IELTS writing task 2 sample answer

Some IELTS writing task 2 sample answers are given bellow. These sample answers will give you a clear idea about the writing task 2 structure and you will also learn how to construct top graded sentences for IELTS writing. Thank you very much for taking time to read these. Good luck with your IELTS preparation. 

ielts writing task 2 sample answer

IELTS Writing task sample answers 

Some people think that modern technology is on its way to create a single world culture. Do you support this idea?

Technology has come up a long way and a mere glance at all the technological advancements that are taking place every day does pay appropriate homage to that notion. It is affecting our lives in ways previously unmatched and unimaginable and I strongly agree with the statement that modern technology is creating a single world culture. Modern technology like computers and the internet is bringing people together and making the world smaller.

First of all, with the development of modern technology such as computers, English is becoming the most important language in the world and the important language in the world and the importance of other languages is getting weaker and weaker. Admit it or not, the most common language in the internet today is English and this may lead to making English the one and only important language of the world. On the other hand, computer can cross the barriers of human language. No matter where people are and no matter which language people speak, they always use computers the same way-basically they are using the same kind of software packages, like windows operating system and word processing software packages. The computer language is also a universal language. Programmers from different part of the world rely on that one particular language. Programmers from different part of the world can work in the Silicon Valley together. Although they might have difficulties communicating in English, they have no problem at all writing programs with Java or C++.

Besides, the development of the internet is unifying people’s lifestyle. Interest is being used in every corner of the world. People are doing almost everything with the internet, like getting all sorts of information, shopping online, paying for the bills and checking their balance in online banks. Over 90 percent of people in the world use same kind of internet browser, like the internet Explorer and they differ in language and design. People from all over the world are doing the same thing each day on the internet and their living habit is becoming closer with each passing day.

In addition, Modern technology has facilitated the communication from people all over the world and therefore has resulted a single world culture. For instance, people can chat with stranger and friends living in abroad over the phone, or the internet and they can also see and listen to him/her through a camera and a microphone attached to the computer the ease of communication helps one culture bring the world together. Before people can see each other through television, they used to wear local costume: now-a-days t-shirt and blue jeans have become universal custom for people. This is a concrete example that modern development is creating a single world culture.

Based on the points discussed above, we can see why I agree with that modern technology is creating a single world culture. It is something that defines our lifestyle and living standards in the modern world and as we can see, its grasp over human life is always likely to improve.     


Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits.

Discuss both views and state your opinion.

There is frequently great competition to host international sporting events. Not everyone, however, believes that the price involved in hosting such events is worthwhile. For me, this is an understandable point of view and perhaps not every country should try and stage international sporting events.

The major argument against hosting international sporting events is financial. Typically, it can cost several million pounds to build the arenas and modernize the infrastructure so that it can cater for the athletes and spectators. This money, it is argued, would be better spent on welfare and education programmers that provide direct support for the population. Indeed, some governments have incurred so much debt through hosting the Olympic Games that they have had to reduce spending on other social programmers.

While there is some merit in that argument, hosting sporting events does also bring significant benefits. First among these is the honour and prestige it brings to the host country because that country will be the center of the sporting world for the duration of the event. For many people this is beyond any price. More than that, if the authorities plan carefully, they can use the occasion of the sporting event to help finance public works that benefit the whole population in the long term. For example, the village for the athletes can be transformed into public housing and the various stadia can be used to build a sporting legacy for future generations.

My own view is that it is an honour for a country to host a major sporting event. However, if a government wishes to bid for an international event to be staged in its country, it should ensure it has sufficient funds to maintain spending on other projects.


The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Most people world accept than one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environment problem facing mankind .The strains and pressures that human activities (in large part) have created on environment has taken a toll and it is of importance that we find a solution to this .It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.

One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environment problem the world faces today. If government s did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution. However, it would not help other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution .For this problems we need to find other solutions. Relevancy is quite crucial. For instance, you cannot go to a gynaecologist for back pain. 

 A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individuals live our lives .If we wish to find a long time and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to do make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.

In summer, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a sort-team solution to only one environmental problem and not all. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education and awareness in general, are likely to be the keys to making this happen.


We are becoming increasingly dependent on computer technology. It is used in business, crime detection and even to fly planes. What will it be used for in future? Is this dependence on technology a good thing or should we be suspicious of its benefits?

As we move into faster times, it is clear to see that we have become more and more dependent on computers and information technology. This technology now reaches into almost every area of our lives and it is easy to predict that this phenomenon is only going to grow. My personal belief is that this presents a variety of dangers.

It is highly likely that in the future there will be comparatively few aspects of our lives that will not be influenced by computer technology, digital marketing, visual technology. Technology covers a wide spectrum of subjects and parts of our lives already and in respect to that, the future implications just look to be ever more widespread. The probability is that it will control more and more forms of communication, transforming fields such as education and business when video-conferencing platforms become more might even affect romance with more people forming relationships online.

While there may be benefits to this technological revolution, there are also a number of potential dangers like privacy violation digital marketing companies. Perhaps, the most serious of these would be that if people rely on computers too much for communication, they could in fact begin to communicate less well.

For example, if every member of a family had their own computer screen and smartphone, they might speak less and less often to one another and simply look at a screen.  This would be serious because our ability to communicate in an essential part of our humanity. We might just end up living and growing up in society where people are more inclined to favor technology-based communication rather than having face to face interactions.

My conclusion is that the growth of computer technology in inevitable but that this may not be entirely positive. Just one area in which it is possible to foresee dangers is communication and if we are going to ensure that computers do not become a negative influence, we need to think carefully how we use them.               

ielts writing task 2 sample answer                                                                       

Some people prefer to live in a house while others think that there are more advantages living in an apartment. Are there any more advantages than disadvantages to living in a house rather than in an apartment?

Many people nowadays face a difficult decision when the buy their own home. The question is whether they should buy a house or an apartment. There would seem to be clear benefits and drawbacks to both options.

Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it is a detached house. Other significant advantages are that the houses are generally more spacious and on the whole, have gardens or more generally, space for other things. This is especially important if there is a family so that the children can have a safe environment to play in. if, however, you live in a tower block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.

There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of these is that they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain. Indeed, a large majority of people choose to live in apartments because they could not afford the mortgage to buy a house. Another possible problem is that there are fewer houses in cities than the countryside. So, if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of community to life in an apartment.

My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably an equal number of pros and cons to making either choice. Unlimitedly, whether you decide to live in a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family and financial circumstances.

Subject such as Art, Sport and music are being dropped from the school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology. Many people children suffer as a result of these changes.

To what extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these subjects from school curriculum?                                           

In recent times there has been much debate about which subjects should be included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be found for primary and secondary schools.

There is one major argument in favor of replacing art, music and sport on the curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children for their working life after school like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. From this point of view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example it is easy to say that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more than the ability to run fast or draw well.

There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purposes of education is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their “all round “culture”. It is important that children leave school with some knowledge of art, music and sports as all these are all help develop aspects of young people’s personalities.

My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these subjects so that they can continue to study them if they wish.

International sporting events like the Olympics and football World Cup place huge financial burdens on host nations that cannot be justified.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There is little doubt that today’s global sports competitions like the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup are extremely popular. Countries compete hard to win hosting rights and potentially television audiences are enormous. But is money spent on hosting these events actually well spent?

One the one hand, the cost is very high. During a campaign to win hosting rights and is very expensive, even before we address allegations that the process is corrupt anyway. Building infrastructure such as stadium, pools and transport facilities costs a huge amount of money and is so difficult that it is not always possible on time, such as in Brazil in 2014.Maybe it would be better if this resource was directed towards vital services, like health and education.

On the other hand, there are many benefits. For the London Olympics, a run down and deprived part of the city was regenerated by building new facilities. What is more, a great number of jobs and employment were created, both preparing for the games and holding the event itself. Any large sporting competition brings thousands of visitors to the host country, which contributes to the economy. And afterwards, the local community can enjoy the use of truly world class sports venues.

On balance, there are obviously risks involved in hosting these events. But if it is managed well, the Olympic or World Cup can probably make a profit for the host nation. And there is also the ‘feel good’ factor, which it is impossible to put a price on.