IELTS Writing sample answers

It is often argued that digital courses will make physical classrooms obsolete. While online study has clear advantages in flexibility and reach, I only partly agree: it will complement rather than fully replace face-to-face teaching.

The case for online learning is strong. A single recorded lecture can be watched by thousands of students in different time zones, which dramatically reduces the cost per learner and removes geographical barriers. Someone working full time in a small town can now complete a data-analysis certificate from a leading university without relocating or leaving their job. Learning platforms also collect detailed data on performance, so material can be re-sequenced around each student's weaknesses in a way that a teacher managing forty pupils simply cannot manage.

Nevertheless, several essential functions of the classroom resist digitisation. Much of what students gain from school is social: negotiating disagreements, presenting to a live audience, and forming the informal networks that later shape their careers. Practical disciplines such as surgery, laboratory chemistry and engineering also depend on supervised handling of equipment, where an instructor corrects technique in real time. In addition, younger learners in particular rely on the external structure of timetables and physical attendance; without it, completion rates on open online courses remain notoriously low.

For these reasons, the most probable outcome is a blended model. Content delivery — lectures, quizzes and revision — will increasingly move online, freeing classroom hours for discussion, practical work and individual guidance. Institutions that already teach this way report both wider access and stronger results.

In conclusion, although online courses will absorb a growing share of teaching, they are unlikely to displace the classroom entirely, because education involves social and practical dimensions that a screen cannot reproduce.

Urban congestion is now a daily cost for millions of commuters, and opinion is divided over whether governments should abolish transport fares or widen and repair roads instead. Having considered both approaches, I believe free public transport delivers the greater long-term benefit.

Those who favour investment in roads point to immediate, visible relief. Additional lanes, resurfaced carriageways and intelligent traffic signals can cut journey times quickly, and freight-dependent economies rely on that capacity: a delayed delivery lorry raises the price of everything it carries. Rural areas, where bus networks are thin, arguably gain far more from a maintained road than from a subsidised service they cannot access.

Supporters of fare-free transit, however, argue that road building is self-defeating. Experience in cities such as Los Angeles suggests that new capacity is absorbed within a few years as drivers who previously avoided the route return to it. Removing fares, by contrast, changes the relative cost of the two options directly. When Tallinn made buses free for residents, ridership rose and the city reported a measurable shift away from short car journeys, with the additional benefit of lower emissions and improved mobility for low-income households.

In my view, the second argument is more persuasive, though it requires a condition. Free travel only attracts drivers if the network is frequent and reliable; otherwise it simply subsidises people who already use the bus. Governments should therefore fund service quality first and remove fares as part of the same programme.

In conclusion, while better roads offer short-term convenience, fare-free public transport tackles the underlying incentive to drive, and for that reason it deserves the larger share of public spending.

Households now discard more plastic than at any point in history. This trend creates serious environmental and health consequences, but a combination of regulation and producer responsibility could bring it under control.

The most visible problem is pollution of natural systems. Packaging that is used for minutes can persist for centuries, and a substantial proportion escapes collection and reaches rivers and oceans, where it entangles marine animals or is mistaken for food. A less obvious but equally worrying consequence is the breakdown of this material into microplastics, which have now been detected in drinking water, soil and human blood, with health effects that researchers are still measuring. Municipalities also face a financial problem: sorting mixed plastics is expensive, and much of what residents place in recycling bins is ultimately landfilled or incinerated.

Two measures would make the greatest difference. The first is to shift the cost of disposal onto producers. Where extended producer responsibility schemes operate, manufacturers pay according to how recyclable their packaging is, which gives them a direct financial reason to redesign it — a far stronger lever than asking consumers to sort waste more carefully. The second is to remove the cheapest single-use items from sale altogether, as many countries have done with plastic bags and cutlery, while funding refill and deposit-return systems so that shoppers have a practical alternative.

In conclusion, growing household plastic waste damages ecosystems, threatens health and strains public budgets. Making producers financially accountable for packaging, alongside targeted bans supported by reuse infrastructure, offers the most realistic route to reducing it.

The line graph compares the proportion of households connected to the internet in Country A, Country B and Country C over a fifteen-year period from 2005 to 2020.

Overall, access expanded substantially in all three countries, but Country A led throughout while Country C, despite the steepest growth, remained the least connected at the end of the period. By 2020 the gap between the highest and lowest figures had narrowed considerably.

In 2005 Country A stood at approximately 45%, well ahead of Country B at 30% and Country C at just 10%. Country A rose steadily to around 80% by 2012, after which growth levelled off, finishing at roughly 92%. Country B followed a similar trajectory some five years behind, climbing from 30% to about 85% by 2020.

Country C showed the most dramatic change. Its figure remained below 20% until 2010, then accelerated sharply, quadrupling to reach approximately 70% in 2020 — still the lowest of the three, but a rise of 60 percentage points overall.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to report a fault with a kitchen appliance purchased from your Bridge Street branch and to request a replacement.

On 3 March I bought a Cascade 2000 electric kettle for £64, paying by card; the receipt number is 41792 and I have enclosed a copy for your reference. The item was in regular domestic use and was operated strictly in accordance with the instruction manual.

Unfortunately, after approximately two weeks the kettle stopped switching off automatically and began leaking from the base of the handle. As this presents an obvious safety risk with a heated appliance, I have stopped using it entirely, which has been extremely inconvenient for a household of four.

Given that the product failed well within its twelve-month warranty, I would be grateful if you could replace it with a new unit of the same model. Should a replacement be unavailable, I would ask for a full refund to the original payment card.

I would appreciate a response within fourteen days. I can be contacted on 07700 900412 at any time.

Yours faithfully,

R. Mehta

Remote working has moved from a rare privilege to a standard arrangement in many industries. Although it carries real costs for collaboration and for younger employees, I would argue that its benefits outweigh them for most office-based roles.

The clearest advantage is the recovery of time and money lost to commuting. An employee who previously spent ninety minutes a day travelling gains almost an entire working week each month, along with savings on fares or fuel. This flexibility is particularly valuable to parents and carers, who can arrange work around school hours instead of leaving the workforce altogether. Employers benefit too, since they can recruit from a national rather than a local labour market and reduce spending on office space.

The drawbacks, however, should not be dismissed. Informal conversation is where much problem-solving and mentoring happens, and it is difficult to replicate on video calls that are scheduled, recorded and time-limited. Junior staff suffer most, as they learn largely by observing colleagues. There is also a personal cost: when the desk is in the bedroom, the working day tends to expand, and isolation can affect mental health over time.

These disadvantages, though genuine, are largely manageable. Companies that require two or three days in the office each week preserve mentoring and team cohesion while retaining most of the flexibility, and a stipend for a proper home workspace addresses the ergonomic and boundary problems directly.

On balance, therefore, remote work offers substantial and lasting gains, and its weaknesses can be mitigated by sensible policy rather than by returning to the office full time.