Problem: you can write English, but Task 2 questions keep forcing you into the wrong structure. Answer in brief: most Task 2 prompts fall into a small set of recurring shapes — opinion (agree/disagree), discussion, advantages/disadvantages (neutral and outweigh), positive/negative development, solution (pure, cause-and-solution), and direct/two-question. Identify the shape first, then choose a useful paragraph plan, answer every part of the question, and develop your main points with reasons and relevant examples. This guide teaches each shape with method, four full model essays and 10 further practice tasks with complete model answers.
Learning outcomes
By the end you will be able to: classify Task 2 prompts into their essay shape; plan a 260–290 word essay in about 5 minutes; write introductions that paraphrase and take a clear position; develop one idea per paragraph with explanation plus a concrete example; and avoid the six common errors in the clinic below. The teaching sequence draws on the source book, IELTS Book 2 (Jobin Thomas), whose seven chapters treat each shape in turn with structures, strategies and the book’s own sample answers.
- Classify agree/disagree, discussion, advantages/disadvantages, positive/negative, solution and direct/two-question prompts.
- Choose a suitable paragraph plan for each shape, including the neutral versus outweigh distinction.
- Write full essays of at least 250 words (planning for roughly 260–290) with a clear position, cohesion and developed examples.
- Self-check against the four assessment criteria described in the fundamentals section below.
Task 2 fundamentals and the 40-minute method
The official IELTS General Training guidance describes the Writing Task 2 position as follows: candidates should write at least 250 words, with about 40 minutes suggested for the task; Task 2 carries twice the weight of Task 1 (two-thirds of the Writing mark); responses are assessed on four criteria — how fully the task is answered, how logically ideas are organised and linked, the range and precision of vocabulary, and the range and accuracy of grammar; and short responses may give too little evidence for higher bands. The guidance sets no penalty purely for writing more than 250 words. Source: IELTS General Training format — Writing (check current official guidance before test day).
Practical implication. Treat 250 words as the floor, not the target. Planning for roughly 260–290 words leaves a margin above the minimum and still leaves time to check your work; very long essays tend to accumulate errors and eat checking time. That range is this guide’s planning advice, not an official rule.
The 40-minute split
Minutes 0–5: plan. Underline instruction words (agree, discuss both, outweigh, why, what can be done). Decide your stance in one sentence. Choose a manageable number of main ideas; two well-developed ideas are a useful starting point. Minutes 5–35: write. Introduction (paraphrase + thesis + outline), two body paragraphs (occasionally three for direct questions), conclusion (restate position, no new arguments). Minutes 35–40: review. Check that all parts of the task are answered, the main ideas are developed, verb agreements and articles are accurate, and your response does not rely on copied prompt wording.
A flexible starting structure
One possible structure is an introduction of two or three sentences, followed by body paragraphs and a conclusion. Introduce the issue, give your position where required, and add an outline only if it helps. Body paragraph = topic sentence + explanation of mechanism + specific example (a clearly hypothetical learner, place or situation with an observable effect) + link back to the question. The conclusion can briefly restate the position or main finding. Paragraph and sentence counts are planning choices, not scoring rules. Every claim needs support: a hypothetical case, a clearly labelled illustration, or a clear causal chain. Never invent precise statistics as fact; use plausible imagined cases without presenting figures as research.
The six-shape method with an example at each step
Classify before you plan. Read the last sentence of the prompt first — it contains the instruction. Then use this decision route: does it ask “to what extent do you agree”? → opinion. “Discuss both views and give your opinion”? → discussion. “Advantages and disadvantages” without an opinion verb → neutral report; with “outweigh” → verdict required. “Positive or negative development”? → verdict required. “What can be done / causes and solutions”? → solution. Two explicit question sentences? → direct/two-question; separate body paragraphs often make the answers easier to follow.
A note on the six shapes. These six categories are a teaching aid used by this guide and by IELTS Book 2 — they are not an official IELTS taxonomy, and real prompts sometimes blend shapes (for example, a discussion prompt with an outweigh-style verdict). The method still applies: answer every question word the prompt actually asks, keep one consistent position where a verdict is required, and give each question its due weight.
1. Agree / disagree (opinion) — book chapter 1
Signals: “To what extent do you agree or disagree?” Method: take one stance (full agree, full disagree, or qualified partial agreement), state it in the thesis, and defend it in both body paragraphs; a concession can help you explain the limits of your position. A qualified position — for example, largely agreeing with one stated exception — can work well where the prompt says “to what extent”, as long as the line stays consistent from introduction to conclusion. The book’s worked theme is renewable energy replacing fossil fuels: body 1 the environmental and supply case, body 2 the limits of a full and immediate replacement (weather dependence, installation cost, seasonal shortfalls), leading to a managed-transition verdict. New illustration prompt: “Many people believe renewable energy should replace fossil fuels as the main energy source. To what extent do you agree or disagree?” Plan: qualified agreement — body 1 climate and air-quality gains, body 2 reliability and cost constraints, verdict: expand renewables fast but keep managed backup.
2. Discussion (both sides + opinion) — book chapter 4
Signals: “Discuss both views and give your own opinion.” Method: one useful plan gives a paragraph to each view and makes your opinion clear. Present each side in its strongest reasonable form. Never discuss only one side. The book contrasts two treatments of one issue (for example, homework helps versus homework harms) and also notes the two-options variant (for instance, housing versus parks); its own sample answer discusses whether parents or schools should teach children social responsibility. Keep two ideas per side at most, each with mechanism plus example.
3. Advantages and disadvantages — neutral versus outweigh — book chapter 5
Neutral (“Discuss the advantages and disadvantages” / “What are the advantages and disadvantages?”) asks you to explain both sides; an overall preference is not normally required unless the wording asks for one; the book’s remote-work chapter models the two-sided treatment with flexibility and saved commuting time against weaker collaboration and blurred boundaries. Outweigh (“Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?”) must choose and defend why one side matters more. Structure outweigh as: introduction with verdict, body 1 the stronger side fully developed, body 2 the weaker side acknowledged then shown to matter less or to be manageable, conclusion restating the verdict with the reason it wins (scale, permanence, or solvability).
4. Positive or negative development — book chapter 6
Signals: “Is this a positive or negative development?” Take a clear stance, then run the outweigh structure. The book introduces the shape with the rise of online learning and works it through in a sample answer on electric vehicles: air-quality and sustainability gains on one side; battery-material and upfront-cost concerns answered on the other. Give a clear, developed evaluation. A qualified judgement can work if you explain the circumstances in which the development helps or harms.
5. Solution (pure solution; cause and solution; problem and solution) — book chapter 2
Pure solution: each body paragraph is one practical, specific solution with steps and an example. Book themes: reducing household food waste; making urban areas more livable for families. Cause and solution: body 1 causes, body 2 solutions matched to those causes (book themes: city traffic jams from car reliance and weak public transport; childhood obesity). Problem and solution: body 1 the problems a trend causes, body 2 how to manage them (book theme: pressures linked to e-commerce growth; challenges facing elderly people in cities). Keep solutions actionable: who does what, funded how, measured how. Name the actor (households, councils, employers) and the check (weigh waste for a fortnight; bus-lane journey times).
6. Direct / two-question — book chapters 3 and 7
Signals: two explicit question sentences (for example: “Why is this happening? Is it positive or negative?” or “What are the reasons for this trend? How can this issue be addressed?”). Give each question enough development to answer it fully. One body paragraph per question is a useful starting plan, but equal word counts are not required. The book’s worked examples include a social-media-and-mental-health double question (reasons plus solutions) and an extended two-questions theme on adults playing computer games: body 1 explains causes (devices and distribution; design suited to busy adults), body 2 evaluates the trend. Keep the answers easy to distinguish and do not overlook one half.
Worked models: four full essays with teaching commentary
Labelling: Models A–D below are adapted from the book’s chapter themes and newly written as complete essays for this article. They are suggested models, not official examiner answers and not verbatim book reproductions; more than one good answer is always possible. After each model, the commentary explains why the response works so you can transfer the method. The scenarios are practice illustrations. The models present possible arguments and opinions; they are not research summaries or evidence for factual claims.
Model A — Agree/disagree, qualified agreement (adapted from book chapter 1: renewable energy)
Prompt (adapted): “Many people believe that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, should replace fossil fuels as the main energy source. To what extent do you agree or disagree?”
Model (newly written): Fossil fuels have powered industry for over a century, but their emissions have led many to demand a full switch to renewables. While I agree that wind and solar should become the dominant sources, I do not believe a complete and immediate replacement is practical; a managed hybrid system is the realistic path for now.
There are strong reasons to put renewables first. They cut the greenhouse gases and air pollution tied to coal, oil and gas, and their fuel — sunlight and wind — does not run out. Once panels and turbines are installed, running costs are low and electricity can be generated close to where it is used. A coastal city that pairs new wind farms with upgraded buses and cleaner heating, for example, could expect visibly cleaner air within a few years while keeping household bills stable. The climate case is equally clear: every unit of clean electricity avoids emissions that would otherwise accumulate for decades.
However, relying on renewables alone is not yet reliable or cheap enough everywhere. Solar and wind output varies with weather and season, and storage at national scale remains expensive. A cold, still winter week, when solar output drops and heating demand peaks, shows why backup capacity is still needed. Grid upgrades, planning delays and the upfront cost of turbines and storage also slow a full switch, especially for lower-income regions that cannot finance the transition quickly.
In conclusion, renewables should lead the energy mix because their long-term climate and health benefits are decisive. But until storage, grids and costs improve, fossil fuels will remain a shrinking backup. Governments should therefore accelerate wind, solar and storage while keeping regulated reserve capacity, rather than promising an overnight replacement.
Why it works: position is qualified but consistent throughout; body 1 develops one case (cleaner plus sustainable, with a hypothetical city illustration); body 2 develops the limit (reliability plus cost, with a seasonal mechanism); conclusion restates without new arguments. Cohesion comes from contrast linkers (however, while, therefore) and repeated key terms varied by synonym (switch, mix, backup). For task response, note the thesis answers “to what extent” precisely: mostly agree, not fully.
Model B — Discussion with opinion (adapted from book chapter 4: contrasting two views)
Prompt (adapted): “Some people believe homework helps children learn, while others believe it harms them. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.”
Model (newly written): Whether primary and secondary pupils should be given homework divides parents and teachers. Both sides raise legitimate points, but I believe short, purposeful homework helps, while heavy loads harm.
Supporters argue that well-set homework consolidates classwork. Spaced retrieval — recalling vocabulary, number facts or key definitions at home — turns fragile lesson memory into durable knowledge. Imagine a Year 5 pupil who practises ten spellings for ten minutes a night, checked briefly the next morning: such a learner would typically retain more than one who meets the words once a week. Homework can also teach routine: packing a bag, meeting a deadline and asking for help are habits that transfer to secondary school and beyond. A short task reviewed the next day also gives the teacher a quick read on what stuck and what needs reteaching.
Critics counter that long assignments damage wellbeing and distort assessment. Evenings spent on worksheets displace sleep, outdoor play and family time, leaving children less alert the next day. Where exhausted parents finish the tasks, marks also mislead teachers about what the child can do alone. In households with little space or English, extended projects widen inequality rather than closing it, since some children can draw on help that others cannot.
In my view, these arguments make the amount and design of homework the central considerations. Schools should set brief retrieval tasks with clear time caps — for example, twenty minutes in primary — and introduce no new content at home. Marking should check effort and memory, not parental polish. Done this way, homework supports learning without harming health or fairness.
Why it works: both views are presented fairly before the verdict; each body paragraph carries two developed points with a concrete hypothetical pupil case; opinion appears in the introduction, runs through the evaluation (“dose and design”) and returns in the conclusion. The policy detail (time cap, no new content) converts a vague opinion into a defensible position.
Model C — Advantages outweigh disadvantages (adapted from book chapter 5: remote work)
Prompt (adapted from the book): “With the rise of remote work, many companies allow employees to work from home. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?”
Model (newly written): Remote working has moved from exception to routine, and I firmly believe its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, provided employers manage its risks.
The main gains are productivity, inclusion and environment. Home workers lose fewer hours to commuting and control interruptions better on focused tasks; the saved hour each way can go to sleep, exercise or family, which supports sustained output. Access also widens: imagine a trainee living far from the office, or a parent in a small town, able to join training and keep a job that once required city presence. At city scale, fewer daily car journeys cut congestion and emissions, a benefit that compounds year after year rather than fading. The environmental gain is the most durable of all: every avoided commute is a journey that never needs repeating or offsetting.
Admittedly, home working weakens spontaneous collaboration and blurs boundaries. Video brainstorming rarely matches the speed of a shared whiteboard, and juniors learn less by overhearing colleagues. Some staff also struggle to stop: without a commute as a cut-off, evenings fill with messages and burnout follows. These are real costs, but they respond to management — core collaboration hours, one or two on-site days for team tasks, written decisions, and agreed offline evenings — whereas exclusion by distance, cost and timetable has no simpler remedy. Written norms take weeks to bed in, but once set they outlast any single project or personnel change.
Overall, wider participation and durable time and environmental savings matter more than manageable coordination costs. Companies should therefore keep remote-first roles with explicit collaboration rhythms and boundary rules, rather than returning everyone to full-time office attendance.
Why it works: the verdict is stated in the introduction and proved by comparison, not just listing. Body 1 builds the stronger side at three levels (individual, access, city); body 2 concedes the weaker side honestly, then answers it with mitigations and the outweigh reason (solvability versus scale). This “concede then contain” move is the core outweigh skill.
Model D — Two-question: causes plus evaluation (adapted from book chapter 7: adults playing computer games)
Prompt (adapted from the book): “More and more adults are playing computer games. Why is this happening? Is this a positive or negative trend?”
Model (newly written): Adult gaming, once a niche, is now mainstream evening leisure. This has happened for two connected reasons, and I consider the trend mildly positive provided it is bounded.
The first reason is access: affordable smartphones and downloads turned commutes, lunch breaks and sofas into play sessions, while free-to-start titles removed the price barrier. The second is design: short levels, save-anywhere progress, social squads and richer stories suit busy adults far better than the punishing arcade difficulty of the past. Imagine a parent who has twenty minutes after bedtime and uses it to finish a level or play one squad match with old friends in another city — a pattern the industry now designs around deliberately.
Whether this is good depends on dose. In moderation, gaming offers affordable stress relief, maintained friendships and low-cost mental challenge; a weekly friends-only match preserves contact that distance would otherwise erode. Excessive play, however, displaces sleep and exercise and normalises long sedentary evenings, with next-day fatigue that work and family notice. The same device that enables play also supports the remedy — timers, bedtime modes and agreed screen-free bedrooms — and households that set those limits keep the social benefit while capping the harm. Households that agree the rules together — rather than having them imposed — tend to keep them far longer.
In short, technology and design explain the rise, and bounded play justifies a cautiously positive verdict. Adults should treat games like any leisure with a dose rule: schedule them, protect sleep, and prefer the social formats that strengthen rather than replace contact.
Why it works: one body paragraph per question with equal weight; causes are mechanisms (access plus design) with a concrete hypothetical parent case; evaluation weighs both sides then delivers a verdict tied to a rule readers can apply. The conclusion summarises both answers without adding a third cause.
Practice bank: 10 tasks with complete model answers
Attempt each in about 40 minutes with at least 250 words before opening the answer. All answers are newly written suggested models: each is a complete essay with introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion, followed by a teaching note flagging the transferable move. Examples inside the answers are hypothetical illustrations.
1 (Opinion): Public libraries should receive far less funding because most people now use the internet. To what extent do you agree? — Show plan + complete answer
Plan: disagree — body 1 digital exclusion and study space; body 2 staff help and children’s literacy; conclusion: protect and refocus funding.
Complete model (newly written): Calls to cut library funding assume the internet has replaced libraries. I strongly disagree: search engines answer quick queries, but they do not give every resident quiet desks, reliable computers, or help judging sources.
The first reason is access. Some households lack a quiet study space or a reliable device for each learner: imagine a student sharing one phone with siblings, trying to revise for exams at a crowded kitchen table. For such a learner, library terminals and bookable study seats are not a luxury but the only workable option. Libraries also stay open in the evenings and during holidays, exactly when home conditions are hardest. Removing that access would punish the least connected households for a change that mostly benefits the already well equipped.
The second reason is guidance. Library staff teach practical skills no search page provides: filling in job and college applications, spotting unreliable sources, and using reference collections properly. Their children’s work matters most of all. Weekly rhyme times and reading clubs build early literacy through guided practice and patient encouragement, whereas unguided browsing on a phone rarely sustains a young reader. A child who is read with, questioned and praised in a library club gains habits that carry into school.
Funding should therefore be protected and refocused on access, study seats and literacy programmes, with stock, hours and staffing matched to measured local demand rather than historical habit. To cut budgets because some households are well connected would confuse the habits of the comfortable with the needs of everyone.
Teaching note: stance consistent from thesis to conclusion; each point names a mechanism and a concrete hypothetical user; the conclusion answers the funding question directly rather than drifting.
2 (Discussion): Some think university should be free for all; others think students should pay. Discuss both and give your opinion. — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): Who should pay for university divides taxpayers and educators. Both positions deserve a fair hearing, but I favour a middle course: means-tested free places in priority subjects alongside modest fees elsewhere.
Supporters of free tuition argue that ability rather than parental income should decide who studies. Upfront fees, they say, deter able applicants from poorer households even when loans exist, because debt feels risky to families with no experience of it. One possible arrangement would pair free entry with a later graduate contribution, sharing costs once earnings allow. On this view, higher education is a public good: the whole economy gains nurses, teachers and engineers it would otherwise lose. That loss never appears in application statistics, yet staffrooms and wards feel it for years.
Supporters of fees counter that charges fund smaller seminars, laboratories and advice services, and that paying signals commitment. A student who has weighed the cost, they argue, chooses more carefully and drops out less often. Fee income can also be directed openly: ring-fenced teaching budgets, hardship funds and paid placements. Without any contribution, they warn, expansion simply means crowded rooms and thinner supervision.
Both cases have force, which is why the compromise works. A nursing or teaching applicant from a low-income home should not be deterred by price, while a well-paid graduate can reasonably contribute later. The conditions matter: transparent income thresholds, priority-subject protection, and a guarantee that free places never mean crowded rooms or cut contact hours. Without those guarantees the compromise collapses into the worst of both systems, so the conditions are the policy, not an afterthought.
Teaching note: both views steelmanned before the verdict; the opinion is a workable middle with a funding mechanism, not fence-sitting, and the conditions show how it would actually operate.
3 (Outweigh): International tourism is growing. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): Rising visitor numbers divide residents and planners. I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages — but only where destinations are actively managed rather than simply promoted.
The benefits are substantial and lasting. Tourism creates jobs across skill levels, from guides and drivers to conservators and festival organisers, and it brings foreign exchange that local taxes alone could never supply. It also funds preservation: imagine a coastal town maintaining its pier, museums and historic streets from visitor revenue, keeping crafts and festivals alive that rates alone would not cover. These gains compound over decades, building an economy and an identity around a cared-for place. Guides, drivers and conservators spend locally too, so each visitor pound circulates well beyond the ticket office.
The harms are real but answerable. Crowded lanes, seasonal low-paid work and extra emissions strain the very streets visitors come to see. Several policies could reduce these harms: caps on day visitors and cruise calls, transit pricing that favours longer stays, and year-round cultural programming that spreads work beyond summer. Because income and preservation effects accumulate over time while crowding responds to timetables and pricing, the balance favours the benefits wherever management is serious. Residents who see the proceeds at work — repaired paths, funded clinics — tolerate peak weeks far better than those who only see the crowds.
Authorities should therefore keep destinations open but priced and scheduled, investing the proceeds in housing, transport and conservation, rather than chasing raw arrival records. Growth with limits is an asset; growth without them is a burden.
Teaching note: weaker side acknowledged then answered with mitigations; the outweigh reason is permanence versus manageability, stated in both body 2 and the conclusion.
4 (Positive/negative): More shopping is done online. Is this a positive or negative development? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): The steady shift of shopping from high streets to screens is one of the clearest retail trends of recent years. Overall, I consider it a positive development, though it demands honest planning for town centres.
The gains in access and choice are large. Online stores widen the range beyond what any single high street can stock, make prices transparent across sellers, and give rural buyers access once limited to cities. Consider a wheelchair user who finds town-centre trips exhausting, or a night-shift worker whose free hours never match opening times: both can compare, order and return goods when it suits them. For small producers too, a simple storefront reaches customers no market stall ever could.
The costs centre on delivery traffic and empty shops. More vans mean more local emissions and packaging waste, while vacant units drain the life from familiar streets. But these are reuse problems, not reasons to resist delivery itself. Councils can convert surplus retail units to services, clinics, workshops and leisure, while delivery firms consolidate drops, add collection points near stations and switch to cleaner vehicles, cutting the per-parcel footprint steadily. A street with fewer shops but a surgery, a library annex and evening food can be livelier than a row of struggling identical stores.
Since the access gains are large and permanent while vacancy is a planning challenge with known answers, the positive side wins. Councils should therefore plan for fewer shops but livelier centres, measuring success by footfall and occupancy rather than by shop counts alone.
Teaching note: clear verdict in introduction and conclusion, as this shape requires; the alternative (resisting delivery) is shown to be worse than managing its effects.
5 (Pure solution, from book chapter 2: food waste): Food waste in homes is rising. What can individuals do? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): Household food waste fills bins and budgets alike, yet much of it comes from two fixable routines: buying without a plan and storing without a system. Individuals can address both directly.
The first routine is plan and store. A household that writes a short weekly menu, shops from a list, and keeps a visible “eat first” shelf curbs impulse buying at a stroke. For suitable foods, freezing portions promptly and following the label can reduce spoilage: imagine a family that freezes half a sliced loaf before it goes stale and later takes out only the slices it needs. Clear containers, date labels and a weekly fridge audit take minutes and make waste visible before it happens. Shopping from a list also defeats the end-of-aisle promotions designed to add unplanned items to the trolley.
The second routine is measure and reuse. Weighing the kitchen bin for a fortnight reveals the costliest item — perhaps bread or salad — and a weekly leftovers evening plus a neighbourhood sharing app redirects surplus before it spoils. Stale bread becomes toast, croutons or breadcrumbs; tired vegetables become soup; local sharing schemes can pass suitable unopened surplus to nearby households. Each rescued item is a free ingredient, so the saving shows in the very next grocery bill. Both steps are cheap, immediate and checkable within a month, and progress can be tracked simply by watching the bin shrink.
Individuals cannot solve every cause of food waste, but these routines offer practical steps within many households’ control. Planned shopping, disciplined storage and deliberate reuse could reduce avoidable household waste without expensive equipment. Comparing shopping bills and discarded food over several weeks would show whether the changes are helping.
Teaching note: each solution names actor, steps and check; the examples are checkable household cases, matching the book’s “practical, specific” demand for solution essays.
6 (Cause + solution, from book chapter 2: livable cities / traffic): Cities are less livable for families. What are the causes and solutions? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): Family life in large cities is under strain from two linked pressures: housing that pushes parents outward and streets that push children indoors. Each cause points to its own remedy.
The first cause is affordability. Rising rents near jobs force parents into long commutes from cheaper edges, shrinking the evenings when families actually meet. A household leaving home at seven and returning at seven has little left for homework help, play or rest, and children feel the absence even when money is tight for good reasons. The remedy is to zone mixed-use blocks with family-sized flats near schools and clinics, with a share of rents linked to local incomes, so that commuting falls because living near work becomes possible again.
The second cause is traffic-dominated streets. Where every road is a rat-run, parents keep children indoors and walking to school feels unsafe, so play hours collapse and car trips multiply. The remedy is a network of low-traffic neighbourhoods with protected play streets and timed school-gate closures, delivered by the same councils that set the housing zones. Success can be measured honestly: child injury counts, average bus-lane journey times, and weekly outdoor play hours reported by schools. Timed gates cost little beyond signage and goodwill, yet they transform the walk to school.
Councils should address housing and street design together, since affordable homes alone cannot give children safe places to play. Cities become livable for families not by one grand project but by homes near schools and streets safe enough to play in.
Teaching note: parallel cause–solution pairing; actors and measures named, avoiding vague “the government should solve it”.
7 (Two-question): Young people leave rural areas. Why? Should governments encourage them to stay? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): The drift of young people from villages to cities is one of the most consistent migration patterns of recent decades. It happens for clear reasons, and governments should respond — but by offering choices, not by tying anyone to a place.
The causes are opportunity and social life. Courses, wages and variety concentrate in cities: imagine a school-leaver who wants laboratory training, late buses and a choice of employers — none of which a small village can usually provide. Rural pay lags, promotion ladders are short, and evenings feel empty to teenagers comparing their options with urban friends. Leaving is therefore a rational decision, not a failure of loyalty.
Governments should partly counter this without coercing staying. Funded rural training places, reliable bus routes and remote-work hubs give young adults a genuine choice to remain; grants for rural clinics, workshops and start-ups keep graduate jobs local. But compulsion would backfire: young adults have the right to move, cities genuinely need their labour, and a resentful stayer helps no village. Support works best when it is voluntary and practical — travel passes, training bursaries, workspace with fast connections — rather than slogans about roots. A workspace with fast connections lets one graduate serve city clients from a village desk, which no poster campaign can match.
The right aim, in short, is viable local options, not tied residence. A village where a young person can train, earn and meet friends is a village some will freely choose; that choice, not a quota, is the honest measure of success. Villages that publish training, transport and workspace offers together recruit better than those relying on sentiment.
Teaching note: both questions are answered; the second answer is a bounded position (support choice, not coercion) with concrete instruments.
8 (Direct, effects): Working from home is common. What are the effects on workers and employers? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): The spread of home working has changed both sides of the employment contract. Its effects divide neatly between workers and the organisations that employ them.
For workers, the headline effects are time and focus — no commute, quieter mornings, and control over the working day. A parent who once lost two hours to travel can now collect children and still finish tasks after bedtime. The costs fall on connection and boundaries: juniors who once learned by watching colleagues now sit alone, and without a commute as a cut-off, evenings fill with messages until burnout follows. Isolation hits the new starter hardest, while blurred evenings hit the conscientious hardest.
For employers, the effects mirror these. Office costs fall and hiring widens beyond one city, so a firm can recruit skills it could never afford locally. But coordination overhead rises: decisions scatter across chats, inductions take longer, and managers must write down what offices once conveyed by glance. Firms that adapt through the same disciplines — core collaboration hours, written decisions anyone can find, and periodic on-site weeks for team tasks and mentoring — keep the savings without the fragmentation. Those that simply close the office and change nothing else pay for it in confusion. Written handbooks replace the overheard tip, and recorded inductions replay what a desk neighbour once explained.
Where those rhythms exist, flexibility stays without fragmentation, and both sides gain. Home working, in other words, is not a benefit or a threat in itself; it is an arrangement whose effects depend entirely on the routines wrapped around it.
Teaching note: grouping effects by stakeholder keeps cohesion across two paragraphs; the conclusion converts effects into a joint remedy both sides share.
9 (Opinion, partial agreement): Children should never be given homework. To what extent do you agree? — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): Calls for a total homework ban understand the harm but mistake the remedy. I partly agree: long nightly loads should go, but short retrieval practice should stay, because the two do entirely different jobs.
The case against heavy homework is strong. Hour-long projects displace sleep, play and family time, leaving children less alert the next day; where exhausted parents complete the tasks, marks mislead teachers about what the child can actually do. Extended assignments also widen inequality, since some households offer quiet rooms and educated help while others cannot. A policy that depends on the home must not punish children for their homes. Sleep-deprived children concentrate poorly, so excessive homework defeats its own purpose twice over.
The case for keeping brief practice is equally strong. Brief practice in recalling spellings or number facts can help pupils strengthen material first introduced in class, while leaving most of the evening free. Retrieval works precisely because it is effortful in small doses rather than exhausting in large ones. The policy follows the dose rule: time-capped tasks of about twenty minutes in primary, no new content introduced at home, and marking for effort and memory rather than polish. A blanket ban would discard a proven memory tool along with the excess; unlimited homework keeps the harms along with the benefit.
Schools should therefore remove excessive homework while retaining short, purposeful practice that pupils can complete independently. Schools that adopt it protect evenings while preserving the small daily habit that makes lessons stick. Parents regain evenings, teachers regain honest assessment, and children regain sleep — every party gains.
Teaching note: the qualified position remains consistent: remove excessive work while keeping brief practice. The essay stands alone and does not refer to this guide.
10 (Mixed challenge: discussion + verdict, advertising): Some say advertising harms society; others say it informs choice. Discuss and evaluate which claim is stronger. — Show complete answer
Complete model (newly written): Advertising both funds and distorts modern choice, and the two camps each see half the picture. The fair judgement, I will argue, splits by audience: informative for adults under clear rules, harmful for children who cannot judge persuasion.
Its defenders note that ad revenue supports free search, video and local news that users never pay for directly, while clear price and feature information helps adults compare suppliers. Imagine a plainly labelled energy-tariff advertisement that prompts a household to switch to a cheaper deal: the ad has informed a real choice and saved real money. Honest comparison, on this view, disciplines sellers and rewards the better offer.
Critics reply that targeting manipulates more than it informs. Persuasive formats aimed at children normalise overconsumption before judgement matures; debt and gambling promotions bury decisive terms in small print; and constant tracking trades privacy for relevance few users knowingly chose. Where persuasion outruns understanding, information becomes camouflage for pressure, and the social costs — debt, waste, anxiety — fall on the least equipped. Each scandal about hidden terms erodes trust in all advertising, punishing honest sellers alongside the sharp ones.
My judgement therefore depends on the audience: informative for adults under labelling duties, targeting limits and prominent pricing; net negative for children, where persuasion outruns understanding. Regulators should restrict child-targeted formats and mandate plain-term pricing while leaving honest adult comparison free. That split protects both commerce and childhood without pretending the two need the same rules. Informative where constrained, harmful where unchecked — that is the distinction on which my judgement rests.
Teaching note: hybrid prompts still need both discussion and a verdict; splitting by audience delivers both without contradiction, and each side gets a concrete illustration.
Common errors and corrections
- Answering the wrong shape: writing advantages for an opinion question, or giving only causes when solutions were asked. Fix: underline instruction words first (“agree”, “discuss both”, “outweigh”, “why”, “what can be done”). Failed version: “This essay will discuss advantages of libraries…” for an agree/disagree prompt. Corrected: “I disagree that funding should fall, for two access reasons…”
- Copying the prompt: “This essay will discuss…” plus copied wording. Fix: paraphrase with synonyms and changed grammar (“funding for libraries” → “how libraries are financed”; “should replace” → “should become the main source”).
- Listing without developing: five causes in one paragraph. Fix: one idea per paragraph with mechanism + example. Failed: “Tourism causes pollution, jobs, crime…” Corrected: one paragraph on preservation income with the coastal-town case, one on congestion with caps and pricing.
- Vague examples: “For example, many people…” Fix: name a hypothetical user, place and observable effect (“a Year 5 pupil practising ten spellings nightly”; “a coastal town maintaining its pier from visitor revenue”). Never present an invented figure as research.
- New argument in conclusion: introducing costs last. Fix: restate only; move new points to the body. Conclusions here add no new causes or solutions.
- Neutral where a verdict is required: “There are both positives and negatives” for outweigh or positive/negative prompts. Fix: state which side wins and why (scale, permanence, solvability) in the thesis and repeat it in the conclusion.
Independent task and self-check
Task (new): “Some people think governments should ban cars from city centres. To what extent do you agree or disagree?” Write at least 250 words (planning for roughly 260–280) in about 40 minutes. Guidance: choose a stance (qualified agreement works well: phased ban with exemptions), plan two body points with examples (air quality and public space gains; trade-offs for deliveries, tradespeople and disabled drivers), conclude with the managed position. Write it yourself first — no model answer is given here so you practise the full planning-to-review cycle unaided. A possible shape: introduction paraphrases + “I largely agree, with exemptions”; body 1 cleaner air and reclaimed space with a hypothetical named-street illustration; body 2 delivery and access limits answered by permits, off-peak windows and blue-badge access; conclusion restates phased ban with exemptions.
Checklist: shape identified and every question word answered; position consistent from thesis to conclusion; 250+ words; every body paragraph has mechanism + concrete hypothetical example; conclusion restates with no new argument; linkers varied (while, however, therefore, for instance); 2–5 minute review done for articles, agreement and copied wording.
Study sequence with the book
Week 1: fundamentals + agree/disagree (book chapter 1). Copy the renewable-energy plan structure, then write practice tasks 1 and 9 timed. Week 2: discussion + outweigh (book chapters 4–5). Write tasks 2 and 3, then compare your outweigh verdict sentence with Model C’s “concede then contain” move. Week 3: positive/negative + solution (book chapters 6 and 2). Write tasks 4–6; check each solution names actor, steps and a check. Week 4: direct/two-question (book chapters 3 and 7). Write tasks 7, 8 and 10, then Model D; keep an error log of repeated corrections (copied wording, missing verdict, undeveloped example) and re-do one essay from each week in about 40 minutes.
FAQs
How many ideas per paragraph? A paragraph needs a clear focus, with enough explanation to develop it. One main idea with supporting reasons is often effective. Choose the number of paragraphs to suit the task and the argument; there is no compulsory two-idea rule.
Can I be neutral? Follow the wording. A request to explain advantages and disadvantages may not ask for your preference. If a judgement is requested, give one clearly; a reasoned, qualified position can be appropriate.
Do I need statistics? No. Realistic, clearly hypothetical illustrations suffice. Cite a real survey only when you actually know it; otherwise use plausible imagined cases without inventing precise figures (“a coastal town…”, “a Year 5 pupil…”). Never present an invented percentage as research.
How long should the essay be? Official guidance asks for at least 250 words. Planning for roughly 260–290 keeps you safely above the minimum with time left to check. Short responses may give too little evidence for higher bands, and there is no penalty purely for writing more than 250 words.
British or American spelling? Either consistently; this guide uses British English (organise, behaviour, centre).
Can I reuse the same example everywhere? No. Match the example to the prompt’s mechanism. Recycled examples read as memorised and often miss the question.
The matching book
This guide accompanies IELTS Book 2 in the Jobins Training collection — the General IELTS Writing Task 2 essay guide with one chapter per essay shape (agree/disagree, solution, direct question, discussion, outweigh, positive/negative development and two-questions essays), each with structures, strategies and the book’s own sample answers with explanations. You can find its current listing here: Explore IELTS Book 2 and the available formats. The book adds the full per-type sample-answer bank and extended practice sets this single article cannot hold.
Continue your practice with IELTS Book 2
Want more practice? This article introduces the key principles, but IELTS Book 2 provides additional practice, worked examples and structured preparation. View the book →
Sources and editorial note
Source book read for this article: IELTS Book 2 (Jobin Thomas), the chapter structure and relevant teaching sections across seven content chapters (chapter themes: 1 renewable-energy agree/disagree; 2 food-waste, livable-city, traffic and related solutions; 3 direct-question method with a social-media reasons-and-solutions sample answer; 4 discussion method with a parents-versus-schools sample answer; 5 remote-work outweigh; 6 electric-vehicles positive/negative; 7 adult-gaming two-questions plus a large cross-type sample-answer bank). Prompts labelled “adapted” rework book themes without reproducing full chapters; prompts and models labelled “newly written” are original to this article and present suggested models, not the only valid responses and not official examiner material. No page numbers are cited (reflowable EPUB). Exam requirements should be checked against current official IELTS guidance before test day.
Put this into practice
Compare these course outlines and choose the practice that matches your next goal.
