IELTS Writing Samples Task 2

Some people say kids need to go school very early because they will learn more things fast. They think if the children start young they get smart and know many subject before other kids. Also parents want send them early because parents are busy and don’t have time so school is good place to put children. But other people think children should wait because they are too small and they cry a lot. If they go school too early they get stress and don’t enjoy life. Also young children cannot focus long time so they not learn much anyway. They need more time with family at home. In my opinion I think kids should start school not too early or late. Maybe middle is best because then they are ready but not too old. If start early maybe good sometimes but not always. So it depend on the child and the parent. Overall I think both side has reason. But we need think what is better for most children but also every family is different so no one answer for everybody.

Working from home has become more common in recent years, and many employees prefer it to working in an office. This situation has both positive and negative effects. One clear advantage is that people can save time. When employees work from home, they do not need to travel long distances every day, which helps them avoid traffic and reduce stress. They can also use this extra time for their family or personal activities. Another benefit is comfort. Many people feel more relaxed at home, and this can help them focus better on their tasks. However, there are several disadvantages. One problem is that working from home can be lonely. Employees may miss talking to their colleagues and being part of a team. This can make work feel less enjoyable. Another issue is that some people find it hard to separate work life from home life. Because they are in the same place all day, they might work longer hours without noticing, which can lead to tiredness. In conclusion, working from home has benefits such as saving time and feeling comfortable, but it also causes problems like isolation and difficulty maintaining a work–life balance. Employees need to manage their time carefully to reduce these disadvantages.

Many people believe that children should learn a foreign language as early as possible. I agree with this idea, although it should be introduced in a way that does not place unnecessary pressure on young learners. One reason to support early language learning is that children tend to absorb new sounds and vocabulary more easily than adults. Their brains are still developing, so they can pick up pronunciation and grammar naturally through songs, games, and everyday activities. This early exposure can give them greater confidence and fluency later in life. Another benefit is that learning a language helps children understand other cultures. When they learn about different countries and ways of life, they become more open-minded and accepting. This is an important skill in an increasingly global world. Even simple classroom activities can encourage curiosity and respect for diversity. However, starting too young may cause stress if lessons are overly strict or academic. Children need time to play, explore, and develop basic skills in their first language. For this reason, foreign languages should be taught in a relaxed and enjoyable way. Activities such as storytelling, games, and songs are effective without overwhelming children. In conclusion, I agree that learning a foreign language early is beneficial, but only if it is taught through engaging and age-appropriate methods. This approach allows children to enjoy the process while gaining valuable skills for the future.

There is ongoing debate about the primary purpose of university education. Some maintain that universities exist to advance academic knowledge, while others argue that practical skills are just as valuable. Both sides present compelling arguments, but the most effective system draws strength from each. Those who favour academic study point out that universities have historically been centres of intellectual exploration. Rigorous theoretical training builds analytical thinking and deep subject mastery, which are essential for fields such as science, medicine, and law. Without a strong academic foundation, societies would struggle to innovate or produce experts capable of addressing complex challenges. In this sense, academic knowledge forms the backbone of long-term progress. However, practical skills have become increasingly important in a rapidly changing job market. Employers expect graduates not only to understand concepts but also to apply them in real-world contexts. Practical education—through internships, laboratory work, and industry partnerships—helps students gain confidence and adaptability. This approach reduces the gap between academic theory and professional expectations, allowing graduates to transition smoothly into the workforce. In my view, the most effective university model blends theoretical depth with applied learning. Academic understanding provides intellectual structure, while practical training ensures relevance and employability. Universities that integrate both create graduates who are not only knowledgeable but also capable of using their skills meaningfully. To conclude, both academic knowledge and practical skills serve vital roles in higher education. A balanced approach enables students to develop expertise that is both intellectually grounded and professionally useful.

Urban green spaces are disappearing in many cities as demand for housing rises. While this trend is understandable, the consequences for city residents and the environment are significant. Fortunately, several practical measures could help mitigate the worst effects. One major problem is the decline in physical and mental well-being. Parks offer safe, accessible places for exercise, which reduces the risk of lifestyle-related illnesses. They also provide calm environments that help people cope with stress. Without these spaces, residents may become more sedentary and experience higher levels of anxiety. Another issue is environmental degradation. Trees and plants naturally cool cities and filter the air. When they are removed, urban temperatures rise and pollution increases, making cities less comfortable and more hazardous. To address these problems, a mix of regulation and creative urban planning is needed. Governments can enforce strict requirements that force developers to include green areas within new residential zones. This could be achieved through rooftop gardens, small neighbourhood parks, or tree-lined walkways. Additionally, authorities can reclaim underused land—such as abandoned lots or industrial sites—and convert them into public green areas. By integrating greenery into existing neighbourhoods, cities can expand housing without sacrificing residents’ quality of life. In summary, losing green space harms public health and worsens environmental conditions. With sensible planning and firm regulations, cities can continue to grow while preserving the natural spaces that make urban life liveable.

Governments around the world are increasingly confronted with rising congestion and environmental degradation, both of which are closely tied to private vehicle use. While some argue that only substantial public investment in mass transit can address these issues effectively, others contend that individuals must make more responsible transport decisions. Both perspectives merit consideration, but a balanced approach combining systemic and personal action is ultimately the most sustainable. Those who support government-led intervention emphasize that large-scale transportation infrastructure is beyond the control of individual citizens. Efficient metro networks, rapid bus systems, and integrated cycling lanes require coordinated planning, long-term funding, and regulatory authority. Where such systems are robust and reliable, people naturally shift away from private cars. Cities like Singapore and Copenhagen demonstrate that when governments provide inexpensive, punctual, and comfortable public transit, traffic congestion decreases dramatically and air quality improves. Without this foundation, expecting individuals to forgo cars is unrealistic, as convenience and safety are often tied to the quality of available alternatives. On the other hand, advocates of individual responsibility argue that behavioural change is critical regardless of infrastructure. Even in cities with excellent public transport, many still choose to drive due to habit or social preference. Personal decisions—such as carpooling, walking short distances, or using bicycles—can collectively reduce emissions and road density. Moreover, individuals shape demand: when citizens voluntarily support greener transport options, governments are encouraged to expand and improve such services. Relying solely on public investment without corresponding shifts in personal habits may yield limited progress. In my view, solving the twin challenges of congestion and pollution requires active participation from both sides. Governments must ensure that low-carbon transport options are accessible, affordable, and efficient. Simultaneously, citizens must recognise the environmental cost of private vehicle dependence and make informed choices that align with broader sustainability goals. This reciprocal relationship maximises the impact of public spending and accelerates behavioural change. In conclusion, neither government investment nor individual responsibility alone can adequately reduce traffic and pollution. A coordinated strategy—strong public transit systems supported by conscious personal choices—offers the most effective path toward cleaner, less congested cities.