7 bant skoruna uygun bir dille yazılmış IELTS essay örnekleri. Örnekler arasında; opinion, discussion, problem solution, advantage disadvantage ve double questions olmak üzere 5 essay türüne de yer verilmiştir. Bazı örnekler, kullanılan kelimeler sayesinde 7 bant skorunun biraz üstüne çıkar nitelikte.
#1 Some people think that reducing income inequality is critical to ensuring a happier society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued by some people that the society will be happier if income inequality is eradicated to a large extent. I completely agree with this opinion for the following reasons.
To begin with, people with financial concerns remain constantly stressed. This takes a toll on both their physical and mental health. If they have a decent income, they will eventually turn out to be happier. In India, for example, the poor make up the vast majority of the population. This means that over a billion people are subject to negative thoughts most of the time. With a few more dollars a day, all these people could cherish.
In addition, criminal acts are much more common in impoverished areas. Most people revert to crime when they cannot maintain their lives in a normal way. For example, in Latin America, due to poverty, most males are recruited by drug lords or the mafia. This becomes the only option for most to survive. All this trouble would be prevented if they had better opportunities. We all need hope for the future. This is easier if we do not have money issues.
Finally, all human beings need a purpose to live happily. We feel important when we work for a goal. This can range from buying a car to having a holiday in the Bahamas. But, rich members of society have no such obstacles. They do not have to wait or struggle to realize such dreams. They can just get what they want. After a while, this may result in an emotional void. We all need some kind of a fight to feel important. For most, happiness is not about the reward, but about the process.
In conclusion, I believe that eradicating income inequality would be beneficial for all people. This way, the poor will be able to raise their living standards, while the rich will experience the satisfaction of fighting for a goal.
#2 Some students find certain subjects, such as maths and philosophy, difficult. So, some people argue that these subjects should not be compulsory for all. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued by some people that students should be free to choose what they will study. They think that they should have the chance to stay away from difficult subjects such as mathematics or philosophy. I completely disagree with this opinion for the following reasons.
To begin with, younger people are too focused on fun and entertainment because of their nature. If given the chance, they may not even want to go to school. So, there is no point in asking for their opinion in such cases. Their ideas may be used for designing the school or activities, but the framework must be created by adults, particularly scientists.
In addition, at least a basic understanding mathematics is critical in our age. We deal with numbers in all aspects of modern life, from making investments to setting up a family budget. If we lack sufficient mathematical knowledge as adults, we may be deceived more often than usual. It may be hard to believe, but there are still people who cannot make easy calculations. This is because of skipping math lessons or failing them.
Finally, philosophy may be difficult, but it teaches us to question life properly. We all need to find meaning in life. This is where philosophy steps in. It allows us to compare former beliefs with our own. In the end, we come up with a synthesis and live up to it. For example, many people have found peace in Buddhism although there was not even a single Buddhist around them. This is all thanks to philosophy. So, the earlier students learn about philosophy, the closer they will be to finding meaning in life.
In conclusion, I believe that difficult lessons should be integrated into the curriculum, regardless of the opinion of the students. They will be beneficial in the long run.
#3 Every year many languages disappear. Some people believe that life will be easier with fewer languages. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It is true that some languages are dying because no one speaks them. But, up to some people, this will not cause any problems. I completely agree with this opinion for the following reasons.
To begin with, scientific cooperation will rise because scientists will have to spend less time for mastering a language. Obviously, an ordinary person can communicate in a language after studying for almost 2 years, but it is not this easy for researchers. Scientific ideas are too complex and you need to spend many years to express them in a different language. In developing countries, for example, researchers allocate plenty of time to learning different languages. Without such an obstacle, they will be able to focus completely on their studies. This will benefit both themselves and the scientific community.
In addition, without a language barrier, international trade opportunities will become more widespread. Currently, many people stay away from international sales as they cannot communicate with foreigners. For instance, a Chinese person must be able to use more than 10 languages to sell something in different parts of Europe. Or, they may need to hire a new person for each country. This would be too costly. But, if minor languages are no longer used, this problem will be eliminated. In such a case, even people without a good education can start trading with other countries.
In conclusion, I have the belief that fewer languages will benefit most of us, especially scientists and businessmen. Without a language problem, they will be able to spend more time on their own work.
#4 Some people claim that public museums and art galleries are no longer necessary as historical objects and art works can now be displayed online. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Some people argue that there is no point in having museums or art galleries because everything can be displayed on the internet. I completely disagree with this opinion for the following reasons.
To begin with, exhibitions allow like-minded people to build a social network. Take someone interested in WWII, for example. If this person ends up in a WWII museum, s/he will most likely meet people with a common interest. This will allow them to develop a profound relationship with little effort. All they should do is to be present at the same location.
In addition, the human eye offers a far superior viewing experience compared to screens. For example, when we look at a painting with naked eyes, colours appear more vibrant. Or imagine observing a statue. It looks far more real because our eyes offer a three-dimentional view. We should not ignore the size factor, either. There is a huge difference between standing by a dinosaur fossil and checking it on the screen. You need to see one to understand how small you are.
Finally, museums and art galleries contribute to the local economy by attracting tourists. Particularly, museums with a good reputation are visited by thousands of people in a typical day. For instance, France has become a popular destination for many art lovers thanks to the Louvre museum. All these people spend a little fortune to stay in the hotels in the neighbourhood, let alone the entrance fee and daily expenses.
In conclusion, I believe that art galleries and museums should never be closed. They do more than hosting certain objects. They contribute to the economy, offer a realistic experience to the visitors and encourage similar people to develop bonds.
#5 Films are no longer exclusively produced by big companies. Digital technology has enabled everybody to create their own videos and films. Is it a positive or a negative development?
In the past, only companies could produce films. Ordinary people did not have the necessary tools and knowledge to imitate them. However, all this has changed with the rise of technology. Nowadays, anybody can publish a film online. I think it has been beneficial for all of us for the following reasons.
To begin with, people from all walks of life can now monetize their ideas and lifestyle thanks to digital videos or movies. This opportunity is no longer restricted to big companies only. For instance, many channel owners on Instagram and YouTube usually begin with simple videos. They are usually recorded with smartphones only. If the videos are interesting enough, they gain many followers and start making money. For example, they promote products on their channel or sign sponsorship deals. Their videos are nothing like professional movies, but they still grab attention. Many people, including children, have become famous this way. Unsurprisingly, this is considered as a full-time profession by many anymore.
In addition, the smartphone industry has been able to improve its sales because of the demand by amateur film / video producers. Nowadays, many people pay a lot of extra money for phones with a good camera. In the past, it was difficult for new companies to become popular, but today, if you offer a high-quality camera to consumers, your brand will have a decent market share without difficulty. Chinese companies like Xioami and Oppo have had no trouble convincing new customers thanks to great camera phones. The whole smartphone industry has developed just because people, especially the young, can shoot their own videos.
In conclusion, people can now record their own videos or movies, and I believe that this has made positive contributions to the society. Some of them can earn a good amount of money via their videos, and the smartphone industry can effortlessly keep selling new models to consumers.
#6 Increasingly more people have relied on cosmetic surgery for the sake of enhancing their apperance. Is it a positive or negative development?
It is true that more and more people pay for cosmetic surgeries to have a charming appearance. I believe that the outcomes of this trend have been satisfactory so far. In this essay, I will try to elaborate why I think so.
To begin with, many people have been able to gain more confidence thanks to cosmetic surgeries. Due to our nature, we all like the company of good-looking people. We tend to ignore their mistakes. We try to satisfy their needs. As a result, they feel loved, which boosts their confidence. Cosmetic surgeries have made this possible not only for beautiful people but also for everybody. Nowadays, anybody can look much better with operations, such as a nose job or a jaw line surgery.
In addition, talented surgeons have made a fortune through their patients. Most people are willing to pay generously for a better look. They want to work with the very best for a charming appearance. This has eventually inflated the fees of aestheticians. For instance, a friend of mine saved money for almost 2 years to change some parts of her face. In the meantime, she did not waste even a dime. She dedicated 2 years of her life to look like a celebrity. Because there are thousands of people like her, prominent surgeons have significantly prospered.
Finally, clinics in developing countries have begun to serve international customers. The cost of operations remains fairly lower in countries such as Turkey or Brazil. Yet, their surgeons are no worse than their counterparts in richer countries. Currently, thousands of Arab customers flock to Turkey to have hair implants. This benefits both parties. While patients pay far less for a high-quality surgery, local clinics profit more with each customer.
In conclusion, I believe that plastic surgery has yielded positive results. It has allowed people to overcome confidence problems while prospering surgeons.
#7 Widespread use of languages such as English, Spanish or Chinese has spearked fears that minority languages may die out. Some people suggest that these languages should be protected at all costs, while others do not see any point in doing so. What is your opinion?
It is true that some languages may disappear forever due to the huge rise in the number of English, Spanish or Chinese speakers. But, whether they should be preserved has been a matter of debate. As for me, there is no need to waste resources for this. In this essay, I will try to elaborate why I think so.
To begin with, there are so many languages that are about to die. There may not be enough manpower to protect them all. For example, linguists cannot keep track of all local languages in Africa. In some regions, each tribe has its own language. The African continent is probably home to thousands of different languages. Unfortunately, most African governments cannot even meet the essential needs of their citizens. They will just ignore the death of local culture. They have more urgent problems, such as hunger or droughts.
In addition, artificial solutions are not sustainable in the long run. It may be possible to delay the bitter end, but sooner or later the weak will disappear. This rule applies to not only animals but also cultures and languages. For instance, my grandparents tried to teach their native language, Altai, to my parents and they succeeded to a certain extent. But my parents failed to do the same. We simply rejected to learn it. We did not feel any need for that. Shortly, there is now almost nobody who can speak the Altai language fluently. In a few decades, there will be none.
In conclusion, people have no consensus on the protection of minority languages, but I believe that we should let them disappear. There is no point in trying to stop the inevitable.
#8 Some people believe that women and men possess different traits, making them unsuitable for certain jobs. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?
It is argued that people should select jobs suitable for their own gender because they have different qualities. But, I disagree with this opinion for the following reasons.
To begin with, we should all be free to choose our work freely. Restrictions oppress our desires and result in unhappiness. Unfortunately, companies all over the world are full of discontent people who wanted some other job. Thus, if a girl wishes to work as a truck driver, she should be allowed to do so. There is no point in trying to stop a man who wants to be a kindergarten teacher. In our minds, we are all free beings. What matters is how good we are for the duty, not our gender.
In addition, not all members of the same gender are alike. In theory, men are stronger than women, but in reality it is not true for all men. Genetics play a crucial role in strength. For instance, a typical Nordic girl may overpower a typical Asian man without spending much effort. They are quite well-built. This kind of diversity applies to men, as well. There are many who are quite empathetic. They already serve in traditionally feminine roles, such as nursing. They are simply ad good as women.
Finally, the human body has the ability to adapt to new circumstances, regardless of gender. Our genetic makeup allows us to become a whole new person thanks to gradual adaptations. For instance, unlike their urban counterparts, most rural women can carry a heavy load for kilometers. This did not happen over night for them. They all start small and at one point they can even be stronger than some other men. This proves that both men and women can learn to handle tasks foreign to them.
In conclusion, I have the belief that gender does not play an important role in job selection. With enough effort and willingness, we can adapt to anything.
#9 Some people claim that governments should be responsible for taking care of the essential needs of the elderly, while others argue that it should be the elderly that should do so. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Some people suggest that governments have the duty to help the elderly, whereas others argue that older people should do it themselves. In my opinion, the state should be responsible for this task, regardless of being a pensioner.
On the one hand, all citizens pay a lot of money as taxes to their own government, whether directly or indirectly. For example, some of them pay a higher income tax because they earn more money, but in fact all products and services are already taxed. Whether we work or not, we contribute to the financial system of our country. Because of this, we all deserve to be cared in old age. Expectedly, some may be paid a bigger pension because of their former contributions, but at least the essential needs of the rest should be met by the state.
On the other hand, the average lifespan of human beings is growing at an increasingly fast rate. Advances in health care and nutrition allow us to live much longer. But, this poses a threat to the government budget. For instance, in the past, the proportion of pensioners and the elderly made up a tiny part of the population even in developed nations. But, today, especially in rich European countries, they make up more than 30% of the total. It seems that the percentage of the working members will be lower than the rest. Such a system is not sustainable in the long run. So, in the future, all the elderly may have to take care of themselves.
In my opinion, governments should have the responsibility to look after the elderly. If taxpayers will be ignored when they need help the most, then there is no point in contributing to the state budget. It is illogical and unfair to support a system that will eventually ditch you. Yet, I also think that everybody should save some money for the future. In a few decades, it will not be possible for all governments to provide a decent pension.
In conclusion, not all people agree about the role of governments in helping the elderly. But, I believe that both parties play a crucial role in this issue.
#10 Despite being aware of the potential harm of smoking, not many people are willing to quit it. Why is this the case? What can be done to encourage people to quit smoking?
It is true that people are well informed about the ill effects of smoking, yet the vast majority of smokers seem to ignore these threats. It must be because they are addicted to the pleasure of smoking. But, if they get medical help and start exercising, I believe they will be able to quit it.
It is obvious that people cannot give up smoking easily. Like other addictions, it gives pleasure in an effortless way. All you should do is light another cigarette. You get immediate satisfaction. No wonder people keep smoking even after they experience severe health problems. Even those who had a heart surgery may have trouble getting rid of this dangerous addiction. Like all other human beings, they are sticking to what gives them joy. For some, it may be a bar of chocolate, but for others it is a pack of cigarette.
Thus, in most cases, it may be critical to provide medical assistance. Unfortunately, most smokers do not have a strong will. They fail no matter how hard they try. Products such as nicotine bands or injections can help them to suppress their desire to smoke. In addition, physical activity may also be very helpful. When we do sports, our body releases happiness hormones. Whenever the need for smoking arises, doing a short circuit will probably give enough joy. After all, nobody cares about the method. All we want is pleasure from life.
In conclusion, most people keep smoking because it makes them happy in an effortless way, but they can quit it by using effective drugs and exercising on a regular basis.
#11 Nowadays, many people are willing to give a chance to other cuisines instead of sticking to their own. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages?
In today’s societies, many people are eager to try the dishes of other cultures. This may contribute to the tourism industry and create job opportunities across the world, but in the meantime it may harm the local food industry and inflate the price of some ingredients. It may also drive some species into extinction. As for me, the drawbacks are severe, so I consider it as a negative trend.
The primary advantage of this trend is that it encourages people to travel for food. It helps develop the tourism industry and prospers locals. In certain parts of Turkey, many people rely on gastronomic tourists. Take Gaziantep, for example. Without the variety of food, it may receive far fewer tourists. In addition, it has become possible for all entrepreneurs to run a food business in other cities or countries. For instance, many Turks own Döner shops abroad. They offer a meat-based Turkish delicacy and many of them have made much money this way.
Nevertheless, not everybody benefits from these. Primarily, local food dealers will experience a drop in sales. This will also negatively impact the farmers, as well. For instance, because of global brands, Turkish restaurants suffer from low demand. Particularly in urban areas, they remain behind their foreign counterparts. Also, demand from other nations increases the price of some foods. Not all ingredients can be found easily. For example, shark fin soup has become quite popular in China. Initially, it was cheap enough, but excessive demand has significantly reduced the number of sharks in the country. Now, only the rich can afford it.
In my opinion, the trend of trying other cuisines is mostly negative. Some people may profit from this, but in the long run many local species may go extinct. Financial gains are not more important than the survival of sharks, for example. Once such a thing happens, it is impossible to reverse it. We should not sacrifice animals so that we can satisfy ourselves.
In conclusion, globalisation of cuisines have both positive and negative outcomes, but I believe that drawbacks outweigh its benefits.
#12 As countries have prospered financially, increasingly more people have owned a vehicle of their own. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh its disadvantages?
It is true that financial prosperity has allowed many people to buy a car. This offers flexibility and comfort to the owners, but it leads into air pollution and congestion. But, in my opinion, the drawbacks are too challenging. I believe that society’s needs should come before the individual’s needs.
The primary advantage of having a car is that you can travel whenever you want. You do not have to wait for a bus or follow the public transport schedule. In a typical day, this may save 2-3 hours for anyone that has to commute. All this time could be used for sleeping more or socializing with beloved ones. Another advantage has a lot to do with comfort. Unlike in buses or trains, the seats in most cars are quite comfortable and there is plenty of space for each passenger. You do not end up with neck or back pain even if you have to drive for hours.
Nevertheless, with so many people owning a car, air pollution has evolved into a major concern. The majority of cars still run on fossil fuels and they release harmful gases. This pollutes the air especially in congested areas. For instance, in certain parts of China, citizens are warned against going out because the air becomes almost unbreathable. In addition, with everyone driving their own car, traffic jams have become inevitable, particularly in city centers. In İstanbul, for example, some citizens end up losing a few hours every day due to congestion. This gets increasingly worse as the population is rising on and on.
In my opinion, it may be convenient for all people to have a car, but this trend damages our health in a severe way. It is extremely harmful to breathe dangerous gases all day long. Especially in cities, we have to live with many cars around. We keep breathing car fumes even when we are inside the house. This is especially unfair for those who do not drive at all. As a society, we should not risk the health of citizens, regardless of the benefits of private vehicles.
In conclusion, owning a car allows us to save time and travel comfortably, but it also reduces air quality and causes traffic jams. As for me, the negative impacts are too dangerous to ignore, and that’s why only select few people should own one.
#13 In some countries, criminal trials are broadcast on TV to inform the public. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
It is true that some countries see no harm in broadcasting criminal trials on TV. In this essay, I will try to elaborate the outcomes and express my own point of view.
Criminal trials can be watched by all kinds of people, including potential criminals. Hopefully, by watching these, some of them may reconsider committing a crime. They will have the chance to observe regretful criminals and public shame. This may change the mind of some and prevent future crimes. In addition, thanks to trials on TV; the public will have the opportunity to observe important cases. Some people are naturally curious. They are willing to learn about the consequences of serious crimes. For example, in Britain, there was once a TV show called X-files. It was about past criminal acts. It had thousands of fans all over the world. This proves that ordinary folks want to be informed about organized crime. They want to see the bad guys being punished.
However, many people will be negatively affected by exposure to trials. For instance, a few years back, the Turkish media paid too much attention to a girl killed by a family. It was a brutal act. Both the father and the son were involved. This created a trauma, particularly on young girls. They had trouble walking or travelling alone. They felt much fear. Besides, when criminals get a lot of attention, some other people begin to envy them. Whether good or bad, they dream about being the center of attention. Oddly, serial killers have a huge fanbase. They are treated like heroes. With trials on TV, this will likely be the case again and again. It will increase the prevalence of crime.
In my opinion, there is no point in inspiring potential criminals. Dangerous people should be ignored by the media. In business life, advertisement of any kind is considered beneficial. Even a bad reputation helps improve the sales for some companies. The same is true for criminals. If you remind people of crime, it will just happen more often. Unfortunately, some people crave attention and they are ready to do anyhting to achieve it. With criminals on TV, we may be setting a bad example.
In conclusion, broadcasting trials on TV may result in both positive and negative consequences. But, I believe that its drawbacks are too dangerous to ignore. They should be stopped as soon as possible.
#14 In today’s world, many people spend increasingly less time in their homes. What are the reasons for this? What are the effects of this trend on individuals and society?
It is true that most citizens usually stay outside their homes. This is because we spend more time at school or work. We also travel more. As a result, we generally experience more stress, but our societies become more connected.
The primary reason is that we compete with more people than ever. The population of all countries has grown significantly, but the opportunities are still limited. So, we all have to struggle more to have a better career, whether at school or work. For example, in the past, you could earn a decent income with a high school diploma only, but today you may need a PHD for the same impact.
Another reason is that we can travel with little effort. For instance, plane tickets have become much cheaper, while it is no longer difficult to buy a private vehicle. Thanks to these developments, even people with a limited income began to travel in a regular way. For example, in the past, only the rich could travel freely, but today even students can do the same.
Consequently, we have become more fatigued in general. Studying all the time or working hard requires much effort. This raises the level of stress. Over time, it causes depression or similar problems. Unfortunately, there is now too much competition, and only few of us can stay away from it.
But, the effects on society have become fairly positive. In the past, most of us lived in an isolated way. Interaction between us was limited. But, we are no longer stuck in our homes. We are together everywhere. We have the chance to meet new people all the time. This has created a richer culture.
In conclusion, we spend less time at home, because we have to improve ourselves, yet this has resulted in both positive and negative effects.
#15 Many people, including adults, find it overwhelming to speak or make a presentation in front of an audience. It is therefore argued that this skill should be taught in school. Why is this skill important? To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Even adults have problems talking comfortably in front of others. They feel stressed when they are expected to make a presentation. Some people argue that this skill should be part of the school curriculum. In my opinion, we cannot obtain a decent career without good presentation skills, so we should have presentation lessons as early as possible.
I believe that speaking in front of others in a confident way is crucial to success. If we cannot express our ideas and thoughts clearly, we will not be able to achieve much. Whether you want a good score for your school project or you want to convince your customers, you should address them in an effective way. If you hesitate or look stressed, failure will be inevitable. No one would like to do business with incompetent people.
Thus, I have the belief that presentation skills should be taught in schools. The earlier it begins, the better it will be. If we begin to practise these at early ages, we will have more time to master them. We do not necessarily have to wait till our internship to start talking in front of an audience. It may be initially hard, but with enough practice, we can all improve to a large extent.
In addition, we can all learn to talk comfortably in front of others, but this will take much time. It will be based on trial and error. But, if teachers are involved in this process, they can spot our mistakes and give constructive feedback. In the long run, this will save us a lot of time. In fact, we will spare significantly less time to become proficient speakers.
In conclusion, I believe that speaking in front others with confidence is important for our future. I also think that if this skill is taught at schools, we will become better at it because we will start practising it much earlier than usual, and teachers’ feedback will correct our mistakes.