Discussion essay – three answers compared

A Task 2 discuss both views and give your opinion essay answered at around Band 5.5, 6.5 and 8. See how to treat both views fairly, argue your own view and upgrade the language.

A discussion question gives you two views and asks for three things, not two. You must discuss the first view, discuss the second view, and give your own opinion. Weak answers usually fail the third job: they list points for each side, say both views are right and stop. Strong answers treat each view fairly and then argue for a view of their own, with a reason. This lesson shows the difference on one question.

The task

Writing Task 2. You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic.

Some people think that the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is for individuals to change how they live, for example by flying less and eating less meat. Others believe that only governments and large companies can bring about real change.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Reading the question before you write

Mark the two views: View 1 (individuals, with two examples) and View 2 (governments and large companies, the word only makes it strong). Then mark the instruction, which has two parts: discuss both views and give your own opinion. Both parts are marked in Task Response. Then decide your opinion before you write, because it controls how you discuss the views.

The two views are not exclusive, and the commonest opinion, both are important, is acceptable only if you say how they relate. These are the main routes.

Plan the essay as four paragraphs: introduction (both views and your opinion in brief), View 1, View 2, conclusion. Your opinion should be visible in the introduction, argued in the body (usually in the way you judge each view), and restated in the conclusion.

Answer A, around Band 5.5

Nowadays, climate change is one of the biggest problems in the world. Some people think that individuals should change their lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions, while other people believe that government and big companies should do it. In this essay I will discuss both views and give my opinion.

On the one hand, individuals can do many things to protect the environment. For example, they can fly less and eat less meat, because airplanes and animals produce a lot of carbon. Also, people can use public transport instead of car, turn off the lights and recycle the rubbish. If every person do these things, the emissions will be reduced very much. Moreover, when people changes their habits, they become more responsible for the nature and their children will learn from them.

On the other hand, the government and companies has more power than individuals. The government can make laws and punish the companies which pollute the air, and it can give money to people who buy electric cars. In addition, big companies have a lot of money, so they can build solar panels and wind farms and produce clean energy. Factories also produce much pollution, so they must change first. Without them, it is impossible to solve this problem.

In my opinion, both views are right. Individuals should change their lifestyle and the government should make laws. Everyone must work together to protect our planet for the future generations. In conclusion, climate change is a serious problem and we must take action now before it is too late.

Examiner-style commentary on Answer A

Task Response. Both views are presented and they are relevant, but the discussion is a list. Each paragraph strings together points (fly less, public transport, turn off the lights, recycle) without explaining which matters most or why. Some points are not about the question (recycle the rubbish is not mainly about carbon, children will learn from them is a side issue). The opinion arrives only in the last paragraph, as both views are right, and it has no reason. It does not say how the two views relate, and the next two sentences restate the views. The essay never decides anything. Around Band 5.

Coherence and Cohesion. The four-paragraph plan is clear and each body paragraph is about one view. Beyond that the organisation is formulaic (On the one hand, On the other hand, Also, Moreover, In addition). The introduction copies the question and ends with the memorised In this essay I will discuss both views and give my opinion. The conclusion adds nothing, and within paragraphs points follow each other without progression. Around Band 5.5.

Lexical Resource. The topic words are the right ones (carbon emissions, public transport, solar panels, wind farms, clean energy), which is the main strength. They are used in a very general way, and the same words are repeated (big, a lot of, pollution, change). The openings (Nowadays, one of the biggest problems in the world, before it is too late) are memorised, and there are errors of word choice (produce a lot of carbon, instead of car, responsible for the nature, the future generations). Around Band 5.5.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy. Most sentences are simple or joined by and, so and because, with a few relative clauses (the companies which pollute the air) and one conditional. Errors are frequent, particularly agreement (if every person do, people changes, the government and companies has) and articles (instead of car, the nature), and the sentence Without them, it is impossible to solve this problem has an unclear reference. Most errors do not stop the reader understanding. Around Band 5.5.

Estimate: Task Response around 5, Coherence and Cohesion around 5.5, Lexical Resource around 5.5, Grammar around 5.5, which is around Band 5.5 overall.

Answer B, around Band 6.5

Reducing carbon emissions is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. While some people believe that the choices made by individuals are the key, others argue that only governments and large companies can achieve real change. Although both groups have a point, I believe that governments must take the lead.

Those who support individual action argue that every person is responsible for the emissions they cause. A frequent flyer or a heavy meat eater has a much larger carbon footprint than someone who travels by train and eats mainly vegetables, so changing these habits can make a real difference. Moreover, if enough people change their behaviour, companies will have to respond by offering greener products, as has happened with the growth of vegetarian food in supermarkets.

However, the individual approach has clear limits. Many people cannot easily choose a low-carbon lifestyle, because there is no reliable train service where they live, or because green alternatives are too expensive. Governments, on the other hand, can change the whole system. They can tax pollution, invest in public transport and set rules for energy companies, and these measures affect millions of people at the same time. Large companies also have a responsibility, since a big part of emissions comes from industry and electricity generation, which ordinary people cannot control.

For these reasons, I believe that the government should have the main role. Individual actions are still important, but they are not enough despite of the efforts of many people. If the government does not act, the problem will not be solved.

In conclusion, although individuals can help to reduce emissions, governments and large companies are in a stronger position to make the necessary changes, so I think they should take the lead.

Examiner-style commentary on Answer B

Task Response. Both views are discussed and the opinion is clear from the introduction: governments must take the lead. The discussion of View 1 is fair and gives an example (a frequent flyer compared with a train traveller) and a consequence (companies respond). The discussion of View 2 is stronger, because it names the limits of individual choice and what governments can do. The weakness is that the role of companies, which the question includes, gets one sentence, and the claim a big part of emissions comes from industry and electricity generation is stated but not explained. The fourth paragraph repeats the opinion without new support. Around Band 6.5.

Coherence and Cohesion. The structure is clear and the opinion is built into the discussion, since the However paragraph is both a discussion of View 2 and an argument for it. Linking is accurate (Moreover, However, on the other hand, For these reasons) but obvious. The fourth paragraph and the conclusion say almost the same thing, so the essay ends twice. Which ordinary people cannot control is a good reference. Around Band 6.5.

Lexical Resource. The vocabulary is accurate and suited to the topic (carbon footprint, low-carbon lifestyle, electricity generation, tax pollution, take the lead). It is repeated and general in places (make a real difference, a big part, a responsibility), and vegetarian food and the whole system are less precise than they could be. There is one clear error, despite of. Around Band 6.5.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy. There is good variety: while and although clauses at the start, a relative clause with which, a conditional, present perfect (as has happened) and reasons with because and since. The sentences are mostly accurate. There is one clear error (despite of). Many sentences start with the subject and a simple verb, and the range of complex structures is narrower than in Band 7 and above. Around Band 6.5.

Estimate: Task Response around 6.5, Coherence and Cohesion around 6.5, Lexical Resource around 6.5, Grammar around 6.5, which is around Band 6.5 overall.

Answer C, around Band 8

The climate crisis is often presented as a choice between personal virtue and political action. In my view this is a false choice, but if the question is where the greater responsibility lies, it lies with governments and large companies, with individuals playing a supporting role.

The case for personal action has real force. Some choices have a large effect on a single person’s footprint: someone who flies several times a year or eats meat at most meals produces far more emissions than someone who does neither, and no policy can decide those habits for them. When enough people change their habits, companies follow, as the spread of vegetarian ranges in supermarkets shows.

Nevertheless, personal choices operate within limits that individuals did not set. In most countries a household cannot decide how the national grid is powered, whether the nearest railway station has a service after nine o’clock, or whether a building is insulated to a modern standard, yet these systems account for a large share of everyday emissions. Governments can change them through carbon pricing, building regulations and investment in rail and renewable energy, and large companies, which control energy generation, manufacturing and freight, can change them through their own decisions. A single reform can therefore achieve what millions of separate decisions cannot.

That does not make individual action irrelevant. Voters and consumers are the reason that governments and companies feel pressure to act, and a person who changes behaviour also helps to shift public opinion.

In conclusion, personal responsibility and public policy are not rivals, but policy is what makes the right choice the easy one, and it is therefore the more effective route.

Examiner-style commentary on Answer C

Task Response. The introduction does more than repeat the question. It refuses the either-or framing and states a precise opinion (the greater responsibility lies with governments and large companies, individuals in a supporting role). View 1 is presented at its strongest, with a specific comparison and the argument that behaviour shifts norms and the market. View 2 is argued with three named mechanisms for governments and three areas of company control. The fourth paragraph returns to View 1 to explain how it connects to the opinion, so the both position has a reason. The ideas are fully developed. What keeps it at Band 8 and not 9 is that the claims about emissions are general and the examples are not tied to a particular country. Around Band 8.

Coherence and Cohesion. The organisation serves the argument: fair statement of View 1, then the limit (Nevertheless), then the mechanisms, then the link back to individuals. The conclusion rests on the same logic. Cohesion comes from reference and repetition of key terms (choices, systems, change them) and from the signposts Nevertheless and therefore, not from a series of additive connectors. Paragraphs have clear topic sentences (The case for personal action has real force). Around Band 8.

Lexical Resource. The vocabulary is precise and flexible: a false choice, personal virtue, supporting role, carbon pricing, building regulations, renewable energy, freight, norms, shift public opinion. Collocations are right (account for a large share, feel pressure to act, operate within limits), and paraphrase is skilful (emissions, footprint, everyday emissions). The register is formal without sounding memorised. Around Band 8.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy. A wide range, with control: a conditional framing (if the question is where…), a participle phrase (with individuals playing…), non-defining relative clauses (which control…), noun clauses (whether the nearest railway station has…), a cleft-like emphasis (policy is what makes the right choice the easy one) and a fronted adverbial (Nevertheless). The sentences are long but clear, and almost error-free. Around Band 8.

Estimate: Task Response around 8, Coherence and Cohesion around 8, Lexical Resource around 8, Grammar around 8, which is around Band 8 overall.

What separates the three answers

In A the opinion is a slogan, in B it is an argument, and in C it is the organising idea of the whole essay.

The upgrade

Eight sentences from Answer B, each rewritten to the standard of Answer C, with the reason.

1. B: Reducing carbon emissions is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. C: The climate crisis is often presented as a choice between personal virtue and political action. Why: The original is a truism that fits any essay on the environment. The rewrite already frames the two views.

2. B: Although both groups have a point, I believe that governments must take the lead. C: In my view this is a false choice, but if the question is where the greater responsibility lies, it lies with governments and large companies, with individuals playing a supporting role. Why: Both have a point is vague. The rewrite says how the views relate and what the opinion is.

3. B: A frequent flyer or a heavy meat eater has a much larger carbon footprint than someone who travels by train and eats mainly vegetables, so changing these habits can make a real difference. C: Some choices have a large effect on a single person’s footprint: someone who flies several times a year or eats meat at most meals produces far more emissions than someone who does neither, and no policy can decide those habits for them. Why: The comparison is more exact, and the last clause gives a reason why View 1 deserves respect.

4. B: Moreover, if enough people change their behaviour, companies will have to respond by offering greener products, as has happened with the growth of vegetarian food in supermarkets. C: When enough people change their habits, companies follow, as the spread of vegetarian ranges in supermarkets shows. Why: Will have to overclaims. The rewrite is shorter, and the example now works as evidence.

5. B: Many people cannot easily choose a low-carbon lifestyle, because there is no reliable train service where they live, or because green alternatives are too expensive. C: In most countries a household cannot decide how the national grid is powered, whether the nearest railway station has a service after nine o’clock, or whether a building is insulated to a modern standard. Why: Three specific examples of systems replace a general statement, and the grammar is more varied.

6. B: They can tax pollution, invest in public transport and set rules for energy companies, and these measures affect millions of people at the same time. C: Governments can change them through carbon pricing, building regulations and investment in rail and renewable energy… A single reform can therefore achieve what millions of separate decisions cannot. Why: The tools are named exactly, and the last sentence turns the list into an argument.

7. B: Large companies also have a responsibility, since a big part of emissions comes from industry and electricity generation, which ordinary people cannot control. C: …and large companies, which control energy generation, manufacturing and freight, can change them through their own decisions. Why: A responsibility is vague, and a big part has no source. The rewrite says what companies control and what they can do.

8. B: Individual actions are still important, but they are not enough despite of the efforts of many people. C: That does not make individual action irrelevant. Voters and consumers are the reason that governments and companies feel pressure to act, and a person who changes behaviour also helps to shift public opinion. Why: The error despite of is gone, and the paragraph now connects View 1 to the opinion in place of repeating it.

Checklist for a discussion essay

1. Three jobs. Discuss View 1, discuss View 2, give your own opinion. Tick each in the plan.
2. Opinion first. Decide what you think before you write, and put it in the introduction in one sentence.
3. Both views at their strongest. Present the view you reject fairly, with a reason and an example.
4. Argue, do not list. Choose one or two main points for each view and explain them in full, with a reason and a result.
5. If you say both, say how. Both matter needs a reason (policy makes the right choice easy, and individuals create the pressure for policy).
6. Stay on the question. Here, the topic is carbon emissions, so recycling or children as role models are side issues.
7. Topic sentences and logic. Each paragraph opens with its point. Use Nevertheless, therefore, since and reference words in place of Moreover and In addition.
8. No formulas. Leave out In this essay I will discuss both views and a conclusion that begins with a new idea.
9. Precise nouns. Replace big, a lot of, a good thing with exact words (carbon pricing, freight, a large share).
10. Check. Agreement, articles, prepositions (despite, not despite of), and 250 words or more.

Practice task

Writing Task 2. Some people think that the best way to reduce crime is to give offenders longer prison sentences. Others believe that it is more effective to spend money on education and job training. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Short plan

• Opinion. Prevention is more effective in the long term, but prison remains necessary for serious and violent offenders.
• Paragraph 1 (longer sentences). They protect the public while the offender is inside and may express society’s judgement of serious crimes. The limits: it is often argued that the chance of being caught deters more than the length of the sentence, and prison is expensive.
• Paragraph 2 (education and training). It deals with the causes: a person with qualifications and a job has more to lose from crime, and rehabilitation can reduce reoffending. The limit: results take years, and the programmes must be funded first.
• Opinion link. A mixed system, with the money weighted to prevention. The reason is that prison manages crime and education prevents it.
• Check. Do not simply write both are right. Say which view matters more and why, and develop both paragraphs equally.

Key points

• A discussion question has three jobs: discuss View 1, discuss View 2, give your opinion. The opinion is the job that weak essays skip.
• State your opinion in the introduction and argue it through the way you judge each view.
• Present the view you reject at its strongest, with a reason and an example.
• Both are right is acceptable only with a reason that explains how the two views relate.
• Replace formulas and additive connectors with topic sentences, logic and precise vocabulary.

IELTS is a registered trademark of the British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia and Cambridge University Press & Assessment. PrepFreely is not affiliated with, approved or endorsed by them.