English guide
Master IELTS Writing Task 2 smoking in public agree disagree prompts with Band 6-9 model answers, scoring breakdowns, and expert analysis by Alfie Lim.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Master IELTS Writing Task 2 smoking in public agree disagree prompts with Band 6-9 model answers, scoring breakdowns, and expert analysis by Alfie Lim.
Related guides:
IELTS Writing Task 2 Prompt (paraphrased) Some people believe smoking should be banned in all public places. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give relevant support for your answer.
Smoking should be banned in public places
Smoking is bad for health and it is important to protect people from second-hand smoke. I agree that smoking should be banned in all public places.
First, smoking is dangerous. It causes lung cancer and heart disease. If people smoke in public, others can breathe in the smoke and get sick. Second, smoking makes public places dirty. Cigarettes are litter and they can start fires. Finally, smoking is a bad habit and people should stop.
In conclusion, smoking should be banned in public places to protect health and cleanliness.
Scoring Breakdown
The case for prohibiting smoking in public spaces
While smoking is a personal choice, its consequences extend beyond the individual, making a strong case for public smoking bans.
Primarily, the health risks of second-hand smoke are well-documented. According to the World Health Organization, exposure to tobacco smoke causes more than 8 million deaths annually. Non-smokers in public spaces have no choice but to inhale these harmful chemicals. Furthermore, smoking contributes significantly to environmental pollution through cigarette butt litter, which takes years to decompose and often ends up in waterways.
Those who oppose bans argue that individuals should have the freedom to choose. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that public spaces are shared environments where personal freedoms must be balanced with the well-being of others. Designated smoking areas can serve as a reasonable compromise.
In conclusion, while personal liberties are important, the collective health benefits of smoking bans in public places outweigh individual freedoms.
Scoring Breakdown
Balancing personal liberties and public health in smoking policy
The contentious issue of smoking in public places continues to spark debate, with compelling arguments on both sides of the divide.
Proponents of comprehensive smoking bans highlight the well-established health hazards of second-hand smoke. Research from the American Cancer Society demonstrates that non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke face increased risks of lung cancer and respiratory diseases. Additionally, the economic burden of smoking-related healthcare costs, which often strain public healthcare systems, cannot be ignored. From an environmental perspective, cigarette litter poses significant ecological threats, with filters taking up to 12 years to decompose and often contaminating marine ecosystems.
Conversely, opponents argue that blanket bans infringe upon individual freedoms. They contend that adults should have the autonomy to make personal lifestyle choices, provided they don't directly harm others. Proponents of this view suggest that education and regulation of smoking areas might be more effective than outright prohibition.
A balanced approach might involve comprehensive smoking bans in enclosed public spaces where ventilation is limited and second-hand smoke exposure is unavoidable, while permitting smoking in designated outdoor areas. This solution acknowledges both the public health concerns and individual liberties.
Scoring Breakdown
Navigating the complex landscape of public smoking bans
The question of whether to implement comprehensive public smoking bans represents a multifaceted policy dilemma that requires careful consideration of public health imperatives, individual liberties, and societal values.
From a public health perspective, the case for smoking bans is compelling. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that second-hand smoke causes over 41,000 premature deaths among non-smoking adults in the United States each year. The economic implications are equally significant, with smoking-related healthcare costs draining public resources that could be directed toward more productive uses. Moreover, the environmental impact of cigarette litter, which constitutes the most commonly discarded waste worldwide, presents a pressing ecological concern that cannot be overlooked.
However, the argument against blanket bans cannot be dismissed out of hand. Civil libertarians contend that such measures represent an overreach of government authority into personal lifestyles. They argue that adults possess the cognitive capacity to make informed decisions about their health and that education, rather than prohibition, represents the more ethical approach. This perspective gains particular traction when considering outdoor spaces where ventilation mitigates the risks of second-hand smoke exposure.
An optimal solution might involve tiered regulations based on the nature of the public space. Indoor environments, particularly those with poor ventilation, could be subject to strict smoking bans, while outdoor spaces might permit smoking in designated areas away from high-traffic zones. This nuanced approach acknowledges the legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate while striving to maximize public health benefits without unduly infringing upon individual liberties.
Scoring Breakdown
| Word/Phrase | Definition | Example Collocation | |---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | Contentious | Causing or likely to cause disagreement or controversy | contentious issue | | Comprehensive | Including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something | comprehensive bans | | Well-established | Firmly set or accepted; recognized by many people | well-established health hazards | | Inhale | To breathe in (air, smoke, etc.) | inhale harmful chemicals | | Strain | To exert pressure or tension | strain public healthcare systems | | Contend | To maintain or declare a position by argument | contend that adults have autonomy | | Mitigate | To make less severe, serious, or painful | mitigate the risks | | Premature | Happening or done before the usual or proper time | premature deaths | | Overreach | To extend one's authority, power, or influence too far | overreach of government authority | | Nuanced | Recognizing and appreciating complexities and fine distinctions | nuanced approach | | Striving | To try very hard to achieve something | striving to maximize benefits |
Practice makes perfect! Get your own IELTS Writing Task 2 response scored by AI on English AIdol. Our advanced scoring system provides instant feedback on all four criteria and helps you track your progress.
You should write at least 250 words. Responses with fewer words are likely to receive a lower score for Task Response.
Very important. Cambridge Assessment English data shows that vocabulary accounts for 25% of your score. Using a range of appropriate, sophisticated words demonstrates your language proficiency.
Yes. Even if you agree or disagree with the statement, you should acknowledge the opposing view in one of your body paragraphs to show balanced reasoning.
Use a variety of cohesive devices (linking words) and organize your ideas logically. Each paragraph should focus on one main idea and be clearly connected to the others.
There is no right or wrong position. What matters is how well you present and support your argument, regardless of which side you choose.
There's no strict rule, but typically:
While personal examples can be effective, academic sources (studies, statistics, expert opinions) generally carry more weight and demonstrate better critical thinking.
Regular practice with timed essays is essential. Analyze model answers, get feedback on your writing, and learn from your mistakes.
[ ]