Some people say that air travel is one of the main reasons for increased environmental pollution. Should we reduce the number of tourist flights in order to reduce pollution? What is your viewpoint on this issue?
Sample Response
Pollution is one of the serious threats which have pernicious influences on our environment and people. It is a common and widely discussed issue of whether we should reduce the number of tourist flights to reduce pollution. This essay examines the pros and cones of this and draws a reasonable conclusion.
On the one hand, there are some strong grounds to support the opinion of reducing the number of tourist flights to control air pollution. Firstly, air flights not only causes air pollution, but it also contributes to noise pollution. Hence it affects the environment as well as people at the same time. Another important reason is- it is not always income-generating, while it depends on seasons and it may lead to economical losses.
On the other hand, it is fairly easy to understand the reasons for not reducing tourist flights with the view of pollution control. Firstly, it is not only the reason for pollution. Also reducing tourist flights does not have an impact on pollution. However, we adopt other possible strategies to limit pollution. Primarily, we should develop technologies to build neat and clean flights especially with any technology to cap the carbon emission which is the prime cause of air pollution. Secondly, we can alter the schedule and number of tourist flights. To make it clearer, arrange these flights in such a way that it could reduce financial loss. Thus we can arrange more flights in the appropriate seasons with correct destinations.
To conclude, when we analyse the different aspects, it is proved beyond doubt that we should not reduce the number of tourist flights rather arrange in a systematic and accessible way to increase national economy. The government should implement better strategies to boost our prosperity.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use superlative structure Original: one of the serious threats Suggested revision: one of the most serious threats Why it matters: The structure “one of the” requires a superlative when selecting from a group.
- 2. Match singular subject Original: which have pernicious influences Suggested revision: that has a pernicious influence Why it matters: The clause describes singular “pollution”, so both the verb and noun should be singular.
- 3. Use natural collocation Original: issue of whether Suggested revision: debate over whether Why it matters: “Debate over whether” is the more natural expression for a disputed question.
- 4. Correct spelling Original: pros and cones Suggested revision: pros and cons Why it matters: The fixed pair is “pros and cons”.
- 5. Improve noun pattern Original: grounds to support the opinion of reducing Suggested revision: grounds for supporting the proposal to reduce Why it matters: “Grounds for supporting” is the correct noun-preposition pattern and identifies the proposal clearly.
- 6. Complete point marker Original: Another important reason is- Suggested revision: Another important point is that Why it matters: The revised phrase grammatically introduces the following clause without an incorrect dash.
- 7. Clarify causal link Original: while it depends on seasons Suggested revision: because it depends on the season Why it matters: The intended relationship is causal rather than contrastive.
- 8. Choose correct adjective Original: economical losses Suggested revision: economic losses Why it matters: “Economic” relates to money, whereas “economical” means inexpensive.
- 9. Fix purpose phrase Original: with the view of pollution control Suggested revision: with a view to controlling pollution Why it matters: The fixed structure is “with a view to” followed by a gerund.
- 10. Correct limiting phrase Original: it is not only the reason for pollution Suggested revision: it is not the only cause of pollution Why it matters: “Not the only” correctly states that other causes also exist.
- 11. Punctuate linker Original: Also reducing Suggested revision: Also, reducing Why it matters: The sentence-opening linker requires a following comma.
- 12. Express alternative action Original: However, we adopt Suggested revision: Instead, we could adopt Why it matters: “Instead” expresses the proposed alternative, and the modal avoids an unsupported statement of present action.
Suggested Rewrites
- one of the serious threats one of the most serious threats
- which have pernicious influences that has a pernicious influence
- issue of whether debate over whether
- pros and cones pros and cons
- grounds to support the opinion of reducing grounds for supporting the proposal to reduce
- Another important reason is- Another important point is that
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response gives a clear view against reducing tourist flights and uses a recognisable two-sided structure, with cleaner aircraft offered as a relevant alternative. However, the environmental reasoning is thin and sometimes contradictory, while seasonal profitability and national prosperity distract from the pollution question. The highest-priority improvement is to compare flight reductions with cleaner aviation technology using specific evidence about emissions, keeping every supporting point focused on environmental outcomes.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
The response addresses both positions and reaches a clear conclusion, but several points are underdeveloped, partly irrelevant, or unsupported by coherent environmental reasoning.
Explain why cleaner technology would reduce pollution more effectively than fewer flights, and remove claims concerned only with seasonal revenue.
Coherence and Cohesion
The paragraph structure and overall progression are clear, although mechanical sequencing, vague references, and abrupt logical shifts weaken cohesion within the body paragraphs.
Give each body paragraph one environmental claim and link every subsequent sentence through an explicit cause-and-effect relationship.
Lexical Resource
The response uses a sufficient range of environmental and economic vocabulary, but inaccurate spelling, collocation, and word choice recur.
Replace expressions such as pros and cones, economical losses, and neat and clean flights with precise academic alternatives.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Simple and complex structures are attempted, but frequent agreement, article, punctuation, and clause-construction errors reduce control and occasionally obscure relationships.
Check every complex sentence for a complete main clause and correct agreement before adding linking words or additional clauses.
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 say that air travel is one of the main reasons for increased environmental pollution. Should we reduce the number of tourist flights in order to reduce pollution? What is your viewpoint on this issue?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.