IELTS Advice: an example of 'general to specific'

Look at the two short paragraphs below. Can you see the difference between them?

Paragraph 1
Every member of society should contribute to improving the environment. We all need to take responsibility for the environmental issues that face the planet. If each individual person plays his or her part, our world will remain habitable for future generations.

Paragraph 2
Every member of society should contribute to improving the environment. Small daily actions, like turning lights off or recycling paper, glass and plastics, can make a difference. I also try to play my part by walking or by taking public transport rather than driving.

Analysis

Paragraph 1 might look good in terms of the vocabulary that I used, but it doesn't really move forward. The three sentences basically say the same thing in different ways. It's all too general.

Paragraph 2 might seem simpler, but it's much better in terms of 'task response' and 'coherence' because the main idea is extended and we can see some progression. Can you see the movement from general to specific in this paragraph?

Comments

[Honu]

Hi Simon, I do try my best to write this essay. I hope you give me some reviews. Thank you in advance.

Many developing countries are currently expanding their tourist industries. Why is this the case? Is it a positive development?

The tourism industry is promoting in many countries which have a less developed economy. This process is accounted for by a lot of socio-economic benefits and I believe that this development would have several serious drawbacks in terms of the environment.

On the one hand, this improvement can bring a wide range of advantages to local residents and even governments. First, people from the rest of the world visit cultural or historical attractions in developing nations and this means there are many opportunities to inhabitants. For example, related jobs would rely on visitors, from food and souvenirs to accommodation and travel. In favour of governments, visiting important sites and monuments will be able to contribute to the economy of the country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, such as paying money to these sites through the tax system. As a result, this would certainly promote the nation’s cultural heritage and important buildings.

Despite the main advantages mentioned above, I believe that there are many major factors in the tourism industry that would lead to environmental damage. Most of developing nations are likely to expose threats to the environment like air pollution and waste due to an increasing number of visitors. In fact, in order to improve tourism services and infrastructure, there are many goods produced and roads expanded which means it has been able to have gas emissions from factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles. Without strict regulations, these countries could produce greater quantities of waste and therefore have much more devastating effect on the planet. In the long term, the tourism industry in these countries would be a detrimental reason to contaminate the earth and pollute rivers and oceans.

In conclusion, in order to expand tourists as well as lead to less adverse factors on the environment, many developing countries should invest fund, human and mostly impose effective management schemes in tourism industries.
(321 words)

[zara]

Honu
[]
The tourism [industry] [Why not just 'tourism'?] is [being promoted] promoting in many countries which have a less developed economy. This process is accounted for [This process should ultimately lead to ] by a lot of socio-economic [many economic benefits. (Why socio-?)] benefits and [The first clause is positive and the second negative, so join them with 'but' not 'and'.] I believe that this development would have several serious drawbacks in terms of the environment.

On the one hand, this improvement can [should] bring a wide range of advantages [benefits] to local residents and even governments [Why plural? ]. First, people from the rest of the world visit cultural or historical attractions in developing nations and this means there are many opportunities to [for] inhabitants ['the'? local business?]. For example, related jobs would rely on visitors, from food and souvenirs to accommodation and travel. In favour of [With regard to ] governments, visiting important sites and monuments will be able to [an increase in visitor numbers to important sites ...would contribute] contribute to the economy of the country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, such as paying money to these sites through the tax system. As a result, this would certainly promote the nation’s cultural heritage and important buildings. [Some muddle here over money vs prestige. What is the focus of this paragraph?]

Despite the main advantages mentioned above, I believe that there are many major factors in the tourism industry that would lead to environmental damage. Most of developing nations are likely to expose ['expose' threats is an unusual collocation. What does it mean in this context? Incur?] threats to the environment like air pollution and waste due to an increasing number of visitors. In fact, in order to improve tourism services and infrastructure, there are many goods produced and roads expanded [there would need to be a significant increase in the supply of goods and services and more investment in infrastructure such as roading] which means it has been able to have [which would increase gas ...]gas emissions from factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles. Without strict regulations, these countries could produce greater quantities of waste and therefore have [missing article] much more devastating effect on the planet. In the long term, the tourism industry in these countries would be a detrimental reason [would have a detrimental effect by contaminating .... and polluting ..] to contaminate the earth and pollute rivers and oceans.

In conclusion, in order to expand tourists as well as [Be wary of 'as well as': it is not an automatic shoe-in for 'and'. -> and at the same time avoid adverse impacts on the environment, ....] lead to less adverse factors on the environment, many developing countries should invest fund, human and mostly impose effective management schemes in tourism industries.

[Honu]

I got it and thank you so much, zara!

[Honu]

zara, can I replace "expose threats" to "pose threats"?

[zara]

Honu

It is usually pesticides, chemicals, GM crops and so forth that pose threats to the environment, not countries or nations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pose%20threats%20to%20the%20environment%22&tbm=bks&lr=lang_en

Something like:
Increasing numbers of tourists may indirectly pose a threat to the environment, as they create more air pollution and waste. ?

[Honu]

I rewrite 2nd paragraph.
As a result, this would certainly promote the nation’s cultural heritage and important buildings. [Some muddle here over money vs prestige. What is the focus of this paragraph?]

In other words, economic growth thanks to the tourism industry ensures that more money is available for governments to spend on infrastructure and public services and eventually promote citizens’ standard of life.

[Amin]

Simon, You've not written Genral Writing Task 1 for a really long time :(

[Vishaal]

Hello All,
Have I progressed my ideas in both of the body paragraphs? Please comment and suggest other corrections. Thanks!

Question:
In many countries today, people in cities either live alone or in small family units, rather than in large, extended family groups. Is this a positive or negative trend?

Answer
Nowadays most men and women in metropolises prefer to live in a nuclear family than in a large and combined family. I think this is a negative development as this usually prevents them from saving money for their future and leads to psychological disorders due to extreme stress.

When people decide to live in a smaller family, their overall expenditure will rise dramatically. This is primarily because the cost of living in most urban areas is significantly high in the current times. They have to spend money not only for the education of their children but also to meet their family’s basic needs, such as food, shelter, clothes, and entertainment, and due to this, they cannot spare some money for their lives after retirement. In India, for example, it has been seen that people who live with their parents and siblings have always a higher bank balance than those who live alone or in an isolated family.

In addition, they often suffer from mental problems as they have to carry the whole burden of their family on their own shoulder. For instance, many husbands have to help their wives in certain activities at home, such as cooking, cleaning and tidying all rooms, and shopping groceries. This becomes extremely difficult especially when they have to do all these things along with their jobs, and thus they often feel severe mental as well as physical stress. For instance, many people living in a nuclear family in metropolitan areas have been found to suffer from depression and anxiety due to the overburden of personal and professional duties. However, such problems are rare in people who live in large and extended family groups.

In conclusion, I strongly believe it is a negative trend that a greater number of city dwellers these days choose to live alone or in a small family than in a big family as this would cause them to suffer from the financial troubles later in their lives and from many mental diseases.

[Magda]

Vishaal

'Prefer' can be used in three different forms:
1) prefer + noun + to (or over) + noun. Example: I prefer coffee to tea.
2) prefer + gerund + to (or over) + gerund. Example: I prefer skiing to swimming.
3) prefer + full infinitive + rather than + bare infinitive. Example: I prefer to eat fish rather than (eat) meat.

-> prefer to live in a nuclear family rather than in a large and combined family.

b) "is significantly high": not a phrase used by native speakers, although there are examples on Google books where the authors have non-English-sounding names. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+significantly+high+in%22&lr=lang_en&tbs=lr:lang_1en&tbm=bks&ei=IVQSXb_1H4SkyAOg4LPgBQ&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwj_ifLhjoXjAhUEEnIKHSDwDFw4ChDw0wMIcA&biw=1253&bih=960&dpr=1

c) " in the current times.": again, not a phrase much used by native speakers, although there are examples where (non-native) speakers have presumably translated word-for-word from their first language. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22in+the+current+times%22&lr=lang_en&tbs=lr:lang_1en&tbm=bks&ei=KFUSXfSKDIn99QP8hYNg&start=10&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwj0vpLfj4XjAhWJfn0KHfzCAAwQ8NMDCHk&biw=1253&bih=960&dpr=1

c) "have always": -> always have. Also an over-generalization. Are you sure there is not even just one exception?

[Vishaal]

Thanks Magda!

[Magda]

Vishaal

"In addition, they often suffer from mental problems as they have to carry the whole burden of their family on their own shoulder."

Often? Really? Are you suggesting that more than fifty percent of husbands in urban areas are mental? Tired and stressed they may be, but does this really mean they are suffering from some clinical mental disease such as psychosis or schizophrenia?

Also -> on their own shoulders.

"many people ": overstated?

"such problems are rare in people who live in large and extended family groups." Where is the support or evidence for this statement?

"It has been widely documented that women suffer from major depression about twice as often as men. Because of the incidence of depressive disorders peaks during women's reproductive years, it is believed that hormonal risk factors may be to blame."

Family size is not listed as one of the causes of depression. It is more often linked to drugs, grief and loss, high cortisol levels, brain chemistry imbalance and so on.

[Hazel]

Dear Simon,

As the paragraph should be more specific, and we give examples to explain our opinion,but if we keep taking ourselves as an example, would it be not convincing enough?

Are there some advice for setting examples when we are responding the task?