« IELTS Listening: how to speak well | Main | IELTS Writing Task 1: describing numbers correctly »

November 15, 2017


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

Hi Simon,

When I first saw this task, my first instinct was to analyze the topic. So I will start by raising questions and identify fallacies in the statement. Then propose other possibilities of not recycling. >> Means I will not agree on imposing legal requirement unless the facts are check and prioritize other alternatives.

In the second and the remaining paragraph, I will provide other alternatives and example.

Do you think this is a right approach? Will this look like a mix of analytical writing and Argument Task in GRE? Is this what IELTS examiner is looking for? I don't know if this is a legacy issue that I am approaching this question like GRE writing. Tho I only get 3 out of 6 on that..

(following post)I mean I just finished GRE and not so sure if I need to approach this writing differently.

IELTS is a test of the range of your English and your ability to use it correctly; not of the validity of your logic or powers of analysis, although you are required to support your arguments with examples from your own knowledge or experience. Study the marking scheme:

The marking criteria state:
"uses a wide range of vocabulary with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features;" and "uses a wide range of structures with full
flexibility and accuracy;", so:

"by raising questions and identifying"

"possibilities of not recycling" ?

"on imposing any legal requirement "

"the facts are checked"

" provide other alternatives and examples. "


Youth crime is increasing rapidly in many countries. Why it is increasing? and what solution can be taken to resolve the problem.

It is obviously true that the teenagers crime growing up swiftly in many countries around the world. There are several reasons behind this. However to tackle the problem, we can suggest a number of solutions.

Firstly, the most important issue of rising youth offense is lack of interaction with parents. Nowadays, almost every parents are busy with their job rather than giving time with children. Therefore, children can not get a chance to discuss their opinion with anyone and do what they want without thinking about the right path. In some cases, parents broke their relationship with each other. For example, in western countries, it is quite common to get divorce after few years of marriage and parents do not take any responsibility of child. For this reason, they have no shelter for live and they commit crime. Secondly,increasing poverty another impacts to enhance the range of negative activity. Because of shortage, teenagers mess up with different types of offenses like: theft, pick pocketing, shoplifting.

On the other hand, although it is not possible to resolve the problem entirety. By effective solutions, we can enjoy a little control over it.
One way is to tackle problem is family awareness. Parents should be caring about their children. Because, if a child grow up with a proper way, he will never involve with any negative activity. Another way is to take government action. If government construct rehabilitation club in every division to console teenagers about the negative side and punishment towards crime.

In conclusion, the ways I have discussed in my solution part if are materialized in any nation , the range of the problem will get a steady decline.
Sir,can you please check my essay.."cause and solution" eassy is really hard for me.
Can you please suggest about my mistakes.



https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*_VERB+my+mistakes%2C+make+suggestions+for+*&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t2%3B%2C*_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcorrect_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Brectify_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bdissemble_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bexcuse_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmade_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bcorrecting_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Backnowledge_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Badmit_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsee_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bcorrected_VERB my mistakes%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2Cmake suggestions for *%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for the%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for improvement%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for improving%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for improvements%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for their%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for its%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for a%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmake suggestions for changes%3B%2Cc0%3



"giving time with children" ?

"parents broke their relationship with each other" ?

"to get divorce" ?

"take any responsibility of child" ?

"have no shelter for live" ?

"increasing poverty another impacts to enhance the range of .." ?

" negative activity" ?

"Because of shortage" ?

"resolve the problem entirety" ?

" is to tackle problem is" ?

"a child grow " ?

" with a proper way" ?

"will never involve with"

"government construct " ?

"the ways ... the range of the problem will get"

@ Guo

Thank you for the feedback. I will look up the information.

Recycling is just a bad joke; so too are laws to force recycling on people. We need to look at the big picture: plastics are killing the environment; and there are too many of us. It is already too late for easy solutions; we need drastic changes if homo sapiens is to survive on lifeboat Earth.

Recycling is a joke because for every kilo of plastic sent for recycling, we need two kilos of new plastic to mix it with and make a usable "new" product. So recycling simply adds to the problem, not subtracts from it. It cannot solve the issue under present-day technology.

No, plastics themselves are a huge mistake; they pollute the oceans and poison our fish. The microfibres from synthetic clothes wash off into our wastewater and thence into our waterways. Plastic bags, plastic utensils, and other plastic products are blown out over the ocean, and form huge gyres, where the plastic is ground down to plankton size. It is estimated that the ratio of plankton to plastic in the ocean is already 2:1. We are going downhill fast.

Laws making people recycle will not stop the rot: laws banning all plastic production, importing, and distribution might make a difference, but I fear it is already too late. It would also require that the cosy relationship, which exists in many countries, between government and industry would have to change dramatically; but it is hard to believe that any government would shoot themselves in the foot like this.

It is tempting to think that banning plastics is a ridiculous idea; they are just too much part of everyday life. How could we live without them? Well, the truth is that just seventy years ago at the end of the second world war, there were almost no plastics, just bakelite, nylon parachutes, and perspex for fighter aircraft cockpit covers. People still lived, loved, laughed, and died just the same, as our species has for the last 300000 years.

Plastics are not essential to life; quite the opposite; they are evil, evil as the people who manufacture and sell them, evil as the short-sighted politicians who support them.

This is the tragedy of the commons, where government is the only body that has the power to intervene and save the world; and they do too little, too late. Because it is already too late.

Just after the world war two, there was still time; there were only two billion people in the world, and our gigantic population explosion lay still in the future. A “one-child per family” policy applied worldwide might have provided a breathing space. Now we are seven billion going on nine.

The only thing that can save us now is something like bubonic plague to bring the population down to a sustainable level, cutting consumption in general and plastics in particular. Nothing else comes close to the mark.

A recycling law? Laughable, just a sideshow, a red herring, wide of the mark, worthy only of a deathly grimace. So forget about having children, and smell the roses, while you may.

Hi Simon. I have a question out of this topic and decided to post it here. I hope it is ok.

I wrote this introduction; "People have different opinions about the effect of modern technologies to our life. While many of them think that modern communication tools are very useful, others think that modern technologies destroys the variety between different cultures. Although there are some disadvantages of modern technology in my view it has more benefits than drawbacks."

to this question

"Modern technology is changing our world. This has advantages such as bringing people closer together through communication. It also has disadvantages such as destroying the differences between cultures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?"

and suddenly acknowledged that I am on the wrong way. Am I?

Examiner's intro to this questions is below;

Modern technology with its advantages and disadvantages has changed today’s world enormously. Communication allows people all over the world to stay in contact with each other. For instance, I can easily exchange e-mails with a good friend of mine who recently had to move back to her mother country, Malaysia. Furthermore, if I have to make a really important decision or something is bothering me, I simply have to press the buttons on my mobile phone in order to ask my parents or a good friend for advice.

SIMON, could you please give some tips how quickly decide "what to write?"

Thank you,


I think you missed an article in
''ranging from a small fine to (a) community service''... part.


"community service" is usually uncountable:



Rarely is it counted:

"provide a community service"

"A hospital is, after all, a community service.."

"in some countries an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of eating too much fast food. It is therefore necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on this kind of food. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?"

Is this question asking whether taxes should be imposed on fast food or not? or can we write a balanced essay with the approach given in reycling essay?

@ Ilkin



The question does not seem to be restricted to communications and culture; they are just examples. So anything to do with the impact of technology would be fair game.

Next, the criteria, always the criteria! Happiness, health, GDP, or social harmony?

Could you imagine being an examiner and trolling through all the blah-blah essays about how wonderful the internet is? Why not be extreme, go the other way, and point out all the ills of modern techno? Cultures destroyed, no privacy, use of social media to spread violence and porn, ...., maybe even pollution, Chernobyl ... Are we happier for all of this?





Here is my essay! How's this?

It has been an enigmatic quandary as to whether the legalization of recycling the waste is needed to make people recycle more of their waste. However, it is evident that the laws to force people to recycle is required. Although history and literature are replete with countless examples, the event surrounding World War 1 is a paragon that reverberates my point precisely.

A historical event after World War 1 clearly demonstrates the matter pertaining to my point. Right after WW1, because of waging war, German Treasury was drained entirely, so Germany could not pay for the heavy reparations payments imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Under this circumstance, to save the waste and instill a concept of frugality to its citizens, Germany legalized the recycling as a law through which almost all Germans now have participated in the recycling on a daily basis. Whenever citizens violated the recycling rules, a hefty amount of fine was levied on them, which brought forth the positive outcome. This efficiency of the legalization indubitably ascertains why the laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste, as the history proves.
However, the government should do more than merely legalize recycling the waste. Not to mention the legalization of recycling the waste, the government must initiate the campaigns or propaganda to educate especially children at early ages how much important the recycling is in our environment.

Furthermore, the government should provide many communities with educational conferences about many positive effects the recycling would bring us, so as for them to better keep the recycling. If the citizens observe the recycling laws very well, the government can grant them an accolade to appreciate their compliance to encourage other citizens further to follow the recycling laws.

At first glance, it seems like the legalization of recycling the waste is futile to make people recycle their waste, but the example of efficient German recycling history lucidly demonstrates why the laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste.


1) French, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese often use definite article when generalizing:

Il déteste le café.
He hates coffee.

La vie est compliquée.
Life is complicated.

La vie est compliquée.
Life is complicated.

J'adore les concombres!
I love cucumbers!

Notice that in English it is often omitted (although it is sometimes possible in academic writing). This would apply in over a dozen places in your essay.

2) Some of the phrases in your essay sound quite odd in English, maybe normal in your own tongue but not for IELTS. Examples:
" enigmatic quandary "
"reverberates my point"
"pay for the .. payments "
"a hefty amount of fine"
"This efficiency of the legalization indubitably ascertains why"
"how much important "
"so as for them to better keep the recycling"
"grant them an accolade to appreciate their compliance "

The challenge is to find more "natural" phraseology, and for this one method is to google around to find a suitable commonly-used phrase.







Hi Simon
Thanks a lot for the example essay. I notice that you used a lot of would, could, should, might in this essay.
S1, ...would...
S2, ...could...
S3, ...could...
S4, ...would...
S5, ...would...
S1, ...should...
S2, ....might...
S3, ...could... and ...could...
S4, ...would...
S5, ...could...
Can you please explain why you use all these modal verbs?
And can you please explain the principles to use modal verbs in Writing Task 2?
Thank you very much.

Hi simon,
Why it is not usual to get 9 in task response and cohesion, if the lexical resources and gramamar is 5?
In other words, Is it possible to get 9 in "Task Achievement" and "Coherence and Cohesion" and get 5 in lexical and grammar? (7 overall)
thank you


A grammar question regarding a clean, waste-free environment. Both clean and waste-free are adj, why we don't use "and" between clean and waste-free?

I found the answer for my question. Adj used before noun don't need "and", and comma is free to add between adjs. Adj used after noun should have "and".

Here's my essay on the 'recycling' topic.Does this score more than 6?

Higher education is considered the key to success in life but this notion is challenged by a number of successful people who couldn’t get university education. In my opinion, university education is not essential to be successful in life but it can make the process much easier.

Obviously, a university degree will ensure that one has more security in one’s future life. This security comes in a number of ways. Firstly, with this higher qualification, one will be able to get more job opportunities than somebody who doesn’t have the degree. Secondly, even if somebody resorts to self-employment, a university degree will provide more knowledge, which is helpful for the success of any business.

However, the above does not always mean that only those people with a university degree become successful in life. As a hypothetical example, it is often claimed by governments that a diphtheria vaccine will keep diphtheria away. But this does not mean that those who did not have vaccination will always suffer from diphtheria. The same situation is true about university education. Though university education makes life better by more opportunities, better work efficiency and more knowledge, this does not mean that the people without university education will not be able to achieve the same.

In conclusion, it is clear that university education helps in making life successful by offering more opportunities and skills. However, it is possible for people to achieve these things even without university education through their own efforts and become successful in life.

Sorry, the topic was "Nowadays university education is considered very important for people's future. However, there are a lot of successful people who didn't get higher education. Do you think that higher education is necessary to succeed in life? Justify your opinion with relevant examples."

It is true that the number of recycled household wastes is not sufficient. Although some people argued that the authorities must officially lay down obligatory policy about recycling, I believe that is not the only way to solve the problem.
In my perspective, a recycling legislation is just one among possible solutions to increase the number of recycled wastes from homes. The governments can prohibit households from throwing their garbage directly by fining them with environmental penalties, community services or even prison sentences if necessary. Instead, homeowners have to first classify the wastes into different bins, and only then the recycling process could become more efficient and thus boost the number of recycled wastes from homes.
However, I strongly believe that there are more feasible solutions than just one simple recycling law. It might be more reasonable for governments to encourage homeowners to reuse products rather than just getting rid of them. For example, they can reuse plastic bags for many times or they can turn tin food cans into pots for planting trees at home. Moreover, the governments should concentrate on education to raise people’s awareness about environment and public cleanliness instead of introducing legal regulations. Because it is much better to have citizens to be self-conscious about the negative consequences of not recycling enough of their wastes, rather than force them to do unwillingly.
In conclusion, although I accept that by adopting recycling law to oblige homeowners to treat their wastes properly would increase the number of household wastes, I think there are many other reasonable ways to improve the situation.

Please check mine! Thanks a lot, Mr.Simon

Here is my essay.
It is true that waste recycling is far from enough. Although I may agree that some legislation may tackle this problem, I do not agree that it is the only way for a green world.
In my view, compulsory rules are quite useful to make people act. When a bill come into effect, most people will know the obligations by reading latest newspaper or watching TV. Moreover, citizens will follow the law and be more careful to finish waste recycling missions. For example, there are quite comprehensive government bills in Japan to ask for waste categorization, and this make Japan one of the best example at resource recycling.
On the other hand, laws are not enough for such a job. There are a lot of other things to make people more environmental friendly. Firstly, the government and press should pay a lot of attention for Waste Recycling promotion or propaganda. It is quite important to remind of every member of the society to reuse the materials. By realizing the fact that matter is always not enough for the consumption and the waste may do harm to the earths, air and oceans, we may be more willing to care about the waste. In addition, governments should allocate some funds for building a better waste categorization system. Only by making recycling easier for everybody to do, there will be a better chance for an improved waste reuse system.
In conclusion, perhaps recycling legislation is necessary, but there are still other ways to make the environment better.

Hi Simon and everyone!

I have a question regarding a grammar point.

"Another tactic that governments could use would be to create stricter regulations for the companies that produce the packaging for household products. "

I do not understand how "that governments could use would be to create stricter regulations"

could and would are used in the same sentence.

Could anyone explain for me?


This is my version of this essay: Enjoy

Recycling of household waste is one of the problems governments have to find the right solution. It is agreed that people don't put enough effort into recycling, and the suggested solution for increasing this behavior is to make recycling mandatory. In my opinion, I somewhat agree with this direction, however, other methods could proven to be more effective.

There are many reasons why household residents avoid recycling waste. One of the reason is that in many countries there is no law to abide citizens to separate waste into appropriate categories. This makes people perceive this behavior to be acceptable and not considering about the environment. Moreover, when the leader of a country does not emphasize the behavior people could grow adapt to it and it could create a cultural norm that is inconsiderate to the environment. Thus, the government should step in with recycling regulations to force better change.

However, even if the government successfully implement new legislations, there could still be challenges with educating the whole citizenry about reasons for the change. Unless it is understandable, the people could be reluctant to do the action. It is therefore more important to provide the right education that teaches students to understand the consequences of not recycling. For instance, when people understand that it is the action which they ought to do, they would do it without hesitation; however, with compulsion, it is likely that the action will only be done when they are being watched.

In conclusion, I agree that recycling laws could obtain its objective to a certain extend, however, it is the education that could instill a lasting change to people's behavior.

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement.

To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?
Some people believe that obligatory rules of government are the only way to increase the unpleasant present recycling rate. To some extent I agree that government can contribute to increasing recycling rate, however, I believe that imposing legal rules is not the only way.
Apparently using legal is the only way to achieving effective recycling system. Enforcing household women to separate their garbage and taking part in compulsory recycling system may seem effective at least in short term but without any doubt is not the best or the only method.
The government should pursue intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to reduce the amount of home-made garbage and to increase the rate of recycling.
At first, they should pay attention to underlying personal motivations of producing such a huge amount of garbage and reduce the problem at the root. If people be enough aware of the devastating consequence effects of the produced garbage, and the constructive effect of applying an effective recycling method, they probebly will contribute more actively.
People should feel belonging and trust to cooperate and separate the home-made litters in the start.
The authorities need to ban the advertisements that promulgate consumerism and fake demand. Furthermore, the use of plastic bags as well as environmental-unfriendly materials should be restricted.
In conclusion, the legal usage in order to solve the recycling problem may act as a short-term panacea, so the government should pursue a long –lasting ways by arousing people motivation.

Can you please help me with my essay?
Thank you for the feedback

Hello simon,
Kindly give ur opinion regarding my essay

According to some people all the waste from houses is not recycled amd the problem can only be addressed by legal enforcement from the government.Although it is true that nit all the domestic garbage is put to reuse however, I do not think that making laws is the only solution to ensure recycling.

In my opinion, rules should be made regarding the collection and disposal of waste in marked dustbins placed on streets amd from their the waste should be collected by the authorities for recycling process. Hoewever, anyone not abiding by the rules i.e throwing garbage outside houses should b punished strictly. Moreover, social awareness programs held among general public and in schools can also aid alot in enhancing the trend of recycling among common masses.For instance, many sich awaremess programs held in New Jersey in 2012, raised the city's recycling rate from 24% to 49% within a year. Thus, it can be very effective.

Similarly, laws can be made for manufacturers to put a ckear label on any product which can b recycled so as to help the consumer to dispose the waste properly. Furthermore, more funds can be provided by the governmentto uolift the recycling facilities. Hence, government can do much more than only legally enforcing recycling.

In conclusion, I must say that however much recycling is essential but making it legal is not the only solution. Government can cooperate with the authorities and public via money and facilitation to ensure recycling of domestic waste.

I think it should be "at home" instead of "in the home". "at school" instead of "in schools".

In many countries, there is no enough recycling of waste materials (e.g. paper, glass, cans). What are the reasons? What could be done to encourage recycling?

Is this topic the same ideas of the above topic? I am a bit confused.

Please clarified and suggest any thought ?


Hi Simon,
I tried to write the essay by myself first but I couldn’t write it the way I wanted to write. Very amazingly I had the similar ideas as yours but I couldn’t execute the idea through words.
Can I please have a lesson from on cohesion?

i love your writing ideas

Hi Simon,
Kindly give your opinion about my essay

As the awareness about environmental protection increases day by day among people, it is believed by some that the domestic refuse is not being recycled properly. In order to address this issue, Government should implement strict rules and regulations. I agree that legislation would be helpful in this regard, but this is not the only way to ensure sufficient recycling of household trash.
On one hand, legislation on the part of Government and law agencies will undoubtedly increase the possibility of enhanced recycling. For example, it should be made compulsory for the people to sort the garbage out according to its nature, in different bins. The person , not abiding by the rule, should be penalized ranging from being fined to even doing some community service. The repeat offenders can be punished more strictly in order to check this issue. This will definitely result in more people taking part in household recycling process.
However, this is not the only way to eradicate this problem. Public awareness and participation by implementing a rewarding system and holding seminars is equally important. For instance, in Germany, the supermarkets and grocery stores have built in machines where one can return the plastic bottles and gets discount in return. This encourages more people to bring domestic trash for recycling purposes. Similarly, in various countries like Singapore and Finland, regular seminars and campaigns are held at community level to enhance the public knowledge about the importance of recycling process and the resultant environmental protection. Moreover, the packaging industries should be banned for production of non-biodegradable materials such as plastic, at the first place. Paper bags , instead , should be encouraged as is happening in many developed countries nowadays.
To conclude, although restrictions implemented by government have a lot to do in ensuring sufficient recycling of wastage, yet it is not the only solution available. In my opinion, public awareness and restricted usage of non-eco-friendly material should also go sideways.

Task 2 (please, check my essay)
Some people say that teenagers should work part-time and earn money. This way they will learn basic lessons about work and become more disciplined. Others argue that teenagers shouldn't sacrifice their rest and after-school activities to work.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

When teenagers become more older they want to be independent of their parents and earn their own money, but how is it affect on them? There are weighty arguments on both sides.
On the one hand, when teenagers start working from the young age it may have positive effect on their future. When they become the part of the working process, they understand the responsibility that entrust on them. From the beginning teens are aware importance of time management because they have to combine their school and work and also have time for their school homework. It make them more responsible and also it will develop other valuable qualities that will useful in future. Furthermore teenagers from the young age face with difficulties and learn how to undergo them. Thus, they become more stress resistant and more confident.
On the other hand, teenagers are just 16-17 years old children that have less time before university and in several years they will have to work as specialists in particular areas. Virtually, it would be better for them to spend their last years doing some after-school activities or hobbies and spending more time studying and preparing for university. Because when you combine work and school you have less time for your own affairs or studying and though more concentrate on working. I suppose that if parents can afford you all conditions for studying it is better to put all your efforts on education.
Overall, working from young ages can have different consequences, firstly, It could help teenagers to build their own career in future, because they got a lot of experience from working, but secondly they can lost their concentration on studying.

The comments to this entry are closed.