Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
Air travel consumes enormous amounts of fuel, especially long-haul flights, and contributes significantly to pollution. Some argue that instead of restricting car usage, we should discourage unnecessary air travel. I believe this contention possesses merit and should be pursued by the relevant authorities.
Critics argue that private cars are also a major source of pollution. Unlike airplanes, which carry hundreds of passengers at once, most cars contain just one or two people. In cities like Los Angeles, traffic congestion causes vehicles to idle for hours, producing tons of CO2 daily. Relatedly, urban sprawl encourages excessive car dependency, leading to chronic air pollution and health issues such as asthma and lung disease. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that over 4 million premature deaths per year are linked to air pollution, much of it from vehicles. Given these facts, it seems unfair to blame flights alone while ignoring the impact of car travel. This is particularly the case as flights connect families and cultures in ways that cars never could. A grandmother in India can visit her grandchildren in Canada within a day. A student from Brazil can study abroad in Australia, broadening their educational and career opportunities. If flights were severely restricted, it would not only damage economies but also isolate people from loved ones and life-changing experiences.
However, it is undeniable that long-distance flights burn an extraordinary amount of fuel. A single trip from London to Sydney, for instance, uses many thousands of liters of fuel, equivalent to what an average car would consume over many years. Airplanes release emissions directly into the upper atmosphere, where they linger longer and contribute disproportionately to climate change. This makes non-essential air travel a major contributor to carbon footprints. Many nations, such as Thailand for example, amass over 20% of the GDP comes from tourism. If international tourists were discouraged from flying, although millions of jobs in hotels, restaurants, and transportation would disappear, it would encourage the growth of sustainable industries outside of tourism. Such a pivot would be a negative in the short-term but yield long-term benefits not only for any nation dependent on tourism, but more importantly, for the global health of the environment.
In conclusion, flights contribute significantly to pollution and should be targeted to reduce emissions generally. Investing in better transport infrastructure, promoting electric vehicles, and implementing sustainable tourism policies would also help address the issue without harming economies or restricting essential travel.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use natural phrasing Original: possesses Suggested revision: has Why it matters: This is the more natural collocation for expressing that an argument is valid.
- 2. Clarify the link Original: Relatedly Suggested revision: Furthermore Why it matters: This connector more clearly signals that another consequence of car dependence is being added.
- 3. Improve the collocation Original: contain Suggested revision: carry Why it matters: Vehicles carry passengers rather than contain them in this context.
- 4. Use present ability Original: cars never could Suggested revision: cars cannot Why it matters: The present form matches the general comparison being made.
- 5. Use concise quantity Original: many thousands of liters Suggested revision: thousands of liters Why it matters: The shorter quantity phrase expresses the same scale more naturally.
- 6. Avoid vague comparison Original: linger longer Suggested revision: persist for longer Why it matters: This wording makes the intended duration clearer without an unexplained comparison.
- 7. Refine formal wording Original: a negative in the short-term Suggested revision: a drawback in the short term Why it matters: Drawback is more precise here, and short term is not hyphenated after a preposition.
- 8. Sentence rewrite Original: Many nations, such as Thailand for example, amass over 20% of the GDP comes from tourism. Suggested revision: In many nations, such as Thailand, tourism accounts for over 20% of GDP. Why it matters: The original combines two incompatible verb structures and repeats the example marker.
- 9. Sentence rewrite Original: If international tourists were discouraged from flying, although millions of jobs in hotels, restaurants, and transportation would disappear, it would encourage the growth of sustainable industries outside of tourism. Suggested revision: Discouraging international tourists from flying would cause millions of jobs in hotels, restaurants, and transportation to disappear, although it could also encourage growth in sustainable industries outside tourism. Why it matters: This structure clearly assigns both predicted consequences to the same action.
- 10. Signal the idea shift Suggested revision: Group the evidence about car pollution before shifting to the social benefits of flights, and mark that shift with a clear transition. Why it matters: The paragraph currently moves from environmental comparison to social benefits without clearly signalling the new strand of the counterargument.
Suggested Rewrites
- possesses has
- Relatedly Furthermore
- contain carry
- cars never could cars cannot
- many thousands of liters thousands of liters
- linger longer persist for longer
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response is strongest in its well-developed, specific discussion of both transport emissions and the social and economic value of flying, supported by a clear, broadly favourable stance on discouraging non-essential flights. Its main limitation is that the final recommendation broadens into several transport policies, slightly weakening the requested comparison with limiting car use; prioritise a sharper, consistently qualified position that explicitly weighs those two options throughout.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The response addresses the comparison, maintains a broadly clear position, and develops environmental and socioeconomic considerations with relevant examples.
Make the final judgment explicitly state why discouraging non-essential flights should take priority over limiting car use.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas progress logically through counterarguments and support, with clear paragraphing and generally effective referencing.
Split or more clearly signpost the long counterargument paragraph when it moves from car emissions to the benefits of aviation.
Lexical Resource
A wide vocabulary conveys environmental and economic ideas precisely, although a few collocations are awkward.
Replace strained phrases such as 'amass over 20% of the GDP comes from tourism' with concise, idiomatic wording.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Varied complex structures are controlled across most of the response, with only occasional malformed clauses and punctuation slips.
Edit sentences containing multiple dependent clauses so each grammatical relationship remains clear and complete.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.