IELTS Writing Task 2 sample essays

Universities have traditionally been places of specialisation, yet some argue that every student should also take courses outside their degree subject. I largely agree with this view, provided that such requirements are limited in scope and do not undermine depth of study.

The strongest argument for broader study is that most modern problems cross disciplinary boundaries. An engineer designing a new transport system, for instance, must understand not only mechanics but also how people behave and how cities are governed. A short course in sociology or ethics can give science students the vocabulary to consider these questions, while a history module may help them see that technological change has often had consequences its inventors never anticipated. Employers increasingly report that graduates who can communicate across fields are more valuable than narrow specialists.

There is also a personal benefit. Many students choose a degree at eighteen with limited knowledge of the alternatives. Exposure to other subjects can confirm that choice, or reveal an interest that shapes a later career. Several of the most successful universities in the United States, which require general education courses, cite this as a key reason for their approach.

Nevertheless, the opposing view has merit. Degrees in medicine or engineering are already demanding, and compulsory additional courses may reduce the time available to master essential knowledge. Students paying high fees may also reasonably resent being required to study material they did not choose. For this reason, I believe outside study should form a modest part of a degree, perhaps one module per year, and students should be able to choose which subject to take.

In conclusion, while specialist knowledge must remain the priority, a limited and flexible requirement to study other fields would produce graduates who are better prepared for complex work and more confident in their choices.

Traffic congestion is a growing problem in many cities, and governments must decide whether to invest in public transport or in additional roads. Although building roads may seem the more direct solution, I believe that public transport offers a more effective and lasting answer.

Those who favour road building argue that congestion is simply a matter of capacity: if there are too many cars for the available space, more lanes will allow traffic to flow. New roads can also benefit businesses that depend on lorries and vans, and they serve people in suburbs and rural areas, where buses and trains are often infrequent. For these drivers, a faster road may be the only realistic improvement.

However, the evidence suggests that extra roads rarely solve congestion for long. When a road is widened, journeys become quicker at first, which encourages more people to drive, and within a few years the road is as crowded as before. This effect, known as induced demand, has been observed in cities from Los Angeles to London. Public transport, by contrast, can move far more people in the same space: a single train can carry the occupants of several hundred cars. Investment in frequent, reliable buses and trains also reduces pollution and gives people who cannot drive, such as teenagers and many elderly residents, access to jobs and services.

In my view, public transport should therefore receive the larger share of funding, while road spending should focus on maintenance and on specific bottlenecks, such as routes used heavily by freight. Ultimately, the goal should be to give people a genuine alternative to driving rather than to make driving temporarily easier.

Since the pandemic, working from home has changed from a rare privilege into a normal arrangement for millions of office workers. In my view, the benefits of this shift generally outweigh its drawbacks, although only when it is combined with some time in the workplace.

The most obvious advantage is the time and money saved on commuting. An employee who previously spent an hour travelling each way gains ten hours a week, which can be used for rest, exercise or family. Remote work also widens opportunities: parents of young children, people with disabilities and those living far from major cities can now apply for jobs that were previously out of reach. For employers, smaller offices mean lower costs, and access to a wider pool of applicants.

There are, however, real disadvantages. Many people find it harder to separate work from private life at home, and some report working longer hours rather than shorter ones. Junior employees in particular may suffer, because they learn a great deal by observing experienced colleagues informally, something that video calls do not easily replace. Isolation can also affect mental health, especially for people who live alone.

These problems are significant, but most of them can be reduced by a hybrid arrangement in which staff spend two or three days a week in the office. This keeps the gains in flexibility and commuting time while preserving the face-to-face contact that supports training, teamwork and wellbeing. Fully remote work, by contrast, suits only certain roles and personalities.

In conclusion, working from home offers substantial advantages to both workers and organisations. Provided that it is balanced with regular in-person contact, I believe these advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.

Across many of the world's major cities, from London to Sydney, young adults are spending a growing share of their income on rent, and home ownership is moving further out of reach. This essay will argue that the problem stems mainly from a shortage of housing and from the use of property as an investment, and that it requires action on supply as well as on demand.

The most fundamental cause is that cities have not built enough homes to keep pace with their growing populations. Jobs and universities are concentrated in large cities, so people continue to move there, but planning restrictions, high land prices and opposition from existing residents often prevent new construction. When demand rises faster than supply, prices inevitably increase. A second cause is that housing has become an attractive investment. Low interest rates over the past decade encouraged wealthier households and companies to buy property to rent out, competing directly with first-time buyers. Finally, wages for young workers have generally risen more slowly than house prices, so even well-paid graduates struggle to save for a deposit.

Several measures could address these problems. The most important is to increase supply, for example by simplifying planning rules for new homes near public transport and by allowing higher-density buildings in areas currently restricted to single houses. Governments can also build social housing directly, as Vienna has done successfully for decades, offering good-quality homes at moderate rents. On the demand side, higher taxes on second homes and on properties left empty would reduce speculative buying. In the short term, schemes that help first-time buyers with deposits may provide relief, although they can push prices up if supply does not increase at the same time.

In conclusion, housing has become unaffordable for young people mainly because too few homes have been built while property has become an investment asset. Only a combination of greater supply and policies that discourage speculation is likely to make cities affordable again.

In shopping streets and online markets around the world, the same global brands increasingly dominate, often at the expense of local shops and producers. This essay will explain why consumers choose international brands and argue that, although this brings some benefits, the overall trend is more negative than positive.

The main reason for the popularity of global brands is that they offer predictability. A customer buying a well-known brand of phone or coffee in any country can be fairly sure of its quality, because these companies invest heavily in standardised production and quality control. Price is another factor: their size allows global firms to buy materials cheaply and sell at prices that small businesses cannot match. Finally, decades of advertising have turned many brands into symbols of status, particularly among young people, for whom wearing a famous label can signal belonging to a global culture.

There are certainly advantages to this development. Consumers in developing countries now have access to products that were once available only in wealthy nations, and multinational companies create jobs and often bring new technologies and management practices. However, I believe the disadvantages are more significant. When local businesses close, the profits that once circulated within a community are transferred to distant shareholders, and town centres lose their individual character, becoming almost indistinguishable from one another. Moreover, the dominance of a few large firms reduces competition in the long term, which can eventually lead to higher prices and less choice.

In conclusion, people buy global brands mainly because of their reliability, low prices and image. While this has widened access to many goods, it also weakens local economies and reduces diversity, so I consider it a largely negative trend that governments and consumers should try to balance by supporting local enterprise.