Smoking is prohibited in public places in many countries. Many office authorities also impose restrictions on smoking within the office premises. While many people welcome this restriction and suggest that smoking should be banned, others, however, feel that it takes away some of our freedom. What are your opinions on this?
Sample Response
Smoking and its ample consequences are widely discussed these days all over the world. Research and studies point out that the active and passive smoking are equally threatening to the individual and society. Though there is a small issue regarding the restriction: personal freedom, I hold the view that the ban and restriction on smoking, especially in public places and office settings, are totally acceptable.
One of the obvious reasons, public smoking causes various health hazards. To be more precise, major causes of the lung, oral cancers and heart ailments is none other than tobacco smoking. Prevention is better than cure. Instead of spending a large amount of money to treat these kinds of diseases, government’s decision on banning and controlling on smoking is more economic and effective. Furthermore, passive smoking, which usually happens in public places, claims thousands of innocent people's life across the world. At this juncture, prevention of little freedom like allowing public cigarette flaming is not justifiable. To cite an example, in the USA, the public smoking ban reduces the passive smokers’ cancer rates.
Another reason to support my view is that the public smoking restrictions decline the fire risk rate to a great extent. In other words, in this congested world, allowing of public smoking is like adding fuel to the fire. Careless handling of cigarette fire causes major fire problem. It claims not only thousands of innocent lives but also public possessions. These social problems can be wisely handled by control of public smoking restrictions. In the UK, public smoking ban immensely reduced the building fire incidents in cities is the best epitome. However, an army of people claims that this is the breach of personal freedom. Perhaps it may be true to some degree, but we cannot deny that the public safety is much more important than mild freedom block.
To crown it all, ban and control of public smoking are beneficial, especially for the individual as well as the society. Banning public smoking will enhance the public health and safety in many ways. To consider banning smoking a huge positive impact its ignorable drawbacks are completely negligible.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Fix collocation Original: ample consequences Suggested revision: serious consequences Why it matters: Serious is the natural adjective for harmful consequences.
- 2. Remove articles Original: the active and passive smoking Suggested revision: active and passive smoking Why it matters: The uncountable activity nouns do not take the definite article here.
- 3. Use precise wording Original: threatening to the individual and society Suggested revision: harmful to individuals and society Why it matters: Harmful to is a clearer collocation for describing health effects.
- 4. Match plural verb Original: the ban and restriction on smoking Suggested revision: bans and restrictions on smoking Why it matters: Plural nouns correctly agree with the following verb are.
- 5. Use formal stance Original: are totally acceptable Suggested revision: are fully justified Why it matters: Fully justified states the writer's approval more precisely.
- 6. Repair sentence structure Original: One of the obvious reasons, public smoking causes Suggested revision: One obvious reason is that public smoking causes Why it matters: The clause needs is that rather than a comma after reasons.
- 7. Fix agreement and nouns Original: major causes of the lung, oral cancers and heart ailments is none other than tobacco smoking Suggested revision: a major cause of lung and oral cancers and heart disease is tobacco smoking Why it matters: The revision corrects number, article use, and subject-verb agreement.
- 8. Add definite article Original: government’s decision Suggested revision: the government’s decision Why it matters: The singular specified government requires the definite article.
- 9. Fix verb pattern Original: on banning and controlling on smoking Suggested revision: to ban and regulate smoking Why it matters: Decision takes a to-infinitive, and regulate does not require on.
- 10. Choose correct adjective Original: more economic Suggested revision: more economical Why it matters: Economical means cost-effective, whereas economic relates broadly to the economy.
- 11. Fix plural possession Original: innocent people's life Suggested revision: innocent people’s lives Why it matters: The noun life must be plural because it refers to thousands of people.
- 12. Clarify the claim Original: prevention of little freedom like allowing public cigarette flaming is not justifiable Suggested revision: restricting the minor freedom to smoke in public is justifiable Why it matters: The revision expresses the writer's stated view without the unclear phrase cigarette flaming.
Suggested Rewrites
- ample consequences serious consequences
- the active and passive smoking active and passive smoking
- threatening to the individual and society harmful to individuals and society
- the ban and restriction on smoking bans and restrictions on smoking
- are totally acceptable are fully justified
- One of the obvious reasons, public smoking causes One obvious reason is that public smoking causes
Why this response received Band 6.5
The essay presents a clear pro-restriction position and supports it with two relevant lines of argument concerning health and fire safety, while briefly acknowledging personal freedom. Its main limitation is frequent inaccurate word choice and grammar, which sometimes obscures otherwise sensible reasoning. The priority is to express each cause-and-effect claim in direct, idiomatic sentences and replace exaggerated or unclear phrases with precise public-health and safety language.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
The response answers the question directly, sustains a clear view, and develops relevant health and fire-safety reasons with examples and a brief counterargument.
Develop the freedom objection more precisely and explain why protecting others justifies the restriction without relying on broad assertions.
Coherence and Cohesion
A clear introduction, two reason-based body paragraphs, and a conclusion create logical overall progression, though some linking phrases are mechanical or unclear.
Use simpler logical transitions and ensure each example follows directly from the claim it is intended to support.
Lexical Resource
The response attempts a broad topical range, but frequent inaccurate collocations such as public cigarette flaming, decline the fire risk rate, and mild freedom block reduce precision.
Prefer standard expressions such as second-hand smoke, reduce fire risk, public property, restriction of personal freedom, and negligible drawbacks.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Both simple and complex structures are attempted, but recurring agreement, article, possessive, and clause-construction errors sometimes hinder readability.
Prioritise complete sentence structure and subject-verb agreement, especially in the health-cause sentence, the UK example, and the final sentence.
Use this task for your next draft
Feedback is more useful when you actively apply it in a draft, rather than only recognising improvements on the page.
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.
The question will be loaded automatically.