Air traffic is increasingly leading to more noise, pollution, and airport constuction. One reason for this is the growth in low-cost passenger flights, often to holiday destinations. Some people say that government should try to reduce air traffic by taxing it more heavily. Do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
Over recent years there has been an enormous increase in the amount of air traffic around the world resulting in various problems, and a major cause of this has been the growth of low-cost airlines. Although some people believe that taxes should be increased for air travel, I disagree.
Those that support taxing airlines believe that this will result in a reduction in this type of travel and thus solve the problems of pollution, noise and construction. This is because a tax would make the cost of travelling more expensive, which will, they claim, lead to a decrease in demand. Proponents of this solution believe that taxes are fair because everyone has to pay them and it is a workable solution that will have the additional bonus of providing an income for the government.
However, there are a number of reasons why this is not the right course of action. Firstly, a tax is not fair because it will adversely affect people on lower incomes. Such a tax would have to be a fixed amount paid equally whether you are rich or poor, which means that those on lower incomes would find it more difficult to travel, but it would likely have little effect on the lives of those with a higher income. In addition, such a tax would not work. For example, we have seen taxes increase in most countries on cars, but this has had little affect, with car use continuing to grow.
To sum up, it is evident that introducing heavy taxes on air travel is not fair or workable. If we continue to explore alternatives, we can continue to enjoy the benefits that air travel offers.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Separate result clause Original: around the world resulting Suggested revision: around the world, resulting Why it matters: A comma clearly separates the main statement from the resulting effect.
- 2. Use who for people Original: that Suggested revision: who Why it matters: Use the relative pronoun “who” when referring to people.
- 3. Name the taxed activity Original: taxing airlines Suggested revision: taxing air travel Why it matters: This wording identifies the activity being taxed more precisely.
- 4. Use a precise reference Original: this type of travel Suggested revision: air travel Why it matters: Repeating the specific term avoids a vague reference.
- 5. Correct cost collocation Original: more expensive Suggested revision: higher Why it matters: A cost becomes higher, while a product or journey becomes more expensive.
- 6. Keep conditional tense Original: will Suggested revision: would Why it matters: The modal “would” matches the hypothetical effect of introducing a tax.
- 7. Use fiscal collocation Original: providing an income Suggested revision: generating revenue Why it matters: Governments normally generate revenue from a tax rather than receive an income.
- 8. Match plural reference Original: those with a higher income Suggested revision: those with higher incomes Why it matters: The plural noun agrees more naturally with the plural reference “those.”
- 9. Use the noun effect Original: affect Suggested revision: effect Why it matters: “Effect” is the noun required after “little.”
- 10. Use natural collocation Original: heavy Suggested revision: high Why it matters: “High taxes” is the standard collocation for a large tax burden.
Suggested Rewrites
- around the world resulting around the world, resulting
- that who
- taxing airlines taxing air travel
- this type of travel air travel
- more expensive higher
- will would
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response presents a clear position and develops a logical case through relevant arguments about fairness and effectiveness. Its main limitation is that some support, particularly the assumption that the tax must be fixed and the comparison with car taxation, is asserted rather than fully examined. The highest-priority improvement is to develop the counterargument with more precise evidence and explain why alternative tax designs would still fail.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The position is clear throughout, and the response addresses the proposal with relevant, extended arguments about fairness and practicality.
Strengthen the case by examining variable tax designs and supporting the car-tax comparison more convincingly.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas progress logically through a clear introduction, contrasting arguments, and a concise conclusion, with cohesive devices used effectively.
Make the transition from presenting supporters' claims to evaluating them slightly more analytical and less formulaic.
Lexical Resource
A broad and generally precise vocabulary supports the argument, despite a few slips such as 'little affect' and awkward collocation around travel costs.
Proofread for word-form errors and refine collocations such as 'make air travel more expensive.'
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex sentence structures is used accurately, and errors are rare and do not impede meaning.
Refine occasional awkward relative-clause and comparison structures to make already strong sentences more natural.
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
Air traffic is increasingly leading to more noise, pollution, and airport constuction. One reason for this is the growth in low-cost passenger flights, often to holiday destinations. Some people say that government should try to reduce air traffic by taxing it more heavily. Do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.