In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Sample Response
Whether a significant amount of money should be disbursed on constructing new railway lines for fast trains or if it should be spent on improving existing public transport is a highly debatable topic. While some people advocate for the construction of new railway lines, others argue that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. In this essay, we will examine both perspectives and opine that it is better to invest money in improving a country's existing public transportation system.
Proponents of constructing new railway lines for very fast trains argue that it would provide several benefits. Firstly, it will reduce the travel time between cities, and improve the efficiency of transportation. This will lead to economic benefits as businesses would have greater access to markets. Moreover, it will reduce traffic congestion on busy roads. For instance, countries like China, Spain, and Japan have reaped noteworthy benefits from their fast train networks, and those have reduced their citizen's commute time and traffic jams to a great extent.
On the other hand, those who advocate for improving existing public transport argue that it would be a better use of resources. By improving the existing public transport infrastructure, cities would become more accessible, and this would lead to a reduction in car usage. This, in turn, would reduce traffic congestion and pollution, resulting in a cleaner and healthier environment. Moreover, improving existing public transport would make it more affordable and accessible to a wider range of people, providing greater equity in transportation.
In my opinion, while building new fast rail lines may be important for various reasons, improving existing public transport is far more essential and should be a priority. This is because improving existing public transport would make it more accessible and affordable to everyone. It will also decrease pollution and traffic congestion on the one hand and reduce carbon emissions on the other hand.
In conclusion, there are advantages to both constructing new railway lines for fast trains and improving existing public transport. However, improving existing public transport can bring more benefits and seems like a more prudent idea for most countries.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use conventional quantity Original: significant Suggested revision: large Why it matters: “Large amount” is the more conventional collocation for expenditure.
- 2. Use direct spending phrase Original: disbursed Suggested revision: spent Why it matters: “Spent on” is the natural collocation for allocating money to construction.
- 3. Complete whether structure Original: if Suggested revision: whether Why it matters: The paired alternatives require the parallel structure “whether ... or whether.”
- 4. Use natural stance verb Original: opine Suggested revision: argue Why it matters: “Argue” states the essay's position more naturally in this sentence.
- 5. Remove unnecessary article Original: reduce the travel time Suggested revision: reduce travel time Why it matters: “Travel time” is used generically here and does not require “the.”
- 6. Use formal example marker Original: countries like China, Spain, and Japan Suggested revision: countries such as China, Spain, and Japan Why it matters: “Such as” introduces examples more precisely in formal writing.
- 7. Clarify network reference Original: those have reduced Suggested revision: these networks have reduced Why it matters: The explicit noun removes the unclear demonstrative reference.
- 8. Fix plural possession Original: their citizen's commute time Suggested revision: their citizens' commuting times Why it matters: The plural countries refer to multiple citizens and their respective commuting times.
- 9. Use concise reduction phrase Original: traffic jams to a great extent Suggested revision: traffic congestion considerably Why it matters: The revision expresses the degree of reduction more concisely.
- 10. Avoid excessive emphasis Original: far more essential Suggested revision: more important Why it matters: “More important” makes the comparison directly without overstating necessity.
- 11. Remove false contrast Original: on the one hand and reduce carbon emissions on the other hand Suggested revision: and reduce carbon emissions Why it matters: The listed outcomes support the same point, so contrast markers are illogical.
- 12. Use formal choice phrase Original: seems like a more prudent idea Suggested revision: seems to be a more prudent choice Why it matters: The infinitive and noun “choice” are more precise for comparing policy options.
Suggested Rewrites
- significant large
- disbursed spent
- if whether
- opine argue
- reduce the travel time reduce travel time
- countries like China, Spain, and Japan countries such as China, Spain, and Japan
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response fully discusses both investment choices and maintains a clear preference for improving existing transport, with logically developed benefits for each side. Its main limitation is occasional over-formal or imprecise wording and a few grammatical slips despite otherwise strong control. The highest-priority improvement is to make comparisons more analytically specific, explaining why existing-system upgrades deliver greater value than new high-speed rail in most contexts.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both views are well developed, and the writer's preference is clear and consistently supported throughout.
Strengthen the judgement by directly comparing the cost, reach, or urgency of the two options rather than mainly listing their benefits.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay is logically sequenced, well paragraphed, and smoothly connected, with clear progression from the two views to the opinion.
Refine the internal comparison in the opinion paragraph so each sentence adds a distinct step to the reasoning.
Lexical Resource
The response uses a broad, topic-specific vocabulary with good flexibility, although a few expressions are over-formal or slightly imprecise.
Prefer natural academic phrasing over choices such as 'disbursed' and 'opine', and check singular-plural reference carefully.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex sentences are frequent and mostly accurate, with only occasional errors in tense consistency, punctuation, and possessive forms.
Proofread conditional sequences and noun forms, especially shifts between 'would' and 'will' and phrases such as 'citizens’ commute times'.
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
In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.