101 Model Answers for IELTS Writing Task 2: Set 4

By Mark Griffiths

This is my fourth set of 101 model answers for IELTS Writing Task 2, which includes many new recent questions. The current trend with Task 2 questions appears to be that the proportion of completely new questions is lower than in previous years. Instead, many questions are ‘recycled’ older ones or new variations on older tasks.
Therefore, some of the essays in this book are on similar topics to those of my earlier books. Each essay, however, does introduce different perspectives and arguments, resulting in a wider range of vocabulary and grammar for candidates to learn and use in their own essays. The most common themes in IELTS Writing Task 2 are the same as they were 10 or even 20 years ago - education, work, culture and the environment. The model answers in this book have been ordered topically, in the same way as in the previous 3 books.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Mark Griffiths
• Release date: May 5, 2021
• ISBN: 9781005801335

Mark Griffiths

I have been teaching English as a foreign language since 1990, mainly in the Czech Republic and China. I have written several books on IELTS that have been published in China, selling over 200,000 copies. My work has also been used to create various apps which have been downloaded tens of thousands of times.The books that I will be publishing on Smashwords are updates of my published works, modified for the international market.The majority of books will be in the 'English 101 Series' which has proven so popular in China.The cover photographs on the Smashwords editions are all by the author.

Book preview

101 Model Answers for IELTS Writing Task 2 – Set 4

Mark Griffiths

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2021 Mark Griffiths

Discover other titles by Mark Griffiths at Smashwords.com

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Table of Contents

The Environment

Education

Culture

Work

Technology

Crime

Other Topics

About the Author

Introduction

This is my fourth set of 101 model answers for IELTS Writing Task 2, which includes many new questions from 2020 and the first half of 2021. The current trend with Task 2 questions appears to be that the proportion of completely new questions is lower than in previous years. Instead, many questions are ‘recycled’ older ones or new variations on older tasks.

It is crucial that candidates pay close attention to these new variations. As the focus of the question subtly shifts, so must the candidates shift their focus in order to fully answer the actual question that is being asked, rather than succumbing to the temptation to write an essay on the general topic, resulting in a lower score, particularly for Task Response.

Therefore, some of the essays in this book are fairly similar to each other. Each essay, however, does introduce different perspectives and arguments, resulting in a wider range of vocabulary and grammar for candidates to learn and use in their own essays.

The most common themes in IELTS Writing Task 2 are the same as they were 10 or even 20 years ago - education, work, culture and the environment. Questions about crime also appear quite regularly. Therefore, the model answers in this book have been ordered topically, in the same way as in the previous 3 books.

Good luck to you with all modules of your IELTS test!

THE ENVIRONMENT

Some people say it is possible for a country to be economically successful and have a clean environment. Other people disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is my belief that, at the moment, it is impossible for a country to be economically successful and have a clean environment.

Given the current level of technology available, a country will, in my view, inevitably cause damage to the environment if it wishes to be economically successful. Becoming economically successful involves a lot of construction. Buildings and infrastructure, such as roads, have to be built to support the growth of the economy. These have consequences for the environment. Perhaps we should redefine what we mean by ‘economically successful’. That may be a good idea, but I doubt that there will be many people lining up to throw away their mobile phones and stop using transport in order to live up to it.

I have heard some people argue that we can develop economically without damaging the environment. These people are wrong or are badly informed - or both. They think that we can switch to solar and wind energy without realising or knowing that it requires a lot of mining to get the metals to make solar panels and wind turbines. So-called ‘clean’ energy is actually quite dirty, possibly even dirtier than the fossil fuels we are being encouraged to use less of. Moreover, it is well-known that new technology often has side-effects. Wind turbines, for instance, kill large numbers of bats and birds, some them rare species.

To summarise, there is no evidence at all that, given our current available technology, we can develop economically without damaging the environment. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that the supposedly environmentally-friendly technology we are being encouraged to use is actually as damaging or even more damaging to the environment.

287 words

Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger. Others say that economic growth is damaging the environment and should stop. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

I believe strongly that promoting economic growth is better than preventing it in order to protect the environment.

The idea that economic growth is responsible for damage to the environment is, in my view, only partially true. There is no reason why economic growth should not be possible alongside the protection of the natural environment. The technology either already exists or could be invented and implemented within the lifetimes of most people alive today. The real problem is that in many countries, particularly developing ones such as China, both politicians and the general public view the need for economic growth as a necessity whereas the protection of the environment is seen as merely desirable.

Similarly, the suggestion that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger is only half correct. World hunger is now almost entirely due to poor infrastructure and war. Economic growth (including a massive reduction in world poverty would automatically follow if infrastructure were improved and wars were ended. However, there would often need to be fundamental cultural changes to reduce world poverty, such as allowing women equal opportunities and reducing certain traditional suspicions of modern medicine.

One fact that is often overlooked is that people tend to become more concerned with the environment the wealthier they become. We can see this in developed Western countries where the Green movement is very active and in developing countries such as China where people who have escaped poverty are developing greener attitudes. This experience suggests that economic growth may be an effective way of addressing environmental concerns. Therefore, not only are some people incorrect in assuming that economic growth is bad, but there is evidence that the opposite is true.

To summarise, I do not think that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger, though it can certainly help. Furthermore, economic growth does not always damage the environment. Instead, our attitudes towards the balance between the two need to be addressed.

331 words

It is a natural process for animal species to go extinct. There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree?

Most people accept that large numbers of animal species have gone extinct, even before the arrival of humans. However, I am not convinced that this means we should do nothing to attempt to stop this occurring to animals nowadays, given that we the power to do so in many cases.

When we look at the list of endangered animals in the world today, it is not entirely true to say that this is a ‘natural’ process. Some are dying out because they are being hunted by humans, often only for a small part of their bodies (shark fins, elephant tusks, rhino horn). Many more are becoming extinct because humans are encroaching upon their natural habitats, which we are destroying to create farmland, for instance. These are not really ‘natural’ results of the existence of humans given that we use modern science to help us survive.

This, in itself, does not mean that we must stop, but I do believe that there are two compelling reasons for doing so. First, some of these animals may be useful to us in the future. We do not know, for example, what cures for various diseases may be hidden in their bodies or DNA. Second, the extinction of one animal may have dramatic and unpredictable consequences for other animals and the environment as a whole. By way of example, if a spider becomes extinct, perhaps the insects it feeds on will multiply. Since these effects are so unknown, I think we must aim to maintain the environment as it is, if reasonably possible.

To summarise, there are, in my opinion, two solid reasons for preventing animals from going extinct. Therefore, we should behave more humbly towards nature rather than destroying it without regard for the possible consequences.

293 words

Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals and that this could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There can be little doubt that in recent decades a lot of time and money has been spent on protecting wild animals. The question that is often asked is whether this is worth it or whether this should be spent on people instead.

Some people are keen to point out that we all live on one planet. They claim, with some justification, that by saving wild animals we are saving ourselves. Wild animals, for instance, may hold the keys to certain medical breakthroughs, just as many of our modern medicines are based on compounds found in plants. Moreover, humans and animals (and other forms of life) all form a giant ecosystem whereby each part can influence the others. If a certain animal becomes less common, then this reduces the population of the animals that prey on it, in turn.

However, it is sometimes difficult for people to accept that these perfectly legitimate reasons outweigh the immediate requirements of the human population. If money is not available to people who have problems such as mental illness, physical disabilities or to those living in dire poverty, it is inevitable that some will suggest spending less on wild animals. There is the strong argument that by spending more on the education of humans, we could make the world a better place for us and for wild animals.

Overall, I tend to agree with those who claim that too much money is currently being spent on wild animals at the cost of humans. This is not to suggest that we cut all funding of wildlife projects, since many of these projects can directly benefit humans. However, a key argument for me is that by spending money on people, we can improve the world generally.

290