The topic of government regulation of fast food advertising to protect public health is a recurring theme in IELTS Writing Task 2. Based on analysis of past exam questions and current trends, this issue is likely to appear in future tests due to its relevance to global health concerns. Let’s examine a related question that has appeared in recent IELTS exams:
Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to choose their activities. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Analyzing the Question
This question asks you to discuss two contrasting views on government regulation of dangerous sports and provide your own opinion. While not directly about fast food advertising, it shares similarities in discussing government intervention for public safety. The key elements to address are:
- Arguments for banning dangerous sports
- Arguments for personal freedom of choice
- Your personal stance on the issue
Sample Essays for Different Band Scores
Band 8-9 Essay
In recent years, the debate over whether governments should prohibit hazardous sports has gained traction, with valid arguments on both sides. While some advocate for stringent regulations to ensure public safety, others champion individual liberty in choosing recreational activities. This essay will examine both perspectives before presenting my own viewpoint.
Proponents of government intervention argue that banning dangerous sports is essential for protecting citizens’ well-being. They contend that high-risk activities like base jumping or free solo climbing not only endanger participants but also place a burden on healthcare systems and emergency services. Moreover, they assert that the state has a responsibility to prevent unnecessary loss of life, particularly when individuals may not fully comprehend the risks involved. From this standpoint, prohibiting such sports is seen as a logical extension of other safety regulations, such as mandatory seatbelt laws.
On the other hand, those who oppose such bans emphasize the importance of personal freedom and autonomy. They maintain that individuals should have the right to make informed decisions about their own lives, including the risks they are willing to take for recreational purposes. Advocates of this view often argue that the thrill and sense of accomplishment derived from extreme sports can significantly enhance one’s quality of life and personal growth. Furthermore, they contend that banning these activities might drive them underground, potentially making them even more dangerous due to lack of proper safety measures and oversight.
In my opinion, while I acknowledge the government’s role in protecting public health, I believe that outright bans on dangerous sports are excessive and potentially counterproductive. Instead, I propose a balanced approach that focuses on education, regulation, and informed consent. Governments should invest in comprehensive safety education programs and implement stringent licensing requirements for high-risk activities. This would ensure that participants are fully aware of the dangers and adequately prepared to mitigate risks. Additionally, mandatory insurance policies could be introduced to address concerns about the burden on public healthcare systems.
In conclusion, the issue of regulating dangerous sports is complex and multifaceted. While safety concerns are valid, I believe that preserving individual freedom of choice is paramount. By adopting a nuanced approach that emphasizes education and responsible participation, governments can strike a balance between protecting public health and respecting personal autonomy.
(Word count: 368)
Band 6-7 Essay
The question of whether governments should ban dangerous sports or allow people to choose their activities freely is a controversial topic. There are arguments for both sides, and I will discuss them before giving my own opinion.
Those who support banning dangerous sports believe that the government has a duty to protect people’s lives. They argue that activities like extreme skiing or boxing can lead to severe injuries or even death. These sports not only harm the participants but also put a strain on medical services and can be traumatic for families. Supporters of this view think that by banning such sports, the government can prevent unnecessary accidents and save lives.
On the other hand, people who are against banning dangerous sports believe in personal freedom. They think that adults should have the right to decide what risks they want to take in their lives. They argue that dangerous sports can be exciting and help people challenge themselves and grow as individuals. Moreover, they point out that many everyday activities, like driving, can also be dangerous, so it’s not fair to single out specific sports for bans.
In my opinion, I don’t think governments should completely ban dangerous sports. While I understand the concern for public safety, I believe that people should have the freedom to make their own choices about the risks they take. However, I do think the government has a role to play in regulating these sports to make them safer. This could include setting safety standards, requiring proper training and equipment, and ensuring that participants are aware of the risks involved.
To conclude, while there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe that a balance can be struck between allowing personal freedom and ensuring public safety. Rather than outright bans, governments should focus on regulation and education to make dangerous sports as safe as possible for those who choose to participate.
(Word count: 309)
Band 5-6 Essay
Some people think governments should stop dangerous sports, but others say people should be free to choose. I will talk about both ideas and give my opinion.
People who want to ban dangerous sports think it’s the government’s job to keep people safe. They say sports like skydiving or mountain climbing can hurt or kill people. This is bad for the person and their family, and it costs money for hospitals. They believe stopping these sports will save lives.
But other people think we should be free to choose our own activities. They say adults can decide what risks they want to take. They think dangerous sports are fun and help people be brave. They also say that many things we do every day, like driving cars, can be dangerous too.
I think governments shouldn’t ban dangerous sports completely. People should be able to choose what they want to do. But I also think the government should make rules to make these sports safer. They could make sure people have good training and equipment before they do dangerous sports.
In conclusion, I believe people should be free to do dangerous sports if they want, but the government should help make them safer.
(Word count: 190)
Explaining the Scores
Band 8-9 Essay
This essay demonstrates excellence in all four marking criteria:
- Task Response: The essay fully addresses all parts of the task, presenting a well-developed response with relevant, extended and supported ideas.
- Coherence and Cohesion: Ideas are logically organized with clear progression throughout. Paragraphing is skillful and cohesive devices are used effectively.
- Lexical Resource: A wide range of vocabulary is used with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features. Rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: A wide range of structures is used with full flexibility and accuracy. The majority of sentences are error-free with only very occasional minor ‘slips’.
Band 6-7 Essay
This essay shows competence but with some limitations:
- Task Response: All parts of the task are addressed, but some parts may be more fully covered than others. The main ideas are relevant, but some may be insufficiently developed.
- Coherence and Cohesion: Information and ideas are generally arranged coherently, and there is a clear overall progression. Cohesive devices are used effectively, but cohesion within and/or between sentences may be faulty or mechanical.
- Lexical Resource: An adequate range of vocabulary is used for the task. Some less common lexical items are used, but there may be occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used. Some grammar and punctuation errors occur, but they rarely reduce communication.
Band 5-6 Essay
This essay shows some competence but with notable limitations:
- Task Response: The essay addresses the task only partially. The format may be inappropriate in places, and key features may be inadequately covered.
- Coherence and Cohesion: The overall progression of ideas is sometimes unclear, and paragraphing may be inadequate or overused. Basic cohesive devices are used but may be inaccurate or repetitive.
- Lexical Resource: A limited range of vocabulary is used, with some repetition. Word choice errors may cause some difficulty for the reader.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: A limited range of structures is used. Complex sentences are attempted but may contain errors. Errors in grammar and punctuation occur, but the meaning is generally clear.
Key Vocabulary to Remember
- Hazardous (adjective) /ˈhæz.ər.dəs/ – dangerous, especially to people’s health or safety
- Stringent (adjective) /ˈstrɪn.dʒənt/ – very strict or severe
- Intervention (noun) /ˌɪn.təˈven.ʃən/ – the action of becoming involved in a difficult situation in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse
- Autonomy (noun) /ɔːˈtɒn.ə.mi/ – the right of an organization, country, or region to be independent and govern itself
- Mitigate (verb) /ˈmɪt.ɪ.ɡeɪt/ – to make something less harmful, unpleasant, or bad
- Nuanced (adjective) /ˈnjuː.ɑːnst/ – characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression
- Paramount (adjective) /ˈpær.ə.maʊnt/ – more important than anything else
- Controversial (adjective) /ˌkɒn.trəˈvɜː.ʃəl/ – causing disagreement or discussion
- Traumatic (adjective) /trɔːˈmæt.ɪk/ – causing severe emotional shock and upset
- Regulation (noun) /ˌreɡ.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/ – an official rule that controls how something is done
Conclusion
The topic of government regulation, whether in sports or fast food advertising, is a common theme in IELTS Writing Task 2. By analyzing these sample essays, you can see how to approach similar questions about government intervention and personal freedom. Remember to address all parts of the question, use a range of vocabulary and grammatical structures, and organize your ideas coherently.
For further practice, try writing your own essay on the following related topic:
Some people believe that governments should regulate fast food advertising to protect public health, while others think individuals should have the freedom to make their own food choices. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Feel free to share your practice essay in the comments section below. This active engagement will help you improve your writing skills and prepare effectively for the IELTS exam.