IELTS Writing Task 2: Junk Food Tax (Discussion) — Band 6/7/8/9 Model Answers

Related guides:

• IELTS Writing Task 2 Deforestation Two Part Question Sample…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Agree Disagree Sample…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Recycling (Discussion) — Band 6/7/8/9…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Climate Change Discussion Sample Band…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Two Part Question…

Prompt

Some governments propose taxing junk food to combat obesity and improve public health. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and give your opinion.

Model Answers

Band 6.0 Answer

Score Breakdown:

• Task Response: 5.0 - Presents a position but lacks development
• Coherence & Cohesion: 6.0 - Logical but with some unclear progression
• Lexical Resource: 6.0 - Limited range with some errors
• Grammar: 6.0 - Frequent errors but meaning clear

The government should tax junk food because it is bad for health. Many people eat too much junk food and this causes obesity. Taxing junk food can make people eat healthier food. However, some people say that taxing junk food is not fair because everyone should be able to choose what they eat. Also, taxing junk food might not work because people will still eat it. In my opinion, the government should tax junk food but also educate people about healthy eating.

Band 7.0 Answer

Score Breakdown:

• Task Response: 7.0 - Presents a clear position with some development
• Coherence & Cohesion: 7.0 - Logical progression with some cohesive devices
• Lexical Resource: 7.0 - Adequate range with some errors
• Grammar: 7.0 - Some errors but generally clear

Imposing taxes on junk food is a contentious issue with valid points on both sides. Proponents argue that such measures can deter consumption and improve public health. For instance, countries like Mexico have seen a decrease in junk food purchases following tax implementation. However, critics contend that this approach disproportionately affects low-income individuals who rely on cheaper, unhealthy food options. Moreover, the effectiveness of such taxes is questionable, as people may continue their habits despite the added cost. In my view, while taxation can be a useful tool, it should be accompanied by comprehensive education campaigns and subsidies for healthier alternatives.

Band 8.0 Answer

Score Breakdown:

• Task Response: 8.0 - Presents a clear position with thorough development
• Coherence & Cohesion: 8.0 - Logical progression with effective cohesive devices
• Lexical Resource: 8.0 - Wide range with only minor errors
• Grammar: 8.0 - Occasional errors but generally accurate

The debate surrounding the taxation of junk food is multifaceted, with compelling arguments on both sides. Advocates for such taxes highlight the potential health benefits, citing studies that show a correlation between reduced consumption and lower obesity rates. For example, the UK's soft drink levy has raised significant funds for school sports programs while also encouraging manufacturers to reduce sugar content. Conversely, opponents argue that these measures infringe on personal freedoms and may exacerbate social inequalities, as lower-income individuals often bear a disproportionate burden. Additionally, the long-term efficacy of such policies remains uncertain, as behavioral changes are not guaranteed. In my opinion, a balanced approach that combines taxation with robust public health initiatives and economic support for healthier choices is the most viable solution.

Band 9.0 Answer

Score Breakdown:

• Task Response: 9.0 - Presents a clear, insightful position with thorough development
• Coherence & Cohesion: 9.0 - Logical progression with sophisticated cohesive devices
• Lexical Resource: 9.0 - Wide range with precise usage
• Grammar: 9.0 - Accurate with minimal errors

The imposition of taxes on junk food as a public health strategy is a nuanced issue that warrants careful consideration. Proponents of this measure assert that it can significantly curtail the consumption of unhealthy foods, thereby mitigating the rising tide of obesity and related health complications. Empirical evidence from countries such as Hungary and France, which have implemented similar policies, demonstrates a marked reduction in the purchase of high-sugar and high-fat products. Furthermore, the revenue generated from such taxes can be channeled into public health campaigns and subsidizing nutritious food options, creating a virtuous cycle of improved health outcomes. However, detractors argue that this approach may disproportionately impact lower-income individuals, who often rely on cheaper, calorie-dense foods to meet their nutritional needs. Additionally, there is a risk that consumers may simply shift their purchases to similarly unhealthy alternatives that are not subject to taxation. In my view, while taxation can be a potent tool in the arsenal against obesity, it must be part of a broader, multifaceted strategy that includes education, economic incentives, and the creation of environments that facilitate healthy choices. By adopting a holistic approach, policymakers can maximize the benefits of junk food taxation while minimizing its potential drawbacks.

Vocabulary Highlights

1. Contentious (adj.): Causing or likely to cause disagreement or conflict.

• Example: The issue of junk food taxation is highly contentious.

1. Deter (v.): Discourage someone from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

• Example: Higher taxes can deter people from buying junk food.

1. Disproportionately (adv.): In a way that is not proportional; excessively.

• Example: Taxes on junk food disproportionately affect low-income individuals.

1. Multifaceted (adj.): Having many different aspects or features.

• Example: The debate on junk food taxation is multifaceted.

1. Virtuous (adj.): Having or showing high moral standards.

• Example: The revenue from junk food taxes can create a virtuous cycle of improved health.

1. Arsenal (n.): A collection of resources or equipment.

• Example: Taxation is one tool in the arsenal against obesity.

1. Holistic (adj.): Characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.

• Example: A holistic approach to public health is necessary.

1. Mitigate (v.): Make less severe, serious, or painful.

• Example: Taxes can mitigate the consumption of junk food.

1. Calorie-dense (adj.): Containing a high number of calories in a small volume.

• Example: Low-income individuals often rely on calorie-dense foods.

1. Empirical (adj.): Based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

• Example: Empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of junk food taxes.

1. Subsidizing (v.): Providing financial assistance to encourage a desired activity.

• Example: Governments can subsidize healthier food options.

1. Robust (adj.): Strong and healthy; vigorous.

• Example: A robust public health campaign is needed.

1. Efficacy (n.): The ability to produce a desired result; effectiveness.

• Example: The efficacy of junk food taxes is still debated.

1. Exacerbate (v.): Make a problem, bad situation, or negative feeling worse.

• Example: Junk food taxes may exacerbate social inequalities.

1. Comprehensive (adj.): Including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

• Example: A comprehensive approach to public health is necessary.

1. Nuanced (adj.): Characterized by subtle differences or shades of meaning.

• Example: The debate on junk food taxation is nuanced.

1. Channeled (v.): Directed or guided into a particular course or channel.

• Example: Revenue from junk food taxes can be channeled into public health campaigns.

1. Correlation (n.): A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

• Example: There is a correlation between junk food taxes and reduced consumption.

1. Leverage (n.): The power to influence a situation to your advantage.

• Example: Governments can leverage taxes to improve public health.

1. Facilitate (v.): Make an action or process easy or easier.

• Example: Governments can facilitate healthy choices through education.

Common Mistakes

1. Lack of Balance: Failing to discuss both advantages and disadvantages equally.
2. Weak Thesis Statement: Not clearly stating your position in the introduction.
3. Poor Cohesion: Using connectors incorrectly or not using them at all.
4. Vague Examples: Providing general examples instead of specific, real-world cases.
5. Grammar Errors: Making frequent grammatical mistakes that obscure meaning.

Get Your Own Response Scored by AI on English AIdol

Practice makes perfect. Get your own IELTS Writing Task 2 response scored by AI on English AIdol and receive detailed feedback to improve your score.