Some people believe that to reduce the time people spend commuting, parks and gardens close to city centres should be replaced by apartment buildings. Others disagree with this idea. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Sample Response
To begin with, the supporting group believesbelieved this because people would be close to their destinations and traffic would be brought downtraffic be brought down to a low level. When houses replace parks and gardens in the citycity’s centre, people will be closeproximal to the frequentlymost visited places like workplaces, shops, and religious centres. Consequently, less time will be required to get to these places since they are a stone's throw awaystone thrown away. Also, traffic will be reduced since the main mode of transport will be walkingmajor means of transportation will be trekking. Therefore, fewer commuters will be on the road, so traffic congestion will be lowertraffic will be less. Secondly, the opposing group isare against this idea because parkshavens and gardens benefit the local environmentcontribute positively to the climate and are important for relaxation.
The scenery of tourist centres helps improve the weather condition of a place and promotes visitors’ relaxation. For example, trees and othergreen plants found in gardens releaseexpire oxygen that is essential for human lifeimportant to human living. Similarly, the cool air they provide has a calming effect on the body, thereby reducing stress.
In conclusion, changing playgrounds to housing areas hashave benefits and consequences. However, I think the best location for parks and gardens is the city centre so that they are accessible to peopleit can be accessible to people and improve the weather because most air pollution occurs in the city centre. Therefore, replacing them with houses is like sacrificing the environment for shorter commuting timestime management.
Why this response received Band 5.5
The response addresses both views and ends with a clear opinion, while its central reasons about commuting and environmental benefits remain relevant and generally understandable. Its main limitation is uneven development, compounded by being below the required length and by frequent inaccurate word choices; the highest priority is to extend each viewpoint with a precise, fully explained example before refining the language.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both views and a clear opinion are present, but the discussion is brief and some supporting claims remain general or imprecise.
Develop each viewpoint with a specific example and explain clearly how it supports the argument while meeting the minimum length.
Coherence and Cohesion
The main ideas are broadly sequenced, but the opposing view begins at the end of the first paragraph and paragraph focus is uneven.
Use a separate, clearly focused body paragraph for each view and make the transition between them explicit.
Lexical Resource
The response shows some range, but frequent inaccurate choices such as references to trekking, havens, and expiring oxygen reduce precision.
Choose natural topic-specific collocations and check that each noun and verb expresses the intended meaning exactly.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A mix of sentence forms communicates the main ideas, although agreement, article, pronoun, and clause errors recur throughout.
Edit systematically for subject-verb agreement and plural reference, especially when the subject is parks, gardens, houses, or people.
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
Some people believe that to reduce the time people spend commuting, parks and gardens close to city centres should be replaced by apartment buildings. Others disagree with this idea. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.