IELTS - Writing - For Band 7 or Above.

[CA GURPREET SINGH MANN]

You’re so gonna get 7, just keep practicing.

Thank you both of you for helping me. Actually people after reading an essay tell that your grammar is ok, your English is ok, cohesion is ok. They don't strictly check essays and find out mistakes. I like those people who point out mistakes and provide valid reasons for the same so that we can improve and save our time for remaining works.

I think the most important think is Task response. If people nail that, other things cohesion, lexical and vocabulary become secondary. I am not saying remaining three are not important, but it's easier to be accurate in other elements when a person has a solid TR.
I am also checking grammar from grammarly and vocabulary level for Cambridge word level dialogue box.

I always get 6-10 C1 and C2 level words and think that is more than required lest accuracy will be lost. I can provide a link for that if anyone needs.


I am reading your past comments in this thread in the coming two or three days.

Hoping to reach on track in a fortnight.

Thanks

 

[cansha]

I think the most important think is Task response.

That's the key to a 7+ score and sadly many people ignore it.

 

[Sohaibkq]

Please review:

Life was better when technology was simpler. To what extent do you agree and disagree?

The modern technology has altered the lifestyle of individuals and families as a whole. There is an opinion that living was comfortable with less technological advancements that are connected to everyday life. I firmly disagree with this notion and believe that innovation in technology has brought enormous benefits to our routine life through various ways.

To commence, cutting-edge technology, particularly in transportation, is one of the best examples of how our daily life has become less fatigued. Although I concede that pollution is ever on the rise due to jam-packed roads with traffic, it is inevitable to replace modern cars with other older forms of transportation where it was hectic to locomote from one place to another. For instance, ride-sharing platform Uber has made an outstanding contribution to our daily traveling pattern, making it hassle-free to go anywhere in the city with just a few clicks. With further improvement like Eco-friendly cars, the negative impacts on the atmosphere are set to decrease further.

To continue, the Internet, a revolutionary technological advancement, enhanced our methods of communication. While I concede that overconsumption of the Internet is impacting our health, the benefits it brings to our daily life are far more noticeable. For instance, social media platforms have made a contributing factor in bridging the communication gap between our loved ones. One can now easily share the happenings of their life globally within no time. With these technological improvements, the improvements in daily life are far-reaching.

To summarise, although technical advancements do have their negative impacts on the environment and health of individuals, the benefits it brings are far more substantial than drawbacks. Therefore on balance, I support the view of those who believe that technology has made our life better than it was ever before.

 

[Yumna]

Please review:

Life was better when technology was simpler. To what extent do you agree and disagree?

The modern technology has altered the lifestyle of individuals and families as a whole. There is an opinion that living was comfortable with less technological advancements that are connected to everyday life. I firmly disagree with this notion and believe that innovation in technology has brought enormous benefits to our routine life through various ways.

To commence, cutting-edge technology, particularly in transportation, is one of the best examples of how our daily life has become less fatigued. Although I concede that pollution is ever on the rise due to jam-packed roads with traffic, it is inevitable to replace modern cars with other older forms of transportation where it was hectic to locomote from one place to another. For instance, ride-sharing platform Uber has made an outstanding contribution to our daily traveling pattern, making it hassle-free to go anywhere in the city with just a few clicks. With further improvement like Eco-friendly cars, the negative impacts on the atmosphere are set to decrease further.

To continue, the Internet, a revolutionary technological advancement, enhanced our methods of communication. While I concede that overconsumption of the Internet is impacting our health, the benefits it brings to our daily life are far more noticeable. For instance, social media platforms have made a contributing factor in bridging the communication gap between our loved ones. One can now easily share the happenings of their life globally within no time. With these technological improvements, the improvements in daily life are far-reaching.

To summarise, although technical advancements do have their negative impacts on the environment and health of individuals, the benefits it brings are far more substantial than drawbacks. Therefore on balance, I support the view of those who believe that technology has made our life better than it was ever before.

Hi,
I just wanted to ask, are you preparing for academic or general?

 

[Sohaibkq]

Hi,
I just wanted to ask, are you preparing for academic or general?

Ielts General

 

[marosa]

Please review:

Life was better when technology was simpler. To what extent do you agree and disagree?

The modern technology has altered the lifestyle of individuals and families as a whole. This is too general and too obvious, such a sentence doesn’t add much value to your essay. You should only have a general overview at the beginning of you intro IF your intro is too short. And even then, that general sentence should somehow address the question. Like you can say “technology has become quite complex within the past few years” and by this you would at least restate the part about technology being simpler in the past. I hope I could explain my point here.
There is an opinion that living was more comfortable with less technological advancements that are connected to everyday life. I firmly disagree with this notion and believe that innovation in technology has brought enormous benefits to our routine life through various ways it’s a good idea to mention those ways in the intro.

To commence, cutting-edge technology, particularly in transportation, is one of the best examples of how our daily life has become less fatigued. Although I concede that pollution is ever on the rise due to jam-packed roads with traffic, it is inevitable to replace modern cars with other older forms of transportation where it was hectic to locomote from one place to another. For instance no need to say “for instance”, because your example is clear enough and the examiner will understand that you’re bringing an example here in any ca, ride-sharing platform Uber has made an outstanding contribution to our daily traveling pattern, making it hassle-free to go anywhere in the city with just a few clicks. With further improvement like Eco-friendly cars, the negative impacts on the atmosphere are set to decrease further.

To continue or “Another point to consider”, the Internet, a revolutionary technological advancement, enhanced our methods of communication. While I concede that overconsumption of the Internet is impacting our health, the benefits it brings to our daily life are far more noticeable. For instance, social media platforms “like Facebook” - do bring specific examples have made a contributing factor in bridging the communication gap between our loved ones. One can now easily share the happenings of their life globally within no time. I feel like you’re missing a sentence here, that would answer to the question “so what?”. Like ok, they share info but how does this make people’s lives better? E.g. “So people are informed instantly when a major event happens on the opposite side of the globe”. You can even bring an example of such an event, like a hurricane and then how people all over the world supported the victims. Or stronger family ties => healthier society or any other “so what”. With these technological improvements, the improvements in daily life are far-reaching. In general the closer to the end of a BP, the more specific your sentences should be. This sentence is too general, no additional value to the essay, no support to your main idea.

Sentence 1: main idea - internet has had a positive impact on the society; Sentence 2: why? - people are able to communicate in distance for example after they left their hometown; Sentence 3: so what? - families continue staying in touch; Sentence 4: so what? - this leads to a healthier society, because people don’t feel isolated or lonely; Sentence 5: example. Example can be before the “so what”s, you can have only one “so what” sentence, but the structure of the BP should be more or less the same.

To summarise, although technical advancements do have their negative impacts on the environment and health of individuals, the benefits it brings are far more substantial than drawbacks. Therefore on balance, I support the view of those who believe that technology has made our life better than it was ever before. The conclusion is good, except for stating a different point of view than in the intro. It feels like you first fully disagreed, but then along with writing the essay you started changing your mind and now you partially disagree. this should not happen in an IELTS essay.

Hi!

Please see my comments above.

+ 2 general comments:

1. If you say you “firmly disagree” at the beginning of your essay then don’t write about the positive sides of the question in the body paragraphs at all. And restate that you strongly disagree in the conclusion, too.

If you want to also mention some positive sides, then say you “mainly disagree”. You see, your current essay would lose marks if written at the exam, because you contradict yourself. First you say you firmly disagree (which is quite an extreme position btw) and then in your body paragraphs you indicate why the opposite position might also be valid. So what you could do, you could say that you mainly disagree and by this it would be ok that you’re also considering the opposite effect of the technology.

And indeed, for questions like “to what extent do you agree” it is more probable to get high scores if you “mainly agree” or “mainly disagree” rather than if you decide to discuss only one side of the question.

2. Regarding the structure: to be on the safe side I would suggest you not to mix pros and cons within the same paragraph, but to separate it. I’m not saying that’s the only correct way to do it, but if I were you this essay would have the following structure:

- I’d say in the introduction that I mainly agree, since technology has improved transportation and social interaction/communication, however MIGHT have minor drawbacks if misused (or any other slight drawback).

- Then you should talk about the side you don’t give much importance to in BP 1. So your first body paragraph would be about ONE OF the technology’s drawbacks. Select only one disadvantage, because you’re saying you mainly disagree, so you should show that the positive aspects are more essential. Your current essay talks about two possible drawbacks, choose only one, discuss it and then say why it’s not that big (e.g. as you’ve said people have already started replacing fuel cars with electric ones, so pollution is not a big deal any longer).

- Then you can either have one or two body paragraphs about the positive aspects of technology. With your current level I guess you can handle two more paragraphs, but it’s up to you of course. have only one main idea in each BP. E.g. BP 2 - positive impact on transportation, BP 3 - positive impact on communication. Don’t mention any negative in BP 2 and 3.

OR

You can say you strongly disagree and leave BP 2 and BP 3 only, but then you should not mention any negative sides at all, as if you don’t think there is anything bad about technology at all. This is a less “mature” position, but can still work if you don’t target more than 7 or 7.5.

Good luck!

 

[hardeep bal]

Hi everyone, this would be a great help if one of the experts on this forum could check this essay, all feedback's will be highly appreciated.. Thanks

Should governments make decisions about people’s lifestyle. or should people make their own decisions?
Although governments are designated authorities to take decisions related to law and social behavior of individuals, lifestyle rules are more personal and they affect the social dignity of a person’s life. This essay will discuss both scenarios before reaching a logical conclusion.

One the one hand, if the government officials are allowed to make such regulations, a country will progress in two ways. First, health-related complications such as obesity, and corpulence, can be tackled accordingly. If the lawmakers render orders to follow a perfect diet plan and regular exercise, local civilians will ultimately become fit and healthy due to a fear of getting penalized. Secondly, a nation discipline could be corrected by imposing a similar dress code or a hair cut, for instance. In North Korea, no men under 50 are allowed to grow their upper hair up to 7 cm, it reveals the sense of professionalism as well as an alternative approach of the nation.

On the other hand, a sense of independence could be lost among citizens. In other words, wearing a favorite attire and eating delicious food should be in the hands of the civilians. Despite being slaves of the government, their own lives might be hampered negatively and in turn, perhaps they might feel like prisoners. Moreover, if they would be permitted to choose their own choices, people will feel more ecstatic and it will be a real example of democracy. The United States and India are the best examples of this trend whereas some Asian territories do not permit this.

In conclusion, even though both circumstances have their benefits and demerits, an appropriate decision should be taken by considering the needs of both governments and people.

 

[Sohaibkq]

Hi!

Please see my comments above.

+ 2 general comments:

1. If you say you “firmly disagree” at the beginning of your essay then don’t write about the positive sides of the question in the body paragraphs at all. And restate that you strongly disagree in the conclusion, too.

If you want to also mention some positive sides, then say you “mainly disagree”. You see, your current essay would lose marks if written at the exam, because you contradict yourself. First you say you firmly disagree (which is quite an extreme position btw) and then in your body paragraphs you indicate why the opposite position might also be valid. So what you could do, you could say that you mainly disagree and by this it would be ok that you’re also considering the opposite effect of the technology.

And indeed, for questions like “to what extent do you agree” it is more probable to get high scores if you “mainly agree” or “mainly disagree” rather than if you decide to discuss only one side of the question.

2. Regarding the structure: to be on the safe side I would suggest you not to mix pros and cons within the same paragraph, but to separate it. I’m not saying that’s the only correct way to do it, but if I were you this essay would have the following structure:

- I’d say in the introduction that I mainly agree, since technology has improved transportation and social interaction/communication, however MIGHT have minor drawbacks if misused (or any other slight drawback).

- Then you should talk about the side you don’t give much importance to in BP 1. So your first body paragraph would be about ONE OF the technology’s drawbacks. Select only one disadvantage, because you’re saying you mainly disagree, so you should show that the positive aspects are more essential. Your current essay talks about two possible drawbacks, choose only one, discuss it and then say why it’s not that big (e.g. as you’ve said people have already started replacing fuel cars with electric ones, so pollution is not a big deal any longer).

- Then you can either have one or two body paragraphs about the positive aspects of technology. With your current level I guess you can handle two more paragraphs, but it’s up to you of course. have only one main idea in each BP. E.g. BP 2 - positive impact on transportation, BP 3 - positive impact on communication. Don’t mention any negative in BP 2 and 3.

OR

You can say you strongly disagree and leave BP 2 and BP 3 only, but then you should not mention any negative sides at all, as if you don’t think there is anything bad about technology at all. This is a less “mature” position, but can still work if you don’t target more than 7 or 7.5.

Good luck!

Thanks a lot for such a detailed review. I will work on my mistakes. These to what extent type of essays are very tricky.

Yes i made a terrible mistake of stating firmly disagree and then giving opposite opinion.

The reason i go for 2 BPs is to control the word count.

 

[marosa]

The reason i go for 2 BPs is to control the word count.

The only requirement with regards to word count is to have at least 250 words for task 2 and at least 150 words for task 1. There is no upper limit, it’s just that you should spend not more than 40 mins on task 2. I wrote (typed) 450 words for task 2 and 250 words for task 1 and got 8. But again, it’s up to you to have 2 or 3 BPs. Both can work if you: address all parts of the task without getting off the topic; have proper and logical structuring; show a wide range of grammar and vocabulary, used accurately.

 

[marosa]

These to what extent type of essays are very tricky.

My advice is to mainly agree or mainly disagree, it’s easier to have a high quality essay like that, because the less extreme your opinion is, the easier it is to support it.

Such questions are not that tricky if you develop an approach and follow it for any question of the same type.

Actually I “mainly” agreed on the exam even when the question did not directly ask “to what extent do you agree”. So even if they ask “is it good or bad” or “what is your opinion”, you can still say it is good in some cases and bad in others. I’ve talked about it in one of my previous reviews, you may want to go over it if need more details.

 

[Sohaibkq]

My advice is to mainly agree or mainly disagree, it’s easier to have a high quality essay like that, because the less extreme your opinion is, the easier it is to support it.

Such questions are not that tricky if you develop an approach and follow it for any question of the same type.

Actually I “mainly” agreed on the exam even when the question did not directly ask “to what extent do you agree”. So even if they ask “is it good or bad” or “what is your opinion”, you can still say it is good in some cases and bad in others. I’ve talked about it in one of my previous reviews, you may want to go over it if need more details.

Perfect. Great feedback.

 

[marosa]

Hi everyone, this would be a great help if one of the experts on this forum could check this essay, all feedback's will be highly appreciated.. Thanks

Should governments make decisions about people’s lifestyle. or should people make their own decisions?
Although governments are designated authorities to take decisions related to law and social behavior of individuals, lifestyle rules are more personal and they affect the social dignity of a person’s life. This essay will discuss both scenarios before reaching a logical conclusion. 1. Which scenarios?
You haven’t mentioned them yet. 2. Here you should clearly give your opinion, so should ppl make their own decisions or not?

One the one hand, if the government officials are allowed to make such which? regulations, a country will progress in two ways. Firstly, health-related complications such as obesity, and corpulence, can be tackled accordingly. If the lawmakers render orders to follow a perfect diet plan and regular exercise, local civilians will ultimately become fit and healthy due to a fear of getting penalized. Secondly, a nation discipline could be corrected by imposing a similar dress code or a hair cut, for instance. In North Korea, no men under 50 are allowed to grow their upper hair up to 7 cm, it reveals the sense of professionalism as well as an alternative approach of the nation. Like really? You’re bringing the example of North Korea? You’re saying that if all people have the same haircut it will benefit the country, at least provide support for that idea. Though I would still avoid this type of ambiguous statements. You see, even though you’re not “formally” graded for your opinion, the examiner may not want to give you high scores if your ideas are too ambiguous.

On the other hand, a sense of independence could be lost among citizens if government decides to limit their lifestyle freedom. In other words, wearing a favorite attire and eating delicious food should be in the hands of the civilians. Despite being slaves of the government you’re going too extreme, their own lives might be hampered negatively and in turn, perhaps they might feel like prisoners. Moreover, if they would be “are”, grammar permitted to choose their own choices, people will feel more ecstatic and it will be a real example of democracy. The United States and India are the best examples of this trend whereas some Asian territories do not permit this. 1. So what? What benefit does this trend have? 2. Here you’re either claiming Asian countries are not democratic or not developed. I’m not sure, but I guess Japan, South Korea, Singapore etc. are not that poor. If you’re claiming that for example US has advantages over those countries you should at least support that idea. If you cannot support any idea - don’t include it in your essay.

In conclusion, even though both circumstances have their benefits and demerits, an appropriate decision should be taken by considering the needs of both governments and people. Even after reading the whole essay I couldn’t understand your opinion. Your opinion should be clearly stated both in the intro and conclusion.

Hi!

See the comments above.

Maybe you should also read other reviewed essays within this thread to get a better understanding of the IELTS format.

You can also refer to the following post:

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/ielts-writing-for-band-7-or-above.540392/page-90#post-7568485

 

[reesastark]

Hello guys, I hope everyone here is safe and healthy,
Marosa, I tried to practice your tips and here you can see another task 2 response, could you please give me your feedback.
Thanks a lot ;-)

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new home there.

While it is thought that rural parts of should be considered for contracting new houses due to limited space in the cities, other emphasize these landscapes should be protected. I personally believe that construction should be allowed in suburbs, however certain legislation should be taken account, to protect the harmony of the areas likewise.

A crucial part of cities development is implementing an efficient distribution of the population. While proper space for building houses are scarce inside the cities these days, migrating construction site to rural areas is inevitable. More on that, due to limited resources such as, drinking water, medical units and educational facilities in cities, the countryside is s suitable option for growing population settlement. It is worth citing that, the process could be beneficial for original residents of the countryside, since new inhabitants are new sources of income, thus the whole economy of the area will be improved implicitly.

Notwithstanding, preserving original structure and resources of urban areas is foundation of a sustainable development. Thus, if the whole process of building houses impose detrimental effects on natural and architectural properties of the rural areas, it drawbacks will definitely outweigh its merits. Therefore, careful regulation should be implemented to guarantee minimum damages through the construction process.

As stated herein-above, even though lack of enough space have forced human being to relocate to urban areas for constructing new houses, official should intervene with an appropriate rules in order to preserve the original properties of these area. Hence, the process will be beneficial for both original residents and new-comers of the countryside.

 

[eazimizadeh]

Hi everybody!
I'd be pleased if you could take a look at my essay, and leave notes for me, or even better grade it from 1 to 9.

In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new home there.

----

Fast-growing demand for urbanization in a massive number of cities around the world has forced us to expand the construction of new buildings into the suburb areas. Similar to some people, I personally believe that we should preserve the suburb areas against the expansion of cities, to ensure having a balanced society and nature.

Unlike the advocates of construction at any cost, I argue that the countryside is an inseparable part of a nation. If we invade the countryside carelessly, the inhabitants may lose their hometowns. This invasion then would vanish small cultures of the nation, thus multi-cultural diversity in the society would be lost.

Moreover, critics of expansion of cities into rural areas claim that if human beings wish to live on this planet for a long period of time, sustainable development concepts should be taken into account. Since one major aspect of sustainability, in terms of nature, is to prevent deforestation, then construction of buildings in rural areas contradicts it. Another drawback of expanding cities into the countryside is that attacking the wildlife would be inevitable. Having said that, preserving animals is certainly another example of unbalanced development.

In conclusion, building new places for people in the cities seems a critical goal for a country’s development, however, invading the suburbs could be the easiest, yet an inappropriate way to achieve that goal. I believe it should be prohibited to protect the cultures of suburban people, as well as guaranteeing a sustainable development by preventing deforestation and risking animals’ lives.

 

[hardeep bal]

Hi!

See the comments above.

Maybe you should also read other reviewed essays within this thread to get a better understanding of the IELTS format.

You can also refer to the following post:

Hi @marosa thanks for your feedback, kindly let me know why should I need to provide my opinion here? As question statement, Should governments make decisions about people’s lifestyle. or should people make their own decisions? I believe asking for general discussion not the specific opinion of writer? No? please clarify

thanks