dcielts.

com_Essays_Samples

This is the next lesson in my series on how to achieve high band scores in IELTS writing. The
focus this time is on writing better paragraphs and improving the coherence of your writing. This
is a problem that is common at high levels where candidates have plenty of good language but
sometimes dont use it very effectively.
Sometimes it is easier to understand a problem by looking at something that is not quite right. So
this time I look at ways of improving a sample of writing from a candidate who has consistently
scored 6.5 in writing (4 times in a row I believe!), but who is certainly capable of scoring more
highly. He has in fact already completed a masters such is the absurdity of the IELTS system.
As a bonus, I also include a download of a sample essay on the theme of employment and
promotion.

Coherence and cohesion distinguished

To understand the problem it is first necessary to understand a little of the difference between
coherence and cohesion. Put simply, cohesion is the linking of your writing by using connecting
words, while coherence is making sure your writing makes sense. The important point to note is
that it is quite possible for a piece of writing to be cohesive but not very coherent.

The sample paragraph cohesion

In some ways, this is a very good paragraph. There is a good range of vocabulary, the grammar is
fine and it has lots of good cohesion structures which I have highlighted in red. There is much to
learn here:

this/that/these/those are excellent cohesion structures as they link back to something

that was already mentioned

repeating certain words (performance companies) also helps cohesion as it helps
the reader make connections between sentences
The principal reason why some people take this view is that most multi-national companies
certainly implement some specific policies to select employees for promotion. This point, of
course, could be demonstrated by individuals who worked in those companies. For example,
when I was working in an American company in Shanghai, before each fiscal year, I usually

30

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

discussed with my supervisor in order to draw up a formal agreement, which was called
Performance and Development Review. By doing this, the job performance I did for several
months could be judged by my employer , which meant if it was a good outcome, I would be
promoted immediately even though I was only a junior employee at that time.

Another version more coherent

So wheres the problem then? For me, the problem is that when I get to the end of the paragraph,
I am not immediately clear what the main point being made was. This can perhaps be best shown
by looking at my improved version of the same paragraph.
Despite these reasons, there is a strong argument in favour of also promoting staff because of
their performance. This can be seen by how some multi-nationals use annual performance and
development reviews when deciding on promotion. Under this system, a supervisor can set
targets for an employee and if those targets are met, then the employee can be promoted, even if
they are relatively junior. The benefit of this approach to promotion is that it encourages staff to
work harder and rewards merit and not just long service.

Notes

1. Less can be more

My version is considerably shorter than the original even though it makes all the same points.
Sometimes, it can help your writing become more coherent if you concentrate on using fewer
words. Likewise, I am not afraid to keep my sentences relatively short. Again, it can be easier to
transmit your ideas if your sentences do not become too complicated.

2. Identify the main idea of the paragraph put it in the first sentence

31

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

The first step is to identify what one point you want to make in the paragraph and to state it
clearly in the first sentence. In this example, the main point is promoting staff because of their
performance. Part of the problem with the original version is that most multi-national
companies certainly implement some specific policies to select employees for promotion is not
particularly clear. The idea of performance only occurs in the 4th/5th line.

3. Keep the first sentence short dont be afraid of keeping it simple

My version uses more simple vocabulary. I avoid words like specific. My goal is absolute clarity.
All I want to do is show the reader what the idea of the paragraph is.

4. Think about how you use examples and reasons omit unnecessary details
Part of the problem with the original version is that the example is rather long and there is a
danger that the main point is lost. Examples tend to be a good thing, but you need to think
carefully how you use them. Do they illustrate the point you want to make. In the sample
paragraph, there is so much detail (Shanghai) that the point of the example is rather lost.

5. Consider how you end your paragraph

One way that my paragraph is extremely coherent is that in my final sentence I come back to the
main idea of the paragraph in a circular approach:
promoting staff because of their performance (first sentence)
this approach to promotion is that it encourages staff to work harder and rewards merit (last
sentence)

Practice suggestion

Write paragraphs, not essays

One very simple suggestion is that you practise writing paragraphs and not just essays. It can be a
problem if you only write essays, as it is harder to focus on one particular skill. As you write the
paragraph, it helps to focus on:

32

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

simple first sentences that identify the main point of the paragraph and relate to the
question
consider using a circular approach where you restate the main point in the final sentence
leaving out details that are irrelevant
remember cohesion too (that part of the sample was excellent)

Test your own writing: what was the essay question?

Another idea is to look at some of your old essays and read the first sentences of the main topic
paragraphs. If you have written well, you should be able to predict the question of the essay from
the first sentences of those paragraphs.

33

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

Newspapers and books are outdated. Why do some people believe

this? What is your opinion?
As we move into the twenty- first century an increasing number of people are
relying on new forms of technology. A possible consequence of this is that
traditional media such as books and newspapers are not just less popular but are
considered by some to be outdated. Personally, I disagree with this point of view.
The principal reason why some people take this view is fairly clear in the case of
newspapers. It is generally much easier and quicker to discover what is
happening in the world from the internet or the television than from a
newspaper. If you use Google or another search engine or simply switch on the
television, you can instantly get the latest news bulletin. A newspaper, by
contrast, is out of date the moment it is published because it contains yesterdays
news.
It is perhaps less obvious why books are said to be out of fashion. One possibility
is that fewer people choose to read for pleasure nowadays because they prefer the
instant gratification and thrills of modern technology. There is less effort

34

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

involved in enjoying a 3D movie or playing a computer game than in turning the

pages of a book.
My own view and conclusion is that books and newspapers will never go
completely out of fashion or become redundant. The reason for this is that they
serve basic human needs. I believe that people will always want to read about the
news and escape into the imaginary worlds of great novels. However, books and
newspapers may need to change to meet the new demands of twenty-first century
consumers. We can already see this happening with the arrival of the audio-book
and the various free newspaper internet sites. (292 words)

Many historic buildings are being destroyed or replaced. What are the reasons for
this? What should be done to preserve these buildings?
We live in an age of progress and one result of that is that the urban landscape of many cities is
changing. An unfortunate consequence of this is that some historic buildings are being lost for
future generations. Something needs to be done to preserve these buildings and, to ensure that,
we first need to understand why they are being destroyed.
There are a variety of reasons why these buildings are being replaced and this mainly depends on
their original purpose. Many of these historic buildings were residential and typically the problem
is that they no longer have the appropriate facilities for modern-day living. For example, they
might have been built in an era when central heating was not a priority, or even when bathrooms
and toilets were outside. Unfortunately, it is often cheaper to pull these buildings down rather
than renovate them.
Other historic buildings that are now under threat originally had a civic function and were built
in city centres. Examples of these buildings are theatres and cinemas. As often as not, these
buildings are being replaced through economic necessity as they are no longer financially viable.
They are being replaced by supermarkets or modern cinema complexes that cater for the
demands of the twenty-first century.
There is probably no one solution to ensure that these buildings are preserved. One possible step
though would be for the civic planning authorities to list certain buildings that they consider

35

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

historic and prevent any alterations being made to them. Another possibility would be to ensure
that at least the facades of these buildings were preserved for posterity.
Clearly, this is a complex problem and we have seen that there are a number of social and
financial factors that have led to the destruction of historic buildings. If we are to preserve them,
we will need legislation to prevent or limit the activities of developers.
(315 words)

Todays food travels thousands of miles before it reaches customers. Is this a

positive or negative trend?
In the modern world, we frequently no longer rely on food that has been grown locally, but we
have become accustomed to buying produce from all over the world. While this trend has some
clear benefits to consumers, I would argue that overall transporting food over long distances is a
negative.
The strongest argument against importing food is environmental. Studies have shown that
transport and the use of fossil fuels is one of the leading causes of global warming and climate
change. This means that if we want to lead a greener lifestyle, we should be trying to minimise
transport and this includes the unnecessary transport of foodstuffs.
Another point that needs to be considered is the impact of transporting food on local farmers and
traditional ways of life. Again, there is good research to show that farmers and smallholders are
unable to compete in price with the supermarkets that import cheap, and often low-quality,
produce from abroad. This is not just a problem for local farmers who are likely to go out of
business, it also has an impact on weakening traditional communities that rely on those farms for
employment and trade.
A further consideration is that food that has travelled across the world is considerably less healthy
than locally grown, fresh produce. The simple point is that the further food travels before it
reaches the consumer, the less fresh it will be and any nutritionist will confirm that fresh food is

36

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

fuller of vitamins. Therefore, it would be preferable if supermarkets and other stores did not
transport food from other countries.
In conclusion, I believe that the trend for transporting food over long distances is undesirable
because it is environmentally unfriendly, threatens local communities and results in less healthy
options for the consumer.
(294 words)

In recent years, people watch more movies from overseas? What are the reasons
for this? Should the government give financial support to local cinema to produce
local films?
It is unquestionably the case that there is a growing trend for people to watch foreign films in
preference to films made in their home country. In this essay, I will discuss why this is the case
and why I believe national governments ought to support home grown cinema financially.
Perhaps the principal reason for the popularity of foreign made films is the globalisation of
culture in the internet age. In the past, children growing up only had access to the culture and
traditions of their own country and so preferred to watch films about their own land. Now in the
era of Youtube, young people grow up with easy access to an international culture and so when
they go to the cinema, they expect to see films that reflect that international culture and for them
a Hollywood blockbuster is much cooler than a serious film in their own language.
A second reason why internationally produced films tend to dominate the domestic market is
financial. The two great centres of world cinema, Bollywood and Hollywood, have studios with
budgets of billions of dollars which can make films with exciting special effects and high
production values. In contrast, locally produced films often have much smaller budgets are
sometimes therefore less attractive to the mass market.
Personally, I believe that this globalisation of culture is not entirely positive and governments
should take action to promote local films. If countries had their own film industries which could

37

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

compete with the international studios, this would not only help preserve national culture, but
would also create more choice for the public as global films offer little variety.
In conclusion, the main reasons for the expansion of international films are a new globalised
world culture caused by the internet and the financial power of a few film studios in Hollywood
and Bollywood. We would have more choice if the governments subsidised local films.

In many countries there has been an increase in social problems involving

teenagers in recent years. Many people believe that this is due to modern lifestyles
because parents spend more and more time at work and have less time to supervise
their children. To what extent do you believe this is true?
There is no question that standards of behaviour have fallen among teenagers. The popular belief
is that the principle cause is that parents are unable to supervise their children because they are
away at work. I only partially agree with this viewpoint as there are other important factors too.
It is undeniable that parents should bear some responsibility for the actions of their teenaged
children. This is particularly true when they are absent from the home and not in a position to
control their children. The argument is that if they were at home, then they would be able to make
certain that their children did not join gangs and spent their time on socially acceptable activities.
However, it can also be said that working parents are in fact setting a good example to their
children. Indeed, it is very often the case that teenagers who come from hardworking families
spend their time on schoolwork and conduct themselves well. In fact, the teenagers who do create
social problems by, for example, getting drunk or painting graffiti come from homes where
parents are unemployed.
Other factors that lead to teenagers getting into trouble relate to the educational system. This is
due to the fact that many teenagers leave school aged 16 and do not find work because of lack of

38

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

qualifications. As a result, they spend time on the street with nothing productive to do. Likewise,
social problems with teenagers can be the consequence of poor discipline at school with teachers
failing to control their classes.
In conclusion, it is possible to say that this sort of problem is only sometimes the result of parents
not supervising their children. It is equally possible to say that discipline in schools is at fault.
(299 words)

Recent research shows that the consumption of junk food is a major factor in poor
diet and this is detrimental to health. Some people believe that better health
education is the answer to this problem but others disagree. What is your opinion?
A serious concern nowadays is how our eating habits can affect our health. In particular, it has
been demonstrated that eating too much junk food can lead to health issues later in life. One
sensible suggestion for dealing with this is to improve the level of health education so that we eat
better and live longer. My belief though is that this would not completely solve the problem.
One reason why focusing on health education is an appropriate measure is that it addresses one
underlying cause of the problem. It is clear that there is a connection between what people know
about nutrition and their eating habits. For example, children who have learned in school about
the need to have a varied diet with plenty of vitamins tend to eat more healthily. In contrast,
people who have not had this education still eat too much junk food and as a result suffer from
diabetes and other diseases.
Better health education, however, is not a complete answer as it ignores the wider social factors
that cause people to eat unhealthily. For instance, many people eat fast food because they have a
lifestyle that means they do not have time to sit down to a proper meal. Again, other people might
eat burgers and pizzas because they are seen to be cool and they want to impress their peers.

39

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

There would not appear to be any simple way to deal with these social factors. A difficulty is that
it is very hard for governments to make a difference to the individual choices people make. It
might help, however, to ban advertisements for unhealthy foods on television and to require
companies to provide proper meal facilities for their employees.
My conclusion is that the government certainly ought to introduce measures to improve the level
of health education. However, this probably would not be a perfect solution as it would also be
necessary to deal with the other social factors that cause unhealthy eating.

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides
cheap and clean energy. The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the
disadvantages. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.
One question that has caused a great deal of controversy over the years is nuclear technology.
Although it offers a number of advantages in world peace and green power, it is also a dangerous
technology, I believe that it is also a dangerous technology.
The opponents of nuclear power generally base their arguments on the danger it represents to the
world. There are two main dangers: the risk of nuclear warfare and the nuclear disasters. The
danger of nuclear war is obvious and if one thinks about Chernobyl, it is easy to understand why
people are worried about nuclear power, as it can cause major suffering.
There are, however, good reasons for believing that nuclear technology is generally advantageous.
The first of these is that there has not been a major world conflict since the invention of nuclear
weapons. While there have been wars, they have not been on the same scale as the Second World
War. It is possible to say that the world is a safer place because of nuclear weapons.
The other most significant benefit relates to the environment. Perhaps the greatest danger facing
our world today is a combination of global warming and the greenhouse effect. This danger is
caused partly by burning fossil fuels which leads to our polluted atmosphere. Nuclear power,

40

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

however, is a much greener alternative which does not have such negative effects. Furthermore, in
the last 50 years there have not been too many nuclear disasters and many experts claim that it is
in fact a safe technology.
In conclusion I would say that nuclear technology is better than the current alternatives.
However, I also believe we should keep looking for ways to make it safer.

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
It is often said that if you want to succeed in life, you need a proper education. While there may be
arguments for making school compulsory until the age of 18 , I disagree that this should apply to
everyone.
Perhaps the strongest reason for not leaving school early is that it prepares you for your working
career. If you leave school early with only a basic education, you are unlikely to be able to find any
skilled work. Indeed, the education you receive between the ages of 16 and 18 is crucial for anyone
who does not want a lifetime of unskilled work in a factory.
Another compelling reason for remaining in school until 18 is that school provides moral and
social education too. This is particularly important for people between 16 and 18 who have many
temptations and benefit from the organized framework that school provides. Young people who
stay in school until the age of 18 tend to be more responsible and help build a stronger society.
There are, however, equally strong arguments against making school compulsory until the age of
18. One such argument is that not everyone is academic and that some people benefit more from
vocational training. For instance, someone who wants to become a car mechanic may find better

41

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

training and more satisfaction in an apprentice scheme. Another related argument is that, in
todays world, young people are maturing ever more quickly and are able to make their own life
decisions by the age of 16.
To my mind, everyone should be encouraged to stay in school until 18 both for social and career
reasons. However, I believe it would be a mistake to make this compulsory bearing in mind that
different people have different needs and abilities and the possibilities of other forms of
vocational training.

Some people think that teenagers should do unpaid work to help society because
this will help them to be better individuals and also improve the society as a whole.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
While there are grounds to argue that it would benefit society and young people themselves if
teenagers were made to do unpaid work in the community, it can equally be argued that this
would be an infringement of their rights. In this essay, I shall examine the merits of both sides of
the argument.
One argument in favour of making teenagers to do voluntary work in the community is that it
would benefit society. It is certainly true that there is a shortage of labour in many parts of the
public sector and if young people worked, then many public services would improve. For example,
it would be quite possible for teenagers to do part-time jobs in the health such as working as
hospital porters. This would have the effect of ensuring patients got better care and would allow
trained professionals to concentrate on more skilled tasks something that would benefit society
as a whole.

42

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

A second argument is that teenagers would mature as individuals if they went out to work,
especially if it was in the voluntary sector. Currently, many teenagers have little sense of social
responsibility and spend much of their free time playing basketball or computer games. If,
however, they were given real life tasks to do, they would learn important life skills such as
responsibility, teamwork and leadership. These skills would almost certainly benefit them in their
later careers.
Despite these arguments, there is an equally strong case to be made that it would be morally
wrong to force teenagers to go out to work, particularly if they did not earn a salary. This can be
explained by the fact that in recent years, there has been a global movement to stop the practice of
child labour. The main philosophy behind this movement is that childhood, including the teenage
years, should be a time for education and growth, not work. It would not just send the wrong
message out if teenagers were made to do voluntary work, there is also the real danger that young
people would be exploited in the workplace.
In conclusion, I believe that while there are real merits on both sides of the argument, the moral
case against forcing young people to work slightly outweighs any benefit to society or to
teenagers as individuals. This is reinforced by belief in the principle that childhood is a time for
education and fear of the danger of exploitation.

Some people think that only staff who worked in a company for a
long time should be promoted to a higher position. What's your
opinion?
One of the reasons why companies choose to promote some staff is seniority.
While length of service is undoubtedly an important factor, my belief is it
should certainly not be the only criterion for deciding who should be
promoted. Rather it would be better for companies to have a more varied
policy in this area.
There are without question sound arguments for promoting employees who
have been working for a company for a number of years. The first of these is
that these more experienced employees would be able to adapt themselves
to being in a higher position, as they would understand the culture and
policies of the company better. Again, on a practical level, if they were not
promoted, they might well leave the company to find a higher position and

43

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

earn a larger salary. This could have serious consequences for the company,
which might lose a significant amount of business to its competitors.
Despite these reasons, there is a strong argument in favour of also promoting
staff because of their performance. This can be seen by how some multinationals use annual performance and development reviews when deciding
on promotion. Under this system a supervisor can set targets for an
employee and if those targets are met, then the employee can be promoted,
even if they are relatively junior. The benefit of this approach is that it
encourages staff to work harder and rewards merit and not just long service.
In conclusion, there is no doubt a case for implementing a policy of
promoting long serving members of staff, but I believe that it is also wise to
take account of the performance of more junior members of staff. (281
words)

Some people prefer to live in a house, while others think that there
are more advantages living in an apartment. Are there more
advantages than disadvantages to living in a house rather than in an
apartment?
Many people nowadays face a difficult decision when they buy their own
home. The question is whether they should buy a house or an apartment.
There would seem to be clear benefits and drawbacks to both options.
Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy.
Typically, there is more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house.
This is particularly the case if it is a detached house. Other significant
advantages are that houses are generally more spacious and on the whole
44

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so that the

children can have a safe environment to play in. If, however, you live in a
tower block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.
There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of
these is that they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain.
Indeed, a large majority of people choose to live in apartments because they
cannot afford the mortgage to buy a house. Another possible problem is that
there are fewer houses in cities than the countryside. So if you like urban life,
it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second reason to avoid living
in a house is that there is a greater sense of community to life in an
apartment.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably
an equal number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately,
whether you decide to live in a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the
city depends on your own personality, family and financial circumstances.
(285 words)

Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed

nations today. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of
reducing the working week to thirty five hours?
It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing
issues in the industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut
the working week to a maximum of 35 hours. However, this solution is
somewhat controversial as it has both positive and negative effects.

45

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

t is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made.
The reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35
hours weekly, then employers will be forced to engage more staff. There
would be at least two advantages to this. Not only would unemployment be
reduced, but the working conditions of employees on very long shifts would
also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing 300 manual
workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.
There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal.
This argument is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was
forced to employ more workers to produce the same amount of goods, then
its wage bill would rise and its products might become more expensive and
less competitive compared to companies with longer working weeks. In this
case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it
would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended
benefit to the personnel would not happen.
In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are
significant advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal
view is that it would be better not to introduce the shortened working week
because it works only in theory and not in practice.
(278 words)

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what

extent do you agree or disagree? It is often said that if you want to
succeed in life, you need a proper education.
I would agree with this, but it is debatable whether a proper education
means having to stay in school until you are 18.
46

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

Perhaps the strongest reason not leaving school early is that it prepares you
for your working career. If you leave school early with only a basic education,
you are unlikely to be able to find any skilled work. Indeed, the education you
receive between the ages of 16 and 18 is crucial for anyone who does not
want a lifetime of unskilled work in a factory
Another compelling reason for remaining in school until 18 is that school
provides moral and social education too. This is particularly important for
people between 16 and 18 who have many temptations and benefit from the
organised framework that school provides. Young people who stay in school
until the age of 18 tend to be more responsible and help build a stronger
society.
There are, however, equally strong arguments against making school
compulsory until the age of 18. One such argument is that not everyone is
academic and that some people benefit more from vocational training. For
instance, someone who wants to become a car mechanic may find better
training and more satisfaction in an apprentice scheme. Another related
argument is that, in todays world, young people are maturing ever more
quickly and are able to make their own life decisions by the age of 16.
To my mind, everyone should be encouraged to stay in school until 18.
However, I believe it would be a mistake to make this compulsory.
(277 words)

The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear

power provides cheap and clean energy. The benefits of nuclear
technology far outweigh the disadvantages. Do you agree or
disagree? Give reasons for your answer.
47

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

One question that has caused a great deal of controversy over the years is
nuclear technology. Although it offers a number of advantages in world peace
and green power, it is also a dangerous technology. In this essay I intend to
show how these benefits outweigh that disadvantage.
The opponents of nuclear power generally base their arguments on the
danger it represents to the world. There are two main dangers: the risk of
nuclear warfare and the nuclear disasters. If one thinks about Chernobyl, it is
easy to understand why people are worried about nuclear power, as it can
cause major suffering.
There are, however, two good reasons for believing that nuclear technology is
generally advantageous. The first of these is that there has not been a major
world conflict since the invention of nuclear weapons. While there have been
wars, they have not been on the same scale as the Second World War. It is
possible to say that the world is a safer place because of nuclear weapons.
There are, however, two good reasons for believing that nuclear technology is
generally advantageous. The first of these is that there has not been a major
world conflict since the invention of nuclear weapons. While there have been
wars, they have not been on the same scale as the Second World War. It is
possible to say that the world is a safer place because of nuclear weapons.
In conclusion I would say that nuclear technology is better than the current
alternatives. However, I also believe we should keep looking for ways to make
it safer.
(281 words)

The best way to solve the worlds environmental problems is to

increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

48

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a
solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been
suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price
of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.
One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one
environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel
more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we
produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution.
However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive
farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For
these problems we need to find other solutions.
One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one
environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel
more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we
produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution.
However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive
farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For
these problems we need to find other solutions.
In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a
short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide
a home for our childrens children, education is likely to be the key to making
this happen.
(283 words)

49

dcielts.com_Essays_Samples

Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general
public, or should a charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for
admittance? Discuss this issue, and give your opinion.
One very complex issue in todays world is the funding of museums and art
galleries. There is an argument that they should be free to the general public
and funded by governments, but there is also a case for saying that they
should charge an entrance fee like other attractions. In this essay, I am going
to examine both sides of this issue.
Those who argue that museums should be free typically make one of two
arguments. The first argument is that institutions like museums are a public
service and therefore there should be free access to the man in the street. If
for example there was a charge only the wealthy could afford to enjoy works
of art. The second, and related, argument is that if they did levy a charge
fewer people would go to museums. This would be serious as they are
educational institutions and standards would fall.
In contrast, there is only one major argument on the other side of the debate.
This is that both museums and art galleries need to charge an entrance fee if
they are to survive in the modern world. Governments do not have sufficient
funds to subsidise all such institutions and there are other priorities for public
money. Therefore these galleries and museums need to charge their
customers not only to survive but to update their exhibitions and make new
purchases. By way of illustration, the Tate Modern in London could not have
been founded without revenue from admissions.
My personal position is that there is no clear answer to this question as there
are such strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is possible for some
museums and galleries to charge fees and for others not to.
My personal position is that there is no clear answer to this question as there
are such strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is possible for some
museums and galleries to charge fees and for others not to.
(288 words)

50