English guide
Get a Band 9.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer for car-free cities with full scoring breakdown, key vocabulary, and common mistakes to avoid.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Get a Band 9.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer for car-free cities with full scoring breakdown, key vocabulary, and common mistakes to avoid.
Related guides:
The IELTS Writing Task 2 prompt for car-free cities typically asks you to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of making cities car-free. For example:
Sample Prompt: Some people believe that cities should be car-free in order to reduce pollution and improve the quality of life. Others argue that cars are essential for modern life. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Task Response (TR): 6.0 – Presents a position but with limited development and supporting ideas. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 6.0 – Ideas are logically organized but with some repetition and unclear progression. Lexical Resource (LR): 6.0 – Uses some appropriate vocabulary but with frequent errors and limited range. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 6.0 – Makes frequent grammatical mistakes that hinder understanding.
Sample Answer:
Making cities car-free can help the environment but also have some problems. One good thing is that pollution will decrease. Cars cause a lot of air pollution, so without them, people will breathe cleaner air. Also, cities will be quieter and safer because there will be fewer accidents. However, cars are important for many people. For example, some people need cars to go to work or take their children to school. Public transportation is not always available or reliable. Additionally, some people like driving and do not want to give up their cars. In conclusion, while car-free cities have benefits, they also have drawbacks. I think a balance is needed.
Task Response (TR): 7.0 – Presents a clear position with some supporting ideas and relevant examples. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 7.0 – Ideas are logically organized with some use of cohesive devices. Lexical Resource (LR): 7.0 – Uses a mix of appropriate vocabulary but with some less precise word choices. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 7.0 – Makes some grammatical errors but generally maintains clarity.
Sample Answer:
The idea of making cities car-free has both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, reducing the number of cars in cities can significantly lower air pollution levels. This is beneficial for the health of residents, as cleaner air can reduce respiratory diseases. Additionally, car-free cities can promote the use of public transport and cycling, which can improve overall fitness levels. On the other hand, cars are a convenient mode of transport for many people. They provide flexibility and independence, especially in areas where public transport is not efficient. Moreover, some people rely on cars for their livelihoods, such as delivery drivers. In my opinion, while car-free cities have clear benefits, a complete ban on cars may not be practical. A more balanced approach, such as restricting car use in certain areas, might be more effective.
Task Response (TR): 8.0 – Presents a clear position with extensive supporting points and relevant examples. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 8.0 – Ideas are logically organized with a clear progression and effective use of cohesive devices. Lexical Resource (LR): 8.0 – Uses a wide range of vocabulary with some sophisticated expressions and minimal errors. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 8.0 – Uses a variety of complex sentence structures with few grammatical errors.
Sample Answer:
The concept of car-free cities is gaining traction as a solution to urban pollution and congestion. Proponents argue that eliminating cars from city centers can drastically reduce air pollution, which is a significant health hazard. For instance, cities like Copenhagen have successfully implemented bike-friendly policies, resulting in lower pollution levels and healthier citizens. Furthermore, car-free cities can encourage the use of public transport and cycling, leading to a more active and healthier population. However, opponents contend that cars are essential for modern life. They provide convenience and flexibility, especially for those living in suburban areas with limited public transport options. Additionally, certain professions, such as emergency services and delivery workers, rely heavily on cars. In my view, while the benefits of car-free cities are evident, a complete ban on cars may not be feasible. Instead, cities should focus on creating car-free zones and improving public transport infrastructure to strike a balance between environmental benefits and practicality.
Task Response (TR): 9.0 – Presents a clear position with extensive supporting points, relevant examples, and a balanced argument. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 9.0 – Ideas are logically organized with a clear progression and sophisticated use of cohesive devices. Lexical Resource (LR): 9.0 – Uses a wide range of sophisticated vocabulary with precise and natural usage. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 9.0 – Uses a variety of complex sentence structures with no grammatical errors.
Sample Answer:
The debate surrounding the implementation of car-free cities has intensified in recent years, with proponents advocating for the environmental and health benefits, while detractors emphasize the practical challenges. On the one hand, car-free cities can significantly mitigate air pollution, which is a pressing issue in many urban areas. For example, cities like Amsterdam have demonstrated that promoting cycling and public transport can lead to cleaner air and healthier residents. Moreover, reducing car traffic can decrease noise pollution and improve the overall quality of life. On the other hand, the practical implications of a car-free policy cannot be overlooked. Cars are a vital mode of transport for many individuals, particularly those residing in areas with inadequate public transport services. Furthermore, certain professions, such as healthcare workers and delivery personnel, depend on cars to carry out their duties efficiently. In my opinion, while the environmental benefits of car-free cities are undeniable, a complete prohibition on cars may not be practical. A more nuanced approach, involving the creation of car-free zones and the enhancement of public transport infrastructure, would be more viable. This balanced strategy can help achieve the desired environmental benefits without disproportionately inconveniencing residents.
Want to see how you'd score on this IELTS Writing Task 2 prompt? Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol.