« IELTS Listening: 'home' topic | Main | IELTS Writing Task 1: a real process description »

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

hello Simon
your essays are really easy to follow and simple .i wish i can write like this in the real exam.

Can I worry about his question paraphrasing? I can see some repeated words. Anw, I often feel stress when trying not to use words in the question.

Hello Simon, This is my answer,

It is almost inevitably true that traffic and pollution are pressing issues in the world.However, I do not agree with the statement that the increased petrol prices can be solution to those problems.

Firstly, there are several reasons why people consume petrol substances such as, commuting for people from somewhere to an other,to be central heating system by housholders,manufacturing products and goods. It seems to me that fossil fuels are necessary and have become an important part of our daily lives. In my opinion, there are serious measures that international structures should take into account. For example, governments should prepare an international forum as a means of global atempt. Because pollution in particular,must be coped with a combined will in the World rather than individual country attempts.

Traffic is another important problem in bigger cities. I do not think that the main reason is the low price of petrol, but overpopulation and urbanization mainly result in traffic congestion, as a matter of fact that commuters should be used to go to work and back to home by public transports such as buses, and trains in rush hours.In addition, if drivers enter the congestion zones in the cities,then they must be pay additional money to avert unnecessary drivers. The goverments should encourage drivers to select the minimised diesel motor engines in terms of reduced tax pays.

In conclusion,traffic and pollution are growing problems in todays society, but I disagree with the opinion that low petrol prices are the main reason to the solution of these problems. In fact there are various measures,as explains above,the governments shoud take into consideration.

Hello Simon,thak you for your wonderfull work.
Here is a try.

The increase of traffic and pollution are two of the main problems that we face in modern life, mainly in big cities. Although some people think that higher petrol prices could solve these issues, I think there are more efficient and fair actions.

Some experts and politicians think that a significantly rise in petrol prices would lead to a decrease in use of cars and thus to pollution reduction, I think that past experiences are against this statement. For instance, during the seventies there was a huge soar of petrol barrel prices due to the maneuvers of the OPEP countries; despite the car use was decreased at the beginning, it rapidly returned to the previous rates and even continued growing.

Even supposing that this measure were useful I would also state that it shouldn’t be taken due to its unfairness. Most people use their cars not as a luxury but as a necessity, therefore it would affect to people budgets especially to those with a lower income.

There are also a lot of measures that can be taken before. Firstly governments should encourage automobile industries to keep improving motors efficiency and help to develop alternatives to the internal combustion engines such as electric or hybrids ones. Secondly an effort should be made to improve and increase the use of public transportation and other means of transport, mainly bicycle. Finally, we have a great chance with the current develop of information technology to facilitate remote work and therefore decrease our needs of commuting.

To sum up, despite rising petrol prices appears as an attractive solution to transportation and pollution problems, there are a lot of better actions we should try before.

I hope that with training I’ll be able to write something like this at my exam.

Hi Simon,i am trying to prepare myself through the daily lesson here you put,and from you e book which is rally very helpful for organising ideas.my exam is in jan 12th.can you please just give me a short feedback,whether i am in right track in writing this introduction or not:

Increasing the traffic congestion and population problems all around the world is a major concern now-a-days.Though accelerate the price of petrol might be one of the way to solve this problem,i would argue that this is the best way to address this issues,and i believe that there are several otheres steps we can take in individaul and government level to overcome these problems.

Dear Mr Simon,
I'm not sure about whether personal example is mandatory in an essay or not?
Sometime I see you don't give an example in some body paragraphs.
I usually use reasons to express ideas, and don't often give an example. How this affect my score?
Thanks a lot !

Hi Simon, thank you very much for your invaluable ideas and sharing on this blog.

For this task, shall we need to separate the two problems of traffic congestion and the pollution and explain them individually? Or could we regard them as one whole problem?

Looking forward to your advice, thanks a lot.

Hi, Dear Simon:

Hope you are well!

I find I always struggle to understand the REAL requirement behind Task2 essay statement, and sometimes I don't know if I overthink it, is there any common guidance regarding this issue? For example, in this task: The growth in international travel means that misunderstandings between
countries will inevitably decrease.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I at first want to write misunderstanding between people in different countries, but does the task mean misunderstanding between countries but not their people?

Best Regards

my intro for the given task:

Some problems that societies face nowadays, especially on the highly urbanized areas, are increasing traffic congestion and pollution. While it can be argued that making petrol prices higher could solve these problems, I believe to some extent that there are more ways that can be done to better tackle these issues.

Growing traffic and pollution has been a pressing issue. personally,I disagree with the solution that higher petrol prices could solve these problems. I believe that there are various other measures that would be effective.

It is undoubtedly the case that urban areas around the world increasingly suffer from congestion. In this essay, I examine the reasons for this trend and suggest some practical policies the authorities could implement to reduce the level of traffic in our cities.

respected simon ,I want to ask is this pattern of introduction is right for a problem solution essay.Can we write like this (in this essay)

traffic and pollution problems are closely related to the increasing number of cars. Accordingly, some maintain that increasing the petrol price would be a best solution to response such issues. Although I admit the benefits of this practise, it is my belief that other measures sound more effective.

Hi Simon and every one
welcome for any comments to my try
Both traffic congestion and air pollution rise in societies are one the main issues which must be addressed. While I accept that increasing petrol price can be effective approach in short- term, I think to tackle this problem other constructive measures are by far more beneficial in long- term.
On the one hand, decreasing traffic and pollution by increasing the price of petrol makes people use inexhaustible fuel accurately. As a consequent, it helps to conserve them in a right way because these kinds of energy resources are not infinite and without paying more attention we would miss them in the near future. However, historical evidences bear the testimony that people are able to adjust the new condition after a while. Therefore, it is not expected this strategy lasts for a long time.
On the other hand, taking emission actions into consideration should be encouraged. For instance, governments are responsible for raising people awareness to use public transportation instead of personal vehicle. In addition, some adaptation measures are accounted as alternatives. For example, automobile industry can conduct to manufacture engines which work by electric or solar engines. Moreover, making time limitation in rush hours for drivers not only helps to reduce traffic but also it is a good remedy in pollution reduction.
In conclusion, no one can deny the benefit of price rising in a short term, but I think emission and adaptation measurements such as encourage people for using public transportation, provide financial supports for the industries and time constraints for drivers are more significant effect.

48 words introduction.

It is true that traffic and pollution are growing problems that most of the society encountered now a days. However, I do not agree with the idea that to increase the price of petrol can solve these problems, and I believe that other measures would be more efficient.

Hi Simon

Here is a try

Traffic congestion and polluted environment has been a concern of the whole society. Therefore, one strand of thought proposes that pricing the petrol higher is the best way to solve these problems, which, I believe there must have other more effective methods can be used to tackle the issues.

Hi Simon,
I appreciate you for your useful lessons. I have one question about the advantage and disadvantages essay. You said that if the question do not ask about the writer opinion, we should not write our opinion. But in the book 'Action Plan for Ielts academic' I read that we should say our opinion. I became really confused. Please help me.
Thank you

Hi Simon,
For your question, can I organize the body of the essay in 2 paragraphs. One answer what extend I agree or disagree and another one for suggested solutions for the problem?

Really thank for you response.

Hi Simon and my friends, This is my first attempt to writing an opinion based essay. Kindly analyse.

Today, growing traffic and pollution are irrefutably one of the paramount problems societies are facing globally. Personally, I disagree with the idea that an increase in petrol prices is the best possible solution to it, and I believe that an amalgam of various other measures would be a more constructive approach.

Some environmental experts and government officials are of the opinion that significant upsurge in petrol prices would bring down the total consumption. However, results of similar actions taken in the past, recent research and surveys prove otherwise. Since the majority of commuters use vehicles as a necessity to travel to work and not as a luxury, a price hike would mean an increase in use of substitute fuels like diesel for transportation. For example, even if public transportation increases its charges, that will not make people stop going to work. It will also result in inflation thus diminishing the standard of living and affecting the low-income group. Meanwhile, the rich will still be consuming the same quantity owing to a higher purchasing power.

Numerous strategic controls and actions should be implemented in order to reduce the traffic as well as restrict the pollution levels. Firstly, the government should take responsibility to bear the increase in the cost of public transportation due to price hike so that only unnecessary use of fossil fuels is targeted at. Secondly, an effort in reducing the cost of accommodation close to workplaces and business centers would make people choose to walk to work eventually reducing traffic and thus pollution. Finally, controlled measures using technology should be established to keep a check on PUC levels. For example, mandatory yearly renewal of license plates will always keep a check on the PUC levels and vehicle servicing which should be up-to-date before approaching the authority for renewals. Meanwhile, the state should spread awareness, promote electric cars and establish more charging stations across the country.

In conclusion, while, petrol price hike is definitely an attractive strategy to slacken its consumption in short-term, but a range of operational measures and actions taken collectively would prove to be most effective in the long run.

PS: based on the rough sketch.

effect
P1
1. Increasing the price of petrol will reduce the consumption of petrol
2. Increase the use of diesel
3. Directly affect inflation
4. Common man will be more affected
5. Richer will still be using the same quantity due to purchasing power
6. Standard of living will diminish
7. Public transportation charges like buc, metro, trams will increasing but that will not make people to stop going to work.

Measures:
1. Reducing the cost of living in areas close to business centers and office buildings.
2. Stricter measures to check the current puc check and mandate the renewal of licenses every year to ensure the puc.
3. Governments bear the increase in cost public transportation.
4. Promoting electric cars and establishing more charging stations across the country.

Hi Simon & Everyone,

For the above question, this is my answer. feel free to go through & email me if any recommendation.

As always thanks and learn alot from your blog.


It is undoubtedly true that, the issue of traffic and pollution have been growing rapidly every year, therefore some suggest that increasing the price of petrol will help ease the problem and believed it is the best way.However , in my opinion I strongly disagree with the suggestion. The following essay will discuss the reasons and introduce several measures that can be taken by individual & government.

Increasing the price of petrol will not resolve the issue. First of all, when the price rises, it will affect most of the market, globally. For instance transportation company will increase their service fees due to the rising of petrol price, and it will continue to spread the effects to business that is using the services and follow on, and consumer end up paying more for their products or services.In addition, while price of petrol increasing, industry like tourism will have similar effect too. Low fare air-craft business in particular. Besides that reports shows that petrol had been increased through out the years, yet still show no sign of changes & decreasing of traffic & pollution. This is proven that increasing the price of petrol would not be the best way to resolve the issue.

While the rises of petrol price will not work, there are plenty of alternatives that are potential and efficient. First and foremost, government could improve or build a better public facilities for the users. For example, quality of public transports could be improve and extra services could be add-on during peak hours. Apart from that, other facilites like building more bicycle routes for cyclist and promoting cycling culture to people. Secondly, as an individual we could participate by cycling to work, or even using public transports to help decrease the issue of congestion and pollution.

As a conclusion, the idea of increasing price of petrol would not be the best way and recommended, therefore suggestions we discussed above would be much more efficient and beneficial to the world.

Probably not the most relevant post for this.

Could anyone write this essay ? Yesteryear's question :-

Creative artists should be given freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Heya Simon,

I've been reading your blog for the past few weeks and have used it as my main source in prepping for the IELTs.

I have a question regarding the argument v discussion type essays. I recall you saying that "agree/disagree to an extent" and "positive/negative impact" are opinion type questions.

However, going through a few of the essays, I realised that you've addressed both sides of the argument in http://ielts-simon.com/ielts-help-and-english-pr/2012/02/ielts-writing-task-2-technology-essay.html#tp and http://ielts-simon.com/files/t2-career-essay.pdf essay.

This cannot be due to a change of style as the first essay was written in 2012. So I was wondering, when would it be wise to adopt a "on the one hand/conversely" type of format, or a "to begin with... furthermore" format which supports a single side all the way?

Sorry for the long email, but I really do need clarification on this. Thanks so much in advance; I owe you one! (:

Edit: Simon, I've just read another one of your lessons "to what extent do you agree?" Excellent post. Cleared up a lot for me.

Now the only issue I have is with questions with only 1 sentence.

Eg. "Financial education should be a mandatory component of the school program. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?"

In this case, how would you structure the body of your essay if there are no other sentences to compare against/ add to your views?

Thanks again!

Hi Benjamin,

Good questions. I'll try to answer in tomorrow's lesson here on the blog.

Much appreciated Simon, Cheers.

Dear Walker, I have attempted your topic, I hope you find it useful:

The real art involves the creative process, so it is believed that artists should be allowed to express themselves and their opinions in a totally free way without any obstacles, government’s or other censorship. In my opinion, however, artists themselves ought to feel their responsibility, and while working independently and creatively they should not cross simple moral and common sense rules of decency.

It is undeniable that that in order to create something worthy the thoughts and means of artist’s capacities cannot be blocked by anyone. We know, for example, how the pieces of art looked in pictures, in films and in poetry under the regime during the soc-realism period. It was like an array of empty slogans made by artists forced to produce that. Simply, captured minds and hands cannot create anything good. In these times, however true artists produced their meaningful art but it was watched, listen to or read in secret. Conversely, in freedom artists and their audience could enjoy and experience fully their achievements, the art process could flourish, appeal, and change the world to what it was and is still designed for. In that merit it seems that government’s restrictions can only hinder the creative art performances.

Having said that, it is obvious for me that while creators with their artistic power have more opportunities to say or express more influencing the societies in many ways, there are borders which cannot be crossed. Certainly, sometimes, a shock-therapy with some terrifying messages may be efficient, for example, calling for help the poor or severely ill children in Africa, so an appealing artistic picture or film would be justified to show the scale of problem. However, unnecessary exposure to obscene images, pornography, violence, ugliness should not be accepted. First and foremost, artists should reveal higher moral code being aware of their responsibility and influences they have on others . So, their performances should create good, no harm. It should be enhanced by their masters through education. If it is not efficient, some regulations may be introduced by governments or other institutions but to a minimum extent not blocking their creations but ensuring that their art is decent.

In conclusion, privileged artists regarding their particular capacities should be able to use them freely for their and our benefit. Unnecessary restrictions may hinder their creativity and they rather themselves than stiff regulations should ensure that their work is not detrimental but priceless.

Hi simon,
could you please correct this sentence.
from where did you buy this shirt?
or where did you buy this shirt from? how can i ask somebody which question is right

Thanks Aleksandra Bucholc.

Hi Simon,

With this topic, could I have a partial disagreement? And how can I construct my paragraphs? should I give "other measures" into the conclusion or one of the body paragraphs?

Besides, I have another topic about job satisfaction (Writing task 2-Test 3-Cambridge 7). There are 2 questions as below:
What factors contribute to job satisfaction?
How realistic is the expectation of job satisfaction for all workers?
Could you explain me how can I construct my paragraphs?

I am sorry because of my long mail.
However, I really need your advice.
Thank so much in advance.

Hi! Here is my attempt. Doing a test on 12 Jan, 2012

Traffic and pollution are inevitable problems in today’s society. Personally, I disagree with the idea that raising petrol prices could solve these problems and I believe that other various measures would be more constructive.

Basically, an increase of fuel prices means that consumers have to pay more money to use their cars, resulting in a decrease of their interest and ability to do other shopping. As higher costs are needed to transport goods and foods, their prices will also ascend accordingly, which will consequently increase the financial burden of a business to run smoothly. Furthermore, the fares of public transport will also rise in response to the increase of fuel price. Provided that people have to pay extra money to use public transport, they are less likely to abandon driving their cars instead of catching a bus or train. Eventually, the root of traffic congestion and pollution will not be solved.

Clearly, other measures need to be taken to combat the present issues. To bring down the amount of traffic congestion, the governments will need to focus on improvement of public infrastructure, such as putting more new buses and trains into operation. More people will be interested in using public transport if the governments committed to provide incentives to make public transport more affordable. Besides, with the introduction of a toll entering city centres, the governments can utilize this revenue by investing back into improving public transport and bicycles inside city centres. As a result, while the overall number of private vehicles will decrease, we will see a significant reduction in traffic congestions as well as an improvement of air.

As has been shown above, simply rising fuel prices is not the optimal approach to bring down the amount of traffic congestion and thus pollution. Alternatively, other measures, such as improving public infrastructures and a toll system, would offer more promising future to tackle the ever-increasing problem.

sorry! I meant this coming Saturday

Increasing the petrol price can help to solve growing traffic and pollution problems at some extent, while limiting the numbers of growing personal cars and promoting exhaust emissions technology can effectively deal with these problems as well. I believe there are many ways can be effective, and I therefore disagree with the statement that price of petrol increasing is the best way.

On the one hand, petrol is the main material for traffic sector, the price increasing will lead the higher cost of transport. More families will consider to use more public traffic instead of personal cars when the petrol price increasing largely for shorten the family expenses. However, the result of increasing petrol price is growing burden to the public instead of obviously improving traffic and pollution problems.

On the other hand, reasonable limited personal owning cars and riving days, scientific planning for the city traffic can help to solve the traffic problems directly, such as jams, accidents. In addition, pollution problems has many types and caused by various reasons. For instance, one of reasons for caused noise pollution is drivers' uncivilized activities. How to educate the public drive safely and civilized is seems more important than increasing the petrol price. What's more, nowadays more and more car manufactures improve the emission technology and more ecological protection type cars are produced without using petrol. Compared with increasing petrol price, the innovation of technology seems more effective for the pollution improvement.

In conclusion, increasing petrol price can be effective, but that is not the best. For solving the growing traffic and pollution problems, there need to use different comprehensive ways.

hello simon,
ur really doing great job, thanks a lot for all ur support.
in this type of essay, i mean what extent do you agree or disagree. can we write as totally disagree, instead of writing agree some extent in 1st body paragraph and disagree to some extent in other paragraph. because i dont want to support the statement given. will be waiting for ur response.

Hi Simon,

Could you please give me your advice about this paragrahph? Is it ok? Or improvement must taken place?

Certainty the increasing of traffic and pollution are problems that modern society is facing in those days. In my opinion, increasing the prices of petrol would not solve the problem of traffic and pollution, but I think that others measures could be used to achieve this target.

Thanks,

Mari

Hi Simon,

I have wrote my essay, if you a time, could you please have look?

Certainty, the increasing of traffic in the cities have impacted considerably with the pollution in the city centers. This is a problem that industrialized countries are facing in nowadays and must be resolved. In my opinion, only increasing the price of petrol will not solve this problem, but more efficient measures must taken place to achieve this objective.

Definitely, the problem of pollution and traffic will not be only resolved by the increasing the price of the petrol, because the people will continue to buy cars and driving from home to work and vice-versa. The situation get even worse, where in some countries, such as Brazil, the government is reducing the tax in the industries to help them increase the sales. Consequently, more cars on the streets!

For my point of view, others and more efficient measures should taken place to reduce the traffic and consequently the pollution in the cities. For example, create a congestion charges for all drivers that want to drive in the city center, like as in the City of London. So, the money that is received from all the congestion charges are converted to the public transport, such as buses and metro. Others measures could be apply too, such as different times to drive to the city center, for example, from seven in the morning to five in the evening will be charge.

In conclusion, others and more efficient measures must be created to resolve this problem of traffic and pollution that cities around the world is facing in nowdays.

Hi, this is my first post and I will be very happy if Mr Simon correct my mistakes. if I write like this in ielts, Am I scoring? 6.5

There is no doubt that one of the current major problems in big cities is the congestion traffic which will increase the pollution. In fact, traffic and pollution is not only for big cities problems but also are world’s problematic.
In addition, we could not deny that car has many benefits and also has drawbacks. Our debate are traffic and pollution, to combat these problems I disagree with the idea that higher prices of petrol is the only one solution to solve this issue but there are other measures which are more sufficient and fair action that will be explained later.
Firstly, government should take into their consideration to encourage people to use public transport by reducing the price and developing transportation. Secondly, media must play indispensible role to educate people about the risk of pollution which comes from cars traffic congestion and persuade them to use public transport instead. Thirdly, car engines should be improved by their companies to reduce the amount of exhaustion (good internal combustion engine) by spending mony to researchers at universities as a part of their expenditures. Fourthly, in my opinion, pollution levy should be made beside road tax by government to car owners and also high violation would be useful to decrease the number of cars on the road if they have applied to whom have insufficient cars.
Finally, the alternative resources such as renewable energy should be in government’s account in the near future which is the best way to resist this grave problem.
In conclusion, higher prices of petrol is not bad idea, but beside that we need to join hands together (government, media and education) to fight this issues.

for those of you posting essays - well done
However, I would advise you to run your essays through a spell check, as the spelling errors if will find are those you make and by learning what they are you will be able to fix them.

Major cities in the world are facing the problem of pollution and traffic, and it seems to get worst each day. I do not agree if raising the fuel price would reduce the problem, and I believe that there are other alternative ways to solve the matter.

Firstly by increasing petrol price, it would trigger the inflation rate. It means that when the price of fuel rise, all the other cost will also increased. It will impact most on the low economy residents, since the price of their prime consumption goods will increase. Another point is that it doesn’t solve the traffic and pollution problem, most of the transportation owner will still used their vehicle for daily routines since most of the car owners are the middle and high income people. The increment of the fuel price will not affect their expenditure budget.

There are some solutions that the government should consider rather than increasing the petroleum price. First of all, they should provide safer and cleaner public transportation mode, therefore people will be more attracted to use them for their daily activities. Some cities are successful with this mass transportation system, such as the city of London and Singapore. Another good solution would be, to urge the citizens to use a non motor vehicle such as bicycle which would reduce the air polutions. For this solution, the government should build some special lane for bike riders. Cities like Amsterdam and Beijing has used this solution for sometimes.

To conclude, there are other effective and efficient ways to solve the traffic and pollution problems, rather than raising the cost of fuel and many metropolitan cities has been successful with that programs.

Hi Simon,

The statement says that increasing price is the 'Best Way'. So I'm wondering if the question asks us whether or not we think increasing price is the BEST way, or it simply asks whether or not increasing price can solve the problem.

So if it is 1st situation, if I disagree, does that mean I disagree it is the BEST solution, but it may still work in a sense?

I hope I make it clearly, as I'm a little confused here. Thanks!

can anyone post a full band 8 or 9 essay on this topic please??i am taking ielts in a week and i want a very good score!thank you in advance

In this present day and age, the problem pertaining to the exponential growth in traffic congestion and air pollution have become a pressing issue in society.In order to bring down these problems, some people suggest the method of petrol price increase.However, I am in consummate discord with this ideology and there are more constructive ways to combat this problem.

Hi Simon, thank you for your excellent work.

I've got a few questions here for you:

1. Lei Jiang posted a good question regarding the key word "the best way". Do we need to address it? As Simon's example, it is only stated that higher price of petrol could solve the problem, which seems missing the question "if it is the best way".

2. How do you think about my version?

Traffic and pollution are growing problems in today’s society. Personally, I agree with the idea that higher petrol prices are the best solution to these problems, in the meanwhile I believe that various other measures would also be constructive.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment