More and more people are becoming seriously overweight. Some people say that the price increase of fattening foods will solve the problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
The issue of obesity is becoming increasingly prevalent, leading some to propose that raising the prices of fattening foods could be an effective solution. While this approach has some merit, I believe it is only partially effective and could have unintended consequences.
On the one hand, increasing the price of unhealthy, fattening foods can help solve the problem of obesity to some extent. One benefit of this practice is that it might encourage individuals, especially those who are obese, to reconsider their dietary choices. When unhealthy food items become more expensive, people may be more likely to choose healthier alternatives that are more reasonably priced. For instance, if the cost of sugary drinks like soda or alcohol rises significantly, consumers might opt for healthier options such as water or fruit juice, which are generally cheaper. Additionally, imposing higher production taxes on fattening foods could lead companies to either reduce or stop producing such items. Fearing loss of profit or even bankruptcy, businesses might shift towards manufacturing healthier products, thus reducing the availability of unhealthy food options in the market.
However, opponents of this strategy including me would argue that it has more drawbacks than benefits. For one, altering the food market in such a manner could disrupt consumer habits, leading to dissatisfaction among customers. Businesses that are customer-centered may hesitate to change their product lines drastically, fearing a loss of their consumer base. Moreover, increasing the prices of fattening foods could disproportionately affect people with limited economic means. As food companies pivot towards producing healthier items, the prices of these products might rise as well, making it difficult for low-income individuals to afford them. This could create a situation where healthier options become a luxury, accessible only to those with higher incomes, while those with less financial flexibility continue to consume unhealthy, but now more expensive, food.
In conclusion, while raising the prices of fattening foods could encourage some people to make healthier choices and potentially lead companies to produce healthier products, it is not a comprehensive solution. A more balanced approach, perhaps combining price adjustments with education and accessibility to healthy foods, would likely be more effective in addressing the growing problem of obesity.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use concise wording Original: help solve the problem of obesity to some extent Suggested revision: help reduce obesity to some extent Why it matters: Reduce obesity expresses the intended effect more directly.
- 2. Name the policy Original: practice Suggested revision: policy Why it matters: Policy is more precise than practice for a proposed price intervention.
- 3. Avoid vague evaluation Original: healthier alternatives that are more reasonably priced Suggested revision: more affordable healthier alternatives Why it matters: Affordable states the relevant price advantage more concisely.
- 4. Clarify the tax Original: higher production taxes on fattening foods Suggested revision: higher taxes on the production of fattening foods Why it matters: This construction clearly identifies the activity being taxed.
- 5. Make forms parallel Original: either reduce or stop producing such items Suggested revision: either reduce the production of or stop producing such items Why it matters: The paired alternatives need parallel grammatical structures.
- 6. Add the article Original: Fearing loss of profit Suggested revision: Fearing a loss of profit Why it matters: The countable noun phrase loss of profit requires an article here.
- 7. Use natural direction Original: towards Suggested revision: to Why it matters: Shift to is the more direct collocation for a change in production.
- 8. Set off the aside Original: opponents of this strategy including me Suggested revision: opponents of this strategy, including me, Why it matters: The parenthetical phrase including me needs commas on both sides.
- 9. Clarify the effect Original: disrupt consumer habits Suggested revision: force consumers to change their habits Why it matters: The replacement states the claimed effect on consumer behaviour more clearly.
- 10. Use direct phrasing Original: fearing a loss of their consumer base Suggested revision: fearing that they may lose customers Why it matters: The direct verb phrase is clearer and less abstract than loss of their consumer base.
- 11. Use natural phrasing Original: people with limited economic means Suggested revision: people on low incomes Why it matters: This is a more natural and concise way to describe the affected group.
- 12. Correct the collocation Original: accessibility to healthy foods Suggested revision: access to healthy food Why it matters: Access to is the appropriate collocation for the availability of food.
Suggested Rewrites
- help solve the problem of obesity to some extent help reduce obesity to some extent
- practice policy
- healthier alternatives that are more reasonably priced more affordable healthier alternatives
- higher production taxes on fattening foods higher taxes on the production of fattening foods
- either reduce or stop producing such items either reduce the production of or stop producing such items
- Fearing loss of profit Fearing a loss of profit
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response maintains a clear qualified position and uses a logical two-sided structure with substantial explanation. Its main limitation is that several causal claims—especially that higher taxes would make firms stop producing unhealthy food and that healthier products would also become more expensive—are speculative or insufficiently justified. The highest-priority improvement is to develop fewer consequences more rigorously with realistic evidence and tighter links to whether price rises would reduce obesity.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The response addresses the question directly and sustains a clear partial-agreement position, but some supporting consequences are speculative or loosely reasoned.
Select fewer effects and explain each causal chain convincingly, showing exactly how price changes would influence obesity.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas are logically sequenced in well-focused paragraphs, and cohesive devices guide the reader smoothly through the argument.
Strengthen the internal progression of the drawbacks paragraph by linking each business or affordability point more directly to the central claim.
Lexical Resource
The response uses a broad topic-appropriate vocabulary, though a few choices such as production taxes and accessibility to healthy foods are imprecise or awkward.
Use more exact collocations, such as taxes on producers and access to healthy food, and avoid loosely classified examples.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex sentences is handled with strong control, and errors are rare and non-impeding.
Refine punctuation around inserted phrases and use a more natural construction than opponents of this strategy including me.
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
More and more people are becoming seriously overweight. Some people say that the price increase of fattening foods will solve the problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.