IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answers

Some people say city must spend more money for parks and green place, but other people think build house is better. I will discuss both side and give my opinion.

People who like parks say that parks are important for health. When people go to park they can walk and run and play sport, so they are more healthy. Also park make the air more clean because there are many trees. In big city there is too much pollution and car so people need green place to relax after work. Children also need park to play because many family live in apartment with no garden.

But other people think house is more important. In many city the house price is very high and young people cannot buy house. Some people live in very small room or they live with parents for long time. If government build more house, the price will go down and more people can have home. I think this is a big problem than parks. Also when people have no house, some of them live on the street and it is not safe.

In my opinion, both is important but house is more important because everyone need a place to live. Government should build more house first and after that they can make parks. In conclusion, both side have good reasons but I think houses is better.

Cities have limited budgets, and there is disagreement about whether they should invest more in parks and green spaces or in new housing. Both views have merit, but in my opinion the two goals do not have to compete.

Supporters of green spaces argue that parks are essential for residents' health. They give people somewhere to exercise and relax, which can reduce stress and obesity. Trees also improve air quality and lower temperatures in summer, which is increasingly important as cities become hotter. Parks also bring neighbours together, for example at weekend markets or sports events. Without such areas, city life can become crowded and unhealthy.

Those who prefer spending on housing point out that many cities are facing a serious shortage of affordable homes. Rents have risen so much that young workers and families are often forced to live far from their jobs or in overcrowded flats. From this point of view, building homes is a more urgent need, because a park is of little use to someone who cannot afford a place to live.

In my view, housing should be the priority, but new developments should include green spaces from the start. For example, a new residential area can be designed with small parks and tree-lined streets, so residents benefit from both. In this way, cities can meet the demand for homes without sacrificing the quality of life that green areas provide.

In conclusion, while both parks and housing are important, I believe the best solution is to combine them rather than choosing one over the other.

As urban populations grow, city authorities must decide whether scarce public funds are better directed towards parks and green spaces or towards new housing. While there are persuasive arguments on both sides, I believe that the most sensible policy is to treat green space as an integral part of housing development rather than as a rival to it.

Advocates of greener cities emphasise the long-term public benefits of parks. Access to open space encourages physical activity and has been linked to lower levels of stress, while trees absorb pollutants and help to counteract the heat that builds up in dense urban areas. These advantages are shared by every resident regardless of income, which arguably makes parks one of the fairest forms of public investment.

Those who favour housing, by contrast, point to the immediate hardship caused by a lack of affordable homes. In many major cities, rents now consume such a large share of income that nurses, teachers and other essential workers are pushed to distant suburbs or into overcrowded accommodation. For people in this position, a new park nearby is hardly a priority when a secure home remains out of reach.

In my opinion, framing the issue as a choice between the two is misleading. New residential districts can be planned with shared gardens, pocket parks and tree-lined streets, so that additional homes come with the green space their residents need. Prioritising housing in this way addresses the more pressing problem without repeating the mistake of building dense neighbourhoods with nowhere for people to breathe.

In conclusion, housing deserves priority in most cities today, but it should be delivered in a way that makes green space part of the plan rather than an afterthought.

Nowadays many people think young people must do one year of community work without money before university or job. I agree with this idea in some way but not completely.

First, community work is good for young people. They can learn many things like how to work with other people and how to help the poor people. For example in my country some student help old people in the village and they learn to be more kind. Also they can know what job they like before they go to university, so they will not choose wrong subject. I think this is very useful because many student don't know what they want to study.

However, one year is very long time. Many family are not rich and young people need to earn money for help their parents. If they work one year for free, it is difficult for them. Also some students want to go university quickly because they want to be doctor or engineer and this take many years already. So it make them more late. Some company also want young worker, not old worker, so one year lost is bad for their career.

In conclusion, I think community work is good but it should not be for all young people and one year is too long. Maybe government can make it shorter or give some money for them. Then more young people will join and the society will be better.

Some argue that every school leaver should complete a year of unpaid community service before entering university or the workforce. Although voluntary service clearly benefits both individuals and society, I largely disagree that it should be imposed on all young people, mainly because of its financial cost and the risk of undermining the very spirit of volunteering.

Admittedly, a structured year of service can be formative. Young people who tutor children, support the elderly or help run local charities gain practical skills that a classroom rarely provides, such as negotiating with colleagues and taking responsibility for others. Such placements can also clarify career goals: a student who spends months assisting in a hospital ward is far better placed to judge whether medicine suits them than one who chooses it on the basis of exam results alone.

However, making this year mandatory and unpaid would fall hardest on those least able to afford it. For a teenager from a low-income household, twelve months without wages may mean taking on debt or abandoning further study entirely, which would widen rather than narrow social inequality. Compulsion also tends to erode motivation. Volunteering works precisely because people choose to give their time; participants who resent being conscripted are unlikely to offer the commitment that vulnerable groups deserve.

A more effective approach would be to reward rather than require service, for example through tuition discounts or recognised qualifications for those who complete a placement. In conclusion, while community work can be immensely valuable, it should be encouraged as an opportunity rather than enforced as an obligation.