IELTS Writing Task 2: discussion with opinion

In last week's lesson I asked you to think about where you would put your opinion in an essay about the question below.

Some people think that more money should be spent to promote the use of bicycles in cities. Others, however, believe that cities should focus on investing in public transport systems.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Let's start with the introduction and conclusion. My general 'rule' for these paragraphs is that they should cover everything that the question asks you to cover. This means that your opinion should be clear in both. Here are my examples:

Introduction:
People have different views about how best to improve transportation in cities. While better provision for cyclists would be a positive measure, I would argue that further investment in public transport should be the priority in most cities.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, although I hope that cities will become more bicycle-friendly in the future, I believe that more money should be spent on public transport infrastructure than on the promotion of cycling.

Comments

[Natty]

Hello,

I have a few doubts regarding the writing tasks.

1. Do we have only a limited number of sheets provided or can we get extra sheets for the written test?
(Because my handwriting and the vertical spacing which I provide between sentences tend to consume more space with less content. However I will be able to write 12 sentences in an A4 sized sheet.)

2. Is striking and writing allowed? Does it affect the overall band score?
(Sometimes we might spell a word wrong and might want to correct it while proof reading right?)

3. Does a good handwriting attract the examiner?
(Just curious)

4. Just to confirm, we are not supposed to include any of our assumptions in task 1 right? (For example, "More number of old women staying alone might indicate the longer life expectancy of female over males." like this?)

Thanks in advance,
Natty

[sjm]

Natty

1. You can write on as many pages as you want.

2. Yes it's allowed.

3. Technically, handwriting is not a factor in your score. However, from a practical perspective, poor handwriting slows down reading and might contribute to spelling errors due to illegibility, and this can certainly affect you score.

4. Never put assumptions in Task 1. If you do, you are limited to a maximum of 6 in Task Achievement due to irrelevant and inappropriate information.

[Pratiksha]

Hi guys,
I just wanted to know that what is the maximum word limit for both task1 and task2 ,upon exceeding that, band score with get down.

Is there any such limit or not??

[Md Akter]

I am facing some minor problems to write the date in answer sheet in listening! For example,
Cambridge IELTS 5, Test 1 question 3, answer has been written "April 18th"
Cambridge IELTS 5, Test 4 question 10, answer has been written "23rd March"
Cambridge IELTS 6, Test 3, question 2, answer has been written "27.01.1973"
Cambridge IELTS 9, Test 2, question 2, answer has been written "31 March"
Cambridge IELTS 7, Test 1, question 6, answer has ben written "17th October"

Will you please tell me which one is correct and which format should I follow?

[sjm]

Pratiksha

There is no word limit. You can write as many words as you want.

Md Akter

They are all correct. I would avoid writing dates with letters after the number though ('th' etc).

[sowha jeong]

Dear Simom,

I'm just wondering when I can have access to a lesson that I bought tonight, around 20 minutes ago. Are you going to send me the video clip or can I watch the video on the website?

Kinde Regards,
Sowha Jeong
P.S. I am really grateful for all the lessons that you've shared. Thank you, Simon.

[Keddie Z.]

People have different views towards how budgets should be spent to improve transportation. Even though spending budgets to encourage the use of bicycles can be seen as positive, I think more funds should be spent to help people enjoy better service of public transport.

In conclusion, while increasing the use of bicycles can bring some benefits, I believe more money should be spent on public transport infrastructure.

[peytonmarysawyer]

We all have individual views on how government funds should be allocated on the transport system. While the use of a bicycle is clearly a healthy way of daily life living, I will totally agree that majority of the budget should be spent on public transportation.

In summary, although I am looking forward to having more cyclists on the roads, I think the allocation of more funds on public transports is the top priority.

[Simon]

sowha jeong,

If you paid for one of my video lessons, you should have received a password by email straight away.

Please email me if you haven't received your password: [email protected]

[shuyuan]

Hi simon,
I am currently using your ebook accumulating the ideas, it's amazing. and after that I usually take about 1 hour to write a whole essay(including a super detailed outline).

While I am facing a bottle neck these days: it is hard for me to finish the essay in 40mins if I wrote the outline but without it I really have nothing to write. Please give me some advice in your perspective.
Thanks in advance.

[DS]

A group of people believe that the government should spend more money on promoting the usage of bikes in their cities and towns. However, other group of people believe that the authority should spend more on expanding and developing public transportations. The following essay will discuss about both views but I personally believe that both opinions are important and the government should find some ways to provide the budget for both ideas.

For a number of reasons, some people believe that city authorities should focus and spend more money on promoting bicycle commuting in their areas. Firstly, it is undeniable that the usage of bicycle for commuting will traffic congestions. When some people swift their transportation mode from cars to bicycles, the number of cars that commute in the street will gradually reduce. Consequently, it will solve the traffic and air pollution issues. Secondly, it is a fact that bicycle riding is a healthy exercise. Many city people are facing diseases such as heart attack or diabetics due to they have less exercises. By riding a bike to work or school, it will help the people in maintaining their health level.

However, others believe that instead of spending more money for promoting bike riding, the government should focus more on developing public transportations. They believe that public transportation is an essential tool for the economic development of the city. With a clean, safe and precise public transportation, people would be more productive with their work. In addition, it is undeniable that public transportation also reduce air pollution and traffic issue as well. They also believe that public transportation could be used by everybody, while bicycle lane could not be used by old and handicapped people.

In my opinion, I believe that both views are good, as both ideas are trying to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion issues. I support for both ideas and the government should spend more money for both campaigns. For the extra money, government should take the money from car owners, by charging higher taxes for car owners.

[nicol]

hello Simon

Your conclusion is only one sentence. Would it be better to split that conclusion in two shorter sentence.

[Frankie]

Hi peers,

Please take a look at my body paragraphs, any comments are welcome and apperciated.

There are several reasons why people believe more money should be allocated to encourage the use of bicycles, especially for the centres of major cities. They argue that this is an environmental friendly transport, and it is likely to reduce traffic congestion on busy roads. Motorised vehicles produce a whole host of toxic gases which will pollute the atmosphere, and unlike bicycles, they take up significant space on public roads. From a health perspective, it can also be argued that riding bicycles regularly not only beneficial to cyclists’ health as it is a good cardiovascular exercise, but also a form of leisure which provides a sense of relaxation.

In spite of these arguments, however, I believe by placing priority on investing in public transport infrastructure certainly offers more advantages than promoting bicycle use. From a financial point of view, public transport such as trains and buses have huge capacities and able to carry a considerably large number of passengers at any single trip, therefore it is cost efficient for both the governments and public. But perhaps the greatest benefit of public transport compared to bicycles is it could avoid traffic hassles and reduce casualty rates. These two transport modes often seem incompatible to share the same road and accidents occur when cyclists disobey traffic rules or motorists drive recklessly.

[Ahmed]

Nowadays, there is a large debate around the ideal transportation mean that should be promoted by governments Some believe that means like bicycles should be supported while, others feel that spending should be directed toward public transportations. I think that both means have to be subsidized because each has advantages and potential disadvantages. In this essay, I shall discuss and analyze both views.

On the one hand, cycling is eco-friendly and makes people more healthy. For instance, in countries where cycling is common like japan, researchers found that the air pollution is low in comparison to other countries. In addition, it is less costly and helps in solving the problem of traffic congestion. For example, the cost of buying bicycles and its maintainance is much less than that of large transportation means that cost millions of dollars. But, cycling is not suitable for elderly, crippled and patients. It is also non-practical in long distances and in bad weather.

On the other hand, public transport systems have the advantage of being practical, comfortable and time-saving. For example, employees from outside cities can reach their works more rapidly with less effort so, they can do their duties without becoming easily tired. However, public transportations still have the risk of environmental pollution and greenhouse gases emission.

In conclusion, both cycling and public transportations have positives and negatives that should be assessed carefully. In my view, governments should promote and support the both equally because each serves a certain sector of population. It is predicted that cycling will spread more rapidly due to financial and environmental causes.

[Alex]

Hi Simon,

Could you please comment which idea, as to an introduction in writing task, given below is correct:
1) It is better to include synopsis in the introductory paragraph to make the structure of an essay clearer for an examiner E.g. In this essay I am going to discuss both view and show that first option is better.
or
2) Synopsis presence will not give an additional mark for a student.

Thank you in advance!

[Vo Nhi]

Hi Simon,

Here are my introduction and conclusion for this topic.
Improving quality of transportation is always an agressive problem in almost cities. There is certain people support for the effort of gorvernment to encourage people using bike, meanwhile others claim that the fund should pour into public transport systems and I would like to share my view with the latter opinion.
And the conclusion.
In brief, I would say that the impact of using social transport is greater than the affect of encouraging citizens using bycicles, therefore
the gorvernments should spend more on public transport construction.

[luke]

People have different views about how best to improve the transportation system of many cities. While the idea of promoting cycle would be a positive measeure, I believe that more should be done on improving public transport infrastructure.

In conclusion, although I hope that cities would a bicycle-friendly in future, I would argue that the priority should be given more on improving public transportation than promoting on bicycle.

[Hien]

Hi Simon,

I have a question for you regarding the length of the conclusion. My teacher told me that I shoud write 2 sentences in the conclusion and must summarize 2 main body paragraphs. It is slightly different from your instruction since you usually write only one sentence in your conclusion.

Thank you for your reply.

[Luke]

It is often argued which is better, spending money to the promotion of using bikes or the development of public infrastructure. While I understand the positive effects on the usage of bicycles, I would strongly support the importance of making the advanced public transportation.

In conclusion, I agree the advantages of utilizing eco-friendly bicycles in cities, nonetheless, I believe the government should provide more money to construct public traffic facilities in the future.

[Yuki Lee]

There has long been discussed that how to develop the transportation in cities. There are a few people suggesting to promote the use of bicycles, however, other people think that instead of promotion of bicycles, invest public transport system is more effective. I am of the opinion that further investment in public transport is better.

Promotion cycling can have positive impacts on environment and human health. It has no emission such as carbon dioxide which is not environmentally friendly. Besides, in some extent, spending money on promotion of bicycles is less costly and can ease the burden of traffic congestion. The more use of bicyces, the less cars and transports it will have on the street. Meanwhile, it is no doubt that riding bicycles often contributes more healthy and stronger body to human. It can save time and money than going to fitness center.

On the other hand, some people think that government should spend more money on investment in public transports in cities. Public transports is necessary in a city. People can arrive where they want to go quickly and comfortably without concerning the route and time. There is another advantage of investment in public transports is it can reduce certain personal cars on the street and solve traffic congestion in a way. Conversely, public transports can cause air pollution.

From a personal point of view, I think that both promoting the utilisation of bicycles and investing in public transports are good for improving transports in cities. Although promotion of cycling is good to environment, I believe that further investment in public transport will be better.

[Kritsana T]

I would like to ask you that in thesis sentense according to the question"both side and give your opinion" this should me answer on one side in the thesis that which one you will select ?

[Eagle]

Dear Simon
It's seem to be that you agree with one of two views ("I would agree that...") or it is just simply that you have the same opinion? (may be I'm confusing)
Thanks

[Areeb]

Dear Simon,
My score was L:8 , S:7, W :6.5, R:6.5.
Kindly help me I need 7 in all.
Best Regards

[Eren]

People have different views about what is the best way to improve transportation in large cities. While I accept that promoting the idea of using bicycle would be helpful in different ways, I would argue that investment in public transport systems are more likely to mitigate the problems related to traffic.

On the one hand, there are various sensible reasons why more money should be allocated to the use of bicycle in cities. Firstly, it is no doubt true that bicycles are not as polluting as other types of transportation, meaning that bicycles are environmentally friendly. Because, exhaust fumes and carbon emissions from vehicles could be avoided by using bicycles. Secondly, traffic congestions tend to be one of the most nerve-wracking problems especially in bigger cities. In this sense, bicycles might become an alternative way of transportation for people who want to avoid traffic jams. Finally, from a health perspective, riding a bicycle regularly is extremely beneficial for the health of people. For example, from what I’ve read in the newspapers, cycling is a good all over body workout, and it is a perfect cardiovascular exercise, in this sense, this habit can encourage people to become active and get rid of sedentary lifestyle.

However, despite the arguments that I mentioned above, I believe that public transport systems should be given priority by governments. There are millions of people in large cities and capitals, and transportation makes up a real problem for those people. Therefore, governments should invest more money in public transport systems, such as underground systems, trams, busses and trains. Thus, people can be deterred from travelling their private cars causing many traffic problems. For example, some improvements have been done in public transport in my country, and the problems related to traffic such as accidents and congestions have been reduced by 50%.

In conclusion, I think that making cities more bicycle-friendly could be a great idea for several reasons, but it seems to me that more money should be spent on public transport infrastructure.

[Bd]

Can we use I or we while we write task 2 pls

[Moaned adel]

In give ur opnion kind of questions. Do I have take one of the both sides?. Can my conclusion be something in between. By example in this case I believe that such decesion depends on the love of development that the country is going through.in other word developed countries should switch to cycling encourage when developing counties should put more effort in public transportation.
Thanks in advance

[Hasan]

There is an argument among the people whether cities should spend money on environment-friendly transport systems like bicycles or they should implement a better public transportation network. In my view both the approaches are needed in a city for a better transport system and cities should be focused on considering both the system side by side.

The reasons behind the spending money on the increase of bicycle use can be categorised into environmental and individual perspective. A bicycle is environment-friendly as it does not exhaust any dangerous fumes in the air. In addition, the increase in the use of bicycle will reduce the use of other fuel maintained vehicles like car, motorcycle, autorickshaw etc., which will help to make the air less contaminated. From individual people's perspective, riding a bicycle is the best source of exercise that a person can have in a busy life. Furthermore, it is convenient in terms of buying a cycle and maintain it as well as riding through a traffic congested areas.

On the other hand, a good public transport system is vital for a city to support lots of people on their move to work. This system is quite faster and accommodates a huge number people compared to individually owned vehicles like a bicycle or car. City residents can easily use them with a minimum cost which makes it a popular medium of transportation. Furthermore, public transports such as city buses or metro rails are safer and environment-friendly than other vehicles. Availability of a good public transport system deters people from buying a car which eventually helps to reduce the traffic jam in roads and decreases the releasing of pollutants into the air.

In conclusion, use of bicycle and public transport system provides a good way of environment-friendly transportation to the city dwellers, therefore I think that cities should spend money to improve both the transportation system.

[Alex Nguyen]

Hi Simon.

Could you pls take a look and give me some advices?

People hold different views about how best to improve transportation in cities. While increasing the number of bicycles could be seen the positive measure, I would argue that government should allocate the budget to invest in public transport.
In one hand, using bicycles in cities is associated with several advantages. Firstly, bicycles are really friendly with environment because they could help to reduce the fume emissions from vehicles, which are key factors lead to global warming. For example, Rotterdam is one of cities all over the world that have the highest rates in bicycle using. Secondly, biking is the most basic cardiovascular workout which helps people to build strengthens and improve endurance. Furthermore, it also makes people feel rejuvenated and invigorated, which is linked with higher productivity. Finally, government would not need to spend huge amount of money to build transport network. Alternatively, they could use the national budget for the other public services such as education or healthcare.
In the other hand, the positive impacts of public transport should be considered because of various reasons. Obviously, everyone could benefit from public transport. Considerably, the old people who are not capable of driving could enjoy easily. Another factor is that public transport is safe for every citizen. It plays essential role to reduce possibility of road accidents. Moreover, people could utilize their time to do the other things like listening to music to recharge their batteries after hard working day or going online shopping while they are one buses or trains. The most significant contribution of public transportation is to reduce traffic congestion in rush hours in most of big cities. The development of transport network could be seen reflection of the city’s progress level.
In conclusion, although the cities would become bicycle-friendly in the future, I believe that more and more money should be invested in public transport infrastructure.

310 words.

[Alex Nguyen]

Pls ignore the above comment. Pls use the contain below. Thank you so much

People hold different views about how best to improve transportation in cities. While increasing the number of bicycles could be seen the positive measure, I would argue that government should allocate the budget to invest in public transport.

In one hand, using bicycles in cities is associated with several advantages. Firstly, bicycles are really friendly with environment because they could help to reduce the fume emissions from vehicles, which are key factors lead to global warming. For example, Rotterdam is one of cities all over the world that have the highest rates in bicycle using. Secondly, biking is the most basic cardiovascular workout which helps people to build strengthens and improve endurance. Furthermore, it also makes people feel rejuvenated and invigorated, which is linked with higher productivity. Finally, government would not need to spend huge amount of money to build transport network. Alternatively, they could use the national budget for the other public services such as education or healthcare.

In the other hand, the positive impacts of public transport should be considered because of various reasons. Obviously, everyone could benefit from public transport. Considerably, the old people who are not capable of driving could enjoy easily. Another factor is that public transport is safe for every citizen. It plays essential role to reduce possibility of road accidents. Moreover, people could utilize their time to do the other things like listening to music to recharge their batteries after hard working day or going online shopping while they are one buses or trains. The most significant contribution of public transportation is to reduce traffic congestion in rush hours in most of big cities. The development of transport network could be seen reflection of the city’s progress level.
In conclusion, although the cities would become bicycle-friendly in the future, I believe that more and more money should be invested in public transport infrastructure.

310 words.

[Khaled Said]

Hi Simon

People have different views whether money should be invested in bicycles in town. While others argue that money should be exploited in transportation in cities. I would argue that the government are liable to use its resources towards public transport system as top priority.

On the one hand, there are various reasons why people advocate that money should be allocated into bicycles promotion. Firstly, it is considered a friendly environmental transport where does not release toxic emission into the atmosphere. Secondly, it does not occupy the public road and therefore reduce traffic congestion, in contrast, vehicles take up significant space on the busy road. Thirdly, bicycles are not only considered a good exercise for cyclist health such as improve cardiovascular, but also alleviate stress as relaxation activity.

On the other hand, I would agree with those who argue that public transport infrastructure should be given highest priority for several reasons. Firstly, those are cost efficient especially for people who commute to work regularly from outside cities. In addition, transport is considered comfortable for elderly and handicapped who cannot ride bicycle. Secondly, buses and trains are not only strict to time table schedule, so, aiming for saving time for many citizens, but also reduce traffic jam where vast majority of people riding public transport in single trip instead using their private cars.

In conclusion, after analyzing these two point of views, although, I hope bicycles are becoming friendlier in the near future. It seems to me that significant fund should be spent on transportation system over bicycles advancement.

Khaled Said

[Kevin]

People have different views about how to mitigate the long-lasting transport problem in the cities. Some people advocate that the widespread use of bikes is the key, while I argue that the construction of public transport is more effective for the cities.

Lower cost and shorter time on construction are the two prime reasons why lots of urban planners are in favor of bikes. On the economic level, the cost of bike sharing systems and bike trails are much lower compared to other mega projects. It is easier to be approved by the Congress, especially when most governments have tight budgets right now. Regarding the construction, bike systems are undoubtedly simpler and easier than other scenarios. Taipei city ahs completed 400-km bike trails throughout the metropolis, while the controversial MRT project is still under debate.

However, it seems to me that a completion of public transport is even more critical for the prosperity of the cities. As the population in the cities are expected to grow, I tink a comprehensive transport system could sustain the development in the long run. Besides, a diverse transport system, such as MRT, train, and bus, could fulfill the need of various urban people. Also, it could alleviate the pressure of residence in the cities, which is regarded as the main cause of congestion, by expanding the line to the suburban areas. In addition, it is more durable and reliable that it will not be easily destroyed by weather or other unforeseeable factors. Therefore, a robust transport system could be the backbone of a city that allows people to move easily and freely.

In conclusion, I think the execution of public transport is a better solution to solve the problem of transport in the cities than the use of bikes.

[Glen]

Owing to the increase in pollution due to automobiles, many countries are finding an alternate and reliable source of energy which is eco-friendly. For this reason many counties are encouraging cycling to curb the pollution issue and to minimize traffic congestion in cities.
In today’s world with the advancement of modern technologies in the field of automobiles, one can experience a safe and a comfortably drive. In addition to that because of various flexible payment options one can easily purchase these cars. This has resulted in large number of car on road causing pollution and affecting the environment. Many countries are investing on research to find a cleaner and effective fuel. Automobile companies are now introducing eco-friendly cars which run on electric or Hybrid, however the price of these cars are way beyond the reach of a common man budget. So keeping in mind the price and its effect of the environment, many countries are encouraging use of cycles.
Cycles being economical and eco-friendly, many countries are encouraging their citizen to use cycle as it has many advantages. Firstly being eco-friendly, it does not cause pollution nor does it cause any harm to the environment. Secondly, cycling provides numerous health benefits. It is a very good exercise that develops body muscles and increases one’s stamina. Lastly in traffic congestion one can very easily maneuvers and avoid traffic. Cycles can maneuver is places where even two wheeler like bike and scooter cannot pass. It being economical can be easily afforded by weaker section of the society for travelling.
In my opinion investing on bicycles is not the right decision. Government should invest of improving the public transport by making it safer, cheaper and comfortable. Eco-friendly automobiles like electric car and hybrid car as they are recently introduced in market. These automobiles need to be available at a competitive price as compared to petrol and diesel cars. This will definitely attract people to use electric car or hybrid cars.
To conclude, government needs to take necessary action in preventing pollution but by investing on cycles is not a good decision. Government needs to invest of vehicles which run on Non- Renewable source of energy which will neither affect the environment nor affect the human being.

[Glen]

Owing to the increase in pollution due to automobiles, many countries are finding an alternate and reliable source of energy which is eco-friendly. For this reason many counties are encouraging cycling to curb the pollution issue and to minimize traffic congestion in cities.

In today’s world with the advancement of modern technologies in the field of automobiles, one can experience a safe and a comfortably drive. In addition to that because of various flexible payment options one can easily purchase these cars. This has resulted in large number of car on road causing pollution and affecting the environment. Many countries are investing on research to find a cleaner and effective fuel. Automobile companies are now introducing eco-friendly cars which run on electric or Hybrid, however the price of these cars are way beyond the reach of a common man budget. So keeping in mind the price and its effect of the environment, many countries are encouraging use of cycles.

Cycles being economical and eco-friendly, many countries are encouraging their citizen to use cycle as it has many advantages. Firstly being eco-friendly, it does not cause pollution nor does it cause any harm to the environment. Secondly, cycling provides numerous health benefits. It is a very good exercise that develops body muscles and increases one’s stamina. Lastly in traffic congestion one can very easily maneuvers and avoid traffic. Cycles can maneuver is places where even two wheeler like bike and scooter cannot pass. It being economical can be easily afforded by weaker section of the society for travelling.
In my opinion investing on bicycles is not the right decision. Government should invest of improving the public transport by making it safer, cheaper and comfortable. Eco-friendly automobiles like electric car and hybrid car as they are recently introduced in market. These automobiles need to be available at a competitive price as compared to petrol and diesel cars. This will definitely attract people to use electric car or hybrid cars.

To conclude, government needs to take necessary action in preventing pollution but by investing on cycles is not a good decision. Government needs to invest of vehicles which run on Non- Renewable source of energy which will neither affect the environment nor affect the human being.