« IELTS Writing Task 2: three possible introductions | Main | IELTS Speaking Part 2: 'busy' answer »

February 09, 2017


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

Hello Simon,
thank for your effort.
could you please look at my writing and tell me generally what's the problem with my writing and how can I improve it? thanks

this q
Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.

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

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

Write at least 250 words.

It is frequently believed that governments should pay a lot of money for railways more than roads. As a result of the population increasing rapidly in a country, people need safe and fast transports that carry them to their work easily. In my opinion, I think governments should invest in railroads than roads in order to help people going easily to their jobs and that will give them a better life.

Firstly, railways are more reliable and safe than roads. To illustrate that, car accidents have the highest percentage in transportation than trains. In addition to that three of five people dead in the world due to road accidents. For example, the majority of people in turkey died in a car crash than in a train.

Secondly, in terms of population is increasing day after day, building more railroads will lead to ease the life for those people. In other words, a person who lives far away from his work, he can take a train going to his work. For instance, Japan railways company builds a train station in an isolated village in order to connect a number of the Japanese nation, who live there, with Tokyo. Finally, rail transport cost less money than roads transports. A person who does not have much money to buy cars, he can take a ticket costing ten dollars to go to their house.

To sum up, I argued that governments should build a lot of railroads in order to give a better and an easy life for a community.

thanks Simon
You can explain it simply

hi simon

please check this out


the data in ielts cambridge 10 practice test 2 is quite different from your post.

We cannot say that the UK saw by far the highest levels of spending on the two products since in the real chart the UK sales of fairtrade bananas was not the highest, it was from Switzerland.

In that case, what would be the best second sentence for the overview?

I hope you won't mind if I ask your opinion with my own overview;

It can clearly be seen that the overall sales of Fairtrade coffee in all five countries showed an upward trend over the given time period. By contrast, only three out of the five countries in Europe followed the same trend with regard to the sales of Fairtrade bananas in both years, whereas sales in Sweden and Denmark declined.


Please avoid writing 'showed an upward trend'. We see this phrase (and other similar ones) all the time and they don't sound particularly natural to an examiner. You want your writing to sound as native like as possible.


Hmm.. Is that so? I thought since the examiner will check many papers at a time,he or she will encounter many candidates using "increase". So if you" all rephrase it,how should it go?.

Thanks! I"ll take note of that.

please added me a whatsapp group my mobile number is


I'm personally not a fan of the expression 'an upward trend', but if you really want to use it, say 'saw an upward trend' ('showed' is unnatural).

There is no point being 'different' to other candidates, if you write something that is 'wrong'.

It's better to use a natural verb (like 'increased' 'rose' 'climbed') and to add to it with an adverb, such as 'increased modestly/moderately/noticeably/markedly' and so on.

Thanks! Saw an upward trend is really more natural

Hi Simon,
I have a confusion relating to this topic. It comes from an exercise.
This exercise gives 2 pie charts (with approximate proportion) which show how many people watched films in different formats in 1992 and 2008. A piece shows Television have the proportion approximately >45% (1992) and <20% (2008).
The sentence below is T or F?
"From 1992 to 2008, the number of people watching films on television decreased by just over 25%."
I choose T because if I cut a quarter in television proportion(1992), the remain piece still larger than proportion in 2008, but the answer is F. (after "by" we need an exact number?)
Can you explain more about this.

The comments to this entry are closed.