« IELTS Listening: English as a global language | Main | IELTS Writing Task 1: the main features »

June 26, 2013


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

Thanks you. I 've learnt a lot from your website.


awesome ....

Excellent essay

hello simon ,
hope you are doing good.i bought your e-book couple of weeks ago. i just read through your animal testing ideas.
could you please clarify me something?
you have mentioned in the e-book , that we have to give our opinion(if question asks for it) as well as summarise the idea, but in the above mentioned essay of yours , you have written directly your opinion , didnot summarise the idea..is it ok?

Very strong statements withing examples. It's perfect.


Hi Simon,
What does"dough" means here?

....of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed though the use of animal experimentation.

Thank you Simon. But I'm wondering why you mentioned your own opinion on the second paragraph?

thank you again.

wonderful, thanks you, Simon

...that had been developed though the use of animal experimentation.

Shouldn´t that be THROUGH ?

Hi Simon how many paragraphs Do we need to make in
edifying task 2 thank you to helping us to put great work on your site .
. Regards maninder kaur


I'm glad you like the essay.

A couple of people noticed a typing mistake: it should have been "through", not "though". I've changed it now.



My opinion is in paragraph 3 because I made it clear in the introduction that this is the view I agree with. There's no harm in putting your own view in the relevant paragraph (as well as in the introduction and opinion).



Try to write 4 paragraphs, like I did in the essay above.

Simon always thank you I love you ;)

Hi Simon and all,

I find this website very helpful and Simon's sample article is especially inspiring. One friend of mine wrote the below article for this topic, she'd like to know which band would it possibly get? Any comment is very much appreciated:


The use of animal for experiments to develop and test the safety of new medicines and other products has caused a huge controversy among different groups. Animal lovers claim it’s very cruel and immoral to do experiments on animals while others argue that such experiments are conducted for the benefits of humanity which shall come first.

This issue does put me in a dilemma and I don’t think we should judge either opinion in a black-and-white term. I do feel appalled when I read news that scientists test a new medicine on rats or rabbits that end up with cancer or mutation and die miserably, but much less I want to see a patient dying from a disease in great agony. If I am forced to make a decision between the life of an animal and the life of a human being, I would choose the later, though I don’t think it’s the right decision and I don’t think there is a right one.

Let’s brace the cruel reality: if not for new medicines developed at the cost of animals, thousands or even millions people might have died. I don’t mean to say that lives of human being are more valuable than animals’, but this is the natural rule of “survival of the fittest”. In an inappropriate analogy, just like we can’t blame a lion for hunting a deer in order to stay alive, we can’t blame scientists for doing experiments on animals in order to advance human benefits.

Though I don’t root for a complete ban on animal experiments, I agree that certain limits shall be set up to minimize their suffering, for example, animal experiments are only allowed for the test of life-saving medicines, but not the test of skin-whitening cosmetics, and we should use any possible alternative to replace animal experiments and continue to develop new technologies and methodologies which could exempt animals from such torturing experience in the future.

I have given two times IELTS exam and got 5.5 in writing .
I have also taken classes from tutorial as well as follow ur site.
I could not figure out what is wrong on my writing.
I think I have follow all the Pattern in writing .
So what to do I am in Delemna ?
Hope you will help me.

Hi simon
I have more questions about writing task2 while I'm preparing for the next ielts exam. If I use the normal vocab in writing the essay but I'm focus on organizing the essay, idea, Will it possible to get 6.5 for writing.
I also have questions about using your idea ielts book .There are huge idea for them, Do I have to memorize all of them as it is impossible to guess the essay question right? Is it enough for me if I focus on this book and study from your website?

For the speaking part, How I can prepare for speaking part3 ? I have looked at all ielts cambridge book from 1-8. I found that part3 are difficult. And the final questions, last time that I took the IELTS speaking exam, I try to explain as much as I can , then the examiner stoped me and interrupted me in some questions. In the first part, I asked the examiner to repeat one questions two time and he ended up with change into new questions. I got IELTS speaking with 6.0 :( Do you things what I have done affect my score to be badly?

Hi, Simon,
I have noticed that you put your opinion clearly in the introductory paragraph before you discussed anything. Is that OK? The Question asks "discuss both views and give your own opinion", which, I think, goes in a logical thinking that you discuss and then you have a final opinion.
BTW, what it would be like if the question is different, such as "agree/disagree" ?
Put it simple, showing your position at the very beginning is good or bad?
Thank you in advance!

Hi Simon,
I'm a new addicted visitor of your web site.
A agree with Philip. Could you please explain his question?


Wonderful essay Simon, thank you.


This is my response to this essay question.
comments are welcomed.
People have different views about the animal testing to develop latest drugs and to see effect of other goods. Although, there are good arguments in favour of banning these experiments, but I believe that examinations on animals should be carried out in order to benefit the population as a whole.
On the one hand, there are some good reasons for believing that animal experimentation is ethically wrong to abuse these living creatures. Pro animal right activists argue that all animal testing should come to an end because it is wrong to treat these animals as specimen tool for furthering knowledge. From this stand, an animal should have the same rights and moral status as a human being is living out a full life, free of pain and sufferings. Opponents of animal research also argue that the living condition of laboratory animals is not optimal. For example, I visited a laboratory analyzing the animal species to see the effect of a cosmetic product. What I realized that the technologist was giving the anesthesia to animals without any supervision and without checking the weights of animals. This is not appropriate practice while subjecting the animals to such a quest. As this example shows that the animal experimentation is certainly causing severe pain and vulnerability to an animal. Thus, it is understandable that animal research should ban to relieve the pain of animals.
On the other hand, there are some merits of animal testing as well to benefit the society as a whole. Apart from it, there is a middle view of this debate that animals should not be treated in such a traumatic way unnecessarily for furthering scientific research. Scientists need to explore the possible alternate mechanisms to animal testing. Proponents of continuing animal experimentation argue that it is justified to cause sufferings at a smaller extent to pets, if the lives of human being are protected. For instance, some rats and rabbits are subjected to trialing to see the effect of innovated drugs that help to cure many wide spread diseases like HIV, Swan flue and corona virus. As this shows that the experiments on animals should be continued for benefitting mankind.
In conclusion, it has been proven that animal research should not be stopped, but what I believe that it should be carried out for necessary research.

Hi Simon,

i have a question of this essay. You have only discuss the use of animal experimentation on nuw medicines, and do not discuss the use on "to test the safety on other products", while both are mentioned in the task.

Is it an insufficient discussion of only discussing the medicine part?

Hello Simon,

The following question you've previously mentioned.

These days people pay more attention to artists (writers, painters and so on) and give less importance to science and technology.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I am wondering if it Is okey to write about that "people should equally pay attention to both science and art".

Thank you,

Please make some correction for me. Thanks:

It is true that the usage of animal for medical testing in the medical world and other fields are common this day. For some people who love’s animal, this kind of practice should be stopped, since it is immoral. On the other hand, those experiments should be allowed, since it has created so many new medicines that brings benefit for mankind. I agree that the experiments should be acceptable as long as the purpose is for humanity.

Experimentation on animals are used by scientist around the world for many purposes, not just in the medical field. These practice are being exposed by non profit organizations since some experiments were conducted in an immoral or sadistic practice where it was exposed by the media such as magazines or televisions. For example, a trial and error test of a new drugs to rats, where as the rats would suffered some serious injuries and died in an improper way. We could just easily watch it on the internet.

On the other hands, many people have been cured from some serious illness, due to the invention of new drugs which was tested on animals. Trials on animals have been successfully conducted, therefore it would be safe for man consumption. If this kind of practices are banned, then many people would lost their lives, since we prefer to sacrifice man sake against animals.

I personally believed that the trial test of new medicine on animals should be allowed, as long as the purpose is for humanity. But the animals which are used should not be an endangered species.

It is often said that people over the age of 60 should not work anymore because of the problems they create, that employers should make them retire.
Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your opinion.


Nowadays, the factor of over aging societies is emerging as most noticeable issue in developed countries. There are several debates and meetings are arranged to discuss the problems occur due to older employees and it is concluded that people over 60 year old are not supposed to work further and employer ought to retire over aged employees. I partly agree with this statement, this is because; older employees can put positive impact as well although they can cause some problems.

There are various disadvantages of over aged employees. Firstly, they always follow fundamental approach to work and they adopt traditional ways. It creates hurdles mostly, because, we are living in competitive world where we need to follow efficient methods to accomplish particular task. Secondly, we are living in the era of Information Technology and different computer tools are available to perform tricky tasks with no difficulty. However, our older generation is slow to react for technological advancements. Lastly, in these days, workplaces are very strict in order to maintain professional atmosphere, entrepreneurs urge to communicate professionally and follow proper dress code, on the contrary, over aged people are unable to cope with these restrictions that eventually disturbs the office environment overall.

On the other hand, it is not fruitful for over aged employees to retire. This is because, they have enormous work experience and they already have faced ups and downs in their professional career, so, they can provide valuable advices and assistance to overcome most of the issues. Furthermore, they can handle critical situation with calmness. In addition, giving pension is occurring as a bigger problem for governments because so many people are over the age of 60. Governments lack funds and social problems can rise in case they don't pay pension to the over aged people.

In my opinion, governments ought to increase the age limit for work to 65 years instead of 60 years. This single step can lead to various advantages, such as our younger generation can learn etiquettes and can get valuable work experience under their shadows. Moreover, governments will get some ease in term of paying pension.

Please provide your opinion on this effort

Thank You,
Mubashir Ali

Greet, great essay Simon, but you didn't make an introduction, am I right?

Hi Kimo,

The first paragraph (It is true...) is my introduction.

Thank you !

Thanks for reply legend Simon


hi simon,
is there any rules for paragraph like 4 or 5 paragraph essay can get more score?....and is it true that 2 latter word like is, if, am, or, and many more , not counted in essay word count.

thank you sir, you really doing great job.

great job
but its really hard for me t understand

Hello. Simon
you are a really big help to me and all my nice students
you website is the greatest .all you share here are the essential and all my students are following these.

Thanks Morteza. I'm glad you find my lessons useful.

Hi Simon can u tell us that how we open all listening and reading tests from where ielts final paper comes ...

Hi Simon!
I do always appreciate your website.
I always get 6.5 in my writing, so nowadays am trying to change my style by taking your classes.

Regarding the essay above, could you please explain the grammar condition in the conclusion.

It would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until effective alternatives have been developed.

I dont really understand about "have been develpoed"

Thanks a lot

It is true that researchers are doing many experiments on animals due to find out new medicines and provide people with more safe drugs. Although there are convincing arguments in favor of avoiding such experiments on animals, I believe that these experiments will give us more benefits.
There are some reasons why people argue that testing on animals should be banned. Animals living on planet as human beings are a vital part of natural environment and undivided creatures of the world. This case make it easy for us to understand that we should respect to their lives and being aware of not having moral right to do new experiments on them. There is no doubt that there are more alternative ways of getting new medical advances through a rich variety of tests. They also claim that scientific research do not justify this cruelty against animals suffered in spite of many advantages of testes.
Supporters of this view think that doing experiments on animals is much more important and plays a pivotal role in making products possible to use through scientific research. There are also other benefits to human life. After carrying out numerous experimental tests on animals, scientists are likely become aware of what kind of drug or product could be real remedy for any disease or illnesses. While animals have been suffered much more over a years during these experiments, today researchers are virtually doing their best in order to minimize it. As a whole, new experiments and medical tests make people able to get over and cure various illnesses that are highly appreciated .
In conclusion, it seems to me that although it is not fair and just injustice against animals, there are more benefits to humanity in terms of returning many people to life. Researchers and scientists should also be careful in treating animals while doing experiments on them.

Thank for your post.I always want to search IELTS Writing.

Here is my writing, please feel free to comment :).

Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that their experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favor of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

One of the highly controversial issues today relates to whether animal experiments should be banned or people have right to do that because it is beneficial to humanity. In this essay, I am going to examine this question from both points of view and then give my own opinion on the matter.

On one side of the argument there are people who argue that the benefits of animal testing considerably outweigh its disadvantages. The main reason for believing this is that many important medical discoveries involved experimentation on animals. It is necessary to do medical tests on new drugs. It is also possible to say that animal testing help to advance medical and scientific knowledge. One good illustration of this is the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, arguably one of the most important cancer drugs off all time, was developed with the aid animal research. Over the years, it has been saved hundreds of thousands women's lives.

On the other hand, it is also possible to make the opposing case. It is often argued that in fact the benefits of research using animals do not justify the suffering caused. People often have this opinion because animals and human are never exactly the same. A second point is that humans have no moral right to do experimentation on animals, their lives should be respected. A particularly good example here is it has taken over 35 years of failed HIV vaccine clinical trials for researchers to seriously question the usefulness of non-human primate HIV experimentation. On top of this, we also realized that the rodent model of diabetes is wrong.

In my opinion, both arguments have their merits. On balance, however, I tend to believe that there are alternative methods of research rather than keep using animals for testing. We have no right to do that and all creatures' lives should be respected.

your blog is really helpful for all of us preparing for melts

Hi Simon,I wrote this essay and I'm wondering how much score i could get for this one.Thank you.

The animal tests are increasingly used to ensure the safety and security of medicines and other products.People have different views about whether these tests should be banned due to ethical concerns.Although these tests may cause pains for animals,I personally believe that these testing are very necessary.

Some good argument can be made for the benefits of animal testing.On the individual level,animal testing can reduce dangerous level before testing on a group of patients.For example,we develop and test and vaccines by laboratory animals,which assess the safety of new medical treatments.Without animal testing,many new drugs would be extremely unsafe.On the economic perspective,this can also reduce investment risks for medical companies before they start the mass-produced productions.From social perspective,these tests can advance scientific knowledge and contribute to more scientific discoveries.

However,animal experiments also have some objectionable features.It is cruel to see animal undergo painful suffering or death.So many animal-support activists object to the experiments as a way to test the safety and effectiveness of products.With the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models,animal testing are unnecessary.They also point out many animal tests are ineffective ,many drugs should be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing.They particularly think that animal testing should note be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics and shampoos.

In conclusion,animal tests have both beneficial and detrimental effects,but these tests should not be banned.We should continue to conduct these tests by minimizing the suffering of laboratory animals,and treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as possible to demonstrate our humanity.

Hi Simon, I really appreciate your work. It does help me a lot.

Here is my essay on this topic.

The recent decades have witnessed concerns about the ethical issues of animal testing in numerous products' manufacturing. There are those who contend that animal experimentation is of utmost importance in the development of medicines. Nonetheless, a staggering number of individuals claim that human have no moral right to do experiments on animals.
From one stance, it is widely acknowledged that the lives of all creatures should be respected. With the advance of technology, it is possible for researchers to obtain reliable experimental results from alternative methods. In truth, plant testing is a case in point, where one of the remarkable observations coming from research findings is that the use of plant experimentation in the development of cosmetic products generates same experimental data in comparison with the data generated by animal testing. In addition, there are some countries banned the use of animal testing for non-medical products.
From another stance, animal experimentation is a vital part in the development of medicines. Having tested by animals, medicines were cleared for human use. Furthermore, it does justify the suffering caused to animals if the drugs, which had been developed through the use of animal experimentation, save patients' lives. Interestingly enough, animal experimentation advanced medical and scientific knowledge. To illustrate, sending monkeys and non-human apes to space in order to collect information before human trial ensured the safety of astronauts. Needless to say, use of pigs in robotic surgery training to modify surgical technique is also a case in point.
Viewed as a whole, it is no doubt that animal experimentation is morally wrong. Nonetheless, it is said to be necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned. To my way of thinking, it is pivotal for governments to ban animal testing in non-medical products and regulate the use of animal in medical products' development.


wow) Hello Simon
I always try to learn amd evaluate your essays) It is really helpful)

thank you so much !

Dear professor Simon!
Could you explain for me why you used "the suffering caused" not " The suffering caused by...."

Sorry to bother you after such a long time, but I'm confused about something in your essay. I will appreciate if you can answer me.

I found that the main statement in the third paragragh which is alternatives may not be aviliable has nothing to do with the explantation below.

Is that ok?

Hi Simon, in this sentence:
"but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.". In this sentence, Could you please explain the phrase " are concerned " ? , I try to understand that but it is a bit confusing !
I look forward to receiving your comment !

The comments to this entry are closed.