English guide
Get a Band 7.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer on junk food tax with scoring breakdown, vocabulary, and expert tips from English AIdol.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Get a Band 7.0 IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer on junk food tax with scoring breakdown, vocabulary, and expert tips from English AIdol.
Related guides:
Some people believe that governments should impose a tax on junk food to improve public health. Others argue that this is unfair and ineffective. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Task Response (TR): 5.0 - Presents a position but develops it unsystematically with relevant ideas. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 6.0 - Uses some cohesive devices but may confuse the reader. Lexical Resource (LR): 6.0 - Uses a mix of appropriate and limited vocabulary. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 6.0 - Attempts complex sentences but makes frequent errors.
Some people think that governments should tax junk food to make people healthier. I agree with this idea because junk food is bad for us. Governments can use the money to promote healthy eating. For example, they can build more parks and gyms. Also, they can educate people about nutrition.
But others say that taxing junk food is unfair. They argue that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat. Also, some people cannot afford healthy food. A tax would make junk food even more expensive for them. This could make the problem worse.
In my opinion, governments should tax junk food. They should also make healthy food cheaper. This way, everyone can afford to eat well. Governments should also teach people about healthy eating. This can help people make better choices.
Task Response (TR): 6.5 - Presents a clear position and develops it with relevant ideas and some supporting details. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 7.0 - Uses a mix of cohesive devices effectively but may occasionally confuse the reader. Lexical Resource (LR): 7.0 - Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to convey ideas with some less common lexical items. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 7.0 - Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms with some errors.
The idea of taxing junk food to improve public health has gained traction in recent years. Proponents argue that this measure can discourage consumption and fund health initiatives. For instance, the revenue generated could be used to subsidize fruits and vegetables, making them more accessible. Additionally, education campaigns could be launched to inform the public about the benefits of a balanced diet.
However, opponents contend that such a tax is unfair and ineffective. They assert that it disproportionately affects low-income individuals who may rely on cheaper, unhealthy food options. Furthermore, they argue that taxation does not address the root causes of poor diet, such as lack of access to fresh produce or time to prepare meals. Instead, they advocate for policies that promote healthy eating habits without imposing financial burdens.
In my view, a junk food tax can be an effective tool if implemented thoughtfully. Governments should consider the concerns of low-income individuals and ensure that healthier alternatives are affordable. Additionally, education and awareness campaigns should be prioritized to empower people to make informed choices about their diet. By combining these strategies, a junk food tax can contribute to improved public health.
Task Response (TR): 7.5 - Presents a clear position and develops it with relevant, extended, and supported ideas. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 8.0 - Uses cohesive devices effectively to guide the reader. Lexical Resource (LR): 8.0 - Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to convey ideas precisely with some less common lexical items. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 8.0 - Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms with some errors.
The debate surrounding the implementation of a junk food tax to enhance public health is multifaceted. Advocates of this measure highlight its potential to curb the consumption of unhealthy foods and generate revenue for health-promoting initiatives. For example, the funds could be allocated to community gardens, nutrition education programs, and subsidies for fresh produce. These initiatives could foster a cultural shift towards healthier eating habits and reduce the prevalence of diet-related diseases.
Conversely, critics argue that a junk food tax is regressive and ineffective. They point out that it disproportionately burdens low-income individuals who may lack access to affordable, nutritious food. Moreover, they contend that taxation alone cannot address the complex factors contributing to poor diets, such as food deserts, time constraints, and marketing practices. Instead, they propose a holistic approach that includes improving food access, regulating marketing, and educating the public about nutrition.
In my opinion, a junk food tax can be a valuable component of a comprehensive strategy to improve public health. To mitigate its regressive effects, governments should implement accompanying measures, such as subsidies for healthy foods and targeted education campaigns. By addressing the root causes of poor diets and providing support to vulnerable populations, a junk food tax can contribute to a healthier society.
Task Response (TR): 9.0 - Presents a clear position and develops it with relevant, extended, and supported ideas. Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 9.0 - Uses cohesive devices effectively and flexibly to guide the reader. Lexical Resource (LR): 9.0 - Uses a wide range of vocabulary with precision and sophistication. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 9.0 - Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms with rare errors.
The proposition of levying a tax on junk food to bolster public health has sparked intense debate. Proponents of this measure assert that it can deter consumption and fund vital health initiatives. For instance, the revenue could be channeled into community-based nutrition programs, subsidies for fresh produce, and infrastructure projects that promote physical activity. These initiatives could catalyze a cultural shift towards healthier lifestyles and mitigate the burden of diet-related illnesses on healthcare systems.
However, detractors argue that a junk food tax is inequitable and ineffectual. They posit that it disproportionately impacts low-income individuals who may rely on inexpensive, calorie-dense foods to meet their nutritional needs. Furthermore, they contend that taxation alone cannot address the multifaceted determinants of poor diet, such as food insecurity, time poverty, and the pervasive influence of food marketing. Instead, they advocate for a multifaceted approach that encompasses improving food access, regulating marketing practices, and empowering individuals with nutritional knowledge.
In my view, a junk food tax can be an effective tool if integrated into a comprehensive public health strategy. To ensure its equitability, governments should implement concurrent measures, such as targeted subsidies for healthy foods and tailored education campaigns. By addressing the root causes of poor diets and providing support to vulnerable populations, a junk food tax can contribute to a healthier, more equitable society.
Practice makes perfect. Get your own IELTS Writing Task 2 response scored by AI on English AIdol and receive detailed feedback to help you improve.