fact discourage the committing of crimes and violence within a society.

    On the other hand, armed police officers’ use of guns may escalate violence instead of deterring it. If a police officer shoots at a suspected criminal, that violence may breed more violence, as the criminal might shoot back, and then the police officers, the criminals, and even innocent bystanders could be injured or killed with the gunfire. ieltsselfstudy.com

    To sum up, most citizens expect the police to protect them by any means necessary, including guns. If citizens are not confident that the police are protecting them, those citizens might then decide to obtain guns to protect themselves against other citizens and the police. So, in those instances guns will lead to more guns and violence will breed more violence. However, if police officers are properly trained as to how and when to use guns, the guns they carry should provide a deterrent to the level of violence in society.


    Model Essay 2

    In some countries, the police force carries guns to fight against lawbreakers and protect the innocent. However, some people hold the view that it would give rise to a higher level of violence. As far as I am concerned, only when guns are used properly under certain supervision, can they serve to protect citizens?

    Undoubtedly, guns are one of the most powerful weapons that the police can use to maintain social security and stability as it is the best deterrent to potential lawbreakers and scare off the would-be criminals. If the police force carries guns in the public, there is a possibility that the potential criminals may give up their plans, thus reducing the crime rate. In addition, the police can use guns to protect themselves as police officers are one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They need to protect themselves when they face criminals who are using weapons.

    However, the application of guns can pose potential risks. First of all, it may lead to the abuse of weapons, especially in some western countries where ordinary people have the right to buy guns. Secondly, there is a possibility that the police may hurt innocent citizens accidentally when they pick the wrong targets, which also leads to social chaos. Thirdly, if every police officer carries a gun and walks in the street, people will lack a sense of security and society will have a horrifying atmosphere. ieltsselfstudy.com

    To conclude, the police can hold guns, but they should be very careful to avoid the abuse of guns. At the same time, the police must be trained strictly before being allowed to Carry Weapons.


    Model Essay 3

    Police officers carry guns and that is part of their job. They are entrusted with the job of enforcing law and order in society. When criminals carry guns, can we expect our police force to carry out their duty without the help of guns? Police officers do inspire society. Children, especially, have a fascination for the police uniform and the gun. Does this cause an increase in violence in society? Well, that is debatable.

    Because police officers carry guns and use them as and when necessary, it might give the impression that carrying guns is fashionable. It might also give the impression that guns are necessary for the maintenance of peace. In that case, it can be said that gun-toting police officers inspire violence.

    Now let’s take a look at the other side of the argument. The duty of a police officer is to enforce law and order in society. During the execution of their job, they face a lot of challenges. They have to deal with people of different kinds. How can we expect an unarmed police officer to effectively deal with a situation that might itself be violent? The gun, though it may be a sign of violence, is a necessity in situations like these. It also provides some security to the lives of our police force. When criminals are armed, police officers too need to be armed. That is essential for the effective execution of their job. ieltsselfstudy.com

    Looking at both sides of the argument, it is safe to assume that the gun is a necessary evil that the police force can’t do away with. What we need to do to reduce the incidences of violence is to create awareness about their ill effects.


    Model Essay 4

    I disagree with the statement that an armed police force would promote a greater degree of violence. A number of arguments surround my opinion.

    My first argument to support my viewpoint is that guns would, to a large extent, deter the potential criminals’ Police officers are those who are responsible for taking care of all the citizens, safety and wearing guns could largely make sure of this. For example, if someone has the intention to commit a crime, he would think twice about doing so if there are police carrying guns on patrol. Therefore, the level of violence would decrease rather than go up.

    Secondly, criminals usually have guns and so, police officers need them in order to control crime. Instead of taking guns away from the police, it is more important to make laws against the general public having guns. Countries with weak or ineffective gun laws, or countries bordering such countries, like Mexico which has strong 8un laws, but virtually no way to prevent them from being smuggled over the border from the U.S., need a police force that is not only armed but is armed better than the criminals.

    Opponents claim that police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and also have crime in control. They have a point but I believe that crime in the UK is under control because they are able to control the flow of guns to the general populace. Therefore, I reiterate my point that the police force should carry guns.

    To sum up, because criminals can easily come into possession of guns, therefore the police force needs to be armed. Armed police in itself could never be a cause of increased violence. Nations around the world should hope to someday reach the point where their police force can afford not to carry guns and still be effective.


    Model Essay 5

    On account of a series of commotions happening recently in a wide range of countries, a significant number of people consider those police officers carrying guns on patrol would promote the grade of violence. However, I am opposed to this perspective.

    Police officers carrying guns and walking around are less likely to encourage the level of violent crimes. Police officers are responsible for deterring the latent criminals and taking care of all the citizens’ safety, which could be largely guaranteed by gun-carrying action. For example, some people may intend to commit a crime(=break laws/do something illegal), but there is a higher possibility for them to quit taking action if they are aware of the serious consequence of meeting gun-carrying police. In this regard, the level of violent crimes tends to descend, and thus the standpoint that police officers carrying guns will encourage the level of violence will not hold water.

    Conversely, some people insist that police officers taking guns on duty would inevitably raise the level of violent crimes. Robbery is a major case in point. If someone intends to rob a bank for money and they are entirely aware of the situation that police officers are equipped with guns, they are likely to make sufficient preparation for having a gun battle. If they were to fire, there would be significant losses in terms of innocent people’s properties or lives, and this will probably jeopardize( the stability of society. However, if police officers are constantly on alert for any possible emergency and potential threat, there would be slim chances of committing a crime.

    In conclusion, I have the inclination to maintain those police officers carrying guns would substantially decrease the level of violence rather than increase it.


    Model Essay 6

    It is often believed by a few sections of society that the violence rate will rise if police authorities carry a weapon. However, some people, including myself, completely disagree with this view. I feel that to reduce the crime rate and protect themselves; Policemen should carry guns or other safety weapons.

    The primary reason behind carrying a gun is to deter criminal acts. Thieves or criminals would think twice or be scared before commencing any crime if they know that police officers around them are armed. As a result, violence and crime will be significantly reduced in society. For example, a robber might stop his criminal thought if he is afraid of police officials carrying guns could shoot him from a long distance. Contrary to this, failure to carry a weapon might give offenders a strong advantage in terms of their ability to commit violence without any corresponding risk. Another reason is that police officers can protect themselves and people from dangerous situations.

    Certainly, many criminals keep various harmful and life-threatening weapons, which they can use against not only police persons but also citizens. Therefore, if there were no safety precautions for police officials, there, as well as people’s lives, could have come at risk. For instance, in many terror attacks globally, the terrorist killed innocent citizens and police officers. Hence, in such circumstances, to save innocent lives, carrying a gun is a necessary precaution for police officials.

    In conclusion, although some people oppose carrying weapons by police officers in fear of violence, I completely disagree. In my view, to control and reduce the crime rate as well as to save people and their own life, Police officials should carry a gun.


    Ideas for Police Officer Carrying Guns Essay

    1. WHY POLICE SHOULD USE GUNS

    • It is easier to arrest someone and avoid physical violence
    • The police may shoot violent criminals in self-defense
    • Many criminals use weapons
    • They can shoot an escaping criminal who poses a serious danger to the public
    • The threat of a gun can deter criminals
    • Police officers can force a criminal to surrender
    • They can protect the public

    2. WHY POLICE SHOULD NOT CARRY GUNS

    • Accidents can happen in public places
    • There is a risk of accidents and mistakes
    • There are several alternatives to guns (e.g tear gas, sprays, and electric shock weapons)
    • The police might shoot an unarmed criminal or an innocent person
    • Only special police units should use guns.
  • Subjects like arts, music and drama are more important than other subjects and therefore should be given more time in the calendar. Do you agree or disagree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    It is argued that the arts, music, and drama are more important than the other subjects. Some students flourish when studying music, art or drama but maths and science are also subjects that are essential in life. I strongly disagree with the fact that arts, music and are more important than other subjects.

    I agree with the fact that not everyone has a talent for mathematics, physics, or languages and many students only do their best work when they can be creative. Many students simply cannot focus on traditional subjects such as maths, science, or history unless they are expressing themselves creatively through painting, song, or dance. Some people would disagree with this view and say that art stops young children from spending enough time on the more important subjects and passing major exams.

    All the subjects have equal importance, and all the subjects like music, arts and drama should have equal weightage as maths, science, and history. No field of interest should be considered more important than the other. As all students are different and have different fields of interest, it should be left to the students to pursue their field of interest whether it is maths, science or arts, and drama. Some students love maths and physics pursue a career in engineering, some love science, and biology pursue a career in the medical fields, likewise some love music, dance, or drama and tend to pursue a career as a singer, musician, dancer, or actor.

    In conclusion, all the subjects have equal importance and I completely disagree with the opinion that art, music, and drama are more important than other subjects.


    Structure of the essay

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick the side. So,

    • Do you agree that subjects like the arts, music, and drama are more important than other subjects?

    (or)

    • Do you disagree that subjects like the arts, music, and drama are more important than other subjects?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Introduction

    Question Paraphrased – It is argued that the arts, music, and drama are more important than the other subjects.

    A thesis statement – I strongly disagree with the fact that arts, music and are more important than other subjects.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Subjects like art and music are equally important.

    Supporting points:

    • I agree with the fact that not everyone has a talent for mathematics, physics, or languages and many students only do their best work when they can be creative.
    • Many students simply cannot focus on traditional subjects such as maths, science, or history unless they are expressing themselves creatively through painting, song, or dance.

     Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: Students have different fields of interest.

    Supporting points:

    • As all students are different and have different fields of interest, it should be left to the students to pursue their field of interest whether it is maths, science or arts, and drama.
    • Some students love maths and physics pursue a career in engineering, some love science, and biology pursue a career in the medical fields, likewise some love music, dance, or drama and tend to pursue a career as a singer, musician, dancer, or actor.

    Conclusion:

    All the subjects have equal importance and I completely disagree with the opinion that art, music and drama are more important than other subjects.


  • Technology is destroying social interactions. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    Undoubtedly, technology has revolutionized the way we communicate these days. Some people say that inventions like mobile phones are making people less social. In my opinion, I disagree with this statement.

    To start with, the introduction of mobile phones is a blessing in disguise for people. This invention immensely helped people to strengthen their relationships with their loved ones living far away. Now they can easily do a face-to-face call anywhere and anytime. Consequently, they become more socially active. In the olden times, people used to write letters or telegrams which took a long time to reach their family members. However, now they can talk to any person immediately. Moreover, a social messaging application such as WhatsApp in smartphones enables people to become part of many social groups. Thus, they become socially connected and grow a healthy social network with others.

    Furthermore, we have begun to interact with people who we don’t know at all. A lot of applications these days help us connect with like-minded people. Thus, adding to our social circle. To introverts, technology has been a boon. It has helped them interact with people without facing social anxiety at any cost.

    In conclusion, I assert that the reasonable use of a mobile phone is a boon to mankind and its excessive use can be a curse. So, it is up to people to decide wisely how they want to use this technology.


    Structure of the essay

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick the side. So,

    • Do you agree that technology is destroying social interactions?

    (or)

    • Do you disagree that technology is destroying social interactions?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Introduction

    Question Paraphrased – Some people say that inventions like mobile phones are making people less social.

    Opinion – I completely disagree with this idea.

    A thesis statement – In my opinion, I disagree with this statement.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Connecting people who are far away.

    Supporting points:

    • As this invention immensely helped people to strengthen their relationship with their loved ones living far away. Now they can easily do a face-to-face call anywhere and anytime. Consequently, they become more socially active.
    • In the olden times, people used to write letters or telegrams which took a long time to reach their family members. However, now they can talk to any person immediately. Moreover, social messaging applications such as WhatsApp in smartphones enable people to become part of many social groups. Thus, they become socially connected and grow a healthy social network with others.

        Example:

    • In earlier days, the population in the country or cities was less and also people used to
    stay in individual houses as there was a lot of space available. It is not possible now
    because of the increased population.

    Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: Interaction with like-minded people.

    Supporting points:

    • We have begun to interact with people who we don’t know at all. A lot of applications these days help us connect with like-minded people.
    • To introverts, technology has been a boon. It has helped them interact with people without facing social anxiety at any cost.

    Conclusion:

    I assert that the reasonable use of a mobile phone is a boon to mankind and its excessive use can be a curse. So, it is up to people to decide wisely how they want to use this technology.


  • There aren’t many houses to accommodate people so it has several social consequences. Only the government can solve this problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    As overpopulation is the main problem in most of the cities, there are no sufficient houses for shelter and there are a lot of social problems too. Only with the help of the government, we would be able to overcome this problem. I agree that the government can help overcome this issue by taking proper measures.

    Firstly, we believe that the government plays an important role in people’s lives. When we as an individual cannot solve a problem on our own, we will have to depend on the government. Overpopulation is one of the biggest problems in our society which makes it difficult to accommodate houses for the people in need. In earlier days, the population in the country or cities was less and also people used to stay in individual houses as there was a lot of space available. It is not possible now because of the increased population.

    Furthermore, the government can use its finances in expanding the city so that more people can get accommodation. Even if the population is controlled, there will be a requirement for additional buildings or houses that can be accommodated by the people. In order to do this, there must be proper planning and investments at the same time. Thus, the government can be a perfect authority to solve this problem.

    In conclusion, we can say that, as the population increases the cities should also grow accordingly, and this can be only done by the government, by taking suitable measures.


    Structure of the essay

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick the side. So,

    • Do you agree that the government can solve the problem?

    (or)

    • Do you disagree that the government can solve the problem?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Introduction

    Question Paraphrased – As overpopulation is the main problem in most of the cities, there are no sufficient houses for shelter and there are a lot of social problems too. Only with the help of the government, we would be able to overcome this problem.

    Opinion – I completely agree with this idea.

    A thesis statement – I agree that the government can help overcome this issue by taking proper measures.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Depend on the government for accommodation.

    Supporting points:

    • Overpopulation is one of the biggest problems in our society which makes it difficult to accommodate houses for the people in need.

        Example:

    • In earlier days, the population in the country or cities was less and also people used to
    stay in individual houses as there was a lot of space available. It is not possible now
    because of the increased population.

    Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: The government can use their finances in expanding the city so that more people can get accommodation.

    Supporting points:

    • Even if the population is controlled, there will be a requirement of additional buildings or houses that can be accommodated by the people. In order to do this, there must be proper planning and investments at the same time.

    Conclusion:

    In conclusion, we can say that, as the population increases the cities should also grow accordingly, and this can be only done by the government, by taking suitable measures.


  • With the development of online communication, people will never be alone and will always be able to make new friends. To what extent do you agree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    Nowadays, online communication is becoming universally popular, the number of users increases rapidly. People strongly believe that thanks to it, not only will loneliness permanently disappear in their lives but social communication is likely to provide them with an opportunity to make friends with others. I completely agree with this statement for several reasons.

    Firstly, online communication centers around the world are helping users to easily connect regardless of geographical distances. Today’s social media platforms have user-friendly interfaces in which online friends are recommended based on the user’s profile information. This facilitates the friend-making process without having to leave one’s comfort zone. Also, such means of communication ensures that one will be constantly provided with friend suggestions as a way to enhance online experiences. For example, Tinder and other online dating apps match users with multiple potential individuals that share common interests.

    Secondly, the online world has a vast number of people from different backgrounds. As per the growing popular trend, more and more people feel the need to join the digital world. This creates a sense of collectivity and togetherness amongst users that there are always people they can reach out to. This sense is further enhanced by insights that are given into others’ personal lives and interests. For example, each Facebook user has what is called a ‘newsfeed’ – a news bulletin with updates on what their friends share about their activities.

    In conclusion, the large number of online users and ease of connection have made online communication a convenient tool to make friends and avoid loneliness.

    Structure of the essay

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick a side. So,

    • Do you agree that with the development of online communication, people will never be alone and will always be able to make new friends?

    or

    • Do you disagree that with the development of online communication, people will never be alone and will always be able to make new friends?

    Once you pick a side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Introduction

    Question Paraphrased – People strongly believe that thanks to it, not only will loneliness permanently disappear in their lives but social communication is likely to provide them with an opportunity to make friends with others.

    A thesis statement – I completely agree with this statement for several reasons.

    Body Paragraph 1

    Central idea: Online users can connect irrespective of geographical differences.

    Supporting points:

    • Today’s social media platforms have user-friendly interfaces in which online friends are recommended based on the user’s profile information. This facilitates the friend-making process without having to leave one’s comfort zone.
    • Such means of communication ensures that one will be constantly provided with friend suggestions as a way to enhance online experiences.

    Body Paragraph 2:

    Central idea: Many people from different backgrounds.

    Supporting points:

    • As per the growing popular trend, more and more people feel the need to join the digital world. This creates a sense of collectivity and togetherness amongst users that there are always people they can reach out to.

    Conclusion

    A large number of online users and ease of connection have made online communication a convenient tool to make friends and avoid loneliness.


  • Some people think it is one of the best ways to solve environmental problems by increasing the cost of fuels for cars and other vehicles. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    Environmental pollution is a major threat that society is confronting now. Some are of the opinion that raising the price of fuel for cars and other vehicles will help. They believe that this move would prevent people from buying and using cars, which will minimize the hazardous effects of pollution. I think this idea is baseless. There are many other practical solutions to the problem. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall explain why this is not an effective move and outline the alternatives.

    Primarily, increasing the cost of fuel has dangerous consequences. Transportation costs will increase, which means the prices of essential commodities will increase. The value of the rupee will start depreciating, which is of grave concern. There are several alternative measures that could be taken rather than increasing fuel costs. For instance, biodiesel, a renewable fuel made from vegetable oils and animal fats, could be advocated. Electric cars are another option. Fuel from hydrogen, natural gas, propane, or liquefied petroleum gas is also effective fuel alternatives. All these emit low levels of gases into the atmosphere.

    An increase in fuel prices is a sign of a weak economy. Banks may increase lending rates. It is an indirect tax burden on the citizens of the country. It is an indirect hint of our situation to the global community, and we may be forced to yield to the interests of superior powers. The cost of living will increase. As a result, businesses will cut down costs which will lead to an economic recession.

    Even though it is true that we have to reduce using cars that pollute the environment, resorting to alternative sources of energy is more of a win-win situation.

    In conclusion, raising fuel costs will not solve environmental problems. Instead, awareness of alternate sources of petrol should be created, and people should be encouraged to use them.


    Structure of the essay

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick the side. So,

    • Do you agree that it is one of the best ways to solve environmental problems by increasing the cost of fuels for cars and other vehicles?

    (or)

    • Do you disagree with the idea that it is one of the best ways to solve environmental problems by increasing the cost of fuels for cars and other vehicles?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Question Paraphrased – Environmental pollution is a major threat that society is confronting now. Some are of the opinion that raising the price of fuel for cars and other vehicles will help. They believe that this move would prevent people from buying and using cars, which will minimize the hazardous effects of pollution.

    Opinion – I completely agree with this idea.

    A thesis statement – In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall explain why this is not an effective move and outline the alternatives.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Consequences of increasing fuel costs and possible alternatives.

    Supporting points:

    • Increase in fuel costs increases the price of essential commodities
    • Value of rupee depreciates
    • Biodiesel, electric cars, fuel from hydrogen, propane, and natural gas are alternative fuels

    Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: Reasons for resorting to fast foods and their negative impact on lifestyle

    Supporting points:

    • Sign of weak economy
    • Hints our situation to the world
    • Cost of living increases
    • Economic recession

    Conclusion:

    Reiterated that instead of raising fuel prices which will lead to dangerous consequences, people should be encouraged to use alternate sources of fuel.


  • Fast food is becoming one part of life everywhere; this has bad effects on our lifestyles and diet. Do you agree or disagree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    Fast foods have conquered our lives. The younger generation has fallen for it. Due to their palatable taste, people are craving for it. Our dietary habits have undergone a significant change, and we have become more prone to health problems. I’m also of the same opinion, and I shall put forth my arguments in the forthcoming paragraphs.

    Primarily, the local food joints selling pakoras, samosas, and vada pavs don’t use good quality oil. They are prepared under unhygienic conditions. They are tasty but have severe health impacts, such as damage to the liver, heart, and an increase in bad cholesterol. People are attracted to them despite knowing the consequences. They are eaten for pleasure and have become the favourite noontime snack for many. They have indeed become a part of the diet.

    Packaged foods are no less in causing health problems. They are priced heavily, and people don’t hesitate to spend on them. The primary reason for buying packaged foods is laziness. With almost a significant population working to earn a living, they lack time and energy to cook at home. So they resort to alternatives like packaged foods. They are unaware of the ingredients used to prepare them. Over a period of time, lack of physical activity and consumption of these foods rich in fat will lead to serious health complications like obesity. In the olden days, people ate home-cooked meals, and the average lifespan was 80. Now it has come down to 60.

    Although the fast-paced life has pushed people into fast food, people should try to come out of this addiction.

    In conclusion, it is without a doubt that the consumption of fast foods has a damaging effect on our health in the long run.


    Structure of the essay

     

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick the side. So,

    • Do you agree that fast food has bad effects on our lifestyles and diet?

    (or)

    • Do you disagree with the idea that fast food has bad effects on our lifestyles and diet?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Question Paraphrased – Fast foods have conquered our lives. The younger generation has fallen for it. Due to their palatable taste, people are craving for it. Our dietary habits have undergone a significant change, and we have become more prone to health problems.

    Opinion – I completely agree with this idea.

    A thesis statement – I’m also of the same opinion, and I shall put forth my arguments in the forthcoming paragraphs.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Fast foods have changed dietary habits and have a damaging effect on health.s

    Supporting points:

    • Are very tasty
    • Causes diseases related to heart and liver
    • Eaten for pleasure
    • Become favourite noontime snack
    • Become part of the diet

    Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: Reasons for resorting to fast foods and their negative impact on lifestyle

    Supporting points:

    • Laziness to cook at home
    • Leads to conditions like obesity
    • Reduced the average lifespan of people

    Conclusion:

    Reiterated the negative impact of fast foods on health.


  • Some people think the government should not spend on international aid because there are disadvantaged people in their country, such as the unemployed and homeless. Do you agree or disagree?

    Sample Answer 1: Band 8

    International aid is the transfer of goods or services from a country or international organization to benefit another country. Support can be economical or humanitarian. Some think that their government should not spend on international aid because there are underprivileged people in their own country. I completely agree with this idea. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall explain why countries should give priority to their internal problems.

    Firstly, a developed country should examine its debt ceiling before volunteering to help other countries. The US is a classic example. According to a survey, the US national debt was about $26 trillion in June 2020. It has increased to almost 800% of what it was in 1989. This would bring down the value of the dollar and impact negatively on the economy and international investments. Eventually, it would aggravate the unemployment problem within the country. So it is high time that the nation concentrated on reducing its debts rather than contributing to international aid. If these countries continue to fund other nations, it will cause serious social unrest within their country.

    There is no evidence that the countries receiving foreign aid are progressing economically. Also, according to a survey, foreign aid consumes a considerable amount in the budget which can be used for the nation’s welfare. Furthermore, the countries receiving support are not committed to remaining loyal to the donor country in times of crisis and may not yield to the donor’s interests. Donor countries also need to be wary of the fact that they contribute only their share and don’t overdo the aid.

    Despite the fact that developed countries should be merciful on third-world countries, I feel that intra-governmental development should gain priority over helping others.

    In conclusion, though it is deemed merciless to stop funding the underdeveloped countries, it should be noted that solving the intragovernmental problems in a developed country is of more importance. Only a self-sustained country will be able to donate generously to other countries.


    Structure of the essay

     

    You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick the side. So,

    • Do you agree that the government should not spend on international aid because there are disadvantaged people in their country, such as the unemployed and homeless?

    (or)

    • Do you disagree with the idea that the government should not spend on international aid because there are disadvantaged people in their country, such as the unemployed and homeless?

    Once you pick the side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

    Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

    Question Paraphrased – International aid is the transfer of goods or services from a country or international organization to benefit another country. Support can be economical or humanitarian. Some think that their government should not spend on international aid because they are underprivileged people in their own country.

    Opinion – I completely agree with this idea.

    A thesis statement – In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall explain why countries should give priority to their internal problems.

    Body Paragraph 1:

    Topic: Central idea: Importance of analyzing the intra governmental problems

    Supporting points:

    • Examining one’s own debt ceiling
    • Monitoring the currency value
    • Monitoring the economy and international investments
    • Consequences of making donations without concentrating on intra governmental problems

    Body Paragraph 2:

    Topic: Central idea: International aid does not help in any manner

    Supporting points:

    • The poor countries don’t’ show significant progress
    • The countries receiving aid may not remain loyal to the donor
    • The countries receiving aid may not comply to the donor’s interests

    Conclusion:

    Reiterated that intra governmental problems should be given priority over helping other countries.


Back to top button
Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
100% Free SEO Tools - Tool Kits PRO
error: Content is protected !!